SCOTUS refuses to hear appeals of Same Sex Marriage rulings, marriage will be legal in 30 States

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

cincydooley wrote:
And thats really the part I don't get. No one is forcing you to go there. The beauty of capitalism is that you have choice.

Completely off-topic, but while this is true in this particular case, this is false in the general case. There are monopoly and quasi-monopoly that limits or prevent choice, and it takes some intervention from the state to prevent those occurring too often and having too many bad effects.

cincydooley wrote:
Honestly, I typically try to link more liberal media outlets when I link articles because so many people here refuse to acknowledge them if they come from anything more right leaning than HuffPo.

Well, I have no idea about the bias of U.S. media, and I do not care enough to learn them. I just reacted to what was pretty obvious on the page: ads, ads everywhere!

**jasper76**

Say what you want about Huffington Post, but when it comes to celebrity cleavage and Kardashian coverage, they have no equal.

**PhantomViper**

cincydooley wrote:

Well, the big difference is that this isn't the pre-60s South where the segregation and bigotry was not only acceptable, but it was on full display. I personally think there's a huge world of difference between that and the gay marriage movement today, particularly in regards to forcing bakers to make cakes for weddings they're morally opposed to.

And yes, I know this is where the "well your religion is ignorant and hateful" crowd comes in.

And I'm pretty sure that all those fine upstanding people back in the 60's had perfectly moral reasons not to allow non-white people to sit wherever they wanted on the buses. That didn't make them any less bigoted.

Also, no, your religion isn't ignorant and hateful so much as some members of your religion are ignorant and hateful and those cake baker people are some of those. Baking a cake for a gay wedding in exchange for money isn't a sin, it has exactly zero impact on your own moral virtue. The only impact it has is if you wan't to push your own moral values on other people and that is a big no no.

cincydooley wrote:

Despite all that, I don't particularly like where we (the US) is headed with all of this, "If you don't share my opinion, I should put you out of business" nonsense, particularly in regards to the wedding cake situation. But, you know, I'm sure there aren't any queer bakers in the great northwest that would have been willing to make their cake.

And thats really the part I don't get. No one is forcing you to go there. The beauty of capitalism is that you have choice.

The beauty of capitalism is also that if you make questionable choices and enough people disagree with you then those choices can make you loose your business, its called bad publicity. What happened in this particular case was pure capitalism in action!

**cincydooley**

PhantomViper wrote:

The beauty of capitalism is also that if you make questionable choices and enough people disagree with you then those choices can make you loose your business, its called bad publicity. What happened in this particular case was pure capitalism in action!

Exactly my point.

We shouldn't legislate against it.

Although I'd argue the death threats and truck robbing probably don't fall within the realm of "reasonable actions."

**Chongara**

What is harder to imagine is why some of the Court’s more conservative Justices didn’t join forces to grant review.

I don't get how anyone is confused on this point. They're avoid it because it's clear the tide of history has turned against them. They don't want to vote have to vote against their personal leanings, but also don't want to be solidified has villains in the history books.

**Ouze**

cincydooley wrote:
I still think the phrase "marriage" should be removed from documentation at a state at federal level, and they should all be 2-party civil union contracts, because that's exactly what they are.

I also used to be of the mind that there should be no government involvement in marriage, period - that it's essentially a private covenant between consenting adults. I'm not sure I feel that way anymore, though. For one it's not really feasible to actually implement, and for the other, it smells a lot like deciding, hey, if the gays are gonna get married, lets just burn down the institution for everyone.

I don't really know what I think anymore, other than that consenting adults should be able to marry each other.

**cincydooley**

Ouze wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
I still think the phrase "marriage" should be removed from documentation at a state at federal level, and they should all be 2-party civil union contracts, because that's exactly what they are.

I also used to be of the mind that there should be no government involvement in marriage, period - that it's essentially a private covenant between consenting adults. I'm not sure I feel that way anymore, though. For one it's not really feasible to actually implement, and for the other, it smells a lot like deciding, hey, if the gays are gonna get married, lets just burn down the institution for everyone.

I don't really know what I think anymore, other than that consenting adults should be able to marry each other.

I can see that point of view, and while I don't disagree in full, I do in part. I'll try and explain.

