Supreme Court cases at the top of the hour. This is it, people! Gird your loins.
UPDATE: "Holding: Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex." 5-4.
UPDATE 2: Here's the PDF. The Court, in an opinion written by Justice Kennedy, relies on both the Equal Protection right and fundamental liberty under the Due Process Clause.
June 26, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
74 comments:
Loin status: Girded!
"Gird your loins" comes dangerously close to a sports metaphor.
Here is hoping for a narror ruling on sex discrimination or heightened scrutiny grounds.
*narrow
We'll be watching who applauds and who doesn't!
[signed] Social-justice Warriors
"Meade does sound a tad bit gender... Bender-y. Oh I'm sorry, wrong post...
Is sexual orientation now a suspect classification in 14th A jurisprudence?
Here's an opportunity to test my prototype self-girding loins.
A big win for divorce lawyers!
Why not. It okayed Obamacare.
In future I shall be citing this case for the proposition that the U.S. Constitution obliges the several states to be nice.
From the Web page, The Art of Manliness:
"Back in the days of the ancient Near East, both men and women wore flowing tunics. Around the tunic, they’d wear a belt or girdle. While tunics were comfortable and breezy, the hem of the tunic would often get in the way when a man was fighting or performing hard labor. So when ancient Hebrew men had to battle the Philistines, the men would lift the hem of their tunic up and tuck it into their girdle or tie it in a knot to keep it off the ground. The effect basically created a pair of shorts that provided more freedom of movement."
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/10/02/how-to-gird-up-your-loins-an-illustrated-guide/
Yay!!! America keeps Her Promise! We are NOT a theocracy!
The culture warrior meltdown should be interesting.
Echoing another post: for many this will be a jingle-jangle morning.
I am Laslo.
As a lawyer, I have an unusual amount of contempt and loathing for this ruling. The series of dissents by Justice Scalia in Lawrence, et al, will always rank at the top of my list of great legal writing.
And I will forever feel divided from and set apart from much of my profession.
This is a very bad day for the law of federalism.
I'm sure this decision will lead to wide acceptance of SSM just like Roe vs. Wade led to wide spread of acceptance of abortion over 40 years ago.
SSM proponents were winning greater acceptance year by year in public and the legislatures but they couldn't be patient. So I see the SSN opponents fighting it like abortion opponents 40 years from now instead of getting general consensus within a decade.
So equal protection empowers and requires the government to redefine an institution that preexists our constitution by millenia, but it does not prevent race preferences by government agencies.
How long will it be, I wonder, before I'm threatened with a lawsuit for refusing to be a part of a SSM?
"How long will it be, I wonder, before I'm threatened with a lawsuit for refusing to be a part of a SSM?"
-- That'll never happen, since there's need to be a gay person who wanted to marry you.
Scalia none too happy!
Gee, I wonder what it would be like to live in a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law? I'm sure enough not in one now. The law and the constitution are meaningless rags only worth deference to the extent you want to avoid unjust punishment by the minions of our unelected judges and bureaucrats. And make no mistake about it, the entirety of the federal government is illegitimate.
So I see the SSN opponents fighting it like abortion opponents 40 years from now instead of getting general consensus within a decade.
My thoughts exactly, the NRA has been doing the hard leg work for decades and even the most rabid gun banners know they can't move public opinion.
What's the over/under on how many months before the first Church is sued?
@Matthew: I'm a pianist (hence the moniker), and have played for several weddings for friends and relatives. My wife has a gay relative in a "committed" (whatever that means) relationship. I also have several gay friends as part of my contact in the musical theater world. If any of those people decide to get married, and ask me to play their wedding, I'm going to refuse. So I'm starting to wonder whether one of them will haul my ass into court for doing so.
First they came for the bakers, photographers, and florists.
Yesterday, illegal.
Today, legal.
Tomorrow, mandatory.
I'm waiting for the first lawsuits against a Church for refusing to marry homosexuals and then the polygamist lawsuits against the States for refusing the license their marriages.
The decisions yesterday and today show that the language of the Constitution and laws mean nothing. All that matters is having five attorneys on the Supreme Court who will vote their feelings.
