Supreme Court: Same Sex Marriage Legal (Breaking News)

By Chuck Stanley

720px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svgThe Supreme Court of the United States has overturned the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, ruling same sex marriage legal in the entire United States. Today’s ruling overturns bans in 14 states which had enacted prohibitions against same sex marriage.

This is a breaking news story, so consider this an open thread for discussion as details come in.

About Chuck Stanley

Dr. Charlton (Chuck) Stanley is a board certified forensic psychologist, with interests in aviation psychology, peace officer selection and training, ethics and communication skills.
This entry was posted in Constitutional Law, Courts, Equal Rights, Justice, SCOTUS and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

83 Responses to Supreme Court: Same Sex Marriage Legal (Breaking News)

  1. Anonymously Yours says:

    It’s a fine day in history…. A long line of cases leading up to this decision. Loving vs Virginia, bowser vs hardwicke et al…. The only logical conclusion they could come to…. I am interested in what dumb shit Thomas has to say since he benefited from loving….

  2. The decision was 5-4, with Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion. Link to the 103 page ruling:
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

  3. Elaine M. says:

    Uh, oh! I predict droughts, famine, and pestilence will now be visited upon our country!!!!! I’m going to get ready for the Rapture.

    😉

  4. rafflaw says:

    Great news!

  5. I was pleased to note the reasoning based on the 14th implicated the FF&C Clause as well, just as many advocates for equal rights had predicted. What surprised me was the broad scope of the ruling and Roberts degree of participation with the liberals on the Court. I’m surprised Scalia’s head didn’t immediately burst into flames, but the day is young.

    Congratulations, LGBTQ citizens, on this important victory!

  6. Anonymously Yours says:

    I hope Scalia resigns from the court…. So Obama can appoint a rational person to that position…..But that’s a real fairy tale….

  7. I. Annie says:

    Congratulations to those who stand up for human decency and equal rights! I’m waiting to see which fundamentalist preacher immolates himself in protest first.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/23/1395591/-TX-Pastor-Threatens-To-Set-Self-Aflame-If-SCOTUS-Rules-In-Favor-Of-Marriage-Equality-We-Will-Burn

  8. randyjet says:

    It is a real stretch to force Loving into justifying gay marriage since that ruling only applied to one man/one woman marriage. The other problem is that when Brown vs Topeka was decided, Warren recognized that such a ruling voiding many state laws required a unanimous court. Then there is the fact that the laws banning same sex marriage does NOT discriminate against gays, since MILLIONS of gays HAVE married persons of the opposite sex. If there were laws requiring a straightness test to get married, THEN that WOULD be discrimination which would violate the equal protection of the laws. There is the other problem which will come if there is a requirement for a draft or other national emergency requirement that requires discrimination on sex or other reason.
    I am also disapointed that the SCOTUS thought that discrimination against old white Vietnam era veterans is OK when they refused to hear our suit on the behalf of older pilots who were kicked out of our jobs at age 60 for no good reason. It is pretty galling to see that old white veteran are screwed and everybody thinks that is OK. This is the REAL spitting on the Vietnam vets.

  9. blouise17 says:

    Congratulations to Mary Bonauto. You are my hero.

  10. Bob Kauten says:

    I gotta go read Scalia’s dissent, if he wrote one. I’ll post it on Facebook. The comedic value! Please tell me he wrote one. Please.

  11. Randy,

    Legally speaking, what you just said was gibberish that belies a total lack of understanding about how the 14th Amendment is supposed to operate in action. The core of this rests not just around Equal Protection but the Free Association and, if you dig down enough despite the matter not being addressed in the Court’s argument, Free Exercise. Who has the right to tell others whom they can or cannot bond with for life if both parties have capacity? No one. It’s their business and no one else. The valid state interest in marriage is that it is in essence a specialty contract, not in upholding one religious tradition’s dogmatic definition of marriage over another. If you want to go that route, I promise you that upholding a ban on homosexual marriages would not pass the Lemon test which is still the standard for permissible government action vis a vis the Establishment Clause. If you don’t like homosexual marriages? Don’t marry a guy. Your problem is solved. But what others choose to do in re forming their durable interpersonal relationships is none of your business (or mine for that matter) no matter how much you disapprove.