I think the marriage ceremony is a spiritual endeavor, where the 'bonding of the soul' is the intent of it. I think this is the case for Catholics to Buddhists to Atheists. And for many, they don't need or want a ceremony to do said bonding. The government, in my opinion, shouldn't be a part of that in any way, shape, or form, any more than it should be a part of confirmations, bat mitzvahs, or shraddhas.

The government should, however, be involved in ensuring that people that couple have equal protection under the law. Marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, should have nothing to do with it, and love shouldn't figure into any the equation. I should be able to enter a civil union with a heterosexual friend if I want to, if that's the person I decide I want to share an estate and reap tax benefits with.

In poor summation, the institution of marriage is about love (or so all the Love who you want protest signs tell me), and I don't think the the government should have any say in that, whatsoever.

**Frazzled**

Chongara wrote:
What is harder to imagine is why some of the Court’s more conservative Justices didn’t join forces to grant review.

I don't get how anyone is confused on this point. They're avoid it because it's clear the tide of history has turned against them. They don't want to vote have to vote against their personal leanings, but also don't want to be solidified has villains in the history books.

Villains? Wow ok.

**Ouze**

Yes, I think villains, just like the slate of justices that ruled Dred Scott was property.

It's pretty difficult to find a basis for prohibiting marriage between homosexuals that furthers a meaningful purpose of the state enough to justify broaching the 14th amendment.

**BlaxicanX**

Ouze wrote:
Yes, I think villains, just like the slate of justices that ruled Dred Scott was property.

Bam.

**Frazzled**

Hardly. I really wish people would quit with the insanely stupid moral relativism. It shows utter ignorance of things like facts and history.

If it went the other way
*current issue - At worst you'd have to get married in a different state. Las Vegas here you come!

*Dred Scott - they can whip you and your family to death because they're bored today.

**MrDwhitey**

Nah, you're wrong. It's really just that.

**Frazzled**

Just what?

**MrDwhitey**

Just that. You're wrong. Ouze is right. *shrug*

**WrentheFaceless**

Not that it has anything to do with the issue at hand but out of curiosity...

Where does the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" clause end and where does discrimination begin? Always wondered where the line on that was

**whembly**

Here's what Cruz is proposing:

Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is ‘Tragic and Indefensible,’ and ‘Judicial Activism at its Worst’

SEN. CRUZ RELEASES STATEMENT ABOUT SUPREME COURT ACTIONS TODAY

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to reject requests from five States to review state laws that prohibit same-sex marriage.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible,” said Sen. Cruz. “By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.

“This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures.

“The Supreme Court is, de facto, applying an extremely broad interpretation to the 14th Amendment without saying a word – an action that is likely to have far-reaching consequences. Because of the Court’s decision today, 11 States will likely now be forced to legalize same-sex marriage: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. And this action paves the way for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage to be overturned in any state.

“It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.

“Nothing in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the 14th Amendment or any other constitutional provision authorizes judges to redefine marriage for the Nation. It is for the elected representatives of the People to make the laws of marriage, acting on the basis of their own constitutional authority, and protecting it, if necessary, from usurpation by the courts.

“Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.

“Traditional marriage is an institution whose integrity and vitality are critical to the health of any society. We should remain faithful to our moral heritage and never hesitate to defend it.”

It's an important distinction to point out that he's NOT advocating an amendment that would add one-man-one-woman to the Constitution, but an amendment simply to leave the matter in the hands of state legislatures.

It's all states rights / 10th amendment-y...

In theory it should appeal to the state legislatures... whose support Cruz needs to get the amendment enacted. He could even roll this into a broader "federalist" campaign demanding more state power at the expense of the feds, as some righties who dream of a new constitutional convention advocate.

However, in practice, this is hogwash... it ain't going nowhere.

It's simply... pandering*.

*whats funny is that the social-cons are hammering Cruz, because if you’re going to go to the trouble of getting a bill through two-thirds of each chamber of Congress and three-fourths of the states, why would you settle for a procedural change like that instead of pushing for a substantive change to the law?

*shrug*

He's running for Prez... (and he ain't getting my vote in the primary)... so, all of this noise is a strategic take to build his populist brand. Ultimately, he’ll frame this as a battle against unelected elite judges pulling power out of voters’ hands more so than a battle against gays getting married.

**Frazzled**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Just that. You're wrong. Ouze is right. *shrug*

I deny your reality and substitute my own!

**MrDwhitey**

The problem with that is the one I'm using is the normal one. So yeah, that's pretty much what a lot of people against it are trying to do/have tried to do, but ultimately are failing.

