Althouse: A poll on Obergefell v. Hodges.

June 26, 2015

A poll on Obergefell v. Hodges.

113 comments:

Matt Sablan said...: I like the result, but dislike how we got here. I'm getting the feeling that after the initial lashing out at the Court, a lot of libertarian/conservatives with socially liberal positions will hit this middle ground. I think if the court had focused more on the contract-aspects of marriage and why that was important to allow between homosexual couples, they'd get a lot more people on board than the more flowery parts being highlighted.; 6/26/15, 10:11 AM
Ctmom4 said...: I have a question for Ann. I am fine with same sex marriage, as long as churches that don't agree are left alone. In the past, liberals have scoffed at the idea that churches would be punished for non compliance. It seems obvious to me that the SJW faction will not abide this, particularly lately. What do you think?; 6/26/15, 10:11 AM
Roughcoat said...: I'm no lawyer, so I can't comment knowledgeably on that aspect of the decision. But I can, as a writer and an editor, opine with some authority on the quality of the writing. Which is shockingly bad--sheer drivel.; 6/26/15, 10:14 AM
Known Unknown said...: If you tally up the basic sides, it's a 50/50 poll. Interesting.; 6/26/15, 10:14 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Not Ann, but I'll answer: I'm hesitant to nail someone to the wall for something they haven't done yet, even if they have a pattern of behavior that leads me to believe they may do it.

Let's hold fire until they ACTUALLY try to sue a church/religious institution. After the cake cases, where people lined up to support the bakeries, I think we might find that people are generally supportive of people's First Amendment rights, even if we dislike what they're saying.; 6/26/15, 10:15 AM
jnseward said...: You left out the option of it is bad Constitutional law, and I oppose same-sex marriage, but if it is voted in by a legislature or a referendum, then so be it.; 6/26/15, 10:15 AM
pdug said...: They need to leave alone churches, and church affiliated institutions like schools, universities, charities, hospitals, and the businesses run by individual with religious and moral convictions.

Compelling me to agree that two men are participating in what I understand as a marriage is like compelling me to agree that Jesus is still dead.; 6/26/15, 10:17 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: I favor same-sex marriage, but I think it's silly to ask whether the decision is good law or bad law, as if it were being Shepardized.

Didn't see that option listed in the poll.

I'll take another look.; 6/26/15, 10:18 AM
pdug said...: They used to say "Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one"

But it will soon be "Don't like gay marriage? Don't participate in public-facing activities"; 6/26/15, 10:18 AM
Rick said...: You need an option for referenda. It's fine for the government to administer itself using cultural institutions. It lacks the power to change those institutions.

But if the culture changes their institutions without governmental influence it's fine for government to change the way it administers itself to match the new circumstances.; 6/26/15, 10:19 AM
CStanley said...: I would need an option somewhere in between #1 and #2. I think it's bad Constitutional law and I don't support SSM as a matter of personal opinion, but I don't oppose states using the legislative process to permit it. In other words, I don't support SSM but I am VASTLY more likely to have an acceptant attitude toward it if my opposing viewpoint is protected.

So I'm in agreement with some commenters in the previous thread who compare this to Roe v Wade (judicial overreach an dunces scarily divisive in provoking culture war) and who note that gay activists are likely to lose some (most?) of the gains they've made in public opinion.; 6/26/15, 10:19 AM
Roughcoat said...: "Yesterday’s Obamacare decision told us that we do not live under the rule of law. Today’s gay marriage decision tells us we do not live in a democracy. These are dark days."
-- John Hinderacker; 6/26/15, 10:23 AM
Rick said...: Matthew Sablan said...
After the cake cases, where people lined up to support the bakeries, I think we might find that people are generally supportive of people's First Amendment rights, even if we dislike what they're saying.

We did find out most people are. But since those bakeries lost those court cases that's hardly the main concern. It seems more meaningful that we also found out government including courts are not.; 6/26/15, 10:23 AM
hombre said...: There doesn't seem to be a choice for those of us who think it's bad law, oppose gay marriage and would leave it up to the state legislatures or electorates? Hm-m-m.; 6/26/15, 10:25 AM
jr565 said...: I put down number two even though I'ts not really where I stand. This was badly decided, and Im opposed to gay marriage, but I would have accepted gay marriage if it was adopted by the legislature. I also would accept civil unions , which i would support if they were also passed by legislatures.
Would not have supported same sex civil unions if they were imposed by courts either.; 6/26/15, 10:25 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Rick: Now we get about voting the bums out who appointed the judges who made bad calls.

Our Republic is, in general, very slow to correct itself.; 6/26/15, 10:27 AM
William said...: I'm in favor of giving gays the right to marry and, also, of giving bakers and pizza makers the right to not participate in gay marriages. I think that's the new normal position for a conservative heteronormatives to take.; 6/26/15, 10:28 AM
jr565 said...: The rule of law is more important than a confederate flag, and a gay marriage. My main beef is with the courts, overstepping their bounds because liberals think the ends justify the means. And I'd add John Roberts to the list of liberals on yesterdays case.
it was badly decided. The judges wanted a result and made up a right that was never intended.; 6/26/15, 10:28 AM
MadisonMan said...: Heh. So far less than 10% say it's good Constitutional Law.; 6/26/15, 10:30 AM
jr565 said...: Williams wrote:
I'm in favor of giving gays the right to marry and, also, of giving bakers and pizza makers the right to not participate in gay marriages.

