Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

[Rusty Sticks]

Ding

The US Supreme Court has ruled in a 5 to 4 vote that gay marriage is now legal in the United States, regardless of whatever laws certain states may have enforced. This is a monumental decision for the United States.

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 judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

For those of you confused as to what states now allow gay marriage, the following image will help you:

Spoiler

#LoveWins

Discuss

 

[Otaku]

#LoveWins

Your definition of "love" is rather questionable.

What of other unions that will remain unrecognized? It isn't like the only restriction on marriage was "male + female": the previous definition has been rejected... okay how should it be defined now?

Instead of only four of 37 states redefining marriage according to popular vote, it'll be four of 50 states. Regardless of where you fall on the issue, this should be quite disturbing - what can't SCOTUS decide so long as someone brings it to them? Does this mean if in a few years either these same judges or a different ones serving in the same position choose to hear a similar case, they could rule differently? This change didn't happen through following the law to correct the law.

No matter which side of the matter one comes down on, this would have been a Pyrrhic victory because it wasn't a matter for SCOTUS to decide. I should probably big clear:

#BigGovWins

 

[Raizen]

It's not likely that many people understand the full significance of this. Nations are made of communities, and communities are made of families. When the face of family changes, it has a significant impact on the character of the nation. How this will impact the United States in the long run remains to be seen.

 

[Professor Palutena]

It's not likely that many people understand the full significance of this. Nations are made of communities, and communities are made of families. When the face of family changes, it has a significant impact on the character of the nation. How this will impact the United States in the long run remains to be seen.

And that change won't be much.

Homosexual marriage has been legal in Canada for 10 years. As a Canadian, I can say things haven't changed much as a direct result of legalizing homosexual marriage.

The only thing that has changed is the school systems changing health education curriculum as a result of trying to accommodate students with homosexual parents. There hasn't been anything resembling a tolerance change since 2005, and anyone thinking that tolerance will increase as a result of this decision is totally wrong. A vast majority of people against homosexual marriage have their complaints rooted in religious doctrines, and no amount of legislation is going to change their opinion that this is a terrible day in America. They'll still be hating homosexuality in the years to come and they'll be labelled as bigots for years to come (cool, let's fight hatred with hatred! Great idea!).

Unless you're a homosexual (or friends/family with one), this news is going to fade out of your memory within the next week and it'll be like nothing ever happened. Meanwhile, I'm going to have fun researching this #lovewins hashtag for my rhetoric thesis.

As a side note, I hope the Supreme Court also realizes that due to there not being any domestic abuse shelters for men, a man being abused by his husband has no place to turn to.

 

[Cinesra]

Your definition of "love" is rather questionable.

What of other unions that will remain unrecognized? It isn't like the only restriction on marriage was "male + female": the previous definition has been rejected... okay how should it be defined now?

Instead of only four of 37 states redefining marriage according to popular vote, it'll be four of 50 states. Regardless of where you fall on the issue, this should be quite disturbing - what can't SCOTUS decide so long as someone brings it to them? Does this mean if in a few years either these same judges or a different ones serving in the same position choose to hear a similar case, they could rule differently? This change didn't happen through following the law to correct the law.

No matter which side of the matter one comes down on, this would have been a Pyrrhic victory because it wasn't a matter for SCOTUS to decide. I should probably big clear:

#BigGovWins

By your logic Brown v Board was disturbing.

If anything this ruling will mean less government intervention by making it so the state can no longer prevent marriage between two consenting adults just because they're gay.

 

[Purrloin]

I'll avoid contributing to the inevitable religious debate, because this day is about the LGBT community, not the religious. And I give my congratulations to all the couples in America who are now seen as equal under marriage law!

#LoveWins

 

[Otaku]

By your logic Brown v Board was disturbing.

You mean the case that overturned Plessy v. Ferguson?

If anything this ruling will mean less government intervention by making it so the state can no longer prevent marriage between two consenting adults just because they're gay.

You mean that the federal government intervening is supposed to be less government?

