Same sex marriages can also resume in California.
The cases weren’t decided on gay rights but rather on equal justice under the law. There are only 1000 different benefits that go hand and hand with marriage.
The Supreme Court also decided that no one is harmed from same sex marriage.
Clarifications are on the way.
It is an historic day, for sure. Lawrence v. Texas was only decided ten years ago. Amazing.
Roberts On Proposition 8
Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion on Proposition 8, said referring to the previous federal appeals court decision on the case, “We have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the 9th Circuit.”
On DOMA:
(Washingtonpost.com)
Kennedy was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Justice Antonin Scalia read a lengthy and scathing dissent from the bench, saying the court should have let the matter for Congress to settle and unfairly labeled proponents of traditional marriage as bigots.
This is good for equal rights.
Why is the federal government involved with marriage anyway? Perhaps its those “benefits” that need to be reexamined.
Because as a couple, many of us have benefits such as tax rates for couples. If military, spousal benefits. If on social security, there are marriage benefits.
I think it is totally absurd that in one country, marriage laws are at the state level. There should be one set of laws and the states may be charged with regulating said laws. Right now there is a patchwork of laws regarding marriage. (and divorce)
Totally aburd. This isn’t like the old days. We can travel the country at speeds around 600 miles per hour. In my lifetime, in some states couples could not be married because of race. Loving v. Virginia did away with that absurdity.
Cargo, I am not a big states rights person. My people fought for states rights some 150 years ago. They lost. I am not still waving the bloody shirt over it.
There seems to be some tension within the set of people who criticized the DOMA decision for ignoring the will of Congress and (the same people) who praised the Shelby County (voting rights) decision for setting aside the will of Congress.
Cognitive dissonance?
What I love is that the very politicians that praised and voted for DOMA are criticizing it.
No principles.
You know why it was passed in the first place….
Seriously you don’t think this was what Clinton wanted, do you?
@Moon-howler
Clintons want what benefits THEM.
Yes..I know why it was passed. I was ambivalent. The fed’ gov’t has no place in marriage.
But the hypocrisy is rampant.
Now the real fun begins.
Now the polygamists will start agitating.
They have been agitating since about ….1890 when it was outlawed so Utah could enter the Union as a state.
I think it is fair to say that most people want what benefits them, including you and me.
I would go so far as to say that the state has no business in marriage. I think the state ought to stick to civil unions and let churches handle marriage. Having said that, I think that civil union requirements ought to be uniform throught the United States.
I doubt that will happen. I just think if you can marry in one state it ought to be the same in all states.
Cargo, what is to keep Mississippi from outlawing marriage between blacks and whites? Why is same sex any different than miscegenation? I still see it as a civil rights issue. As long as we are dealing with humans, people ought to be able to marry who they want.
Having said that, I think that civil union requirements ought to be uniform throughout the United States.
Well, if DOMA had stood…it would have. 😉
Actually, they weren’t. DOMA didn’t say that couples couldn’t marry if the state allowed it.
@Moon-howler
Okay.
And when….. not if…but when…the group marriages, or other outre adult joinings, apply for legal recognition…what should be done?
In my opinion? Right now, we are one spouse at a time. That is the uniform law. I know of no group that gets to have more than one.
Polygamists pretty much do what they want to do now. The first wife is usually a state sanctified marriage. Subsequent marriages are eclesiastial.
It won’t be a civil rights issue since no group gets to have more than one spouse.
Just out of curiosity, why do you care about polygamy? They are all going to shack up together anyway, what difference does it make. It cuts a bunch of women out of social security benefits when the old geezer croaks. Should have thought of that before agreeing to be wife number 2-??
Polygamy in the United States is strictly a religious thing 99 times out of 100. Why should we support something that is purely religious?
Let them keep doing their thing as long as it is consenting adults. I just don’t give a rat’s ass.
Unless and until marriage stops creating a “qualification” status for benefits, there will be debate. It sounds like that criteria has come to an end and I am glad. Listen, if Scalia and all the other anti gay people are squamish about gay sex, i.e. sodomy, then insist on marriage, we all know what happens when people get married.
There are ever so many jokes out there….oh…never mind…
@Moon-howler
I don’t really care who shacks up with whom. I’m predicting that the legal contortions will be epic.
As for the one spouse at a time…. we also has one man and one woman at a time. That too wasn’t supposed to be a problem…everyone had the right to marry an adult of the opposite sex.
We now have NO arbitrary limit to marriage. Muslims have more than one wife. Now they can legally be married by the government and an imam. They WILL be suing. Or the threesome in Los Angeles because they want benefits for their menage.
Ought to be interesting. I wonder what happens when divorce happens when one person divorces a couple or a group? And how will Tenants by the entirety work with three or more?
Just for the sake of argument–if you accept the biblical admonition against homosexuality and we claim we are a “Christian Nation”, can we continue to call ourselves a “Christian Nation”? Or, what about those religions, Islam being a good example, that believe homosexuality and adultery are crimes punishable by death. Can the members of those religions who reside in this country kill homosexuals and adulterers if they are told to do so by the imam or other religious leader?
@Moon-howler
Actually, you’re right.
What am I right about? Should I savor those words?
@George S. Harris
For the sake of argument…if we are a “Christian nation,” Christ didn’t say anything about homosexuality. He proposed a new covenant.
And no…. the muslims can’t kill them. Murder would still be against the law….nor are we under sharia.
@Cargosquid
Oh yes they can:
Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.” – Abu Dawud 38:4447
I don’t know that Christ said anything but:
The Bible doesn’t speak of homosexuality very often, but when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let’s take a look.
Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
Lev. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them”
1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”
I am trying to figure out where this is all going.
It was also a sin to eat pork and lobster and to drag a chair across the floor on the Sabbath.
b
George makes an excellent case for why we can’t be a “Christian nation” any more than we can be a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation or a Buddhist nation. We are a nation of man-made laws and government. We may be inspired by religious beliefs, but we can never allow religious doctrine of any stripe to dictate our laws or shape our government.
We are a nation of free people who govern themselves, not zealots who blindly adhere to commands from books written centuries ago. We are not a Christian nation, we are a nation of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Agnostics, Atheists, Pagans, Hindus, etc. Our country was founded to get away from a country that had a state religion- history shows us time and time again that only bad things happen when religion and government is mixed.
Standing ovation for middleman.
@middleman
I agree with you.
I was pointing out that the concerns he had didn’t get addressed in the “Christian” part of the bible. Nor could Muslims kill anyone because we are not under sharia. The secular laws must still be followed.