In 5-4 decision, Supreme Court legalizes Same-sex Marriage

[mikey]

Great news! Progress is being made finally.

 

[They call me Brandon Lee]

this is great i dont get why it took so fucking long jesus christ this country sucks sometimes

Now if the majority of American homosexuals could stop throwing trans women under the bus while securing their own freedoms, that would be wonderful.

now if the majority of transsexuals could stop throwing biid suffers under the bus while securing their own freedoms, that would be wonderful

lets be real here activists piss on each other all the time, i dont get why this group has to prove that this one doesnt exst or that one isnt legitimate or their just a bunc hof assholes ect. for fucks sake were all in this together may as well actually try to fight for our rights together than to throw shit at each other

seriously i dont fucking get that at all, love is what makes the world go round after all, were all weirdos for some reaosn or another

 

[Sir Codin]

https://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/de...rong-reasons-dissents-wrong-for-worse-reasons

TL;DR version (according to The Skeptical Libertarian:

Spoiler:

Kennedy: "Oh, little of this, little of that... little due process, little fundamental liberty, little equal protection... whatever, let's just let gays get married."

Scalia: "NO RIGHTS FOR ANYONE UNLESS VOTERS SAY SO."

Thomas: "Civil marriage is a benefit, not a natural right, so the Due Process Clause doesn't apply. We ran out of printer toner, so I'm not going to bother addressing the Equal Protection issue."

Roberts: "No gay marriage because Lochner, Lochner, Lochner, Lochner, Lochner, Lochner, Lochner, Lochner, Lochner, Lochner, Lochner, Lochner, Lochner, Lochner, Lochner, Lochner."

 

[Netto Azure]

I am a happy person these past few days.

ACA upheld, and now not having to worry about getting married in the USA. :)

 

[twocows]

I'm hopeful that this will turn out for the best. I'm certainly happy for the people this ruling immediately helps. I agree with the majority opinion but openly acknowledge the concerns of the dissent as valid.

All four of the dissents raise the concern that the Court is overstepping its constitutional authority and circumventing the legislative process, and by extension, the democratic rule of law. That's a valid concern. The majority opinion (section IV, pages 28-32) addresses these concerns directly. I believe the majority response regarding this to be sufficient and correct. I certainly hope that is the case. If not, history may look back on us all as fools for celebrating a decision that ultimately gave the Supreme Court far too much authority. Roberts seemed visibly upset by the ruling and did something he's never done before: read a summary of his dissent aloud after the reading of the majority opinion. I understand why he's upset, and I really hope he's wrong.

 

[Entermaid]

Hopefully people won't see this as the be all and end all for LGBT rights. But as long as Scalia is dying inside, I'm okay.

I was literally going to post this! Similar to Black Civil Rights and Women's Civil Rights, landmark legislation and court decisions are huge wins, but are often referenced when people claim we live in a post-racial or post-sexist society.

Also, I have read concerns about states' rights, supported by voters, being overturned. This is NOT a new precedent!!! Many decisions by the Court have made popular laws unconstitutional based on qualifications, such as equal protection clauses as an extended interpretation of the first amendment. Meaning, voters and law makers may NOT make laws that violate rights afforded in the bill of rights.

An example of this is Brown v Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. For Christ sake, less than 17 percent of Whites approved interracial marriage the very year Loving v. Virginia case overturned state laws which banned interracial marriage. The Court cited first amendment rights.

The Court has an extensive history beyond just two example of overturning popular laws in order to support minority rights. Further, there have been examples of the Court refraining from overturning laws to protect minority rights. This isn't an end all be all case in regards to state's rights, and is one of the most justified examples of extending first amendment rights to overturn state law which violates the individual rights afforded by the Constitution.

This topic is less unique in that support for anti-gay marriage law is around 50%, if not, a slight majority against the anti-gay marriage laws. Doesn't seem so novel in this aspect of the Court expanding its power.

 

[Gardevoir the Dragon Slayer]

Just a thought, but could this ruling actually go into the Republicans favour in 2016, With this and the whole Confederate Flag thing going on, I bet there is a LOT of pissed off Americans out there who considerer thier whole way of life now being under threat.

 

[Her]

Just a thought, but could this ruling actually go into the Republicans favour in 2016, With this and the whole Confederate Flag thing going on, I bet there is a LOT of pissed off Americans out there who considerer thier whole way of life now being under threat.

That's probably a fair thought, as sad as it is that many people consider the Confederate flag an inviolable way of life.