Now how about the other aspects of the definition of marriage? You know that there was more to it than just one person being a "man" or a "woman"? You also need to explain why an institution meant for a man and a woman should be changed. It isn't about freedom; in the United States of America I enjoy freedom of speech but no one can be forced to listen to me. On the other hand even now I cannot marry someone (man or woman) unless they consent. I am guessing that everyone on this message board is relieved that the government cannot force them to listen to me or to marry me.

 

[crann777]

It's a good start, but until sexual preference and gender identity are protected classes there's still a ways to go.

 

[professorlight]

And that change won't be much.

Homosexual marriage has been legal in Canada for 10 years. As a Canadian, I can say things haven't changed much as a direct result of legalizing homosexual marriage.

The only thing that has changed is the school systems changing health education curriculum as a result of trying to accommodate students with homosexual parents. There hasn't been anything resembling a tolerance change since 2005, and anyone thinking that tolerance will increase as a result of this decision is totally wrong. A vast majority of people against homosexual marriage have their complaints rooted in religious doctrines, and no amount of legislation is going to change their opinion that this is a terrible day in America. They'll still be hating homosexuality in the years to come and they'll be labelled as bigots for years to come (cool, let's fight hatred with hatred! Great idea!).

Unless you're a homosexual (or friends/family with one), this news is going to fade out of your memory within the next week and it'll be like nothing ever happened. Meanwhile, I'm going to have fun researching this #lovewins hashtag for my rhetoric thesis.

As a side note, I hope the Supreme Court also realizes that due to there not being any domestic abuse shelters for men, a man being abused by his husband has no place to turn to.

Don't be so hard, P; it's true that opposition to social reform based on religion (which is the basis for the majority of the opposition in this case) won't go anywhere until the religious authorities take the matter into their own hands, but I can tell you that legally acknowledging a fundamental right like this on a large enough level does institute a sense of normalcy on misinformed or just apathetic people, who wouldn't have strong views on the subject otherwise.

Of course, something like this is great news, and long overdue, but I'm sure no one is saying that these kind of decisions will banish hatred and discrimination forever... especially in the US, which is a country with people who still have trouble coming on to the idea of black people as... well, people.

The important part here is that the normalization of this will eventually contribute to the society at large coming to see gay people just (or, realistically, more) as straight people are seen today. It won't be soon, though, and I'm certain some places will fasten as hard as they can to the previous status quo, such as the ones who still are pining for confederate times, pre-civil war era (AKA slave-driven) business, or the old fifties' sexism. Not to mention the secessionists, xenophobes and neo-nazis.

I do agree about the fighting hatred with hatred thing (mostly for the aforementioned misguided and apathetic people, since, as I stated, there's not much hope for the others, sadly), and the shelters for men, but that is something that should (and with any luck, will) probably come after the marriage decision.

 

[Otaku]

It's a good start, but until sexual preference and gender identity are protected classes there's still a ways to go.

Why should they be protected classes?

Why can they not simply enjoy the freedom available to all, which does not include forcing others to conform to your own worldview? Why does another person's freedom to engage in sex with another person or how they identify in terms of gender negate another person's rights? Specifically rights already spelled out by law. Some are painting this as a win for the LBGTQ community. That is a lie. They too have lost freedom with this, offered up on the alter of the "Almighty State". This wasn't done to properly honor the existing laws on the books. This wasn't done at the will of the people. This was done through judges overstepping their legal authority, pleasing activists.

And that means it can all go away just as easily, as well as setting precedent for decisions that they don't agree with, including as someone earlier helped me illustrate, future SCOTUS decisions on this very subject if it comes to SCOTUS again.

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today," Roberts wrote. "Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."

 

[Purrloin]

There's too much negativity in this thread. Can't the political analyses wait? Can't we just be glad that there are couples out there who are finally getting the thing they've yearned for a long time? I'm happy when other people are happy, and there's a whole lot of happiness going on today that's worth celebrating.

 

[professorlight]

I agree; can we let people have their day in peace?