Tomorrow, mandatory.
Yes, as an unmarried straight man, I'm so, so worried that I'm going to be forced to marry another man.
"I'm waiting for the first lawsuits against a Church for refusing to marry homosexuals and then the polygamist lawsuits against the States for refusing the license their marriages. "
-- I like the RESULT of this decision, but I am really, really not liking the reasoning to get there. If the weak reasoning gets used for either of these possibilities, it'll just hurt the opinion of the court more.
I also have several gay friends as part of my contact in the musical theater world. If any of those people decide to get married, and ask me to play their wedding, I'm going to refuse.
I would willingly do just about anything for my friends (anything legal). I certainly wouldn't expect a friend to sue me for a decision I make. I conclude that we have differing definitions of friends. I think what you call a friend I would call a passing acquaintance.
I agree with Madison Man there. My friends know I don't like certain kinds of movies, so I doubt they'd invite me to those kinds of movies. And that's just a personal taste, not a well-known moral position I've taken that they've been comfortable and knowledgeable about for years.
If you reach the point where a friend is suing you, then one of you are probably better off without the other as a friend. And, if in this case, they're suing you over your stated religious/moral beliefs that, while they may disagree with, are not actively harming them, it's you who is better off without them [even if I ALSO disagree with your beliefs about their right to marry.]
I'm waiting for the first lawsuits against a Church for refusing to marry homosexuals
I believe there have been venue-type suits already -- that is, places that were commonly allowing 'traditional' weddings would not allow same-sex. That's a huge difference from a suit regarding the religious sacrament of marriage however.
If a Catholic Church allows its space to be used for non-Catholic weddings, for example, I think it might be vulnerable. But if only Catholics are ever married there, and since Catholic weddings are only 'traditional' -- between two Catholics (or close-enoughs) -- then I can't see how the Govt is going to force a Religion to change its Sacrament.
Plenty of churches will sanction a same-sex marriage. Find one if you want a Church Wedding.
Yes, as an unmarried straight man, I'm so, so worried that I'm going to be forced to marry another man.
Are you worried that you might be forced to marry more than one person?
A few short years ago sodomy was illegal in many states. But all along, it was hidden as a right in the constitution. it just took a few judges to find it there.
"Plenty of (florists) will (decorate) a same-sex marriage."
"Plenty of (bakers) will (bake a cake for) a same-sex marriage."
MadisonMan, you should pay attention to how easy it is to believe certain things.
After legalizing sodomy, it was a done deal. Although I am completely surprised that it wasn't unanimous.
@Birkel, I'm talking about Church Sacraments.
Has anyone ever (successfully) sued a church in the US to change its sacraments? I think not. How could they?
Don't cloud the Religious Issue with commercial examples.
MadisonMan,
Most churches rent their chapels to marrying couples.
You are naive if you believe the SJWs will ever be sated.
News flash, July, 2016: Following its 2015 decision "constitutionalizing" gay marriage, the Supreme Court, ruling in a case filed by a Portland, Oregon, man against the entire Christian faith, has decreed that the following change be made to the traditional wedding ceremony where appropriate: "Dearly beloved, we are gathered here in the sight of God to join this man and this Merino (or, other creature, as 'appropriate') in Holy Matrimony ...."
The 5-4 opinion was authored by Justice Ginsburg, who was joined by her usual consorts, including Justice Kennedy. No dissent has been filed because the prospective dissenters were waylaid outside the Court's building by Rainbow Coalition protesters and a flock of angry sheep the day following oral argument and haven't been seen since.
The Court, however, declined to strike the words "God" and "Holy" from the ceremony, holding that God was also bound by their decisions.
OK, I read the dissenting opinions, and as I expected, they revolved around the court not legislating law, and the 14th Amendment not being applicable to usurping the states powers.
Yawn. They do that all the time. Federalism is a steam roller. States be damned.
I've never belonged to a church that rented out its Altar to a group with differing beliefs.
The closest I've seen is co-officiants, that is, allowing a second Priest (a relative), but Catholic Doctrine (this was a Catholic Church) was the one followed. And I know of a couple Churches in the Madison Diocese that would never ever allow even that.
