DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional

Link coming soon.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/supreme-court-affirms-right-to-gay-marriage-122495807066.html


The Supreme Court has found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, striking down bans in 14 states and handing a historic victory to the gay rights movement that would have been unthinkable just 10 years ago.

Anthony Kennedy, a conservative justice who has broken with his ideological colleagues to author several decisions expanding rights for LGBT people, again sided with the court’s four liberals to strike down the state bans. The majority ruled that preventing same-sex people from marrying violated their constitutional right to equal protection under the law and that the states were unable to put forth a compelling reason to withhold that right from people.

The United States is now just the 21st country in the world to allow same-sex marriage in every jurisdiction.

In oral arguments last April, Kennedy expressed reservations about changing the traditional definition of marriage to include LGBT people and seemed to suggest that the court should allow the American public to continue debating the relatively new concept.

“The word that keeps coming back to me in this case is millennia,” he said then, referencing the amount of time societies had considered marriage to be only between a man and a woman.

But Kennedy was swayed by the fact that hundreds of thousands of married same-sex couples already exist and that they — and their children — are being treated differently by the law when they move to a state that doesn’t recognize their union. The states in the case also had trouble articulating why they had a compelling reason to deny that recognition, saying only that it was in the interest of children to only allow couples of the opposite sex to marry.

The decision came just two years after the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could no longer refuse to recognize married same-sex couples who lived in the handful of states that had legalized their unions. That decision, also written by Kennedy, caused a cascade of lower court decisions striking down state same-sex marriage bans, and now 36 states allow same-sex marriage. Public opinion on gay marriage has changed at lightning speed as well: 60 percent of Americans support it, compared with just 37 percent 10 years ago.

This transformative opinion will most likely continue the trend toward greater acceptance of LGBT people around the country, as the highest court of the land has ruled that same-sex unions are legitimate and lawful everywhere.

Even with the landmark decision, however, support for gay marriage has been almost nonexistent among elected Republican officials, whose positions on the issue likely will not change overnight. To date, no major Republican presidential candidate has endorsed marriage equality. Many 2016 GOP candidates even struggled with the question of whether or not they would attend a gay wedding.

Despite public opposition, many Republican operatives privately have suggested that court rulings favorable to gay marriage are a blessing in disguise for GOP politicians. With the judicial system expanding gay rights, the courts have eased the burden on the legislative and executive branches, removing pressure for them to act proactively on marriage equality policy.

The opinion is a big win for the Obama administration, which is already flying high after the Supreme Court batted down a potentially fatal challenge to the Affordable Care Act on Thursday. The president came out in favor of same-sex marriage in 2012.

Friday’s ruling also could have a big effect on religious institutions that have maintained their opposition to same-sex marriage. Religious schools that refuse to provide housing for same-sex couples could face lawsuits and lose their tax-exempt status, for example. (Religious clergy will not have to marry same-sex couples, however.) Some states will most likely respond to this ruling by attempting to pass legislation to exempt people who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, such as the controversial Indiana law that passed in March.

The gay rights movement, meanwhile, will move on to employment discrimination. Activists want a federal law that forbids discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation.

Gay and lesbian couples will be able to marry immediately in the four states named in the case — Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and Michigan. There may be a delay of a few days or weeks for same-sex marriage to be legal in the remaining states with bans, since lower courts will have to apply the opinion to them.

this is awesome!!! equality means everybody!!

A truly historic day for the United States. One more step forward.

How long till we see repeats of what happened with getting rid of segregation?

dunno, but it looks like if that does happen, it's gonna be in the same states.

the south.

I might turn on Fox News today.

i haven't seen heads explode in a while, should be entertaining.

It's crazy that this hasn't been legal anyway.

It's about time.

Congrats to all who supported Gay Marriage, The Supremes have ruled.

We can no longer call it Gay Marriage, it is just Marriage now.

LOL

Fox News already bringing up discussion about Polygamy.

Does this mean they have to take down the rainbow flag?

logical fallacies!! logical Fallacies everywhere!!!!

I'm glad they finally recognized that gay people getting married in no way shape or form threatens anyone's rights as Americans. This is a good day for America.

