Supreme Court [declines to hear] same sex marriage cases.[plus further developments (Ed.)]

[Hamlet]

@Bone

While I didn’t like the ACA decision, this one, though not masterfully written, was a good outcome. If I could only pick one of these cases to go the way I chose, I would choose this one.

Begin countdown to “anyone who disagree with me only care about results and not reasoned legal analysis” comment in 5 … 4 … 3 …

[Lightnin]

Man, this is not a good week to be a social conservative, is it?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Hamlet

"By the majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition have acted to “lock . . . out,” “disparage,” “disrespect and subordinate,” and inflict “[d]ignitary wounds” upon their gay and lesbian neighbors. These apparent assaults on the character of fairminded people will have an effect, in society and in court.” From Roberts

and

“It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

" I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools." From Alito.

I really do not understand any of this line of thinking.

1. There is not something magical about a legislature passing a law or citizens voting for something that takes it out of the reach of the courts. Not even in principle. Not even in some idyllic notion.

Our government is setup with checks and balances. It is absolutely the place of the court to overrule laws that do not conform to the over-arching rules in the constitution. They do it all the freaking time and have since near the founding of the country. It is in their job descriptions.

2. How do people not “assent to the new orthodoxy”? If you do not want to marry a person of the same sex then don’t. No biggie. No one cares.

Comparing this to the laws that denied equal treatment is entirely appropriate. The parallels are manifest. I note he does not make an argument here. He just makes an assertion and nothing more.

3. And what is it with having to “whisper” in the privacy of your home about this? The ruling does not invoke any thought police. If society itself takes a dim view of it then that is doing what societies do. Same as overt racism being frowned on or overt fat shaming or what have you. That said there are some out spoken racists and fat shamers and what not so it is obviously not against the law and I have NO doubt there will be plenty of outspoken critics of gay marriage for years to come and they won’t be shy about it.

[Sam_Lowry]

@hajario

I read somewhere that the States in the 6th Circuit will have to issue licenses immediately. This is OH, KY, MI and TN. The other states where it is illegal could take time. They can start immediately or they can wait for a court challenge based on today’s decision to overturn the ban. It could be days or weeks for some hold outs.

From an article I found, apparently the Texas Attorney General said this the other day:

In a statement issued before the Supreme Court ruling Attorney General Ken Paxton said, in part, “I would recommend that all County Clerks and Justices of the Peace wait for direction and clarity from this office about the meaning of the Court’s opinion and the rights of Texans under the law.”

But there are people willing to overlook that:

Despite the ‘recommendation’ officials in Dallas County say they’re ready. If the court makes same-sex marriage lawful the Dallas County Clerk’s Office says they’re prepared to start issuing licenses within a few hours. They say they’re also prepared to extend hours of operation, allow overtime and bring in more workers to help with the number of requests if necessary. There will also be judges will be available to marry couples.

So it sounds like maybe those in big cities might be able to get licenses easily, but those in smaller towns might have trouble, or might need to travel to big cities.

@running_coach

The Clown Car Channel (Presidential candidates)weighs in.

Bush’s response sounds almost reasonable. He’s not happy, but it sounds like he can live with it. Huckabee’s response is over the top to say the least:

"The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”

I don’t understand what he and others say when they say that they will resist. Do they mean they’ll resist the siren call of getting gay married? Or that they’ll refuse to officiate gay marriages?

There was one Texas pastor who said a few days ago something about how he’d set himself on fire if gay marriage was passed. I really want to know what his response is.

[Hamlet]

@Lightnin

Man, this is not a good week to be a social conservative, is it?

It is if you’re a socially conservative politician. Decisions like this, and the subsequent backlash from the base, will make fundraising for the upcoming election cycle a breeze.

[Fear_Itself]

I’m watching Fox News for the first time in a long time, just to savor the despair.

[BobLibDem]

In public, they’re wailing and gnashing their teeth. In private, they’re elated. It will motivate their base like no tomorrow. Funds will come pouring in. On the ACA, they can piss and moan, knowing they don’t have to come up with any actual alternative. On gay rights, they can campaign on replacing Ginsberg.

[Hamlet]

@Whack-a-Mole

2. How do people not “assent to the new orthodoxy”? If you do not want to marry a person of the same sex then don’t. No biggie. No one cares.

The particular bogeyman that I think the dissents are worried about, is likely in the realm of public accommodation, where they fear this ruling will lead to forcing people who dislike homosexuals to have to do stuff, like allow them in their B&B or performing marriages, or treating them like human beings, that would somehow violate their religious belief that they should be assholes to sinners (but only this particular sin, of course).

[wonky]

Amusingly, lots of freepers seem unable to distinguish between the SSM case and the Obamacare case and are blaming…

John Roberts for the SSM case.

[Gyrate]

Thus tweeteth Bryan Fischer:

@American Family Association asshole

From a moral standpoint, 6/26 is now our 9/11.

Nice one, Bry.

[Duckster]

@ivylass

A tiny part of me is gleefully wondering how the Phelps clan is taking this.