 

[Pepperton]

truly over the moon about this announcement, couldn't be happier. made an annoyingly long day @ the office a bit easier to live with :']

 

[twocows]

I was literally going to post this! Similar to Black Civil Rights and Women's Civil Rights, landmark legislation and court decisions are huge wins, but are often referenced when people claim we live in a post-racial or post-sexist society.

Also, I have read concerns about states' rights, supported by voters, being overturned. This is NOT a new precedent!!! Many decisions by the Court have made popular laws unconstitutional based on qualifications, such as equal protection clauses as an extended interpretation of the first amendment. Meaning, voters and law makers may NOT make laws that violate rights afforded in the bill of rights.

An example of this is Brown v Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. For Christ sake, less than 17 percent of Whites approved interracial marriage the very year Loving v. Virginia case overturned state laws which banned interracial marriage. The Court cited first amendment rights.

The Court has an extensive history beyond just two example of overturning popular laws in order to support minority rights. Further, there have been examples of the Court refraining from overturning laws to protect minority rights. This isn't an end all be all case in regards to state's rights, and is one of the most justified examples of extending first amendment rights to overturn state law which violates the individual rights afforded by the Constitution.

This topic is less unique in that support for anti-gay marriage law is around 50%, if not, a slight majority against the anti-gay marriage laws. Doesn't seem so novel in this aspect of the Court expanding its power.

The dissent isn't arguing that the Court can't make unpopular decisions, it argues that their authority is the authority to judge existing law, not create new law. They argue that what the majority is doing is akin to creating a new law acknowledging the rights of homosexuals, that this is something that should have been handled by the democratic process and not by an unelected, non-representative group of nine lawyers from Harvard and Yale.

The majority rebuts that they are not creating new law, merely interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment in such a way that it affirms existing fundamental rights that haven't been acknowledged.

 

[Her]

now if the majority of transsexuals could stop throwing biid suffers under the bus while securing their own freedoms, that would be wonderful

lets be real here activists piss on each other all the time, i dont get why this group has to prove that this one doesnt exst or that one isnt legitimate or their just a bunc hof assholes ect. for fucks sake were all in this together may as well actually try to fight for our rights together than to throw shit at each other

seriously i dont fucking get that at all, love is what makes the world go round after all, were all weirdos for some reaosn or another

While it is true that activists piss on each other all the time, the modern LGBT movement has pissed on trans women from the very beginning. My point is that the LGBT movement was primarily started by NYC trans women (mainly black & Latino women at that) in order to fight against people murdering them day in/day out and somehow they found themselves driven out of their own movement, left behind while cisgender gay men commandeered their movement in order to break down the one barrier than prevented them from assimilation: same-sex marriage. It's no secret that the LGB community has left the T out of the acronym for decades, spitting on them and leaving them to the wolves while their movement was used to further their own cause.

Although there has been a popular resurgence of trans liberation in the last three or so years, my big fear is that since marriage equality has been achieved in America, the LGBT movement will die down and once again leave behind those who started it in the first place.

 

[Entermaid]

The dissent isn't arguing that the Court can't make unpopular decisions, it argues that their authority is the authority to judge existing law, not create new law. They argue that what the majority is doing is akin to creating a new law acknowledging the rights of homosexuals, that this is something that should have been handled by the democratic process and not by an unelected, non-representative group of nine lawyers from Harvard and Yale.

The majority rebuts that they are not creating new law, merely interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment in such a way that it affirms existing fundamental rights that haven't been acknowledged.

I never made the argument that "The dissent isn't arguing that the Court can't make unpopular decisions."

I am referring back to the comments made about the "democratic process" and state's having the right to create laws for themselves. This is not novel in this respect. Many cases deem state laws as unconstitutional when they overreach their authority. "Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make." When a state makes a law without authority and justification of benefit to the state, which impedes upon the 1st amendment rights, incorporated through the 14th amendment, that law and other laws like it are deemed unconstitutional.


Lawrence v. Texas
This law struck down texas anti-sodomy, anti-gay sex, laws.

Scalia dissent: Making an argument for "democratic process" and not "creating new law". When do you think this law would be overturned in Texas by the way? lmao

So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal.
"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." The majority's "invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right'", he wrote, showed it was "impatient of democratic change".

The Court makes these decisions since the state has no right to make laws that do affect individuals unless there is rational basis to protect other individual's interests. How does two consenting people having sex in private affect other people? It doesn't. The Court has indirectly been getting rid of stipulations that breach civil liberties through the the 14th amendment which incorporates the 1st amendment to state's ability to infrige upon rights for over a century.