    On the pilot’s case though I have no opine to make not being familiar with the case.

    • randyjet says:

      Gene, I am not against gay marriage,but I fail to see how the SCOTUS can get its opinion using the 14th Amendment as a basis for the ruling. If that is true, then we have no need for the 19th amendment either. All that was needed was for the SCOTUS to rule that women had the right to vote under the equal protection clause. You also miss the FACT that the ruling has nothing to do with who sleeps with who or who loves who. Marriage is contract granted by the state for ITS purposes as well as the benefit of the parties involved. We no longer have any laws regarding co-habitation or fornication. In fact one of my schoolmates was arrested and convicted of fornication for living with black woman in Hartford,CT.

      Your reasoning also applies with equal force to plural marriages. So I guess that is the next frontier for the SCOTUS to make new law. Who needs a legislature at all? Indeed plural marriages are the norm in Islam and some Mormon sects, so the establishment clause of religion would apply in even greater force for them, not to mention that polygamy was once legal in parts of the US. You cannot logically use Loving as basis since the term marriage in that ruling applied ONLY to one man/one woman since gay marriage had not even been thought of. Sort of hard to rule in favor of something that did not exist or was not even thought of at the time.

  12. Bob Kauten says:

    Oh, thank you, FSM!
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf
    I just love to hear Scalia whine and bitch about losing a major decision. He’s a loser , and he’s providing us with some fine, comedic reading, here. Nope, haven’t read it, yet. It’s long-winded, full of gas, fake erudition, arrogance, and self-pity, much like its author.

  13. Anonymously Yours says:

    Randyjet,

    Let’s get real equal protection applies to everyone. A number of cases relied upon loving as a basis, especially the California one….

    • randyjet says:

      AY The problem with using Loving is that the term marriage only applied to one man/ one woman marriages, and NO rational person can say otherwise. The proponents of gay marriage simply take the word marriage out of time and context and make the falacious equivalence of gay marriage= marriage as used back in the time Loving was decided. You can just as logically use the plural marriage=marriage as well if that is how you wish to proceed. At least plural marriage has historical, religious and legal roots in our country, while gay marriage does not. So then Loving must also apply with equal force in that case. Tell me why not. The ACLU at least sees that as being the case too. I think that is as big a stretch as the one for gay marriage.

      Then there is the outlandish fact that this was decided by such narrow margin that makes the ruling suspect. The Brown decision which overturned segregation in the US had a unanimous court in its favor, and that proponents of gay marriage are happy about this are a bit premature if a new President chooses a conservative justice who will vote the other way. The victory may well be a pyrric one if the right mobilizes to such an extent that they get their way.

  14. Randy,
    Let’s not conflate apples and oranges. The “age 60” rule is an employment issue that was theoretically based on capacity. I think it is stupid and would never pass if the FAA’s witnesses were subjected to a rigorous cross examination based on Daubert standards. Same for the 3rd Class Medical Certificate. In other words, not scientifically sound. Both employment and recreational licenses should be based on a combination of mental and physical ability to do the job or perform a service competently.

    Employment and professional licensure is an entirely different issue than freedom of association, or to enter into a social contract such as marriage. There will be a great hue and cry at first, but once the dust settles, most everyone will accept this ruling for what it is. Treating everyone equally with regard to marriage. There are those who still get exercised over interracial marriage, although the Loving ruling was a half century ago. Even Justice Thomas is married to a white woman…which could have gotten him arrested or hung from a lamppost in 1950.

    I expect the same eventual general acceptance in this case, although there are those who will never accept it, just as some will never accept interracial marriage.

    • randyjet says:

      OS, I was not implying that the two causes were alike. I was only noting that we did not even get hearing at the SCOTUS, while prospective Muslim job applicants and gays get a hearing on the facts of their cases. We were denied even that much in ANY court. So it seems that older white males who are Vietnam veterans count for FAR less than those folks. Once again, we are the throw away people as we were back in the day.

