Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[JTScribe]

Sure they will. They changed a country. Now it's time to change the world

Nah. Muslim gay marriages tend to be done on top of buildings. The trip to the reception is a killer, though.

 

[PaulF]

I think this is sort of spot-on. Gay acceptance was growing year-over-year. Rather than allow it to happen naturally... getting it via the SCOTUS is a loss, says Roberts

From Roberts:

That reads like pure butthurt to me.

"Oh they won...but it wasn't as pure a victory as is should have been...if the cause was worthy."

 

[ArcadiaGP]

That reads like pure butthurt to me.

"Oh they won...but it wasn't as pure a victory as is should have been...if the cause was worthy."

I can see that, too. There's a bit of salt in the dissenting opinions.


Edit: Here's your updated legal SSM map. Hawaii has the ocean covered.

 

[Woobie]

Nah. Muslim gay marriages tend to be done on top of buildings. The trip to the reception is a killer, though.

I suppose the two groups will have to race to see who changes this country more quickly.

 

[HoughMade]

That, I am most definitely not saying.

In the State Supreme Court's, 2003 Massachusetts ruling, 2008 Conneticut ruling, 2008 Iowa ruling, two main principles stand out:

1: No church will be required to perform same-sex marriages.
2: No minister will be required to perform same-sex marriages.

If the church's official written doctrine conveys their opinion that same-sex marriage is against their religious beliefs, how can these be more than open and shut cases? Hough, is it really that naive for me to see the protection of the churches this simply?

What I am saying is that the lawsuits will be brought and that an "open and shut" case costs $10,000 in a small town. $50,000+ in a larger city and that is not an inconsiderable sum for many churches. I doubt there is insurance for this sort of thing, maybe there is.

...and they are open and shut cases now, get back to me in 10 years after the term "substantial burden" gets thrown around the courts.

 

[HoughMade]

I think this is sort of spot-on. Gay acceptance was growing year-over-year. Rather than allow it to happen naturally... getting it via the SCOTUS is a loss, says Roberts

From Roberts:

That's an excellent point and one that anyone who choose litigation of legislation should consider.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

From someone much smarter than I:

Charles C W Cooke

Still digesting, but a few thoughts. 1) Perhaps this is my fault, but I find Kennedy difficult to read, and his legal reasoning to be vague.

2) The dissents, by contrast, are clear in their argument and in their legal reasoning. The difference is almost embarrassing.

3) Scalia rips Kennedy’s skin off, almost line by line, and it is much deserved. His explanation of his position belongs in a textbook.

4) Thomas should be applauded for criticizing “the dangerous fiction of treating the Due Process Clause as a font of substantive rights.”

5) Indeed, Thomas’s history lessons should be read by all. And this warning should be framed.

6) It will prompt great gnashing of teeth, but Roberts’s discussion of both Dred Scott and Lochner is fair. On Lawrence and on polygamy too.

7) Whether it will matter or not, I do believe Kennedy remains committed to the First Amendment. That could matter.

8) Having said that, Roberts/Alito are correct when they observe that—unlike legislation—this decision includes no conscience protections.

9) Nothing better underscores the suspicion that Roberts was full of it yesterday than his masterful, forensic dissent here.

10) What is done is done. GOP would do well to accept this decision and move on to other questions, including protecting conscience rights.

11) None of this matters because most people care only about outcomes. Roberts said this well in his dissent.

12) On a personal level, I am really pleased for everyone who can now get married.

 

[phylodog]

That's a real nice tax exempt status you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it.

I could not care less about the tax exemptions, I don't care if two men or two women are granted the same tax status that my wife and I have. I have no desire to exclude certain groups in this country from enjoying the same freedoms I enjoy. My point is that this will not be the end of it.

Those claiming victim status in this instance are not interested in equality. They want special, protected, exalted status and they will not stop until they get it. The rights of everyone outside of their group are less important than theirs simply because they are in the minority. The complainants in this care are not unique, the same goes for any group in this country who can find a way to claim victim status. Nothing pays like victim status.

 

[Woobie]

I could not care less about the tax exemptions, I don't care if two men or two women are granted the same tax status that my wife and I have. I have no desire to exclude certain groups in this country from enjoying the same freedoms I enjoy. My point is that this will not be the end of it.

Those claiming victim status in this instance are not interested in equality. They want special, protected, exalted status and they will not stop until they get it. The rights of everyone outside of their group are less important than theirs simply because they are in the minority. The complainants in this care are not unique, the same goes for any group in this country who can find a way to claim victim status. Nothing pays like victim status.

QFT

 

[HoughMade]

I could not care less about the tax exemptions, I don't care if two men or two women are granted the same tax status that my wife and I have. I have no desire to exclude certain groups in this country from enjoying the same freedoms I enjoy. My point is that this will not be the end of it.

Those claiming victim status in this instance are not interested in equality. They want special, protected, exalted status and they will not stop until they get it. The rights of everyone outside of their group are less important than theirs simply because they are in the minority. The complainants in this care are not unique, the same goes for any group in this country who can find a way to claim victim status. Nothing pays like victim status.

he is talking about the coming issue that "institutions" who do not participate in same sex marriages will find that, no, we won't force you to do anything, but oops, now your income is taxable and those who donate to you can't write contributions off....but we aren't forcing you to do anything.

 

[sbu sailor]

What I am saying is that the lawsuits will be brought and that an "open and shut" case costs $10,000 in a small town. $50,000+ in a larger city and that is not an inconsiderable sum for many churches. I doubt there is insurance for this sort of thing, maybe there is.

...and they are open and shut cases now, get back to me in 10 years after the term "substantial burden" gets thrown around the courts.

Thank you for that clarification.

 

[phylodog]

Thank you for that clarification.

+1

 

[5.56'aholic]

While people are jumping up and done clamoring for this and that, remember that every time something like this happens it degrades the states rights to govern themselves. This type of all encompassing "federal gubment reach" is what sparked the first civil war.

No it wasn't, it was about slavery. That's why we need to abolish the confederate flag. Has the media taught you nothing?

 

[5.56'aholic]

Nah. Muslim gay marriages tend to be done on top of buildings. The trip to the reception is a killer, though.

I just spit my water out. It would be even funnier if it wasn't actually true. It will be interesting to see which group wins this one. I bet money the gay crowd strategically bows out of this one.

 

[sbu sailor]

Nah. Muslim gay marriages tend to be done on top of buildings. The trip to the reception is a killer, though.

Now there's a challenge... Have an LGBT couple sue a mosque and allamah for denying their wedding!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[foszoe]

Has anyone here heard a reporter seek out the Muslim stance on gay marriage here in the US?

 

[Expat]

Very sad day.

 

[indiucky]

Exactly. Jindal, Santorum and Huckabee were already frothing at the mouth over it. Bet they're all having seizures right about now. They'll have to come up with something else to get their TEAvangelical base all fired up over now.

"TEAvangelical????" "Frothing at the mouth?" "Bet they're all having seizures right now?"

Why so much hate and disdain???? Why???? Does it help you cope???

 

[cobber]

The great irony here is of course, no gay couple will demand to be married in an Islamic church.

And honeymoon excursions to Riyadh perhaps?

"TEAvangelical????" "Frothing at the mouth?" "Bet they're all having seizures right now?"

Why so much hate and disdain???? Why???? Does it help you cope???

He can't help himself. And he's just about to make his first firearm-related post....