SCOTUS 5-4

[Chris James]

Gay marriage has been approved in all 50 states...can't you hear the howl of defeat from the right wing conservatives?

Some politicians have promised to ignore the ruling and so the drama is not over. I will enjoy reading the hate mail heaped on the Supremes this weekend.

[dude]

yes!

[Cole Parker]

It was the 14th Amendment that turned the tide. I thought it would be. Hard to get around that.

I'm surprised it was a 5-4 vote. I thought it would be 6-3.

The politicians can say they'll not respect or heed the new ruling. Alabama under George Wallace said the same thing. Then the national guard showed up and he caved. These guys will too, faced with penalties for disobedience.

It's a grand new day in the U.S.

C

[Nigel Gordon]

Congratulations.

[Bruin Fisher]

May I echo Nigel's congratulations! Hooray today is a great day.

[Chris James]

The dissent within the SCOTUS over this decision may echo in the halls of justice for some time to come. You have only to look at the dissenting opinions to see that. This what Anton Scalia had to say:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/scalia-gay-marriage-decision-shows-court-is-americas-ruler/ar-AAcaHNF?ocid=LENDHP

This is a man whose religious beliefs make him a bad judge of anything that comes before the Supremes. Personally, if he is so upset then he ought to resign and do us all a favor, but his ego won't allow that. He seems to buy into the extreme Christian belief that marriage is something created by God only for men who marry women. I bet if I went over to his house and turned on the television it would be tuned to Fox News.

Among the many articles I have read in recent weeks, judges like Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas seem to broadcast their dislike for the gay community. Both opined that this decision would hurt true religious believers, mimicking the sentiments of all the GOP presidential contenders...what gall. Don't they know there is nothing at all about marriage in the Constitution.

So for the four dissenters in the case they have no recourse to the Constitution to support their objections, this is all new ground and I think these people are afraid of decisions that challenge the current religious bias. Some on the right are screaming that this violates the most important part of the First Amendment which they see as religious rights. I see freedom of speech as far more important.

Governor Abbott in Texas is so concerned that Christian churches will be forced to hold gay weddings that he is issuing executive orders to prevent it ...what an ass. All these so called Christian concerns are devoid of truth. Would anyone in the gay community want to get married by a bigot? I think not. I feel very sorry for gay Christians because churches and politicians are standing between them and their beliefs.

[Pedro]

While I agree the decision is to be welcomed, and I don't like 'raining on your parade', but I think a note of caution is required.

There is a Presidential election coming up and if a Republican wins, I suspect it is likely the GOP will control Congress as well. If one of the Assenting Judges has to stand down through death or other cause, there is the opportunity for another dissenting voice to be appointed and the case reopened and the judgement overturned.

Please tell me I have misunderstood how the SCOTUS works..... Please.

[Graeme]

Pedro, you're correct, but overturning a ruling doesn't happen easily or frequently. There's a general principle that once a matter has been decided, it will remain decided. There are exceptions, but they're not common and the court generally moves cautiously when it comes to overruling previous decisions. There's a legal term for this, stari decisis, which essentially means 'Let the decision stand'.

Interestingly, I noticed that after the dissent that Chief Justice Roberts read from the bench, he finished with an invitation for the gay and lesbian couples to celebrate, but he believed that the decision wasn't founded in the constitution.

[Pedro]

Thanks Graeme.

if overturning is unlikely in accordance with 'stari decisis', could it be undermined, eg by bringing an analogous case? (I'm not sure that is quite the word I want)

[Cole Parker]

It is unlikely to be reversed. The SCOTUS is supposed to act on only constitutional issues. There's nothing in the constitution about marriage rights. But there is an equal rights amendment, and if there are rights for citizens who are married that are different from those who are not, then the need to allow people to marry to secure equal rights is apparent.

The basis of this ruling could be weakened if no civil rights obtained to the married status. Take away tax breaks and hospital visitation rights and the like and this probably wouldn't have been successful, in my opinion.

Scalia has made some ridiculous remarks that show his vote had nothing to do with the constitution. He said the people who decided this issue weren't representative of the the nation's population. What nonsense! The court isn't supposed to look at what the people want or don't want, only the constitutional relevancy. Besides which, 60% of our citizens support gay marriage.

I agree. It's time for him to pack it in. And to take Clarence Thomas with him!

C

[Graeme]

Pedro, the possibility is certainly there for it to be undermined, but I'm not sure how that would work. For example, Roe vs Ward introduced a national right for abortion, but there's been a steady erosion of that right as constraints and restrictions have been imposed. How they can do that with Same-Sex marriage, I don't know, but it's something to keep an eye on.

Cole, the Supreme Court speaks on Constitutional matters and interpretation of national laws. The recent Hobby case that gave a 'religious right' to closely held corporations was based off national laws, not the constitution. As such, it could be reversed by Congress because they have the power to change the laws on which that decision was made.

This decisoin, however, was made purely on constitutional grounds, and as such the only way it could be reversed/altered is via either a constitutional amendment or by another decision of the Supreme Court.

[Chris James]

And in the ignorance is bliss department, some people who think they should be President haven't a clue just how the laws of the nation are applied. Bobby Jindal, who doesn't want to be known as Indian-American anymore and has pissed off most of his family in India, says a lower court must rule before the current SCOTUS ruling will stand in his state. This guy isn't as bright as Forest Gump.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/bobby_jindal_administration_sa_1.html

Lawsuits to follow and have already been filed.

[bi_janus]

A remarkable day that I didn't think I would live to see and another step in a long process. At the risk of raining on the parade, gay marriage wasn't made lawful nationwide; same-sex marriage was. Many people who identify as bisexual, not gay, are in same sex relationships, and their right to marry was affirmed as well as that of their gay brothers and sisters.

[Graeme]

Chris, I could be wrong, but I think he's technically correct. The Supreme Court has instructed the lower courts what to do, but the lower courts are the ones that will put that decision into effect. The decision didn't not mean that same-sex marriage is immediately legal -- it means that the states can't ban it. There will be a delay before the decision takes effect, and part of that decision is waiting for the lower courts to do their thing.

I believe the delay will be measured in days, but, as I understand it, there's still a delay.