  15. Anonymously Yours says:

    Chuck I saw….

  16. mespo727272 says:

    3 … 2 … 1 blastoff!!! Conservative heads exploding: ” threat to democracy, ” says Scalia. Is he really that unhinged?

  17. Bob Kauten says:

    Well…yes, yes he is. For quite some time, now.

  18. pete says:

    Beware of all the non-climate change related gods wrath for teh gays weather events.

    • Pete,

      To paraphrase a comic I heard the other day, “If gays could control the weather, don’t you think the military would have weaponized that by now?”

  19. Anonymously Yours says:

    I hope you all read the AG of Texas a Tbagger asked the county clerks to wait until he knows what the full implications are for the decision.

    The Dallas County Clerk said they would put extra people on the clock and extend hours if same sex marriages are approved by the Sct ….

  20. pete says:

    Wait, what? Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion? A legal opinion?

  21. Anonymously Yours says:

    Well Thomas probably didn’t write it….. But his name is attached to it…

  22. Anonymously Yours says:

    Gene,

    I have to disagree with you….. Although he stayed within the lines…. He just traced over with crayons what was already printed for him….

  23. Elaine M. says:

    Louie Gohmert freaks out: Marriage equality ruling means God will stop ‘protecting’ the US
    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/louie-gohmert-freaks-out-marriage-equality-ruling-means-god-will-stop-protecting-the-us/

    Excerpt:
    Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert added himself to the Christian conservative chorus complaining on Friday about the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriages, releasing a statement that invoked not only the Bible, but multiple former presidents.

    “Founders and leaders including George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and most all of the Presidents have noted that it is God who has been the source of this nation’s unfathomable blessings,” Gohmert stated. “But if Moses, Jesus, and contributors to the Bible were correct, God’s hand of protection will be withdrawn as future actions from external and internal forces will soon make clear. I will do all I can to prevent such harm, but I am gravely fearful that the stage has now been set.”

    Gohmert, who invited anti-LGBT pastor and Fox News contributor Robert Jeffress to deliver a prayer in the House of Representatives late last year, and also encouraged black communities to discriminate against the LGBT communities, also recycled the conservative argument that Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan should have recused themselves from the case because they had presided over same-sex weddings in the past.

  24. Randy,
    A majority ruling is as good as a unanimous ruling in the eyes of the law. Especially considering there are three hard core contrarians (Alito, Thomas and Scalia) on the court. They will oppose anything the Obama and Clinton appointees support. It is in their DNA, and as we have seen from Scalia’s bloviating and Thomas’ mind-bending logical fails, they are apparently unacquainted with facts.

    The SCOTUS receives many hundreds of appeals every year, and only grant cert in a tiny handful of those. In their view, there must be a Constitutional issue. I am hoping they will eventually take a case on the FAA boneheadedness regarding pilot competency. Perhaps the right case and right circumstances haven’t come along yet. I suspect they would not have taken the same sex marriage case if the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals had not thrown a monkey wrench in the works, ruling in the opposite direction of three other circuits.

    As a practical matter, I don’t think any future justices are going to take this on. Once there are hundreds of thousands of new marriages as done deals, and the sky didn’t fall, a ruling undoing it would have economic and social implications of epic proportions. Same with undoing the ACA. Ain’t gonna happen. Too much money and too many votes at stake.

  25. Randy,

    “Your reasoning also applies with equal force to plural marriages.”

    Actually, no it doesn’t.

