26 ms·

For me and a lot of friends and family, marriage equality. Yay. "It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must b

by mkr-hn 11y ago

For me and a lot of friends and family, marriage equality. Yay. "It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality . . . Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry." (page 22, from the coverage on SCOTUSBlog) For others, the opinion also reasserted that people who are really mad about this can continue to be mad and vocal about it, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate." (page ~32) The full majority opinion [PDF]: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

hackuser 11y ago
> opinion also reasserted that people who are really mad about this can continue to be mad and vocal about it, as guaranteed by the First Amendment Was this a question? I don't think I've heard anyone ever say otherwise. I'll add though, that people long have cloaked oppression in religion. People justified (and still justify) slavery, segregation, and oppression of women under the guise of religion, for example. Some might have been sincere (not that it justifies oppressing others), but for some the 'ultimate' authority of their God is an effective defense against any mortal criticism. EDIT: To be clear, this is not a problem with religion in particular. I'm only discussing religion because that's the issue on the table. Thanks to chrisguilbeau for pointing that out; I agree with his comment below.
- mkr-hn 11y ago
  There's been a dull hum of religious conservatives worrying about consequences like this ever since the 2013 ruling.
- pjc50 11y ago
  There are quite a lot of people who argued that changing the definition of marriage was an infringement of their religious rights. I've never been clear on how that was supposed to happen but maybe you can dig it out of the oral arguments.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    But did anyone argue that they couldn't express their views?
  - samch 11y ago
    Unfortunately, in NC, we have a law on the books allowing magistrates to refuse to perform marriages that would not be consistent with the magistrate's personal religious views. It's insane, I know. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/us/north-carolina-allows-officials-to-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/us/north-carolina-allows-o...
  - benjohnson 11y ago
    I am one of those religious types - if I may give you me reasoning or at least my ideas: The immediate difficulty comes when we as religious citizens have trouble with separating what is civilly permissible with what is a religious ideal. Long term, religious people are worried that our institution and faith will not be allowed to continue if a super-majority deems us unworthy - as we have seen through history. As for me I'm not terribly upset at all as over my short life I should be infinitely more worried about my sacramental relationship with my wife than what others claim marriage should look like. I would also point out from a religious standpoint that some people have found solace today actually points to the reality of how wonderful sacramental marriage truly is.
    - 11y ago
raldi 11y ago
I think Kennedy knew this was going to be read by far more laypersons than a typical opinion, and wrote it accordingly. It reads like a FAQ, going through all the common objections and concerns one by one and addressing them in order.
quizotic 11y ago
I'm glad that my LBG friends can now marry anywhere. But damn, Scalia's counter opinion (and Roberts' opinion) strike me as well-considered and well-argued in the 2nd half of http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf . In brief, their view was that resolving this issue in the courts erodes the democratic process. Can anybody counter Scalia, and say why the issue of gay marriage couldn't wait to be resolved by the states? Why is this class of license inequity different than other classes, where the states' right to license something is not resolved by SCOTUS?
- gibsonje 11y ago
  This is a case of states violating the constitution of the united states. It's a pretty clear violation of equal protection. It's not up to the states to decide this. Rights of a minority should not be left to the democratic process.
  - elmin 11y ago
    If that's how the equal protection clause works, why was it necessary to pass the Civil Rights Act as a law or Woman's Sufferage as an amendment? Based on the state of civil rights at the time, it's clear that the founding fathers did not intend the constitution to provide universal equality for all peoples. I agree with this decision, but not because I think it's justifiable under the constitution. I see it as acceptable because I believe one of the unspoken roles of the Supreme Court is to be a group of 9 people who are a bit more wise than the average American.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      > the founding fathers did not intend the constitution to provide universal equality for all peoples In fact, they agreed that some people should be slaves to others and only landholding white males should vote. But the founding fathers intentions are not decisive or necessarily even important (and relying on grasping their intentions is, as I understand it, is not a legal principle but just one philosophy of many). To emphasize the difference in perspectives: This is not a religion; the Founding Fathers are not gods, and they did not hand down scripture to us. They were the citizens of their day, they did what they did (I think they did very well), and we are the citizens of our day, to do what we think best. That's the essence of democracy; the Constitution and country are now ours, not the property or responsibility of 18th century or 19th century or any other ancestors; they belong to the people, to make of it what we will. If you think about it, it's a very conservative and pessmistic idea to say we must appeal to these ancient authorities to decide things for us, that we can't do it ourselves just as well (and if you read about the people and politics of that era, you will see they were no different than us). A more optimistic and I think democratic point of view is to say (it's a well-known idea but I don't know who I'm quoting ...), "We are the ones we've been waiting for'.
ctdonath 11y ago
So what happens to clergy who refuse to perform such "weddings" on religious grounds? All major religions have at least a majority, if not uniform, disapproval of "marrying" any other than man & woman. We already have cases of punishing & re-educating bakers for adhering to their religious views on the subject, how much more so those who may face compulsion to perform a union they cannot religiously condone? ETA: to wit, how to reconcile the court's ruling with the court's claim none will be compelled to facilitate such unions against their faith?
- clavalle 11y ago
  Luckily their participation is not necessary.
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    The question isn't about whether they're necessary, the question is what happens to someone whose services are solicited and they refuse.
    - dsr_ 11y ago
      Absolutely nothing. The government can't coerce religions to perform ceremonies. The right to marriage is not a religious right, it is a civil right, and will be provided by civil authorities. For example, in Massachusetts anyone can become a marriage officiant by applying to the governor. There's a form; permission is always granted. As a result, I have performed two marriages. The better question is, what happens to a civil official who declares that it is against their religion to perform their civil duty?
    - jcater 11y ago
      My old church refused to marry anyone who was previously divorced. Clergy have a lot of leeway in who they can refuse. No one is forcing them to do anything.
    - clavalle 11y ago
      Oh, I see. You are conflating a 'religious service provider' with, say, a business who bakes cakes. Religious institutions are not considered public accommodations so they are not required to offer their services without discrimination to protected classes.
intopieces 11y ago
The four dissenting opinions in this case are interesting. They deal mainly with the fact that, strictly, such pronouncements are not within the authority of the Supreme Court. They are correct, in a sense. But by that logic, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. V. U.S. (1964) should not be; by that logic, we should have waited for America to realize, of its own volition in 50 states, that allowing a business to deny a black man a hotel room is fundamentally wrong. But for the group wronged -- consider the same-sex couples facing the death of a spouse, the endless and expensive legal hurdles, or the millions of black Americans who couldn't sit at a lunch counter -- waiting for all 50 states to come to the right conclusion is cruel. No, the court has a moral obligation, where it can, to stand up for the people for whom justice for all would come too late. It's certainly not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. But the Founders were not infallible, were not seers of the future; it is just as incongruous to hold them responsible for their failures as it is to hold us responsible for our failures we have not yet realized.

