What more can be said? what have we not said yet? There are very few issues that are this clear cut, almost nothing in this world is black and white but THIS is. There is a right and good side and an evil and ignorant side, everyone has talked it to death and chosen their side long ago.
There’s been plenty of discussion and trying to understand. But to answer your general question, it’s not that society has changed, or at least not for the worse. I mean, nobody on the streets of Birmingham in 1963 would think online snark was a sad commentary on society. It’s just that people are far more comfortable being jerks on the Internet.
Antonin Scalia? There’s a difference?
I think it started in 1992, when Bill Clinton won. It was such a shock to conservatives, it spawned Rush, Fox News and all the right wing radio morons that kept up a steady drumbeat, starting with Hillarycare, Vince Foster, Whitewater and culminating with Monica Lewinsky. By the time Bush 43 was elected, the left had enough, and unleashed holy hell back at them. It’s been getting more polarized ever since.
That’s probably it. Meaningful discussions over wine or coffee can’t be easily distilled into a quick post on a message board or a tweet.
Put another way, the reassuring sales pitch for Obamacare happens to be true this time. “If you like your marriage,” I can say, “you can keep it.”
The proper response to an Internet Flounce-off has always been, “Don’t let the door hit you …”. Dramallamas who are having a melt down at the sight of a rainbow are exactly the sort of people who should be pointed toward the nearest exit.
Yeah, I don’t get why anyone should’ve begged those people to stay. What good would it have done, except giving those people exactly what they wanted?
Further to this, a question for the lawyers present: will state officials who try to block same-sex marriages be liable for financial penalties under 42 U.S.C. § 1983? It would seem that marriage for same-sex couples is now a “right[…] secured by the Constitution and laws”.
I could see that happening if they still issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples. But some counties in Alabama just don’t issue marriage licenses any more. To get married, you must leave, period. I doubt there’s a constitutional right to be able to get a marriage license in a particular arbitrarily-created county.
Although I’d think that inconveniencing everybody over what will quickly become old news will become politically untenable.
And some have said that they’ll issue the licenses, but won’t perform marriages. I have no desire to force religious leaders to perform weddings if they don’t want to, but I don’t see that public officials have that option.
Yesterday’s decision is also a victory for the ACA, because it’s suddenly out of the spotlight for those who wish to repeal it.
I think.
It’ll be interesting to see which issue is more important - which one the GOP uses to rally the troops more next year.
That would depend on whether Alabama law gives those officials the duty to perform weddings. Maybe it’s just a thing they’re allowed to do if they wish and have the free time (I think this is how it works in Ohio). If that’s the case, and they’re not discriminating against same-sex couples, I’m not sure what else could be done other than ask the state to change the law. I doubt federal courts would find a federal constitutional right for the residents of each arbitrary county to be provided with a public official to perform marriages locally.
Why ARE issuing a marriage license and “performing a wedding” considered two distinct activities, from the standpoint of the officiant? ISTM that officiating/performing a wedding is at least roughly analogous to notarizing a contract and registering it as legally in force (although now would probably be a good time to ask if that’s a thing).
That’s an interesting question, actually… I mean, we have to live in a country with these people. Much as it’s satisfying to give them a good “we told you so”, “suck it”, “don’t let the door hit you…”, etc., that might just increase the level of misunderstanding and hostility in the world.
This is really more of a General Question thing, but I was curious…
How does this ruling affect employee benefits? I can imagine that an employer that offered domestic partner health coverage would be able to streamline their offerings now, but what about places that didn’t have anything like that? Are they now legally required to offer spousal health insurance to same-sex couples since their marriages are now recognized in state and federal law?
What about states that still legally allow discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation? Could people suddenly find themselves fired for getting married and filing a new W-4 with their employer to reflect their new status?
And they have to live in a country with us. Why is it our obligation to stuff all the rainbows back under cover? Gay marriage is legal. No one is turning into a pillar of salt. How long are we supposed to go on pretending that the conservatives have a rational argument, here?
If a bunch of conservatives flee a website because it posts a rainbow image, how does that warrant anything more than a classic, “Stop. Don’t. Come back.”
Tell you what, when they start being nice to Muslims who disagree with them, those of us who support treating others like human beings will start being nice to them. Until then, fuck 'em.
I trimmed the Syllabus down - ellipses indicate where text was removed.
OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
(Abridged by nachtmusick)
When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.
Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples…
The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy…
A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence 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….The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples…
Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order….It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage….The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.
OPINIONS:
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined.
Those tax and property issues are not trivial in themselves (not that you said they were).
I recommend reading Dan Savage’s I Can Die Now column, written upon the overturning of DOMA, for a view on how bad things things could be for gay couples.