    There is an entire other “lineage” of jurisprudence that addresses plural marriage that is based on the common law crime of bigamy, not the 14th. Utah had a law on its books that banned not just polygamy but which also prohibited multiple cohabitation which I’ll get to in a bit. Traditionally, polygamy can be hard to prosecute as the “plural marriages” were not really marriages in the eyes of the state, often informal arrangements in fundamentalist communities where no license was ever applied for. Most successful prosecutions resulted from bigamy or adultery charges. The state’s valid interest in marriage is largely that of it being a form of specialty contract, not in endorsing one religious dogma’s definition of marriage over another. Just so, you cannot contract for an otherwise illegal purpose, be it murder or bigamy. Jon was involved in the so-called Sister Wives case where the portions of Utah’s laws regarding cohabitation were found unconstitutional but the ban on polygamy (actually rooted in Utah’s Constitution) were allowed to stand. But the legal history in this country isn’t for supporting plural marriage based on the 14th. Its prohibition is rooted in criminal law. Bigamy has been a crime in English Canon Law before it was formalized as a crime (a felony) under English Common Law in 1603. Our laws are derived in large part from the Common Law tradition, but if you want to look at the jurisprudence of the western world, bigamy (and by relation polygamy) had been ecclesiastical crimes since 1000 and statutory crimes in both Roman and Byzantine law before that.

    However, the logic and legal reasoning of Loving and how the 14th applies fits this current situation perfectly. One time when at the start of this whole litigation process, I even went so far at that other place to demonstrate that by taking some relevant passages from Loving and replacing the race language with gender language. The argument still worked just fine.

    • randyjet says:

      I got a good laugh out of Gene using old law to justify keeping plural marriage illegal since homosexual acts were also criminals acts, even when Loving was decided. So to take Loving and use that decision to support gay marriage is funny. By the way we do not have adultery as a crime any more either so that goes against his logic. As for bigamy being illegal, it is only illegal because plural marriage is illegal, a rather circular argument. So gay marriage has NO place in our laws if we are to base it on old English law.

      It is establishing religion to ban plural marriages since Muslims and others practice it. Thus if the state has no right to ban same sex marriages on the basis of it enforcing Christian doctrine, they sure don have the right to deny Muslims the right to practice their religious doctrines. Who is to say that a number of people who love each other cannot be married? It certainly does not detract from your marrige nor does it affect your life. Your bigotry is showing.

  26. Randy,
    I just remembered something I read a few days ago. Ambitious younger pilots themselves are undermining doing away with the age 60 rule. Younger pilots want a chance at the left seat sooner than later, and the longer older pilots stay around, they see their own opportunities limited.

    • randyjet says:

      OS You are behind the times on this. ALPA fought against raising the age limit for years because the younger pilots outnumbered the older ones. It was ALPA who authored the law stripping me and all of us who are Vietnam era veterans of our jobs. We never got to have a trial on our case, since all the courts simply refused to hear the case. The law ALPA authored also prohibited any lawsuit against ALAP for failure to represent and also prohibited any person from suing the FAA.on this matter. The law was upheld in all courts.

  27. Chuck,

    The basic problem seems to be that Randy is stuck on a religious definition of marriage and can’t see past that to realize that the state’s valid interest isn’t based in religion so much as it is in contract and reciprocal rights, duties and mutual benefits. In that regard, the gender of the parties to the relationship are meaningless. The relationship is the key.

    • Gene Howington, Randy Jet and Chuck Stanley, arguing about the definition of marriage is absurd. Just stick to the dictionary’s definition of marriage and leave it at that.

      • Which dictionary? The legal definition of marriage, the common definition and the religious definition are all different. Since the discussion is abut equal rights in the framework of legalism, QED a specialty contract is simply the most rational basis of discussion. Where those hung up on the religious definition fail is in their inability to divorce their religious beliefs from our (ideally) secular form of government.

        Words matter and definitions are important as ‘ s context.

        • Gene Howington, maybe the Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary’s definition. If 2 men or 2 women want to consider themselves married, I say let them. Homosexuality and paedophilia are not synonymous. I know that I am being graphic to a certain extent, however, since by definition a person’s private sex life is private, what business is it of society if 2 people of the same sex want to marry?

