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

[RickJay]

@BobLibDem

You have a valid point, but look how long they have milked their outrage over the ACA.

As the joke on “Between Two Ferns” went, it might not have been a great idea to have the ACA website done by the guy who developed the Zune.

The difference between this an ACA is

1. The ACA is not an abstraction to its opponents; to many of them it affects their health care. Even if the affect is positive, neutral or only mildly negative, they see it.

Gay marriage is almost completely abstract to those who aren’t in one. Speaking as a person who lives in a place it was recently legalized, and where there was a lot of opposition to it, what happens is that the issue dies quickly because the opponents of it don’t continue to actively perceive it. Frothing-at-the-mouth Christian fundamentalists aren’t being invited to same sex weddings. Their congregations have no “out” gay people, or if they do they’re quickly expelled and disowned. It’s hard to be opposed to something that just happens when you’re not looking and isn’t even in the news anymore.

2. The implementation of ACA went on and on and on and was plagued with problems. Which you’d have to expect, given the titanic size of the program; you’d have trouble even explaining what the ACA bill does in less than a hundred words.

This, by comparison, is a fait accompli. There is no massive program to roll out. Gay marriages were mostly not legal yesterday, and now they’re legal. There’s nothing more to do. The issue is as dead as Julius Caesar. There is no realistic path to making gay marriage illegal in the United States again.

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Because people sometimes value a social issue over a matter of economic policy.

[ElvisL1ves]

I really *enjoyed *being straight-married for all those years. It’s a real shame the nancyboys had to go and ruin it.

No, my marriage just became stronger and more meaningful, because the institution itself is now stronger and more meaningful. We are all better off today.

For your reading enjoyment, an exegesis of how Scalia is even more unhinged than he appears.

“‘The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality,’” he quoted from the majority opinion before adding, “Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.”

Hey, 'luc? You there?

The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

“And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation,” he writes. “But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@Chronos

This won’t be a big issue, come election time. Not only is there a long enough time for people to forget about this case, but it’s a long enough time for people to see the effects directly. It’s long been noted that support for marriage equality has accelerated considerably over the past few years (i.e., the trendline for support is not linear), and I believe that this is mostly because people have seen others actually getting married without disastrous results, and realized that outside of the bedroom, gays are basically just like straights. Now, with SSM legally recognized across the nation, those living examples are not just going to be a few states over, or a friend-of-a-friend, but in every neighborhood. Opposition still won’t vanish entirely, of course, but it will dwindle to the point that it won’t turn elections, not even within the Republican party.

I agree. That’s what’s been happening here in Minnesota. Our Legislature passed & the Governor signed a marriage equality law (41 years after our Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Platform endorsed it, back in 1972). Most rural areas opposed this, and Republicans used this (and poor turnout) to win elections in 2014, but the opposition is moderating.

This is largely the effect of knowing GLBT people – friends & family – who are getting married. After years of abuse, many GLBT people (and their parents) are making sure all their relatives are invited to the wedding. Once you’ve been to the wedding of a nephew, and seen that’s it’s just like any other wedding, and that he’s marrying a good Catholic boy with a job, etc. it’s much harder to be extremely anti-gay marriage. You might still say you’re opposed, but you won’t work very hard at it.

[Richard_Parker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

So presumably we are going to invade a country that allows civil unions.

Heh.

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

@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.

That’s what I think too. Particularly when plagues of locusts fail to appear. At (from the Republicans’ perspective) best, it will deprive the Democrats of a couple of issues they can use to drive turnout.

@oft_wears_hats

I also won’t be surprised if some of the more conservative states try to drag their feet or weasel out of it any way they can. It’s my understanding that this decision technically invalidates the SSM bans that are still on the books, but I’m sure some states will have “staffing” and “resource” problems or possibly even try to pass laws that sneak around the decision in some way.

I see from Facebook that Williamson County, Texas, is having such problems already.

[ElvisL1ves]

There’s still some mop-up action ahead.

In Alabama, Elmore County Probate Judge John Enslen, one of the most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage, has said he would rather go to jail than allow gay couples to marry in his county.
…
No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage," Abbott said in a statement.
…
Jindal called marriage an institution between a man and a woman. “And no earthly court can alter that,” he said.

[Miller]

@ElvisL1ves

For your reading enjoyment, an exegesis of how Scalia is even more unhinged than he appears.

“‘The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality,’” he quoted from the majority opinion before adding, "Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.

Hey, 'luc? You there?

For their coverage of Scalia’s dissent, Huffington Post actually went and asked a hippie about it:

HuffPost went to look for the first hippie we could find, per Scalia’s instructions. Neil Cousins, a 61-year-old man from Alexandria protesting nuclear weapons outside the White House, said he had come to this very park in the 1970s for pot smoke-ins, but added that there really haven’t been hippies around since the Grateful Dead stopped touring. He was nonetheless willing to offer a judgment on Scalia’s assertion that marriage abridges rather than expands intimacy. “I’ve known it to have both reactions,” he ruled. “Scalia is a big knucklehead.”

[jshore]

From Thomas’s dissent:

The suggestion of petitioners and their amici that antimiscegenation laws are akin to laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman is both offensive and inaccurate. “America’s earliest laws against interracial sex and marriage were spawned by slavery.” P. Pascoe, What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America 19 (2009). For instance, Maryland’s 1664 law prohibiting marriages between ” ‘freeborne English women’ ” and ” ‘Negro Sla[v]es’ ” was passed as part of the very act that authorized lifelong in the colony. … Laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman do not share this sordid history.

