case involving the rights of the majority versus those of the minority. Can the majority deny the rights of the minority simply because they did so through the normal democratic process, namely by debating and then enacting a law? There is a powerful argument that they should be allowed to do so, especially when the asserted right sought by the minority is not mentioned in the Constitution. Acknowledging such rights means the Court has to invoke the doctrine of "substantive due process," a constitutionally suspect doctrine that was first used by conservative justices in the early twentieth century to upend and overturn many basic labor laws, on the grounds that they interfered with the "right to contract." Removing issues not mentioned in the Constitution from majoritarian control can also be viewed as a violation of the separation of powers that is supposed to exist between the federal government and the states.
But whether rightly or wrongly, substantive due process was effectively resurrected in the Griswold birth control case in the 1960s, then used in the abortion, and now gay rights cases. The doctrine is therefore now about fifty years old. Many opponents of SDP have also frankly created a lot of "rights" that were never envisioned by the framers:
Gun Ownership. There is no second amendment right to own a gun outside of a militia. Scalia's opinion just arbitrarily eliminates the first two clauses as superfluous. Really? Which other constitutional clauses are also superfluous? Scalia is a known hunter, which is fine, but I wonder if his opinion is influenced by his own desires, and not an objective constitutional analysis.
Punitive Damages. Although the SC has ruled otherwise, neither the takings or due process clauses provide any limitation on punitive damages. The framers were aware of punitive damages.
Eleventh Amendment. The text of the amendment bars suits against states by foreigners or out of state claimants. It does not by its text bar suits by citizens of the state being sued. But the SC essentially inserted this limitation more than a hundred years ago.
This decision is just the outgrowth of a natural line of cases that it is too late to ignore. Guys like Scalia want to act as if the last fifty years never happened. The decision may have also been at least as much about the children adopted by gay couples as gays themselves. Kennedy has written and spoken on several occasions about protecting these children, and how their lives would be so much better if the unions of their parents were recognized and legitimized.
The end result is that yes, in the abstract, this decision probably does somewhat smack of judicial activism, but many of the complainers have engaged in the same kind of reasoning to ensure that their "rights" are constitutionally protected. The NRA has done everything it can to get the courts to invoke the second amendment to invalidate democratically enacted gun control laws. We also don't live on Planet Abstract. We live on Planet Earth. Equality is a central concept of the Constitution. Add in the concerns about the children, and this case is like a two inch putt to win the Masters. The case is quintessentially important, but not hard to decide.
I will say in closing, that what we really need is at least another ten, maybe fifteen, new constitutional amendments, addressing subjects like this, electronic privacy, the rights of criminal defendants, loser pays laws, campaign finance reform, term limits, and the structure of government. The Constitution is a badly outdated document.
you cannot have a set of laws that apply to some citizens and not to all. Basic stuff.
Now, government involvement in family has been a tragedy in many ways, not so often mentioned in the media, archaic nanny state laws and practices need to be repealed, states out of the family business altogether.
BUT, until that day, it must be made equal, as it will be after as well.
I only hope the newly righted wont forget the rights of the formerly righted when it is our turn.
But...in the meantime, congrats, it is a right and rightly so.
reason for the decision is that it's pretty well accepted that being gay is not a "choice." That gay people are born gay. Who would put up with all that abuse, up to and including death, unless they had no choice?
Despite all our scientific advancements, there is still a lot we don't know about our own biology and genetics. Strange really, that how little we know about macro issues like the universe is similar to how little we know about micro issues like our own genetics.
people need to start living in the present and future and not mythical beliefs from thousands of years ago.
Prohibiting and singling out individuals for who they love is just stupid. Same sex couples are out friends, coworkers, bosses, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc.... so why should we stop them from doing something that we get to do.
Without reading the ruling, my guess would be that the dissenters considered it to be a State and not a Federal issue. But that's silly at this point in light of how the Federal government makes distinctions between married and not married, especially in the tax code.
Hopefully Republicans can move on from stuff like this and abortions and concentrate on what is important. Work on improving health care rather than the futile repeal of Obamacare. Probably asking them to divorce the NRA is too much.
Without reading the ruling, my guess would be that the dissenters considered it to be a State and not a Federal issue. But that's silly at this point in light of how the Federal government makes distinctions between married and not married, especially in the tax code.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
I am extremely happy with the outcome of this, it is a day for several of my close friends to celebrate personally and I celebrate with them. But how we got there is deeply troubling.
