U.S. Supreme Court upholds right to Marry in all 50 States

[Danmark]

The United States Supreme Court today held: same-sex couples
may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all 50 States.
".... No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
and family. In forming a marital union, two people become
something greater than once they were. As some of
the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death. It
would misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned
to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s
oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the
eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Question for debate: Is this decision, and its rationale, consistent with the teachings of Jesus to be loving, faithful, understanding, and tolerant?

[Danmark]

Rationale:
"A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that
the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent
in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection
between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated
interracial marriage bans under the Due Process
Clause. ....
A second principle ... is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.
....
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it
safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning
from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.
....
Fourth and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s
traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our
social order. Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this truth
on his travels through the United States almost two centuries
ago:
“There is certainly no country in the world where the
tie of marriage is so much respected as in America . . .
[W]hen the American retires from the turmoil of public
life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image
of order and of peace . . . . [H]e afterwards carries
[that image] with him into public affairs.� 1 Democracy
in America 309 (H. Reeve transl., rev. ed. 1990).
In Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211 (1888), the Court
echoed de Tocqueville, explaining that marriage is “the
foundation of the family and of society, without which
there would be neither civilization nor progress.� Marriage,
the Maynard Court said, has long been “‘a great
public institution, giving character to our whole civil
polity.’� Id., at 213. This idea has been reiterated even as
the institution has evolved in substantial ways over time,
superseding rules related to parental consent, gender, and
race once thought by many to be essential. See generally
N. Cott, Public Vows. Marriage remains a building block
of our national community...."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14 ... 6_3204.pdf

[Haven]

!!

Yes, it is! Unfortunately, the fundamentalists won't see it that way--they'll point to some passage in Leviticus or Romans and talk about "abominations." Maybe this ruling will help them move a bit further toward love, especially when they see that the sky doesn't fall.

[SailingCyclops]

Question for debate: Is this decision, and its rationale, consistent with the teachings of Jesus to be loving, faithful, understanding, and tolerant?

That depends on who you believe Jesus was, or even if he was. If, like some here who believe that Jesus is one and the same with the homophobic and intolerant Old Testament god, then the answer is no. These folks will still feel justified with their homophobia and intolerance. I suspect this will be the majority stance among those who identify as fundamentalist christians (a dying breed?)

I must congratulate these intolerant, homophobic, christians however. It was their discrimination, their railing, their intolerance and hate against gay people, their attempted meddling with our secular legal system to promote their religious views which forced this landmark decision (it's called blow-back). Congratulations to you all! You did a fine job here. I look forward to the next victory for tolerance, human rights, and freedom for ALL.

Long live our secular country!

[sf]

Rationale:
...
Fourth and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s
traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our
social order. Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this truth
on his travels through the United States almost two centuries
ago:
“There is certainly no country in the world where the
tie of marriage is so much respected as in America . . .
[W]hen the American retires from the turmoil of public
life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image
of order and of peace . . . . [H]e afterwards carries
[that image] with him into public affairs.� 1 Democracy
in America 309 (H. Reeve transl., rev. ed. 1990).

In that same publication, he wrote about the type of marriage he is speaking of in America:

Christian morality common to all sects—Influence of religion upon the manners of the Americans—Respect for the marriage tie—In what manner religion confines the imagination of the Americans within certain limits, and checks the passion of innovation—Opinion of the Americans on the political utility of religion—Their exertions to extend and secure its predominance.

I have just shown what the direct influence of religion upon politics is in the United States, but its indirect influence appears to me to be still more considerable, and it never instructs the Americans more fully in the art of being free than when it says nothing of freedom.

The sects which exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due from man to his Creator, but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all the sects preach the same moral law in the name of God. If it be of the highest importance to man, as an individual, that his religion should be true, the case of society is not the same. Society has no future life to hope for or to fear; and provided the citizens profess a religion, the peculiar tenets of that religion are of very little importance to its interests. Moreover, almost all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same.

Title: Democracy In America, Volume 1 (of 2)
Author: Alexis de Toqueville
Translator: Henry Reeve

From: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/815/815-h/815-h.htm

Can we say quote mining?