          • Precisely, however, if you let a religious definition control then you miss the legalist view of marriage as a specialty contract and instead run the risk of imposing one set of religious beliefs upon another that dies not share them in violation of the Establishment Clause. Conversely one does not run into the opposite problem. If homosexual marriage is legal and you personally disagree on religious grounds you are not required to marry someone of the same sex. Ergo, definitions are critical to the secular legalist argument for equality.

  28. Ignorance is often a source of laughter for those engaging in selective understanding. What part of “formalized as a crime (a felony) under English Common Law in 1603” didn’t register. So you can call me a bigot all you like as history shows – even in this instance – that I am no such thing. Why don’t I mind? I’d rather a moron mistakenly think I’m a bigot than others think I’m an idiot arguing outside their area of expertise.

    I hope that was clear enough for you, Randy.

    Your rights – even as an alleged Christian – end where other peoples rights begin.

    You homophobic bigoted jackass.

  29. Bigamy is the condition of having two wives or two husbands at the same time. The second marriage to someone who is already legally married is void and may be annulled, while there is no effect on the first marriage. A person who knowingly commits bigamy is guilty of a crime, but it is seldom prosecuted unless it is part of a fraudulent scheme to get another’s property or some other felony. A marriage in another country is normally valid in the US; so, if someone is married in another country, they cannot get married again in the US or vice versa. Bigamy may be accidental, such as when the previous divorce was not finalized due to a technicality, or the previous spouse who was presumed dead is alive. In the United States if a husband or wife is absent and unheard of for seven (or in some states five) years and not known to be alive, he or she is presumed dead, and remarriage by the other spouse is not bigamous. It is not necessarily a defense to a charge of bigamy that the offending party believed in good faith that he was divorced or that his previous marriage was not lawful.

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1878 that plurality of wives (polygamy), as originally permitted by the Mormon religion, violated criminal law and was not defensible as an exercise of religious liberty. The Latter-day Saints renounced polygamy in 1890, but the practice has persisted among some, although it has been rarely prosecuted.

    Bigamy is a marriage in which one of the parties is already legally married. Bigamous marriages are void, and grounds for annulment. Local laws should be consulted, but typically a person who discovers they are married to a bigamist may have a judge declare the marriage void and seek to have criminal charges filed against the bigamist. A person commits bigamy when he intentionally contracts or purports to contract a marriage with another person when he has a living spouse.

    State criminal laws governing bigamy vary by state, some allowing for stiff fines and punishment. To fraudulently induce one to enter into a bigamous marriage contract has been held to be a compensable wrong, and the resulting mental pain and suffering would support an independent action for damages.

    Laws vary by state, but generally, a person does not commit bigamy if:

    He reasonably believes that his previous marriage is void or was dissolved by death, divorce or annulment; or
    He and the prior spouse have been living apart for a defined number of consecutive years next prior to the subsequent marriage, during which time the prior spouse was not known by him to be alive.

    The burden of raising such defenses is on the defendant, but this does not shift the burden of proof.

    The following is an example of an Alabama statute dealing with bigamy:

    A person commits bigamy when he intentionally contracts or purports to contract a marriage with another person when he has a living spouse. A person who contracts a marriage outside this state, which would be bigamous if contracted in this state, commits bigamy by cohabiting in the state with the other party to such a marriage.
    A person does not commit an offense under this section if:
    He reasonably believes that his previous marriage is void or was dissolved by death, divorce or annulment; or
    He and the prior spouse have been living apart for five consecutive years next prior to the subsequent marriage, during which time the prior spouse was not known by him to be alive.
    The burden of injecting the issues under this subsection is on the defendant, but this does not shift the burden of proof.
    Bigamy is a Class C felony.”

    http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bigamy/

    Get this through your seemingly thick skull, Randy: bigamy is a crime.

    That the fundamentalist practice of Christian or Islamic based polygamy is by default bigamy is no different than the fundamentalist worship of Tlaloc using human sacrifice to bring rain is murder and prohibited by law.

    Your understanding of that – just like your agreement – is not required.

  30. pete says:

    Chuck

    How does the rate of brain aneurysms among older pilots compare to the general pop. I tried googling and I don’t see what I’m looking for. The reason I ask is that I had a friends father that flew for United (747’s) had one.