by mkr-hn 11y ago

hackuser 11y ago

> opinion also reasserted that people who are really mad about this can continue to be mad and vocal about it, as guaranteed by the First Amendment Was this a question? I don't think I've heard anyone ever say otherwise. I'll add though, that people long have cloaked oppression in religion. People justified (and still justify) slavery, segregation, and oppression of women under the guise of religion, for example. Some might have been sincere (not that it justifies oppressing others), but for some the 'ultimate' authority of their God is an effective defense against any mortal criticism. EDIT: To be clear, this is not a problem with religion in particular. I'm only discussing religion because that's the issue on the table. Thanks to chrisguilbeau for pointing that out; I agree with his comment below.

mkr-hn 11y ago
There's been a dull hum of religious conservatives worrying about consequences like this ever since the 2013 ruling.
pjc50 11y ago
There are quite a lot of people who argued that changing the definition of marriage was an infringement of their religious rights. I've never been clear on how that was supposed to happen but maybe you can dig it out of the oral arguments.
- hackuser 11y ago
  But did anyone argue that they couldn't express their views?
- samch 11y ago
  Unfortunately, in NC, we have a law on the books allowing magistrates to refuse to perform marriages that would not be consistent with the magistrate's personal religious views. It's insane, I know. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/us/north-carolina-allows-officials-to-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/us/north-carolina-allows-o...
- benjohnson 11y ago
  I am one of those religious types - if I may give you me reasoning or at least my ideas: The immediate difficulty comes when we as religious citizens have trouble with separating what is civilly permissible with what is a religious ideal. Long term, religious people are worried that our institution and faith will not be allowed to continue if a super-majority deems us unworthy - as we have seen through history. As for me I'm not terribly upset at all as over my short life I should be infinitely more worried about my sacramental relationship with my wife than what others claim marriage should look like. I would also point out from a religious standpoint that some people have found solace today actually points to the reality of how wonderful sacramental marriage truly is.
  - 11y ago

raldi 11y ago

I think Kennedy knew this was going to be read by far more laypersons than a typical opinion, and wrote it accordingly. It reads like a FAQ, going through all the common objections and concerns one by one and addressing them in order.

