Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Arwon, Jun 26, 2015.
5-4 decision by SCOTUS holding that the 14th amendment requires marriage between same sex couples.
Yay for equal marriage!
Thomas's dissent is sooooooooooo bad:
Congratulations to the couples who will now be able to marry if they want to.
And no, American society is not going to disintegrate, heterosexual married couples' wedding documents and photos and videos will not spontaneously combust, and their children's birth certificates will not suddenly become invalid.
Yeah, wow. Is that really what he wrote? It's not from The Onion or something? I haven't looked at any of the opinions yet. That's just stunning.
Anyway, congrats to those who can now properly live their lives with their loved ones. For those of us who merely want to live in a United States that lives up to its ideals, a toast.
From what I can tell on looking up the dictionary definition of the term, at least some forms of defined "dignity" can be taken away, and have been historically.
iirc, "human dignity" is one of the values protected by some European constitutions. Germany's, I think, but maybe others too. I've long thought that if I could write my own US Constitution, I would steal that (along with some other things, like Turkey's constitutional secularism).
So.. does this really mean that same sex marriage is now legal in all American states? Or do the states now have to alter their constitutions or laws first?
Yeah it's incredibly bitter and mean.
Scalia's is good too:
Yeah HIPPIES, jeeze!
Also his marriage must suck.
Ten years almost to the day behind Canada, but it's never too late to do good
Fox News is hilarious. One guy says the Court has never before decided a marriage case. Got Loving v. Virginia shoved back in his face.
[fornicate] dood pride is going to be cray this weekend
Marriage has changed from a religious, social institution to a legal one. When we tie so many legal rights to being married like custody of children, spousal benefits, tax benefits, power of attorney, then I agree it is unconstitutional to deny those rights to other couples. I don't really get why it would be an attack on religion either, to me it seems like more religious freedom, separating the legal distinction from the religious distinction with regard to marriage.
I morally object to it but I morally object to tons of things that people still have legal rights to do if they want to. This isn't the middle east where stuff like adultery becomes an illegal crime. Governments shouldn't mandate moral issues aside from basic rights like don't kill people.
There other case decided today was a big one on criminal law - Scalia pushing a liberal issue.
Residual clause struck down today.
Yes, and yes. Some may have to make some changes to their laws, and there's no telling how long that might take, or whether they'll cooperate. When the Supreme Court ordered public schools desegregated, the Governor of Arkansas refused and President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to enforce the order.
I just read that, too. It's nice that a Supreme Court Justice can be flippant and cynical in writing a decision that may be read and referenced for generations.
Scalia and Roberts don't seem to agree (with me and others) that human rights are not in fact subject to the democratic process. That was John Stuart Mill's tyranny of the majority: "There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism."
Link to video.
Separate names with a comma.