The reason I discuss popular vote is that citizens and representatives sometimes will support laws which breach individuals' rights without justification.
For instance when interracial marriage law banned marriage between black and white persons and the Court found this unconstitutional. The court, by stipulating that states do NOT have the right to create marriage laws preventing two individuals of different racial backgrounds to marry has indirectly legalized the marriage of black and white unions. Otherwise, as demostrated by the lack of public support, interracial marriage would not be legalized through democratic processes. Especially if we consider southern states which still concerns this issues as controversial. States MUST accommodate these unions by the ruling of the case. This is called case law.

This form of case law is so not novel it's almost funny people are just now making it seem as if it is novel in this respect particularly b/c of the "gay" subject matter? Then, I can only provide conjecture, but selectively speaking out against the 14th amendment's application in this instance seems highly suspect of bias and not applicable to other cases. It's been done before, time and time and time and time again. Scalia has made this argument in many cases, as have others, but agree with loving v. virginia. It's a bias of the content or issue involved.

Chief Justice Warren: Loving vs Virginia. (1967)

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Sound familiar????

Again....the "gay marriage case" is sooooo not novel in this respect, this is one of literally hundreds of examples many came before and after the loving v virginia case (1967). The equal protection clause legalizes behaviors of individuals which were not previously legal and increases rights of individuals vis-a-vis state legislatures and majority opinions.

 

[twocows]

I never made the argument that "The dissent isn't arguing that the Court can't make unpopular decisions."

I am referring back to the comments made about the "democratic process" and state's having the right to create laws for themselves. This is not novel in this respect. Many cases deem state laws as unconstitutional when they overreach their authority. "Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make." When a state makes a law without authority and justification of benefit to the state, which impedes upon the 1st amendment rights, incorporated through the 14th amendment, that law and other laws like it are deemed unconstitutional.

And again, that's not what they're arguing. They're arguing that what the Court is doing is CREATING law. Nobody in the Court thinks they're not allowed to judge and strike down invalid laws, what the dissent takes issue with is the notion that they can essentially create new law. The majority spoke to this, and I agree with it, but you're essentially presenting a straw man argument; nobody in the dissent ever suggested they don't have the right to strike down invalid laws.

 

[Entermaid]

And again, that's not what they're arguing. They're arguing that what the Court is doing is CREATING law. Nobody in the Court thinks they're not allowed to judge and strike down invalid laws, what the dissent takes issue with is the notion that they can essentially create new law. The majority spoke to this, and I agree with it, but you're essentially presenting a straw man argument; nobody in the dissent ever suggested they don't have the right to strike down invalid laws.

Um, I wrote extensively of other cases in which the Court creates law.

Nowhere does the Constitutions say marriage is a right to all regardless of race. The Court included this right to marriage, regardless of race, as legally binding through case law, which supersedes state law via the supremacy clause. Thereby the Court is creating law through Loving v. Virginia. I have already said this! But again, to be clear, in the past, LAW, specifically, case law has been established, which is legally binding and a non-democratic process. This is not novel to this one particular case and has been done literally hundreds of times.

Please do not quote a single paragraph of entire discussion, and cut out the parts where I demonstrate that the Court has made law in the past which supersedes state law, and then assert that I am making a different claim, and calling it a "strawman"...that's pretty ironic since that is exactly what you are doing emphatically since I go on to speak more about how case law is developed through the 14th amendment quite extensively.

Spoiler:

"the "gay marriage case" is sooooo not novel in this respect, this is one of literally hundreds of examples many came before and after the loving v virginia case (1967). The equal protection clause legalizes behaviors of individuals which were not previously legal and increases rights of individuals vis-a-vis state legislatures and majority opinions." In other words creates law, specifically case law.

"The court, by stipulating that states do NOT have the right to create marriage laws preventing two individuals of different racial backgrounds to marry has indirectly legalized the marriage of black and white unions. Otherwise, as demostrated by the lack of public support, interracial marriage would not be legalized through democratic processes. Especially if we consider southern states which still concerns this issues as controversial. States MUST accommodate these unions by the ruling of the case. This is called case law. "

The example I use to show an opinion which creates case law....the bold word are literally stating case law defined by the Court.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination.