quizotic 11y ago

I'm glad that my LBG friends can now marry anywhere. But damn, Scalia's counter opinion (and Roberts' opinion) strike me as well-considered and well-argued in the 2nd half of http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf . In brief, their view was that resolving this issue in the courts erodes the democratic process. Can anybody counter Scalia, and say why the issue of gay marriage couldn't wait to be resolved by the states? Why is this class of license inequity different than other classes, where the states' right to license something is not resolved by SCOTUS?

gibsonje 11y ago
This is a case of states violating the constitution of the united states. It's a pretty clear violation of equal protection. It's not up to the states to decide this. Rights of a minority should not be left to the democratic process.
- elmin 11y ago
  If that's how the equal protection clause works, why was it necessary to pass the Civil Rights Act as a law or Woman's Sufferage as an amendment? Based on the state of civil rights at the time, it's clear that the founding fathers did not intend the constitution to provide universal equality for all peoples. I agree with this decision, but not because I think it's justifiable under the constitution. I see it as acceptable because I believe one of the unspoken roles of the Supreme Court is to be a group of 9 people who are a bit more wise than the average American.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > the founding fathers did not intend the constitution to provide universal equality for all peoples In fact, they agreed that some people should be slaves to others and only landholding white males should vote. But the founding fathers intentions are not decisive or necessarily even important (and relying on grasping their intentions is, as I understand it, is not a legal principle but just one philosophy of many). To emphasize the difference in perspectives: This is not a religion; the Founding Fathers are not gods, and they did not hand down scripture to us. They were the citizens of their day, they did what they did (I think they did very well), and we are the citizens of our day, to do what we think best. That's the essence of democracy; the Constitution and country are now ours, not the property or responsibility of 18th century or 19th century or any other ancestors; they belong to the people, to make of it what we will. If you think about it, it's a very conservative and pessmistic idea to say we must appeal to these ancient authorities to decide things for us, that we can't do it ourselves just as well (and if you read about the people and politics of that era, you will see they were no different than us). A more optimistic and I think democratic point of view is to say (it's a well-known idea but I don't know who I'm quoting ...), "We are the ones we've been waiting for'.

ctdonath 11y ago

So what happens to clergy who refuse to perform such "weddings" on religious grounds? All major religions have at least a majority, if not uniform, disapproval of "marrying" any other than man & woman. We already have cases of punishing & re-educating bakers for adhering to their religious views on the subject, how much more so those who may face compulsion to perform a union they cannot religiously condone? ETA: to wit, how to reconcile the court's ruling with the court's claim none will be compelled to facilitate such unions against their faith?

clavalle 11y ago
Luckily their participation is not necessary.
- ctdonath 11y ago
  The question isn't about whether they're necessary, the question is what happens to someone whose services are solicited and they refuse.
  - dsr_ 11y ago
    Absolutely nothing. The government can't coerce religions to perform ceremonies. The right to marriage is not a religious right, it is a civil right, and will be provided by civil authorities. For example, in Massachusetts anyone can become a marriage officiant by applying to the governor. There's a form; permission is always granted. As a result, I have performed two marriages. The better question is, what happens to a civil official who declares that it is against their religion to perform their civil duty?
  - jcater 11y ago
    My old church refused to marry anyone who was previously divorced. Clergy have a lot of leeway in who they can refuse. No one is forcing them to do anything.
  - clavalle 11y ago
    Oh, I see. You are conflating a 'religious service provider' with, say, a business who bakes cakes. Religious institutions are not considered public accommodations so they are not required to offer their services without discrimination to protected classes.

intopieces 11y ago

The four dissenting opinions in this case are interesting. They deal mainly with the fact that, strictly, such pronouncements are not within the authority of the Supreme Court. They are correct, in a sense. But by that logic, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. V. U.S. (1964) should not be; by that logic, we should have waited for America to realize, of its own volition in 50 states, that allowing a business to deny a black man a hotel room is fundamentally wrong. But for the group wronged -- consider the same-sex couples facing the death of a spouse, the endless and expensive legal hurdles, or the millions of black Americans who couldn't sit at a lunch counter -- waiting for all 50 states to come to the right conclusion is cruel. No, the court has a moral obligation, where it can, to stand up for the people for whom justice for all would come too late. It's certainly not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. But the Founders were not infallible, were not seers of the future; it is just as incongruous to hold them responsible for their failures as it is to hold us responsible for our failures we have not yet realized.