Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide

[Hypestyles]

A church doesn't have to marry straight people either. A Christian church doesn't have to marry a Jewish couple, a Gay couple, etc...

Right now churches are trying to stir their populace's by creating a controversy the doesn't exist. This issue is going to be great for democrats in 2016. Republican's will need to be very anti-gay in the primaries and that will flop with independents in the general.

It might not be so great for democrats. Rightly or wrongly, they're going to get the credit/blame for this. From this point forward, any Democrat's back is going to be against the wall when he or she is running for local, regional or national office. Somebody is going to bring this up, inevitably. More than likely, you'll start to see more Dems, especially those with personal religious ties or district demographics, start to assert their "independent" beliefs on that particular topic [["I personally don't like it, but [[here's some other issues I feel strongly about)"). Even though they privately know that it's unlikely to change the law any time soon, it will help keep votes and assert their Christian bona fides to oppose the new national status quo on marriage equality. Again, in black America this is going to be a lightning rod. For me, this will help me weed out the more idiotic and cowardly Democratic candidates. At the same time, I predict that this will be encouraging for black conservatives who want to go for the "morals" one-issue-voting fanbase, and run for various political offices.

[emu steve]

My guess, believe it or not, is that come November 2016 it won't be a huge issue.

Once something is decided by the SCOTUS it is considered pretty much a done deal. [Abortion is the one big exception.] Constitutional amendment by a Congress can't pass anything?????

Abortion is being fought not as a national issue but as a local [[state) issue with individual states trying, sometimes successfully, to limit access.

I don't see the parallel with same sex marriage. Any clerk who refuses to issue a marriage license to a gay couple could be brought up for contempt of court.

There will be little battles but it will not be a state-wide issue. It will be a florist vs. a gay couple, and quite frankly the gay couple will probably opt to take their business elsewhere.

Here is Detnews:

“Key issues we’re going to continue to see discussed are about discrimination in the workplace, and in private businesses and in housing.”

But... my view: Haven't those been issues for decades???? What's new?????

[Zacha341]

White House lit in rainbow colors after Supreme Court ruling

[jcole]

White House lit in rainbow colors after Supreme Court ruling

And it looked beautiful.

[canuck]

My guess, believe it or not, is that come November 2016 it won't be a huge issue.

Once something is decided by the SCOTUS it is considered pretty much a done deal. [Abortion is the one big exception.] Constitutional amendment by a Congress can't pass anything?????

Abortion is being fought not as a national issue but as a local [[state) issue with individual states trying, sometimes successfully, to limit access.

I don't see the parallel with same sex marriage. Any clerk who refuses to issue a marriage license to a gay couple could be brought up for contempt of court.

There will be little battles but it will not be a state-wide issue. It will be a florist vs. a gay couple, and quite frankly the gay couple will probably opt to take their business elsewhere.

Here is Detnews:

“Key issues we’re going to continue to see discussed are about discrimination in the workplace, and in private businesses and in housing.”

But... my view: Haven't those been issues for decades???? What's new?????

Well said! I don't remember much of a fuss around gay marriage when individual provinces introduced their laws on it. The controversy comes from institutions like churches who insist on particular interpretation of scriptures and this is outside the law. Gays will marry in churches that allow or promote said marriages when they identify with religious principles, or else go the civil law way. It is a state matter, period.

In Canada, nobody talks about gay marriage. It really flies under the radar in that it is not a controversial issue anymore. More pressing issues, big time. I'm glad for folks who want to marry, and yes, the rainbow colors on the White House were lovely.

[emu steve]

Well said! I don't remember much of a fuss around gay marriage when individual provinces introduced their laws on it. The controversy comes from institutions like churches who insist on particular interpretation of scriptures and this is outside the law. Gays will marry in churches that allow or promote said marriages when they identify with religious principles, or else go the civil law way. It is a state matter, period.

In Canada, nobody talks about gay marriage. It really flies under the radar in that it is not a controversial issue anymore. More pressing issues, big time. I'm glad for folks who want to marry, and yes, the rainbow colors on the White House were lovely.

My view about religion and public policy in the United States is I don't know how to describe it.

All faiths agree "thou shall not kill".

Faiths are all over the map on a lot of issues.

To spin this a different way, I'd have a very difficult time being a Mormon [[for example). I love coffee, a little alcohol, gamble in Vegas, etc.

So should a church I don't belong to tell me that I can't go to Vegas and bet blackjack and have an alcoholic drink?

Isn't the best approach in a PLURALISTIC society is that Mormons follow the rules and regulations of their faith. Catholics do likewise. Southern Baptists likewise. [[actually they should follow the rules and regulations of their faith AND public law).


Non-believers follow their consciences and public law. If public law says a 21 year old can drink and the person wants to drink, have one...