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex."
"Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment."
The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision as written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
some of the things many here deem unimportant, are very important to others, But if we question the morality of issues, many here will accuse us who may not agree with the liberal viewpoint as "haters". The "progress" that we have seen is not accepted by everyone.
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex."
"Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment."
The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision as written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
I believe that the 14th Amendment settled this case. But the wording of Kennedy's opinion is social and political, not legal, at least as far as these excerpts.
I didn't expect his vote on this to be any different than it was. But I will also always remind him and everyone that it took another SCOTUS
loving vs virginia in 1967
decision to make his own marriage legal across the land.
Public was strongly against gay marriage just a short time ago.
This. Can't be overstated. I'm a millennial, so don't have much a of bird's eye view of how and why changes like this happen. Maybe it's the fact that in the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance era, people are more conscious of the rights we give up when we let the government butt in to our personal business. Maybe the unfathomable spiraling cost of healthcare played a role in making marriage more of an economic and welfare issue as much as cultural one. Maybe it's just the Contact Hypothesis.
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt.
That's just a little bit of an overstatement. The US govt collects ~$17 billion annually from tobacco taxes.
The US annual deficit is ~$564B (for 2015 per Wiki) so even if weed revenue matched tobacco, it's only decreasing the deficit by ~3%. And the national debt (currently ~$18T and counting) would still be increasing... Tobacco Tax Revenue - ( New Window )
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt.
That's just a little bit of an overstatement. The US govt collects ~$17 billion annually from tobacco taxes.
The US annual deficit is ~$564B (for 2015 per Wiki) so even if weed revenue matched tobacco, it's only decreasing the deficit by ~3%. And the national debt (currently ~$18T and counting) would still be increasing... Tobacco Tax Revenue - ( New Window )
Have you factored in the cost of the DEA and it's WAR on weed, or the costs of prosecuting and incarceration of "weed felons"?
I didn't say it, by itself would eradicate the debt, I said it would help.
I've read the opinion and dissents and the gist of it is that the court in its "reasoned judgment" finds that sdp and ep intersect to provide a right under the 14A.
This is naked legislation by the court. That's unfortunate.
Holding: Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.
And to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when a marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state.
I never knew what the actual problem was with it. I mean a valid problem with it
great day for USA
Today is not the day to dwell on the negative parts, however. Progress of any amount is to be celebrated.
But whether rightly or wrongly, substantive due process was effectively resurrected in the Griswold birth control case in the 1960s, then used in the abortion, and now gay rights cases. The doctrine is therefore now about fifty years old. Many opponents of SDP have also frankly created a lot of "rights" that were never envisioned by the framers:
Gun Ownership. There is no second amendment right to own a gun outside of a militia. Scalia's opinion just arbitrarily eliminates the first two clauses as superfluous. Really? Which other constitutional clauses are also superfluous? Scalia is a known hunter, which is fine, but I wonder if his opinion is influenced by his own desires, and not an objective constitutional analysis.
Punitive Damages. Although the SC has ruled otherwise, neither the takings or due process clauses provide any limitation on punitive damages. The framers were aware of punitive damages.
Eleventh Amendment. The text of the amendment bars suits against states by foreigners or out of state claimants. It does not by its text bar suits by citizens of the state being sued. But the SC essentially inserted this limitation more than a hundred years ago.
This decision is just the outgrowth of a natural line of cases that it is too late to ignore. Guys like Scalia want to act as if the last fifty years never happened. The decision may have also been at least as much about the children adopted by gay couples as gays themselves. Kennedy has written and spoken on several occasions about protecting these children, and how their lives would be so much better if the unions of their parents were recognized and legitimized.
The end result is that yes, in the abstract, this decision probably does somewhat smack of judicial activism, but many of the complainers have engaged in the same kind of reasoning to ensure that their "rights" are constitutionally protected. The NRA has done everything it can to get the courts to invoke the second amendment to invalidate democratically enacted gun control laws. We also don't live on Planet Abstract. We live on Planet Earth. Equality is a central concept of the Constitution. Add in the concerns about the children, and this case is like a two inch putt to win the Masters. The case is quintessentially important, but not hard to decide.
I will say in closing, that what we really need is at least another ten, maybe fifteen, new constitutional amendments, addressing subjects like this, electronic privacy, the rights of criminal defendants, loser pays laws, campaign finance reform, term limits, and the structure of government. The Constitution is a badly outdated document.