 

[thegrovylekid]

I think this is good news. Now even more people can be happy and married.

#LoveWins

 

[TheGuy]

Why should they be protected classes?

Why can they not simply enjoy the freedom available to all, which does not include forcing others to conform to your own worldview? Why does another person's freedom to engage in sex with another person or how they identify in terms of gender negate another person's rights? Specifically rights already spelled out by law. Some are painting this as a win for the LBGTQ community. That is a lie. They too have lost freedom with this, offered up on the alter of the "Almighty State". This wasn't done to properly honor the existing laws on the books. This wasn't done at the will of the people. This was done through judges overstepping their legal authority, pleasing activists.

And that means it can all go away just as easily, as well as setting precedent for decisions that they don't agree with, including as someone earlier helped me illustrate, future SCOTUS decisions on this very subject if it comes to SCOTUS again.

I think you forget the purpose of the court and more specifically the Supreme Court. The courts exist to interpret the law and to interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court has not overstepped its bounds, it's simply interpreted the Constitution. The 14th Amendment allows for equal protection under the law for all people, including same sex couples. Or, at least the majority of the court has interpreted it to be so. You act act as if SCOTUS decisions are easily overturned, in fact the times decisions have been overturned are few and far between and don't know a single example where the Supreme Court has decided that an earlier decision gave TOO MUCH freedom to individuals. I've only seen extensions of Civil Rights (Brown v Board), speech (Citizens United), search and seizure (Mapp v Ohio), etc.

You shouldn't be angry with anything to do with this ruling. You should be angry with Marbury v Madison and judicial review. SCOTUS is just doing there job as established by precedence.

 

[Rusty Sticks]

Why should they be protected classes?

Why can they not simply enjoy the freedom available to all, which does not include forcing others to conform to your own worldview? Why does another person's freedom to engage in sex with another person or how they identify in terms of gender negate another person's rights? Specifically rights already spelled out by law. Some are painting this as a win for the LBGTQ community. That is a lie. They too have lost freedom with this, offered up on the alter of the "Almighty State". This wasn't done to properly honor the existing laws on the books. This wasn't done at the will of the people. This was done through judges overstepping their legal authority, pleasing activists.

And that means it can all go away just as easily, as well as setting precedent for decisions that they don't agree with, including as someone earlier helped me illustrate, future SCOTUS decisions on this very subject if it comes to SCOTUS again.

If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get gay married.

 

[Professor Palutena]

If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get gay married.

Let's not call it gay marriage now.

It's just marriage.

Throwing the g-word in there from this day onwards implies that your marriage is different from someone else's marriage, and is therefore not equal to someone else's marriage. Equality is what this entire decision is about.

 

[Celever]

Why should they be protected classes?

Why can they not simply enjoy the freedom available to all, which does not include forcing others to conform to your own worldview? Why does another person's freedom to engage in sex with another person or how they identify in terms of gender negate another person's rights? Specifically rights already spelled out by law. Some are painting this as a win for the LBGTQ community. That is a lie. They too have lost freedom with this, offered up on the alter of the "Almighty State". This wasn't done to properly honor the existing laws on the books. This wasn't done at the will of the people. This was done through judges overstepping their legal authority, pleasing activists.

And that means it can all go away just as easily, as well as setting precedent for decisions that they don't agree with, including as someone earlier helped me illustrate, future SCOTUS decisions on this very subject if it comes to SCOTUS again.

I'm not American so I'm not going to pretend that this affects me personally a huge amount, but I can confirm as a member of the LBGTQ community that this news is pretty much a win for us lol.

Literally when it was announced I had friends online who broke down in tears with joy, and the news has made some of them more accepting of themselves; two people I know came out yesterday.

Honestly it's impossible to make this negative. Sure the ruling might be repealed in the future, but that can really be said for any rulings that are being made. I don't see why this one is any different, besides the fact that it was only a 5-4 vote. Maybe you have a point, but I guess everyone'll just have to get married before then!