Good thing IMO. I'm not gay, but believe people should do what they want

And quite honestly, I don't see why that's illegal either if we are talking consenting adults.

So a flag representing love, equality and peace is the same as a flag representing racism, fear and slavery (which are all a part of the "heritage" argument).

Sure. Excellent point.

You misrepresented my point, which has nothing to do with any other flag. They are now equal under the law, so why do they need the flag anymore?

I never thought the right to marry whomever we want to should be legislated anyway. Not sure why government needed to stick there nose in it at all.

Two people fall in love, want to be together. What right do I have to tell them they can't.

That's like asking why do Browns fans fly a Browns flag all year long, isn't it?

This is now as it should be and gay people have the same right to lose half their stuff just like everyone else. Divorce lawyers are united in their rejoicing.

Personally I think they may have been better off with the built-in excuse as to why they couldn't marry, so be careful what you wish for.

Look up NAMBLA, then get back to all of us on that right.

ok but this isn't an age of consent issue, nor a pedo one. it's two consenting adults of legal age wanting to get married.

Not at all. In all honesty, this was one issue I really didn't care about. Just like interracial marriage, it was obvious it would be legalized one day. Gay marriage doesn't really affect anyone until they are forced to participate in a wedding they want nothing to do with. I was just concerned about the leprechauns that want their rainbow back.

So if three people of consenting age want to get married, why cant they? I agree on the bestiality argument being a logical fallacy, but disagree on the polygamy issue being one.

Someone tell me how homosexuals threaten the holy sanctity of marriage when you have 24 hour celebrity marriages, high divorce rates, and not to mention stupid television shows such as Celebrity Wife-Swap and Married at first site?

Two homosexuals getting married in no way, shape or form, threatens anyone's rights as Americans. Bible huggers can still hate them. Churches can still refuse them. Businesses can still turn them away if they choose. I'm glad though that if in love, two gay people can now legally march down to their local state house and get hitched.

if somebody wants to have multiple legal aged wives/husbands, go right ahead. i don't care.

but a lot of people are making these bestiality, pedophile, marrying a toaster, all these crazy claims. that's definitely logical fallacies.

this is why nobody takes them seriously on these topics. and now the SC reflects that.

Don't care about two legal adults. They can be a freaky as they want to be.

There are currently pushes in the Netherlands, South Africa, and a few other European countries to legalize underage sex, or to lower the age of consent. Yes, I know the link is to a right wing site.

Right wing site

I don't know why any guy would want to do that. I couldn't imagine having them all mad at me at the same time.

a christian church at that.

even though there's a push, i HIGHYL doubt...at least in europe, that something like that will pass.

or synced up....good god...

That tends not to happen. With groups of females, there is always an alpha, and she always goes first. The others will have their cycles change to accommodate the alpha.

WOW,, you are totally off base on that. What the court has done here HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH pedophiles. This isn't about "age of consent"

SO I have no idea why you would bring that up.,

The final paragraphs from the majority opinion:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Chalk one up for good.

Why do we assume it would be a guy with multiple wives?? It could be three guys, three females, 2 females and a guy.

I am not against this ruling, but where is the line drawn??

I am not off base, and I never said the ruling had anything to do with pedophiles or age of consent. I would also like to stress this point, I don't think homosexuality has anything to do with pedophilia.

My point has to do with the 'slippery slope' theory. Interracial marriage was declared legal in 1967, and homosexual marriage was declared legal today. I don't have a problem with either of these, or polygamy when that finally is legalized. My worry is the actual sexual degenerates will push for legalization of other forms of marriage, and I think we need to be vigilant enough to never let those happen. As I said, there is a push for legalization of underage marriages in a few European countries right now. I would like to never see that in this country.

Just so I'm clear, you're worried that the most reviled demographic in the United States is going to be granted the right to marry their rape victims? Why not also be vigilant in making sure that The Riddler and The Penguin don't cut a hole in the vault of the Federal Reserve and make off with all the country's gold?

Underage marriage is legal in many states right here in The U.S.

You should have said that then. The way you left it led me to believe you were equating one issue with the other.

+1