I don't understand the hysteria over "churches will be forced to marry" or "churches will be sued". Individual churches and pastors/priests do that all the time. A non-Catholic can't go to the local catholic parish and force the priest to marry them. Practicing Catholics will be refused marriage in the Church if they don’t complete the marriage counseling requirements, of if divorced, fail to get the prior church marriage annulled. My local Episcopal priest refuses a lot of non-church member couples that won’t profess basic Christian beliefs.
"My local Episcopal priest refuses a lot of non-church member couples that won’t profess basic Christian beliefs."
Like marriage being a union of one man and one woman?
@MM, @MS: I also get recommended to play by my friends. I've played a lot of weddings for people that I don't know. I'm more concerned about THAT than I am my actual friends.
Look at what happened to the pizza store. They were asked a question by someone from the press, and they gave an honest answer. And suddenly they were attacked by the Social Justice Brigade for having the wrong opinions and saying the wrong thing.
You're refusing to address the bigger point here, which is the use of legal force to compel others into performing artistic actions that they personally disagree with. I didn't worry at all about this five years ago when SSM was "just getting started", but now I'm starting to wonder whether the fascists on the pro-SSM side are going to knock on my door someday.
@K- yes, we know there is a long tradition of allowing free exercise of religion with respect to the churches' participation in marriages. However, this ruling now makes certain exclusions a violation of civil rights. My assumption is not that churches will be sued over it, but that it won't be long before calls are made to strip their tax exempt status if they aren't willing to marry homosexuals.
K in Colorado said...
I don't understand the hysteria over "churches will be forced to marry" or "churches will be sued".
Your logic suggests bakers would never be required to prepare cakes for gay weddings. After all bakers can refuse to bake cakes for other reasons (they don't know how to make the desired design, or they are too busy).
But bakers can't refuse because it's a gay marriage. Which suggests a churches refusal might be similarly overruled if the refusal is due to it being a gay marriage ceremony.
MadisonMan,
I see that your personal experience trumps all else. Winning arguments must be easy in your world.
Does that qualify as "thinking" for you? Or are you just daring me to remind you of this stupidity when the inevitable lawsuits are filed?
Can a church refuse to marry an interracial couple after Loving?
JAC,
>Yes, as an unmarried straight man, I'm so, so worried that I'm going to be forced to marry another man.
I was only half serious; just showing how to extrapolate from past results.
But the next step of course is legally mandatory endorsement. Mere tolerance will be "hate speech", and acceptance will be proof of bigotry.
I see that your personal experience trumps all else.
I'm showing you my reasoning. You could be grateful, not snarky.
I'll be waiting for your I told you so for quite some time.
On a whim (that caused me to shudder), I googled. For example, look at this (actually don't, but it is hilarious in a way. I hope my kids elope) site. No Churches in the Local Sources at all!!
Pres House on the UW Campus is available too -- but it's non-denomonational, despite being a former Presbyterian Church.
From the website of a Catholic Cathedral downtown: Please remember, our churches are not wedding chapels. They are the home of a parish community in which people are invited to encounter Jesus Christ through His Word and the Sacraments so that they might be strengthened by His grace to live out the Christian Faith. Therefore, they are generally available only for the weddings of those persons who are actively living their faith within this community. (Link)
After legalizing sodomy, it was a done deal
Divorce was legalized long before that.
Outlaw divorces, or at the very least make it illegal for divorced people to ever remarry, and then we'll see people start taking marriage more seriously again.
@Birkel, perhaps this will answer, partially, your Loving question.
A simple google search will reveal churches that don't accept interracial marriages (Here, for example).
If people are seeking Church sanctuary from same-sex marriages, they'll certainly be able to keep finding them.
If people are seeking Church sanctuary from same-sex marriages, they'll certainly be able to keep finding them.
If people are seeking bakers, they'll certainly be able to find them.
If people are seeking florists, they'll certainly be able to find them.
If people are seeking photographers, they'll certainly be able to find them.
If people are seeking pizza stores that cater receptions, they'll certainly be able to find them.