[Király]

Boy oh boy, you Americans don't know what you are getting into. When gay marriage was legalized nationwide here in Canada, the oceans started to boil, pestilence took over the lands, brimstone fell from the skies, and humanity was damaged beyond repair. Those few that survived wished they were dead.

[jcole]

Boy oh boy, you Americans don't know what you are getting into. When gay marriage was legalized nationwide here in Canada, the oceans started to boil, pestilence took over the lands, brimstone fell from the skies, and humanity was damaged beyond repair. Those few that survived wished they were dead.

But being Canadians, they were still nice

[Scottathew]

To spin this a different way, I'd have a very difficult time being a Mormon [[for example). I love coffee, a little alcohol, gamble in Vegas, etc.

So should a church I don't belong to tell me that I can't go to Vegas and bet blackjack and have an alcoholic drink?

Isn't the best approach in a PLURALISTIC society is that Mormons follow the rules and regulations of their faith. Catholics do likewise. Southern Baptists likewise. [[actually they should follow the rules and regulations of their faith AND public law).

Non-believers follow their consciences and public law. If public law says a 21 year old can drink and the person wants to drink, have one...

Ding ding! We have a winner!

Boy oh boy, you Americans don't know what you are getting into. When gay marriage was legalized nationwide here in Canada, the oceans started to boil, pestilence took over the lands, brimstone fell from the skies, and humanity was damaged beyond repair. Those few that survived wished they were dead.

Seriously, you made me LOL heartily!

[Danny]

I look up marriage in the dictionary. It's a union between a man and a woman.

[jcole]

I look up marriage in the dictionary. It's a union between a man and a woman.

So I guess they're going to have to update that dictionary now

[iheartthed]

3. Anyone who says that Bill Schuette should have "gotten on the right side of history" by going against the opinion of the majority of the people that elected him should reconsider if they really believe in democracy. Until very, very recently, no court in the country had indicated that a state's definition of marriage was unconstitutional. It's not the place of attorneys general to do so. It is the place of the Supreme Court, and they did.

Wait, whoa. Huh? Until very recently you didn't have religious conservative groups pushing gay marriage referendums onto state ballots. That has always been the impetus for the law suits. And the vast majority of the decisions on the constitutionality of the bans have come out in favor of the plaintiffs [[gay couple[[s) attempting to marry). In hindsight, these bans were actually self-defeating for their purpose. They were prompted by the successes of voter bans on affirmative action but backfired because it's a much more clear cut case of equal protection.

Then there's Bill Schuette. After Michigan tried to defend the ban on same sex marriage and lost, just as nearly every other marriage ban suit that had been heard in federal court to that point, he decided to appeal to the Supreme Court.

[Scottathew]

I look up marriage in the dictionary. It's a union between a man and a woman.

I took your advice, the dictionary says it can be same or opposite sex. Congrats, you have defeated your own point with your own evidence.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

[professorscott]

4. Lastly, I encourage anyone who is troubled by this result to go back and read Loving v. Virginia. The arguments that were made by the State of Virginia were the same was were made in this case. This has been the traditional position, states can define marriage, blah, blah. This case is virtually indistinguishable. Whether you feel that homosexuality is a sin or not is irrelevant. This is about what the government may nor may not do. And they may not make the distinction they've always made. Like in Loving, I think we may look back in a relatively short period and wonder what the big deal was.

Yeah, BG, during this whole debate over the past several months, any time somebody tried to convince me I'm wrong on this [[I lean Libertarian and absolutely applaud the Court's decision) I would tell them to take whatever argument they had against same-sex marriage, rewrite it and change every instance of "gay" or "same-sex" to "interracial", and then compare it to the briefs presented to the Court in Loving. It didn't change anyone's mind; nothing ever does anymore, but I got a kick out of it.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Wait, whoa. Huh? Until very recently you didn't have religious conservative groups pushing gay marriage referendums onto state ballots. That has always been the impetus for the law suits. And the vast majority of the decisions on the constitutionality of the bans have come out in favor of the plaintiffs [[gay couple[[s) attempting to marry). In hindsight, these bans were actually self-defeating for their purpose. They were prompted by the successes of voter bans on affirmative action but backfired because it's a much more clear cut case of equal protection.

Then there's Bill Schuette. After Michigan tried to defend the ban on same sex marriage and lost, just as nearly every other marriage ban suit that had been heard in federal court to that point, he decided to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Gay marriage referenda came about after judges threw out marriage definitional laws that existed across all 50 states. The suits came first, then judges overturning laws, then referenda [[state constitutions are easier to change than the national one), then appeals to the federal courts.

And let's be clear that bans on same sex marriage were spoken of positively by such conservative stalwarts as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Times have changed, and they and others have changed their positions, as they should. But let's not rewrite history.