"This form of case law is so not novel "

 

[They call me Brandon Lee]

While it is true that activists piss on each other all the time, the modern LGBT movement has pissed on trans women from the very beginning. My point is that the LGBT movement was primarily started by NYC trans women (mainly black & Latino women at that) in order to fight against people murdering them day in/day out and somehow they found themselves driven out of their own movement, left behind while cisgender gay men commandeered their movement in order to break down the one barrier than prevented them from assimilation: same-sex marriage. It's no secret that the LGB community has left the T out of the acronym for decades, spitting on them and leaving them to the wolves while their movement was used to further their own cause.

Although there has been a popular resurgence of trans liberation in the last three or so years, my big fear is that since marriage equality has been achieved in America, the LGBT movement will die down and once again leave behind those who started it in the first place.

dude though

the problem here is that transgender advocates can be complete douchebags themselves. not always but they have a tendency to outperform a lot of other activists in this regard

if you think about it transgender people are really quite different from lgb. lgb are basicaly attracted to a kind of person that isnt the opposite sex. being transgender is an entire identity mismatch. i mean a huge difference is that many transgender people recieve treatment for there problem but lgb doesnt, outside of therapy, because its not actually hurting them from the inside (of course outside of them fighting against the outside world)

theres also what the public sees. the lgb is much easier to swallow because the idea of simply wanting to be with who you love without people destroying your life is something that is fairly easy for most people to understand. gender dysphoria is a completely different beast - its a feeling that most people can never experience because they simply arent transgender. this means that to the public, transgender people are more unusual and difficult to understand - roadblocks for activism.

thus, lgb is already less likely to really accept t to beging with because t is fundementally quite different than lgb. of course that doesnt mean that they dont deserve the rights they need but their issues are quite a different ballgame

this means that much of the lgb is seperate from the T in terms of activism simply because they have different problems. of course that doesnt excuse lgb's anti-T behaviour but thats what happens when everyone is racing to try to get their rights at the same time

however the t themselves arent entirely innocent. the t advocates against claiming that being transgender its disorder, instead prefering to call it "gender dysphoria". while this seems small its odd that anyone who goes to get treament or even get major surgery to be suffering from anything but a disorder. the disorder is that their brain doesnt match their body and you fix that by fixing the body. if anything "gender dysphoria" is a symptom, not a dx.

this is completely pointless, serves only a way to feel more comfortable with the title and not scientific purpose from everything ive seen and actually ends up harming other people

in addition as i pointed out earlier, the t tries to avoid links to other identity disorders, especially biid, presumably because "there too crazy". while i get saying that something like that is crazy, the same thing is said to transgender people by transphobes. for example the transgedder document i linked above featured many arguments that are also made against transgender people by transphobes, while the other post is attempted dissociation. this, along with other factors, has gotten out of control to the point where biid has not even made it into the dsm-v despite several unis studying it while gid is renamed "gender dysphoria" and is avoiding any reference to "disorder". a major problem with biid as well is that patiente will do whatever it takes to get rid of that limb or whatever and many die in the process - blocking off these individuals access to dx could lead to their deaths.

some scientists studying biid think there may truly be a connection - if that makes transgender people related to "freaks", so what, we cant change reality. it is what it is. so if it turns out they work on a similar mechanism, all that destructive attitude would be for nothing and it would just hurt people who have a serious issue. maybe you should try removing the "freak" label from biid patients yourself and maybe we can have the world understand our issues together. but the T is usually not interested

obviously the issue here is that people cant get dx'd they cant get the help they need. if they have some sort of episode due to there disorder there basically fucked, because there probably going to be mis-dx'd with schizophrenia or bpd and possible make the problem worse

now im going to come completely out and say it - i have a form of biid and ive been working with said scientists to try to reverse this trend through promoting research, which is why i know so much about this. seriously research is so scant that they only have data on one kind of the disorder. but seeing posts like i linked on forums, blogs, ect is worrisome. now what strikes me as odd is this - why would these people want to deny something that scientists are investigating? dysphoria in your penis and dysphoria/dysmorphia in your leg or eyes arent exactly completely different. what purpose does it serve to get in the way of pure science that may help us recieve treatment?

this leads to me to my next point, some transgender activists misrepresent the science status of the T or they completely lie about it. i am personally not too familiar with this because i am reading a handful of articles on my shit and there are literally thousands of articles on the T, so i cant keep up with everything. however a friend of mine who has a bachelors in psychology points out that there is still dispute within a respectably large following on whether being transgender is completely neurological. this is often misrepresented by saying that transgender people are "born that way", and people saying that those who dont agree are undermining transgender people but this isnt really a fair way to look at it. it is, for example, entirely possible that transgedner people are cause not just by neurological differences, but a "trigger" that sets it off, as well as positive experiences with the desired form. this is the current theory for biid, and if they are similar this may be a more similar case.

