The country changed today

[Crackpot]

same sex marriage legal in all 50 states.

[Big RR]

For those interested, the NPR site has the opinions.

[BoSoxGal]

Yay! Although the country has been changing now quite rapidly for years . . . SCOTUS just made it official and caught up the narrow-minded idiots in intolerant states' governments with the will of the peeps.

Yay! Love wins!!

[Long Run]

SCOTUS just made it official and caught up the narrow-minded idiots in intolerant states' governments with the will of the peeps.

Um, exactly backwards . . . this decision overturns the will of the people in those states that did not enact SSM. I'm happy about the result, but the process is the definition of undemocratic.

[BoSoxGal]

And if you understand anything about our nation of laws, you understand that the will of the majority cannot stand if that will is in violation of the sacred liberties of individuals. So we did away with slavery, with anti-miscegenation laws, with laws against sodomy, with laws restricting the rights of women and black citizens to vote, with laws against a woman's right to control her own medical decisions with only the advice of her physician, etc.

Now we do away with the hateful bigoted laws that prevented gay people from marrying.


Here's George Takei's post about what it was like opening Facebook this morning:

[Big RR]

BSG--agreed

LR--did you have the same reaction n Loving v Virginia, prohibiting laws against interracial marriage (in the late 60s)? After alll, that also overturned the will of people in the states that had such laws. Sometimes you have to allow personal rights to trump the will of the majority; either that or you will remain subject to the tyranny of the majority.

[Econoline]

YES!!!!

[Econoline]

[Long Run]

LR--did you have the same reaction n Loving v Virginia, prohibiting laws against interracial marriage (in the late 60s)? After alll, that also overturned the will of people in the states that had such laws. Sometimes you have to allow personal rights to trump the will of the majority; either that or you will remain subject to the tyranny of the majority.

You mean do I have the same reaction -- I'm not so old that I had any contemporaneous memory of Loving (great name for the case, btw). Loving is the right result because the 14th Amendment was adopted for the specific purpose of preventing racial discrimination, of which inter-racial marriage is a clear example. That is why it was a unanimous court decision. The majority in today's opinion had no such clear intent on which to base its decision to overturn a law that has been accepted and unchallenged for centuries.

[Long Run]

And if you understand anything about our nation of laws,

You are the one who said this decision was the "will of the peeps", which, of course, is incorrect. It is the will of the majority of the court. If things had played out legislatively, the majority of voters in most states would make it the "will of the peeps" (and I would be one of them). They/we had that opportunity taken away from them/us.

Your examples are completely inapt (e.g., slavery -- this was ended by our bloodiest war after the court upheld the lawfulness of slavery; anti-miscegenation laws and laws restricting the rights of women and black citizens to vote were prohibited by specific amendments that required the approval of the states). But enjoy the day, the end result is a good one.

[Lord Jim]

This has been a consistent rhetorical feature of the pro-gay marriage side of the debate since this began in earnest with the Massachusetts court decision back in 2003...

Whenever they feel they have popular support behind them, we hear about "the will of the peeps"...

When they don't, we hear about "Constitutional rights not being subject to popular opinion" and comparisons to Jim Crow and prohibitions against interracial marriage...(Which as LR points out are fallacious comparisons from a Constitutional perspective)...

The fact is, until this ruling today, of the 30 states where gay marriage was legal, only a relative handful achieved that legality through "the will of the peeps"...(ie by the elected representatives, or by popular referendum)

The rest of those states had gay marriage imposed on them by federal or state judges or courts, usually in direct contravention of the expressed "will of the peeps"....(California being one of those states.)

So on this issue, it would seem that the "will of the peeps" only matters if it supports the desired result; otherwise it's of no consequence....

One can certainly make the case for legalizing gay marriage on a number of grounds, but when one wants to trumpet "the will of the peeps" when they see popular support as being on their side, but declare it as irrelevant when it isn't , it causes me to ...

[Big RR]

Jim Crow and prohibitions against interracial marriage...(Which as LR points out are fallacious comparisons from a Constitutional perspective)...

Not really, anti-miscegenation was pretty much universally accepted after the civil war and the passage of the 14th amendment; even many ardent abolitionists did not accept mixing the races (and Loving was not decided until the 1960s). And Jim Crow was the will of the people of many states and upheld by the USSC until Brown in the 1950s. The 14th amendment was not passed to end these ills, nor did the people or the courts see it that way; hell we had segregated armed forces until WW2.

[Econoline]

One can certainly make the case for legalizing gay marriage on a number of grounds, but when one wants to trumpet "the will of the peeps" when they see popular support as being on their side, but declare it as irrelevant when it isn't , it causes me to ...

Jim - Personally, I've never been one to make that argument...and I totally agree with what you just wrote.

[Long Run]

The 14th amendment was not passed to end these ills

But it was. It was passed to end government approved and sanctioned racial discrimination. What is considered racially discriminatory, in practice, evolved over time. No serious jurist is a "strict constructionist" and says a general principle of constitutional law -- ending racial discrimination -- can only extend to what was contemplated at the time the amendment was adopted. Every judge accepts that the general principle of ending racial discrimination is applied to the facts and reality that exist at the time they decide a case. This is why all the cases you note were decided unanimously, and 60-70 years later you would have a hard time finding any current judge who would take issue with them. The case decided today is based on an extension of an extension of a general principle and violates another general principle that the state governments have domain over certain topics such as marriage. That is why there is such a split of thinking on this, the line of reasoning is very different.

[Gob]

[RayThom]

Today's ruling made it clear, human rights equality in all things. The way it should be.

We all need someone to lean on -- or not. This includes the right to be miserable in marriage regardless of the gender component. I've always been fine with this as long as I don't dwell too much on the "mechanics" involved in these LGBT relationships... but why should I? I'll get over it.

God bless America!

[BoSoxGal]

The will of the people isn't always what is pursued by legislators following the ALEC agenda. Duh.

And in any case, the will of the people IS the Constitution. Duh.

Gallup poll showing American support for gay marriage in ALL 50 states:

[Lord Jim]

The will of the people isn't always what is pursued by legislators

If the people are unhappy with the policy decisions of the legislators, they can always vote them out and replace them.

How does that work with federal judges?

And in any case, the will of the people IS the Constitution. Duh.

Dave says the same thing...

What people mean when the say "follow the Constitution" is "follow what I say it means"...Duh.

Whether that person is on the left or the right...

[BoSoxGal]

I'm sorry you're unhappy LJ.

But they times they are a'changin, and they'll be changing a lot more before you die - if you're lucky and stay healthy and eat your veggies like Lady Kelly asks you to.

I'd recommend accepting that the meek and brown are going to be running this country more and more with every passing year . . . especially considering the platform positions and public statements of your party's candidates, I don't think I'll live to ever see another from your party in the driver's seat.

[liberty]

. I've always been fine with this as long as I don't dwell too much on the "mechanics" involved in these LGBT relationships... but why should I?
!

Well, that can be fixed with an enema and a lot of lubricate.

For the record, this doesn’t bother me; my only concern was that I considered marriage licenses a state issue. I have known homosexuals: I had a co worker that was killed by his lover; I understand his body was found a suggestive position with evidence to suggest what had been happening. Evidently,To some people one can have a greater organism if one partner is dying in the process. I had a friend that I believe was homosexual; it was not something that we talked about. And, my brother-in-law was homosexual and he liked talk about it a lot; some times at inappropriate times, like when he was visiting and we had company. We were well informed. But their homosexuality didn’t bother me.