[sf]

I must congratulate these intolerant, homophobic, christians however. It was their discrimination, their railing, their intolerance and hate against gay people, their attempted meddling with our secular legal system to promote their religious views which forced this landmark decision (it's called blow-back).

From the court's dissenting opinion:

When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate. In addition, they can gear up to raise the issue later, hoping to persuade enough on the winning side to think again. “That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.� Post, at 2–3 (SCALIA, J., dissenting).

But today the Court puts a stop to all that. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide. As a thoughtful commentator observed about another issue, “The political process was moving . . . , not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.� Ginsburg, Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade, 63 N. C. L. Rev. 375, 385–386 (1985) (footnote omitted). Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.

Federal courts are blunt instruments Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.

(emphasis mine)

[Danmark]

I must congratulate these intolerant, homophobic, christians however. It was their discrimination, their railing, their intolerance and hate against gay people, their attempted meddling with our secular legal system to promote their religious views which forced this landmark decision (it's called blow-back).

From the court's dissenting opinion:

When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate. In addition, they can gear up to raise the issue later, hoping to persuade enough on the winning side to think again. “That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.� Post, at 2–3 (SCALIA, J., dissenting).

But today the Court puts a stop to all that. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide. As a thoughtful commentator observed about another issue, “The political process was moving . . . , not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.� Ginsburg, Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade, 63 N. C. L. Rev. 375, 385–386 (1985) (footnote omitted). Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.

Federal courts are blunt instruments Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.

(emphasis mine)

Actually there are two dissents and both are reasoned very poorly, their central argument suggests there should be no Supreme Court or that 5-4 decisions don't count. Essentially he argues that the Court should not have interfered with State laws against interracial marriage either, since his argument is that these things are up to the States, thereby ignoring the 14th Amendment as well as basic human decency. Then Scalia goes on to complain that the right to intimacy and spirituality are not freedoms. He wrote, "Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms?" He then becomes completely unhinged, suggesting "hippies" be consulted. He also ignores the meaning of the many other Supreme Court cases that uphold the right to privacy.

[bluethread]

He also ignores the meaning of the many other Supreme Court cases that uphold the right to privacy.

This is not a privacy case, is it? Isn't it a public recognition case? It does not appear to be granting a right to a particular private activity, but an obligation for the government to publicly recognize that activity and positively sanction it.

[WinePusher]

Question for debate: Is this decision, and its rationale, consistent with the teachings of Jesus to be loving, faithful, understanding, and tolerant?

The legal question being posed to the court, dealing specifically with the 14th amendment, was whether or not there are any compelling reasons to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Other than the 'my religious beliefs state that marriage is only between one man and one woman' reason there were really no compelling reasons offered in favor of the states gay marriage ban. As a result, the equal protection clause obviously applies to gay couples in this case. So the rationale of the majority decision, which was thankfully expressed by Kennedy and not one of the other four liberal partisans, makes sense in this case.

It's good to finally see at least one of the majority rulings from this court being supported by logical, coherent rationalizations UNLIKE the illogical, incoherent, confused Obamacare rulings delivered by Roberts. I was surprised that John Roberts wasn't apart of the majority in the Obergefell case, guess we can conclude that he's socially conservative but fiscally liberal.

[WinePusher]

From the court's dissenting opinion:

When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate. In addition, they can gear up to raise the issue later, hoping to persuade enough on the winning side to think again. “That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.� Post, at 2–3 (SCALIA, J., dissenting).

But today the Court puts a stop to all that. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide. As a thoughtful commentator observed about another issue, “The political process was moving . . . , not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.� Ginsburg, Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade, 63 N. C. L. Rev. 375, 385–386 (1985) (footnote omitted). Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.

I have heard Scalia make these remarks numerous times and he's generally correct, but not in this case. Obviously laws should be made through the legislature and not the judiciary. But in this case the state of Ohio already had a law in effect that disallowed homosexual marriage. The state legislature had already prohibited same sex marriage, and Obergefell challenged the law in the courts. This is exactly how the judiciary is supposed to function (to interpret already existing laws) so Scalia's opinion makes no sense.

Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.

I think everybody, including Scalia, needs to remember that one person's freedom ends where another's begins. Faithful, religious people have every right to disavow homosexuality and homosexual marriage. But trying to prohibit them from marrying based on nothing more than personal religious beliefs is not acceptable.