Following this to its logical conclusion, is the only reason that antimiscegenation laws are unconstitutional is because of the history of slavery…and otherwise they would be A-okay?

[Boyo_Jim]

Ok, I have questions. Aside from a bunch of tax and property issues, are there other advantages a gay person may gain by having a legally recognized marriage?

For instance, is there a state somewhere that prohibits discrimination against married couples versus singles? I recall hearing about a number of real estate developments a while back that were marketed as for young singles, and there were no doubt legal challenges to them. But I never heard about any outcomes.

So maybe somewhere a state passed a law to prevent that. If that happened, would a gay couple get some perks out of that law?

[elucidator]

@ElvisL1ves

…Hey, 'luc? You there?

More likely to get a marriage proposal from Rachel Maddow than an request for advice from Antonin Scalia.

What I’m wondering about right at this moment is why this thread is bumped every few minutes while the one about the ACA droops. Don’t know what that means, or even if it means anything at all.

[oft_wears_hats]

@Boyo_Jim

Ok, I have questions. Aside from a bunch of tax and property issues, are there other advantages a gay person may gain by having a legally recognized marriage?

For instance, is there a state somewhere that prohibits discrimination against married couples versus singles? I recall hearing about a number of real estate developments a while back that were marketed as for young singles, and there were no doubt legal challenges to them. But I never heard about any outcomes.

So maybe somewhere a state passed a law to prevent that. If that happened, would a gay couple get some perks out of that law?

There are tons of benefits from marriage, many of which are difficult or impossible to replicate otherwise. Hospital visitation and inheritance just to name two. Unmarried people can often have difficulty seeing their partner in the hospital if they are critically injured, because they are not considered family. The same goes for end-of-life decisions in the absence of a living will, inheritance, etc. Also, I’m pretty sure a person isn’t legally obligated to incriminate their spouse. I don’t know for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if unmarried couples also were discriminated against by adoption agencies.

Yes, some of these issues can be circumvented with living wills, regular wills, power of attorney, etc. But only some of them, and marriage bestows them all in one fell swoop.

So yeah, legally recognized marriage is a huge deal.

[jshore]

@Boyo_Jim

Ok, I have questions. Aside from a bunch of tax and property issues, are there other advantages a gay person may gain by having a legally recognized marriage?

Well, there are things like visitation rights in hospitals and (I think) having the authority to act as a health care proxy for a spouse. I think there are also issues involving parental rights, i.e., spouses having the full parental rights over a spouse’s child.

[RickJay]

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves;18471361No, my marriage just became stronger and more meaningful, because the institution itself is now stronger and more meaningful. We are all better off today.[/QUOTE]

There is also a strong economic argument in terms of the social good of gay marriage. There’s reams and reams (ha) of studies showing marriage is economically beneficial; married people are more economically productive, less reliant on government programs, less prone to fiscal catastrophe and bankruptcy, and of course this simplifies the law and therefore a lot of administrative costs.

Really, you can make a very strong conservative case for gay marriage; it is economically beneficial, increases legal equality, reduces government interference in the affairs of citizens, and increases emphasis on the family. Whatever spin people want to put on it, all opposition to gay marriage is essentially religious.

[oft_wears_hats]

@RickJay

There is also a strong economic argument in terms of the social good of gay marriage. There’s reams and reams (ha) of studies showing marriage is economically beneficial; married people are more economically productive, less reliant on government programs, less prone to fiscal catastrophe and bankruptcy, and of course this simplifies the law and therefore a lot of administrative costs.

Really, you can make a very strong conservative case for gay marriage; it is economically beneficial, increases legal equality, reduces government interference in the affairs of citizens, and increases emphasis on the family. Whatever spin people want to put on it, all opposition to gay marriage is essentially religious.

Bolding mine.

Not sure that’s a selling point these days. While I know many conservatives who truly do want to reduce all government meddling, the party line seems to be “meddle in the affairs of people who aren’t me, but keep the government out of my business.”

[ElvisL1ves]

@elucidator

What I’m wondering about right at this moment is why this thread is bumped every few minutes while the one about the ACA droops.

ACA was so yesterday.

[Procrustus]

@elucidator

What I’m wondering about right at this moment is why this thread is bumped every few minutes while the one about the ACA droops. Don’t know what that means, or even if it means anything at all.

I’m pleasantly surprised that no one on this Board seems upset with the decision. Although we’re a pretty smart group, I expected *some *dissent.

[RagingxMarmoset]

What are the potential consequences for jurisdictions or even individuals who refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples? Is it an issue that each state will have to handle individually? What happens if a state refuses to issues licenses?

[Little_Pig]

@Fear_Itself

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

Yes, schadenfreude.

[running_coach]

@Procrustus

I’m pleasantly surprised that no one on this Board seems upset with the decision. Although we’re a pretty smart group, I expected *some *dissent.

I think our more virulent conservatives are in hiding.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Procrustus

I’m pleasantly surprised that no one on this Board seems upset with the decision. Although we’re a pretty smart group, I expected *some *dissent.

I’ve noticed that for the last year or so, the conservative attitude on the dope has been a pretty constant “I don’t have any problems with gay marriage myself, I’m just concerned about the legal ramifications, that’s all, I swear.”