@Sam_Lowry

Yeah, I really want to know how all the anti-gay marriage people are taking this. I’m at work right now, I wish I was home and I could turn on Fox News and see what they’re doing.

I did check on Twitter and Texas governor Greg Abbott said something about how he would continue to fight. I don’t know what that means, if a gay couple registered for a marriage license today if they’d get it or not. I imagine that some of the politicians in other states are thinking the same thing, I’d like to know what will happen.

@VinylTurnip

Rectally, is my sincere wish.

The real question is, will this Pastor make good on his statement he will self immolate if gay marriage becomes the law of the land? If he doesn’t, how will he reconcile that lying is breaking a Commandment.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Hamlet

The particular bogeyman that I think the dissents are worried about, is likely in the realm of public accommodation, where they fear this ruling will lead to forcing people who dislike homosexuals to have to do stuff, like allow them in their B&B or performing marriages, or treating them like human beings, that would somehow violate their religious belief that they should be assholes to sinners (but only this particular sin, of course).

Ah…I see.

And to Alito yeah…it does. Same as racists cannot deny service on the basis of skin color. Deal with it.

[Dinsdale]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The most bizarre part of the dissent:

Fingers crossed that this presages Salia’s imminent retirement to open the was for a non eastern Ivy-league justice…

Couple of months ago Atlantic had an article on the present court being less diverse than ever before. Not only all eastern educated, but also all lawyers. Suggested would be of use to have someone with some legislative/executive experience. But good luck getting anyone other than a sitting judge w/ top law school credentials past the Senate.

With all the unpleasant news, these 2 decisions back to back really confirm that some important things are trending in the correct direction. As dysfunctional as the legislature is, I hope folk appreciate the importance of electing a democrat president next year.

Wonder how long it will be before we see any social legislation as significant as the ACA. As horribly flawed as that piece of legislation is, at least it is a step in the right direction towards single-payer.

[Meltdown]

Lindsey Graham, from the Fox News link above:

As president, I would staunchly defend religious liberty in this nation and would devote the necessary federal resources to the protection of all Americans from any effort to hinder the free and full exercise of their rights.

Were it not for the word “religious” in the above statement, I could read that as him being happy with the SCOTUS decision.

[DigitalC]

@Lightnin

Man, this is not a good week to be a social conservative, is it?

Is it ever?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Dinsdale

Fingers crossed that this presages Salia’s imminent retirement to open the was for a non eastern Ivy-league justice…

I’m available, if anyone’s wondering.

[RickJay]

@BobLibDem

In public, they’re wailing and gnashing their teeth. In private, they’re elated. It will motivate their base like no tomorrow. Funds will come pouring in. On the ACA, they can piss and moan, knowing they don’t have to come up with any actual alternative. On gay rights, they can campaign on replacing Ginsberg.

The problem with this theory is that the case was heard just a bit too early. If this happened in June of 2016, it’d be a huge boost to getting out the fundamentalist vote because the outrage would still be fresh come November. A year and a half before the election, though, is a long time to hold on to outrage over what is, to all its opponents, an abstract issue that can only be fought (campaign-wise) indirectly.

The Republican candidate who clearly gets it is Jeb Bush, whose statement nominally opposes the ruling but then weasels away from it by saying, in effect, “oh well.”

After 2016, the value of the ruling will fall away to zero within five to ten years. The result of this will be grudging acceptance and, eventually, marriage equality as political orthodoxy.

[BobLibDem]

@RickJay

The problem with this theory is that the case was heard just a bit too early. If this happened in June of 2016, it’d be a huge boost to getting out the fundamentalist vote because the outrage would still be fresh come November. A year and a half before the election, though, is a long time to hold on to outrage over what is, to all its opponents, an abstract issue that can only be fought (campaign-wise) indirectly.

The Republican candidate who clearly gets it is Jeb Bush, whose statement nominally opposes the ruling but then weasels away from it by saying, in effect, “oh well.”

After 2016, the value of the ruling will fall away to zero within five to ten years. The result of this will be grudging acceptance and, eventually, marriage equality as political orthodoxy.

You have a valid point, but look how long they have milked their outrage over the ACA. To be sure, if this ruling came down next year, it would be a major campaign issue. It won’t be quite as huge next year, particularly if people don’t turn into pillars of salt when they turn back to look at their God-forsaken cities, but this will indeed motivate the right wing voters even a year from now. On the other hand, they never miss a vote anyway.

What I find puzzling is why so many Americans base their votes for the legislative and executive branches on social issues decided by the judiciary, and often vote against their economic self-interest to do so.

[wolfpup]

@Lightnin

Man, this is not a good week to be a social conservative, is it?

Not a problem. All those state laws banning SSM may no longer be valid. And when they doubled-down by passing state constitutional amendments against it, OK, that’s gone too. But praise the Lord, they can’t force any God-fearing baker to serve them wedding cake!

And there are still loopholes that freedom-loving patriots can use to achieve the libertarian dream of not having any health care.

There’s still hope, folks!

[ShadowFacts]

Stolen from my Facebook feed, too good not to share:

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the tears of Antonin Scalia.”