  31. But by all means, why don’t you next say this will lead to marrying animals or children. That’s the usual tactic. I got answers for that too. Animals lack capacity to grant consent as do children and the sexual exploitation of children (and in most states, animals) is a crime in itself.

  32. A Muslim cannot be married to multiple spouses and live here as a US citizen. Visit the USA as a tourist, yes, but that’s it. Additional “wives” are regarded as concubines or mistresses for legal purposes.

    • Chuck Stanley and Gene Howington, I get the one man, one woman dynamic in a traditional marriage. However, speaking for myself, I am not against same sex marriage personally. If on religious grounds someone is opposed to same sex marriage, I can understand and respect that. What perplexes me to no end is the double standard of how some people are offended by same sex couples expressing their affection for each other and same sex couples not being offended when heterosexual couples do the very same thing. People like Michele Bachmann claim that marriage is something that God created. Really? The U.S. was not designed to be a theocracy but a Constitutional Republic.

  33. Chuck,

    That’s also similar to how the UK addresses the issue of foreign plural marriages.

  34. blouise17 says:

    randyjet,

    I’m not entering the discussion on plural marriage but what you are referring to regarding the pilots and ALPA sounds eerily similar to what happened to the air traffic controllers during Reagan’s reign. Am I right in that or off-base? Lots of Nam vets got royally screwed on that one.

  35. BTW, I’d like to state that most modern worshipers of Tlaloc don’t engage in human sacrifice.

    But the chickens are sure nervous.

  36. randyjet says:

    Gene Once again you make no rational argument by refering back to Old English law since homosexual acts and those who practice it were also illegal. Thus, that justification is void to use to argue against plural marriage now that gay marriage is legal. The bigamy law will simply be null and void if the SCOTUS is consistent, so there is no legal impediment to it. Roberts makes that point quite well. As for your so called knowledge, I am not and have stated quite often that I am an atheist. In fact, if you care to go back many months I have stated that I thought New York state did the proper and constitutional means of approving gay marriage. The state has every right in my view to decide what marriage is when it grants the contract as long as it is applied equally across the board for all as per Loving.

    You also fail to answer why the 19th Amendment was even needed, since in your view, the SCOTUS should have simply declared that the 14th amendment applied under the equal protection clause. All you have shown so far is that you want gay marriage and that is all that matters no matter how. At least the ACLU agrees that plural marriaqe is ALSO a right, and so according to THEM,YOU ARE A BIGOT on this issue. So please try and use some restraint and logic instead of name calling. I guess that the ACLU is bereft of legal expertise compared to yours.

  37. Pete,
    There was a 1981 study reported by the Institute of Medicine. They specifically addressed the so-called “age 60” rule. They found the incidence of stroke and cardiovascular disease increased after age 50, and took a jump after age 60. However, those numbers are relative, and the frequency is still very low. Pilots have the same kind of problems everyone else does, many of them related to general health issues, such as being overweight, poor eating habits, stress and so on including a family history of cardiovascular disease. However, 1981 was a long time ago, and there have been great strides in medicine since then. Technically, an aneurysm is a bulging or weakened artery. It can be treated via methods that had not even been invented thirty years ago. A stroke is when an artery is blocked (embolism) or an aneurysm blows out (brain bleed).

    • Chuck Stanley, Gene Howington and Randy Jet, I believe in equal protection for everyone, not protection for one group of people over another. Some people claim that there is a religious connotation to marriage. Since marriage and religion are separate matters, I don’t see how there is any validity to the claim that marriage has a religious connotation.

  38. Randy,
    For a non-lawyer to argue law with Gene is roughly the equivalent of him telling you how to fly an ILS approach into DFW to CAT II minimums.

    • randyjet says:

      Well, I’ll let Gene tell the ACLU that they are stupid and ignorant of the law then. That is what his position is on plural marriaqe. That is like telling Chuck Yeager he can’t fly worth a damn.

