Supreme Court rules states cannot prohibit same sex marriage

[Sandy]

Kennedy was the swing vote.

[ET]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

Interesting comment there, from Scalia, who doesn't seem to share that opinion of the court when the rulings go his way.

This was a pretty straight up ruling, actually, and pretty simple. It involves defining something as a basic right, extending equal treatment to all Americans, not just those who hold a particular political or religious view, and defining the constitutional principle of separation of powers, which is the court's primary relresponsibility.

I don't support same sex marriage by religious principle, but I do understand that marriage is not just a religious institution. When it became a civil issue, access to it became a civil right, and the court is simply ruling to extend that right to everyone.

[Tim Bonney]

[Haruo]

Lamar Wadsworth had a some very good stuff to say on this on Facebook. Maybe he'll let me copy some of it here. Or do it himself.

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

Very true Ed. Justices can always write dissenting opinions. Scalia just writes some really oddballs stuff. "Jiggery Pokery" and "applesauce" aren't words I remember ever reading in a legal document previously.

In fact I'm not sure what Jiggery Pokery is unless it is an advanced version of Hokey Pokey.

[ET]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

Sadly "States Rights" have largely been invoked when the south didn't want to give some minority group equal rights.

[ET]

[ET]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

This particular decision was about as narrow in its scope as you can get when it comes to the Supreme Court. All it did was establish marriage as a civil institution, and since it has the authority of civil government behind it, both in the way it is recognized by the federal government, and as it is assigned by the states, it was within its constitutional limits to do so. The definition was narrow, simply recognizing that it is a civil right, and since states all have different standards in applying the law, the court equalized the status. It does not end marriage as we know it, it will most likely involve a very small minority of the population, and in the narrowness of its decision, the court did not provide any platform at all for hauling churches and ministers into court who refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies, or discriminate against businesses that refuse to provide services or products for same-sex weddings. Since the civil authority recognizes marriage, and in fact, puts the power of its enforcement behind it in that it requires a court, or at least filing a legal proceeding, to dissolve a marriage, this is an expected outcome.

[Tim Bonney]

We've had same sex marriage in Iowa since 2009. The world didn't end. So far about the only thing I can see it has effected is that the marriage license now says, "Party A" and "Party B" instead of "Bride" and "Groom."

Frankly Iowans are saying, "This is old news." No pastor or church has been pushed or pressured into same sex marriages and the conservatives here have lost a lot of ground arguing against it because so little has actually changed. Their doom and gloom predictions now sound like the old man with the sandwich board on the street corner that says, "The End is Near."

[Haruo]

Now if Iowans could just learn to see through other rightwing scare tactics equally well, maybe Republicans could start being more rational.

[Tim Bonney]

[ET]

[ET]

[KeithE]