Now, government involvement in family has been a tragedy in many ways, not so often mentioned in the media, archaic nanny state laws and practices need to be repealed, states out of the family business altogether.
BUT, until that day, it must be made equal, as it will be after as well.
I only hope the newly righted wont forget the rights of the formerly righted when it is our turn.
But...in the meantime, congrats, it is a right and rightly so.
Embarrassing that it even took this long.
Despite all our scientific advancements, there is still a lot we don't know about our own biology and genetics. Strange really, that how little we know about macro issues like the universe is similar to how little we know about micro issues like our own genetics.
Prohibiting and singling out individuals for who they love is just stupid. Same sex couples are out friends, coworkers, bosses, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc.... so why should we stop them from doing something that we get to do.
Ganja!
Without reading the ruling, my guess would be that the dissenters considered it to be a State and not a Federal issue. But that's silly at this point in light of how the Federal government makes distinctions between married and not married, especially in the tax code.
Quote:
I wonder why the 5-4 ruling.
Without reading the ruling, my guess would be that the dissenters considered it to be a State and not a Federal issue. But that's silly at this point in light of how the Federal government makes distinctions between married and not married, especially in the tax code.
Bingo.
That would be a good question to ask battered women
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
I am extremely happy with the outcome of this, it is a day for several of my close friends to celebrate personally and I celebrate with them. But how we got there is deeply troubling.
"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex."
"Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment."
The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision as written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex."
"Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment."
The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision as written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
I believe that the 14th Amendment settled this case. But the wording of Kennedy's opinion is social and political, not legal, at least as far as these excerpts.
loving vs virginia in 1967
decision to make his own marriage legal across the land.
Hypocritical jerk.
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt.
This. Can't be overstated. I'm a millennial, so don't have much a of bird's eye view of how and why changes like this happen. Maybe it's the fact that in the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance era, people are more conscious of the rights we give up when we let the government butt in to our personal business. Maybe the unfathomable spiraling cost of healthcare played a role in making marriage more of an economic and welfare issue as much as cultural one. Maybe it's just the Contact Hypothesis.
[quote] but I'd rather they legalize weed nationwide.
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt. [/quote
Despite the fact 13-16 year olds show increase of pot in Colorado and there have been more ER visits since its been legalized?
Doesnt seem like a good thing to me.
[quote] but I'd rather they legalize weed nationwide.
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt. [/quote
Despite the fact 13-16 year olds show increase of pot in Colorado and there have been more ER visits since its been legalized?
Doesnt seem like a good thing to me.
What's the source for the stats?
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt.
That's just a little bit of an overstatement. The US govt collects ~$17 billion annually from tobacco taxes.
The US annual deficit is ~$564B (for 2015 per Wiki) so even if weed revenue matched tobacco, it's only decreasing the deficit by ~3%. And the national debt (currently ~$18T and counting) would still be increasing...
Tobacco Tax Revenue - ( New Window )
choose the drug, or alcohol....it's all still illegal to a 13-16 year old
Quote:
but I'd rather they legalize weed nationwide.
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt.
That's just a little bit of an overstatement. The US govt collects ~$17 billion annually from tobacco taxes.
The US annual deficit is ~$564B (for 2015 per Wiki) so even if weed revenue matched tobacco, it's only decreasing the deficit by ~3%. And the national debt (currently ~$18T and counting) would still be increasing... Tobacco Tax Revenue - ( New Window )
Have you factored in the cost of the DEA and it's WAR on weed, or the costs of prosecuting and incarceration of "weed felons"?
I didn't say it, by itself would eradicate the debt, I said it would help.
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt.
Oh, they'll be a bump in weddings across the US (which will help all the business that are needed to make those events happen).
No, it won't cure the national debt, but it's not "nothing"...
This is naked legislation by the court. That's unfortunate.
Quote:
In comment 12344275 andrew_nyg said:
[quote] but I'd rather they legalize weed nationwide.
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt. [/quote
Despite the fact 13-16 year olds show increase of pot in Colorado and there have been more ER visits since its been legalized?
Doesnt seem like a good thing to me.
What's the source for the stats?
Ive been looking for it. A student of mine did a project on it last year and printed out the website. I dont have it on me right now. Still checking.
It surprises me that no one mentions Portugal, which legalized all drugs, not just pot. So far, it appears to be quite a success story.