      • I’m pretty sure you are not accurate in your representation of their positions on the matter, but if not, I’d have no problem disagreeing with the ACLU.

  39. The difference is that homosexuality is no longer either considered a crime (or indeed a mental illness as it once was) but that bigamy still is a crime and it is a strict liability crime based – and read this carefully – in contract and not religious dogma or even ecclesiastical law. Laws change over time. I know. Shocking isn’t it. So why don’t you get back to me when bigamy is no longer a crime.

    Your perpetual raising of the 19th is simply a red-herring rooted in ignorance, so why address a specious argument?

    Also, being an atheist has nothing to do with you using a religious definition for what is in context a legal relationship. Using the wrong definitions is, well, simply poor reasoning and ignorance. I can tell you again that the only valid state interest in marriage is as a specialty contract, but then you’ll just get your panties twisted about how “marriage is between a man and a woman”. And why do you keep making this fundamental error? Perhaps it’s that bigotry you are so quick to project on to others.

    All I’ve shown so far is you don’t know what you are talking about as a matter of jurisprudence, Randy.

    • randyjet says:

      Gene I am glad to see that you acknowledge SOME state interest in issuing marriage licenses or contracts. In fact, I thought that when Portland OR started giving same sex couples marriage licenses that they had an excellent case since the law there did not mention male or female and only referred to persons. The OR Supreme Court ruled otherwise though. The only problem I have with this ruling is the reasoning behind it and the method. I agree with the way New York state legallized gay marriage, and that is in my view the only constitutional way to proceed. The court in this case is simply writing new law, not applying it.

      • Straw man much? I have always maintained a valid state interest in marriage. Unlike you though I know what those interests actually are and how they relate to statutory and Constitutional law.

        • Gene Howington, Chuck Stanley and Randy Jet, homosexuality and paedophilia are not synonymous. Anybody who claims otherwise is deceiving themselves. Quite honestly, even though they can argue that they have the right to develop nuclear technology, Iran’s having nuclear weapons disturbs me more than same sex marriage. That is extreme, I know. However, my reason for that example is to illustrate the fact that same sex marriage is not worth arguing about.

  40. Chuck,

    It’s also a bit like bringing a pointed stick to a gunfight.

    This whole argument at SCOTUS went down almost precisely how I and others with expert knowledge predicted it would unfold. Even Scalia’s meltdown had been predicted.

  41. “how to fly an ILS approach into DFW to CAT II minimums.”

    Ummmm . . . carefully? That’s about the extent of my advice and analysis on that particular problem.

  42. pete says:

    Chuck

    Just curious if the pressure changes might cause problems.

  43. Gene,
    Even that blind squirrel looking for an acorn could have predicted Scalia’s frothing-at-the-mouth rant. What I didn’t expect was the insane ramblings of Thomas. He seldom writes and never asks questions, so is often seen as an enigma. Now, after seeing his incredible claims in the dissent, I can see why they apparently try to keep him muzzled. He is an embarrassment to the Court. And to the human race, for that matter.
    Slaves were not denied their dignity? That came from the pen of a descendant of slaves? I think the guy needs adult supervision. He lives in an alternate reality.

  44. pete says:

    Gene

    It’s simple, I just watched Denzel do it. First, go inverted…

  45. pete says:

    Chuck
    I feel bad for the clerk who had to actually write it.

  46. Pete,
    Cockpit cabins are kept pressurized to no more than the altitude of some of the Blue Ridge Mountaintops where I live. However, if an aircraft loses cabin pressure at cruising flight levels, the risk may increase. However, loss of cabin pressure will be the source of many more problems than increasing risk of a CVA.

  47. Yeah. Thomas in original action is often amusing in a really terrifying sort of way. He was unfit for the job from the start. I’m a bit surprised he didn’t just parrot Alito or Scalia. That’s his usual M.O.