With respect to Bill Schuette, is what you're saying that every time a US District Court rules against something, that's the final word? The State of Michigan for some reason can't avail itself of the use of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals? Recall that the 6th Circuit upheld the ban.

[Scottathew]

And let's be clear that bans on same sex marriage were spoken of positively by such conservative stalwarts as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Times have changed, and they and others have changed their positions, as they should. But let's not rewrite history.

I voted yes on the Michigan gay marriage ban, and I'm here, 11 years later, applauding it's defeat. Seeing other people's opinions online as well as attending some fun libertarian events really opened my mind to not caring about what other people do. Also, in the last 11 years I've found out that so many people around me that I care about are gay.

[townonenorth]

Good news.

However, I do see plural marriage as raising its head.

Do not see that coming, but if women want multiple husbands, then go for it, I say.

[emu steve]

Why all the fuss? The Supreme Court case was about
coverage of Federal benefits to same-sex spouses, and
had repercussions re: recognition of s.s. marriages.

Civil marriage is a contract. In a society that professes
and institutionalizes equal justice under law, one can-
not in a general sense prevent two adults from entering
into a contractual relationship - with the exception of
some customary mental competency restrictions.

Civil marriage is very different from sacramental mar-
riage. The former is a contractual relationship and the
ability to make a contract between two people is seen
as a fundamental right under English civil law. The
latter comprises rules and procedures defined by the
host [[religious) organization, which is appropriate for
a private concern such as a church or social club.

I agree with this with a caveat.

When I got married a county clerk authorized the marriage, but it ALSO had to be authorized by the Catholic Church.

So it became a logical .and. [[authorized by the state .and. authorized by the church).

So the state speaks for the state and the Church speaks for the Church. I was bound by both. I had to meet the requirements of both the state and church.

To draw an analogy with Priests who were involved in the pedophile cases. They answer to both their bishop and to the state. Public law and canon law.

So where does this take us to marriage:

A civil marriage is a state issue. A religious marriage is both a state recognized event and also a church event [[Catholics refer to it as a Sacrament).

[gazhekwe]

Why did your marriage have to be authorized by the Catholic Church? Civil marriage is a legal marriage. A Church's endorsement is not needed for a couple to be married in the eyes of the law. I am assuming the currently proposed legislation requiring clergy endorsement in Michigan will now be moot, and this has not been required.

The Catholic Church, and any church, can and do refuse to marry some couples, which is why we went to the judge.

[emu steve]

Why did your marriage have to be authorized by the Catholic Church? Civil marriage is a legal marriage. A Church's endorsement is not needed for a couple to be married in the eyes of the law. I am assuming the currently proposed legislation requiring clergy endorsement in Michigan will now be moot, and this has not been required.

The Catholic Church, and any church, can and do refuse to marry some couples, which is why we went to the judge.

What I was getting is that there were two steps to complete and had to be acceptable to both to marry in a Catholic Church.

We went to see the Priest and went through the procedures established by the Catholic Church. That was necessary to be married in the Catholic Church.

Then went to the clerk's office to get the marriage license which the Priest completes as officiating at the wedding.

So we had to meet both the civil and religious requirements for a church wedding.

As everyone knows, it isn't necessary to be married in a church. In the eyes of the state, it makes no difference if it is a church or civil ceremony.

[iheartthed]

Gay marriage referenda came about after judges threw out marriage definitional laws that existed across all 50 states. The suits came first, then judges overturning laws, then referenda [[state constitutions are easier to change than the national one), then appeals to the federal courts.

The issue only made its way into federal courts because of the referendums. Without the contradictions at the state level to advance it to the federal courts, which is what the constitutional amendments created when the conservative groups started to push them after the Mass. courts ruling legalized it there, the gay marriage issue was a state issue. The constitutional amendments were the impetus for advancing it to the Supreme Court.

And let's be clear that bans on same sex marriage were spoken of positively by such conservative stalwarts as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Times have changed, and they and others have changed their positions, as they should. But let's not rewrite history.

I never brought them up.

With respect to Bill Schuette, is what you're saying that every time a US District Court rules against something, that's the final word? The State of Michigan for some reason can't avail itself of the use of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals? Recall that the 6th Circuit upheld the ban.

No, that is not. You are right that they won the appeal on the case in Ohio. But was it even a useful use of resources to appeal the decision? The US District Court in Utah [[hardly a liberal stronghold) found the ban in that state unconstitutional, and the appeal in the 10th Circuit was lost. Though Utah did attempt to appeal to the SCOTUS, they declined to hear the case.