now you may think, "well that gives us justification to deny treatment". except science has shown very clearly that transitioning is the only treatment that seems to do anything to help the patient. forcing a transsexual through therapy would be like giving antibiotics for the flu - its not going to do anything but make the situation worse. just because some idiot wants to believe otherwise doesn't mean that it will fit their will. not to mention that a likely trigger is someone of the opposite sex - this means that transgedner people will very quickly be exposed to that trigger in most situations and develop around it earlier, thus making a time of onset difficult to pinpoint, effectively making it "inborn". so why dispute the possibility?

this is not to mention how some Ts act around people who are cisgender. i have mild autism and it makes it difficult sometimes to get pronouns gender or name right, it happens a lot. yes im definitely not transgender but im also trying my best to respect you, it takes longer and i dont deserve to get screamed at for a mistake that happens to a lot of people, including cisgender people. i understand that being transgender is difficult but this stuff really undermines everything they have ever worked for

this further drives t into the ground. I really dont understand why they continue to allow this sort of stuff, i know its not like, a single leader or anything but its weird to see this behaviour go on like this. of course not all transgender people are like this, there are some amazing transgender people out there, but the people who are shitholes are completely destroying that movement from the ground up

its very hypocritical to cry about others kciking sand in your face and then kick sand in others. not you specifically but the trans community in general. i honestly believe that working together on these issues will help both science and social, but this whiny petty bullshit needs to stop

maybe im looking through a weirdly tinted lens here because of my own issues but this is pretty confusing.

ultimately the t does have to address these issues because lgb, the public, the government ect. will have literally 0 interest in helping people who act like complete fucking idiots and treat others like shit. the lgb does not have this problem at the scale i see it at, there needs to be some regulation.

on lgbt losing momentum, it will of course lose momentum, this is probably one of the most well know of lgbt issues, however the movement will likely still have momentum for the lgb at least because of issues with firing lgbt employees

thanks for the interesting talking points btw kinda weird how i got here from gay marriage but whatev, and sorry if this is a mouthful, ive smoked a bit

 

[Shining Raichu]

I had no idea this was happening so I just woke up and checked Facebook and there it was! I've been waiting for this for so long and I really hoped it would make me feel abundant joy, but it just made me feel like the Supreme Court made this momentous decision and most days I haven't even left my bed by midday

 

[Flushed]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, that with every controversial decision there's going to be some further tension. The thing that I didn't expect though was trans people responding in the way that they have (I'm not specifically talking about PC, but what I've witnessed on FB, which, admittedly, isn't the most representative population). It's perfectly fine to voice that the fight doesn't end here, which is true. The way people have carried themselves though impresses upon me that they almost do not support the ruling. Regardless of tensions between LGB and T, I should think that (w/o getting into the governmental and political aspects of the situation) that LGBT and allies should all be supportive of the decision. Perhaps celebration isn't their style, especially for those who are worried about the side effects, in particular regarding trans people. They want to continue the fight and bring attention to all the different aspects of the decision, which is fine. It just struck me that these trans people would go out of their way to be condescending, to the point were they sound like marriage equality is not something they could get behind.

Perhaps the tone is in response to the (and I don't view it as such, but) "blind happiness" people are expressing without thinking about other affected groups, but, and maybe I'm wrong in thinking it should be this way, but we should all just be happy for the decision.

 

[Kanzler]

Replace transgender/lgb folk with lgb/transgender folk, feminists, sjws, fanboys, and whatever other cause that appears not so satisfactory to you at the moment.

 

[Livewire]

Just a thought, but could this ruling actually go into the Republicans favour in 2016, With this and the whole Confederate Flag thing going on, I bet there is a LOT of pissed off Americans out there who considerer thier whole way of life now being under threat.

I wouldn't go that far, a lot of public polling indicates wide-spread support across the country, that has rapidly increased over the last decade. Simply, the majority of people in the country (polled) don't think that way. I'm sure there could be some blowback, but between this and the Affordable Care Act ruling, Republicans all of a sudden are on the defensive on some big issues and will have to choose which one to mount a defensive against, and I'd be willing to wager that they'd fight the ACA ruling harder, going by the 50+ repeal attempts they've already made.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

I've been seeing this celebration everywhere on both my games and on the websites I visit. However, I'm worried about my friend, who is really against this, because he believes it's one step closer to communism due to this ruling being done by the U.S. government.