So now they go silent, not wanting to be remembered as "The villains".

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Frazzled wrote:
Hardly. I really wish people would quit with the insanely stupid moral relativism. It shows utter ignorance of things like facts and history.

If it went the other way
*current issue - At worst you'd have to get married in a different state. Las Vegas here you come!

*Dred Scott - they can whip you and your family to death because they're bored today.

Except the state you live in doesn't recognize your marriage and prohibits you from the full rights of a married person... As was the case in my home state.

Is it as bad as owning people as property? Of course not, but it doesn't matter because some still don't have the freedom of you and I, which isn't just in our society.

On a related note, a friend of mine here in Virginia just got married this morning and it was spectacular.

**Frazzled**

MrDwhitey wrote:
The problem with that is the one I'm using is the normal one. So yeah, that's pretty much what a lot of people against it are trying to do/have tried to do, but ultimately are failing.

So now they go silent, not wanting to be remembered as "The villains".

Er...no. Two apparently alien concepts:

1. People can have differing points of view, especially on the interepretation of the Constitution, without being a "villain." Is this really where policitical discussion has fallen to now? Those who disagree with you are villains?

2. There are actually good legally reasons for denying writ. Saying they want to avoid being called a villain means you don;t believe your own side does, in fact, have valid reasons. I guess I have to ask - why do you hate gay people?

**cincydooley**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

On a related note, a friend of mine here in Virginia just got married this morning and it was spectacular.

When I read this line and came to spectacular, I did jazz hands.

**whembly**

cincydooley wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

On a related note, a friend of mine here in Virginia just got married this morning and it was FABULOUS!

When I read this line and came to spectacular, I did jazz hands.

Fixed it for you

**cincydooley**

Frazzled wrote:

1. People can have differing points of view, especially on the interepretation of the Constitution, without being a "villain." Is this really where policitical discussion has fallen to now? Those who disagree with you are villains?

Were that still true, Frazz. Sadly, it isn't. We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.

**Frazzled**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Hardly. I really wish people would quit with the insanely stupid moral relativism. It shows utter ignorance of things like facts and history.

If it went the other way
*current issue - At worst you'd have to get married in a different state. Las Vegas here you come!

*Dred Scott - they can whip you and your family to death because they're bored today.
Except the state you live in doesn't recognize your marriage and prohibits you from the full rights of a married person... As was the case in my home state.

Is it as bad as owning people as property? Of course not, but it doesn't matter because some still don't have the freedom of you and I, which isn't just in our society.

On a related note, a friend of mine here in Virginia just got married this morning and it was spectacular.

See, now thats reasoned argument, and you'llget no disagreement from me. What kind of cake? Was it good? Can you air mail me some?

Being Episcopal means I can have church approved cake from any type of wedding.

**MrDwhitey**

Well, people did hold the point of view that blacks are property. You've got that going for you.

**Frazzled**

cincydooley wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

1. People can have differing points of view, especially on the interepretation of the Constitution, without being a "villain." Is this really where policitical discussion has fallen to now? Those who disagree with you are villains?

Were that still true, Frazz. Sadly, it isn't. We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.

Two internetz for using "zeitgeist" in a post.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrDwhitey wrote:
Well, people did hold the point of view that blacks are property. You've got that going for you.

Its like your posts are getting less coherent as the day wears on. You're not deep into a bottle are you? If so, what kind? Sauza tequila is great for margaritas.

**Co'tor Shas**

Does SNL even have a side? They pretty much attack everybody.

**cincydooley**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Does SNL even have a side? They pretty much attack everybody.

Seriously?

**MrDwhitey**

Frazzled wrote:

Its like your posts are getting less coherent as the day wears on. You're not deep into a bottle are you? If so, what kind? Sauza tequila is great for margaritas.

You're my mentor.

On the subject of alcohol, I hate the taste so I typically drink things not considered "manly", like strawberry daiquiris.

**cincydooley**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Its like your posts are getting less coherent as the day wears on. You're not deep into a bottle are you? If so, what kind? Sauza tequila is great for margaritas.

You're my mentor.

On the subject of alcohol, I hate the taste so I typically drink things not considered "manly", like strawberry daiquiris.

Yikes, not only is it not manly, it's also bartender inconsiderate.

But to be fair, I think that about any drink that requires using the blender.