In addition to the Utah precedence, the bans were consistently found to be unconstitutional in federal courts of some other pretty conservative areas of the country. A quick look at the time line on Wikipedia shows: Idaho, Kentucky, Colorado, Oklahoma, Virginia, to pick a few. It was Schuette's discretion to continue that battle after the initial ruling by the 6th Circuit. And even if the state had lost the appeal I think we both know he would have appealed it anyway. This was his audition for his next political office.

It is certainly not without precedent for AGs to decline to defend laws which they believe ultimately to be indefensible [[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...to-nbsp-appeal). So, either Schuette truly believed that the Michigan ban was defensible [[plausible, but this ruling is hardly a surprise to anyone who was paying attention), or Schuette believes it is his duty to always defend challenges to state law without exception [[How far did he take the fight to protect Detroit's retiree pensions?), or it is enshrined in state law that the Attorney General must always defend laws against challenge [[I don't think that's true of Michigan but someone correct me if I'm wrong here. Here's a pretty good read I found on the duties of state Attorneys General to defend state law: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/featur...duty-to-defend)

[rb336]

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22

this is what you want to use as your guide to moral behavior? this vile thing? sorry, we are MILES above this tome from a barbaric bronze-age tribe

Deuteronomy 21:18-21King James Version [[KJV)
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.

Numbers 15:32-56
They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

2 Kings 2:23-24New International Version [[NIV)
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

yes, some cowardly twit in your god's good graces can't take a little ribbing from kids, so he has your god send bears to maul them.

This is what your bible holds up as noble:
Judges 19:22-29New International Version [[NIV)
22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”

Yes, better to send your daughter out to be gang-raped than send a strange man out to have sex with other men

[BankruptcyGuy]

No, that is not. You are right that they won the appeal on the case in Ohio. But was it even a useful use of resources to appeal the decision?

The first case on SSM was in 1993 in Hawaii, where a District Court judge held that the state's definition of marriage as between opposite sex people was unconstitutional. That was a state law that was in place in all 50 states at the time.

The first reaction to that case was the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Bill Clinton in 1996. It passed in the US Senate by a vote of 85-14.

Alaska and Hawaii were the first states to pass state-constitutional marriage definitions in 1998. The lawsuits were not a reaction to referenda, the referenda were a reaction to court action. Let's not rewrite history here.

Next, about the appeal, are you asking if it was is a useful use of resources to file an appeal that the state ultimately won?

Again, I'll put it to you this way: how would you feel if the state AG refused to defend a state law putting restrictions on gun use that was ultimately struck down by a District Court? Would you expect that AG to appeal the ruling? Or would that not be a "useful use of resources"? Should Lisa Madigan [[Illinois AG) have done that when Chicago's handgun ban was struck down?

The fight on pensions also went to the Sixth Circuit, in case you were wondering.

The Attorney General is the official attorney for the State of Michigan. When the State is sued, the Attorney General is bound by our Rules of Professional Conduct to respond. What you get sometimes is a situation where the AG and the Governor are of different parties, and then there are conflicts of interest, in a practical sense. No matter how you feel about this or any other issue, that kind of nonsense should stop. Do your job, or if you can't, resign.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

The first case on SSM was in 1993 in Hawaii, where a District Court judge held that the state's definition of marriage as between opposite sex people was unconstitutional. That was a state law that was in place in all 50 states at the time.

The first reaction to that case was the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Bill Clinton in 1996. It passed in the US Senate by a vote of 85-14.

Alaska and Hawaii were the first states to pass state-constitutional marriage definitions in 1998. The lawsuits were not a reaction to referenda, the referenda were a reaction to court action. Let's not rewrite history here.

Next, about the appeal, are you asking if it was is a useful use of resources to file an appeal that the state ultimately won?

Again, I'll put it to you this way: how would you feel if the state AG refused to defend a state law putting restrictions on gun use that was ultimately struck down by a District Court? Would you expect that AG to appeal the ruling? Or would that not be a "useful use of resources"? Should Lisa Madigan [[Illinois AG) have done that when Chicago's handgun ban was struck down?

The fight on pensions also went to the Sixth Circuit, in case you were wondering.

The Attorney General is the official attorney for the State of Michigan. When the State is sued, the Attorney General is bound by our Rules of Professional Conduct to respond. What you get sometimes is a situation where the AG and the Governor are of different parties, and then there are conflicts of interest, in a practical sense. No matter how you feel about this or any other issue, that kind of nonsense should stop. Do your job, or if you can't, resign.

Many Attorneys General declined to defend anti-marriage equality laws that they interpreted as being unconstitutional. Michigan's AG decided to waste taxpayer funds on what many felt was a losing proposition. http://www.afer.org/blog/attorneys-g...sbian-couples/

Of course Michigan, led by the hard right, decided to fight to the bitter end.

[rex]

must be why the board has been so slow lately