 

[Leaf_Ranger]

It's not likely that many people understand the full significance of this. Nations are made of communities, and communities are made of families. When the face of family changes, it has a significant impact on the character of the nation. How this will impact the United States in the long run remains to be seen.

I don't know about American families in general but it'll be good to bussiness with wedding organizers making a profit and due to the recent trend of celebrating divorce, there's profit here too.

 

[Leaf_Ranger]

Why should they be protected classes?

Why can they not simply enjoy the freedom available to all, which does not include forcing others to conform to your own worldview? Why does another person's freedom to engage in sex with another person or how they identify in terms of gender negate another person's rights? Specifically rights already spelled out by law. Some are painting this as a win for the LBGTQ community. That is a lie. They too have lost freedom with this, offered up on the alter of the "Almighty State". This wasn't done to properly honor the existing laws on the books. This wasn't done at the will of the people. This was done through judges overstepping their legal authority, pleasing activists.

And that means it can all go away just as easily, as well as setting precedent for decisions that they don't agree with, including as someone earlier helped me illustrate, future SCOTUS decisions on this very subject if it comes to SCOTUS again.

I won't go throught the court arguments because I don't know USA judicial system but as far as simple law equality, LGBT have won and the system too because when there freedom of civil marriage to anyone but LGBT people then that's not equal treatment.

_____________________________

As far as the religious discussion goes...well, religion doesn't mean nothing in this discussion. We're talking about civil marriage in a secular state (despite some now akward but historical references to God), hence we're talking about equality of all people to celebrate a contract which rules the person's property, rights and duties.

 

[Otaku]

...simple law equality...

A same-sex attracted person was already equal before the law prior this ruling: such a person had the same freedom to find an opposite sex spouse as anyone else. You can be treated equally by the law but in being treated equally, find you have options that you have little to no desire to actually exercise. That is why this has been about redefining marriage, an institution both civil and religious: there are people that don't like the options the definition of marriage affords and so have been pushing for the law to change the definition so that someone they would consider as a spouse would be a legal option. There have been those who wish to alter the definition to accommodate more than just same sex attraction as well. If that is the discussion someone wishes to have, then PM me. I didn't even start this thread.

That actually leads us to the two big points:

1) How often do these kinds of discussions go well on a message board, especially a message board not specifically set-up for general discussion but instead dedicated to a specific hobby? My experience is that they go quite poorly, whether I am in agreement with the majority or not. I would not have brought this up here, but someone did and the way the board is set up and the thread is titled, I was given a choice between ignoring something I knew to be wrong or pointing it out even though it would not be the popular opinion.

2) I have been trying not to focus on whether or not marriage should be redefined. Why?

a) It is a complicated issue and worthy of its own, separate topic... or would be if I thought this was a prudent venue in which to discuss it (I do not think that PokéBeach is where I go to have such conversations).
b) Since the subject has already been brought up, the process by which marriage is redefined is as important as whatever definition is selected and that affects us all in the United States of America. The method matters regardless of your stance on the underlying issue.
​

The Supreme Court did not legalize "gay marriage". It struck down state laws reaffirming the established definition of marriage, specifically that it was an institution between one man and one woman. The court does not have the power to legalize gay marriage; yes even on this thread some have attempted legal arguments to the contrary, but they rest on notions that themselves have to be proven... like that marriage is somehow a "right" even though a right does not require the consent of another individual.

For those of you actually still reading this post... imagine if there had been a court case where the four states that had voted to redefine marriage to include same sex couples had been sued, claiming the states did not have that right. That it went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States and in the end, those state laws were struck down. Now imagine someone decided to make a post celebrating how "Same sex marriage banned throughout the United States of America!", cracking jokes about it while also throwing in the hashtag "GoodWins"... which of course means that if you disagree with the outcome, your view must not be "good".

I probably just should have reported the post because it contained a factually inaccurate title and instead of approaching a hot button issue from as neutral and respectful a position as it could... it chose to celebrate, and in a manner that was disrespectful towards those in disagreement.