Because the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law regarding floral arrangements, bakers, pizza parlors and photographers?
If the fascists would leave the bakers alone, I wouldn't have anything to worry about. But they don't. They insist not only that they be allowed to marry, but that the world endorse their marriage.
So I just wonder how long it'll be before the fascists start coming after the musicians.
Pretending it won't happen isn't really an option for me. Or my church. I mean, they allow anyone who professes to be a "Christian" to get married there. (It's a lovely building.) So how long before someone demands that they be allowed to get married there, regardless of the beliefs of the parishioners?
You think it won't happen. I get that. I just don't know if it's a reasonable expectation, given what we've seen in the last year. The pizza store was the scariest of all.
MadisonMan said...
Because the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law regarding floral arrangements, bakers, pizza parlors and photographers?
This is a reason it might be so, but it isn't conclusive. After all the constitution also requires same sex marriage. It seems likely when these two requirements are placed in conflict the winner will be whichever "right" the dominant elites prefer.
MadisonMan,
You are almost half way to making the point that is necessary but I doubt you will get there. I will not do your thinking for you. I will, of course, be here to issue any variety of I told you so.
I wish Jay had written a Federalist Paper explaining how this new Constitution was going to result in legalizing gay marriage. It was rather unfair of the Founders to slip that in without warning us.
Remember when a congregation in Kentucky voted to not allow any inter-racial weddings in their church?
Despite the whining of the usual fear mongers they didn't get arrested, sued, or had their church burn to the ground.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/kentucky-church-bans-interracial-couples/story?id=15065204
So now that states are no longer allowed to set their own marriage policy, who is going to be first to sue: First Cousins, or Polygamists?
We know exactly what thousands of gay activists are thinking about now:
How can we leverage this into an attack on institutions we hate?
Answer:
Justice Samuel Alito cited Bob Jones University vs. the United States, a 1983 decision allowing the federal government to strip a Christian university of its tax-exempt status for discriminating against interracial couples.
We live in a secular society and the court has confirmed this nature. We deists erred, not in defining marriage which is just a word, but in defining a concept. The words square and circle represent concepts, hence we cannot draw a square circle. Likewise, a religious union can only be between a man and a woman...that union and only that union can be defined as a religious marriage. The state can define any union as a marriage...man, woman or dog, cat or the whole zoo together as a big cluster...or why must the partners be animate such as a nut and a bolt. These definitions fit our secular criteria. But the square cannot ever be circular.
I will not do your thinking for you.
That's an old construct.
The rest is left as an exercise to the reader.
Gird your loins.
Althouse you crack me up!
This will settle the issue once and for all, just like Roe v Wade settled the abortion issue.
Today will be remembered as the day when the gay activists realized their long-cherished dream, and thus disbanded.
Time to start asking all the gay couples you know when they're going to get married.
Oh, you can keep your sacraments. No problem. You just can't keep your tax exempt status unless you tweak them a bit.
If any state in the Union stands up to this court and tells them to pound sand, I'm moving there.
Blogger MadisonMan said...
Because the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law regarding floral arrangements, bakers, pizza parlors and photographers?
Blogger Birkel said...
MadisonMan,
I see that your personal experience trumps all else. Winning arguments must be easy in your world.
Does that qualify as "thinking" for you? Or are you just daring me to remind you of this stupidity when the inevitable lawsuits are filed?
It's clear that Madman knows the inevitable lawsuits are coming.
And his response is, so what?
It's clear that Madman knows the inevitable lawsuits are coming.
Right. Of course, anyone can file a lawsuit. The trick is filing a successful one. That's something I don't envision.
”Love never was just a straight thing. It’s a human thing.”
~ Steve Hartman
sunsong said...
”Love never was just a straight thing. It’s a human thing.”
~ Steve Hartman
"Who's going to Walkerton IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?" - Jess Dooley
Maybe we have different definitions of love.
Well, let me finally add, that you really can't gird your loins unless you dress like an Arab and have a sword worthy of decapitating a Christian in one swing.
Substitute Christian for whatever ails you...
Post a Comment