  48. randyjet says:

    OS I have lost pressurization a few times. It is always a race to see if I can get to 10,000′ before the rubber jungle erupts. I had it happen once as a pax on TWA on a DC-9. I noticed we were descending a bit early for STL, and at a rapid rate. So I was watching to see if we made it down in time. WE didn’t. So I got to actually use the mask for real! I rather enjoyed it since it was my first time doing it.

  49. DavidMS says:

    This is a wonderful and timely ruling. The Supreme court tends to move a bit behind public opinion (a good thing in most cases) in major rulings. The only time this didn’t happen that I know of was Roe v. Wade and we see the kind of mess that resulted. The world yesterday because a little but more accepting, just and equitable.

    Unfortunately at least two justices need to be fitted with Asbestos Corks (http://catb.org/jargon/html/A/asbestos-cork-award.html).

  50. Justice Scalia Is a Homophobe By BARNEY FRANK

    No offense, Barney, but “duh”.

    However, since Hobby Lobby decided that corporations can have religion, Scalia is in the vanguard of those who seem to think that corporations are actually people instead of a legal fiction.

    I wonder how he’d react if his corporation told him it was gay?

    It would certainly make shareholders meetings awkward.

  51. mespo727272 says:

    Great cite, Gene. Frank captures the “sour grapes” attitude of Scalia, whose irascible temper has now been put on full display. I think fundamentally the argument from plural marriages is a red herring designed to distract from the real message of the case. We all have the freedom to associate with whomever we please and the courts have the responsibility to prevent silly legislative efforts to hinder that right. This opinion could have been simply written as: “the government has no business telling any adult whom to love or how assuming each have capacity to consent.”

  52. Anonymously Yours says:

    Ok, now that this is the law of the land….. It still does not answer the question, who will marry the catholic priest? Will they have to stay within the same denomination, will the pope have to give approval…. A lot of unanswered questions…..

  53. Mike Spindell says:

    Look we can wax poetic about legalities all we want, but the whole proposition boils down to this. Marriage is at its base a contract between individuals that has economic consequences in society, such as filing income taxes, rearing children, assisting in a loved ones health care problems, distribution of death benefits and receiving social security benefits. Thus it needs regulation by the government. Since in our society marriage bestows certain economic benefits, preventing citizens from contracting to have those benefits is a diminution of their rights.

    Plural marriage issues are quite different, because they weave a greater complexity of problems, similar to the idea of marriage to obtain U.S. citizenship. In my own mind I have little problem with how adults exercise their love and sexuality, providing it is non-exploitative of the parties involved in that exercise. Thus far the overwhelming majority of plural marriage situations in the U.S. have be exploitative of women and minors, something that is not true in the cases of homosexuals and lesbians.

    • randyjet says:

      We already have plural marriages throughout the US and Europe. They are called mistresses and are recognized in many ways other than legally. I think it is high time that mistresses get their rights too in law

    • Mike Spindell, Chuck Stanley, Randy Jet and Gene Howington, I see no reason to make an issue out of something like marriage which is technically a personal matter, not something to be used as a political talking point. There are people like Michele Bachmann who claim that marriage is something that God created. Really? The same thing could be said about God making people gay or lesbian. Of course, religious bigots will find a way to impose their agendas upon the LGBTQ community.

  54. Mike Spindell says:

    As for Antonin Scalia, he is an example of the most judiciousness conduct by a Judge in recent memory. He is a disgrace to the court and to the President who nominated him and there are many reasons to believe he should be impeached for violating conflict of interest laws. Clarence Thomas, on the other hand was a “Fuck You” to people of color. He was put up as a replacement to the magnificent Thurgood Marshall and got confirmed with undue mirth on the part of Republicans and stupidity of some Democratic “liberals”, since he was known as a dependable tool for corporate America and a dependable vote against the interests of his own people. His wife as well is a corporate lobbyist.

  55. Anonymously Yours says:

    Interesting point RJ…. It is a very South American custom…..

  56. Even though I am not gay, I am in favor of same sex marriage.

  57. ragnarsbhut says:

    This issue should have been left alone, period.

  58. ragnarsbhut says:

    We should have left this issue alone after the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Comments are closed.