Are those supportive of gay rights supportive of religious peoples right of refusal to participate? Its not enough that they can marry, should they force people into acquiescence at point of govts gun?
That too is where the liberal push is going.; 6/26/15, 10:30 AM
jr565 said...: Ctmom4 wrotea;
I have a question for Ann. I am fine with same sex marriage, as long as churches that don't agree are left alone. In the past, liberals have scoffed at the idea that churches would be punished for non compliance. It seems obvious to me that the SJW faction will not abide this, particularly lately. What do you think?

Bakeries and photographers who do weddings should go into league with churches and say they are affiliated with specific churches. Then there business is tied to religion. But only their wedding business.; 6/26/15, 10:33 AM
Chuck said...: jr565 just took the words off my keyboard. I am sseing many similar comments here, which is good.

This decision is a mess; a terrible setback for good Constitutional law and federalism.

And, I voted for the ban on gay marriage in Michigan, in the hope that I could insulate my state from gay marriage via well established legal means. It was a state constitutional amendment, which passed on an overwhelming majority vote.

Had democratic decisions gone the other way, I would not have been happy, but I would have accepted the result. It's not like I'd deny that Democrats won the 2008 general election(s). I accepted, and moved on.

I get the impression that Professor Althouse conflates opposition to this decision with anti-gay animus and hopes her poll will prove that point. I am gratified by the many similar comments here.; 6/26/15, 10:33 AM
Sebastian said...: "It's bad con law, I favor the democratic process, and could live with any outcome." That puts people like me in the worst spot: this abomination undermines the rule of real law and the actual democratic process, and it taints a result that I might have accepted otherwise.; 6/26/15, 10:35 AM
William said...: I think conservatives have an excellent chance of banning late term abortions and of giving bakers the right to decline participation in gay weddings. It's the liberals who look doctrinaire and extreme when they take an opposite position.; 6/26/15, 10:35 AM
Paco Wové said...: "I think we might find that people are generally supportive of people's First Amendment rights"

Rick beat me to it, but it doesn't matter if "people" are generally supportive. It doesn't even matter if "the People" are supportive. All that matters is what your lords and masters support.; 6/26/15, 10:38 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: William said...

I'm in favor of giving gays the right to marry...

They already had the right to marry. This was about changing the definition of marriage so that they could do what they wanted and require everyone else to pretend that they were married.; 6/26/15, 10:38 AM
Rob said...: Sadly the opinion is largely holistic twaddle, leavened by heartfelt empathetic depictions of the petitioners' stories. That the result is congenial is a comfort, but the combined effect of yesterday's decision and today's is a superlegislative Supreme Court, and that prospect is not congenial at all.; 6/26/15, 10:38 AM
Anonymous said...: The Sally Struthers SCOTUS.; 6/26/15, 10:41 AM
CStanley said...: I think if the court had focused more on the contract-aspects of marriage and why that was important to allow between homosexual couples, they'd get a lot more people on board than the more flowery parts being highlighted.

The reason it didn't is pretty transparent- such reasoning would leave open the Constitutionality of civil unions.

The reasoning for marriage is so tortured that it makes obvious the point that they are reaching for approval, not just acceptance. Which is absurd, because it's not only legally unsound but it is not possible to change people's heartfelt opinions by judicial fiat.; 6/26/15, 10:44 AM
Theranter said...: "I get the impression that Professor Althouse conflates opposition to this decision with anti-gay animus and hopes her poll will prove that point. ..."

Ditto here, and thank you for saying that.; 6/26/15, 10:45 AM
Chuck said...: Matthew Sablan wrote this:

"I think we might find that people are generally supportive of people's First Amendment rights, even if we dislike what they're saying."

Wrong. People resist all manner of political speech, even when it should be protected by the First Amendment.

You want proof, Matthew? I present to you...
Citizens United v. FEC. A pure First Amendment case. As pure a First Amendment case as you could find. And the popular/left/media reaction was that it was a travesty. Rejection so powerful, that now a couple of Presidential candidates have gone so far as to suggest a Constitutional amendment to undermine the decision. Talk about rejection of a 5-4 Supreme Court decision! It's the most hysterically incompetent public position taken by a major party presidential candidate in my lifetime.; 6/26/15, 10:49 AM
mccullough said...: I favor same sex marriage, think this is wrong interpretation of the constitution, and think the rule of law has always been a joke among leaders in the country and people are catching on. Obey the law if you agree with it or if you think you might get caught and penalized for breaking it. But let's mock the law and our leaders. They do what they want. The people should as well. Live by your own moral code.; 6/26/15, 10:51 AM
MeatPopscicle1234 said...: Anyone seen this tweet where CJ Roberts states that the Solicitor General has acknowledged that the tax-exempt status of religious institutions who oppose gay-marriage will be called-into question?

https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/614444334671351809/photo/1; 6/26/15, 10:51 AM
Hunter said...: William said...
I think conservatives have an excellent chance of banning late term abortions and of giving bakers the right to decline participation in gay weddings. It's the liberals who look doctrinaire and extreme when they take an opposite position.

To us they do, but I'm not so sure to the general public. Look what happened to Arizona and Indiana for drafting very reasonable laws -- they were beat to a pulp, and the RFRA issue is now so toxic that no state will touch it (NC was going to try, and they stepped back, which if you know the current state of NC legislature is saying a lot).

As with all political issues that stir emotion, both sides are dominated by demagogues trying to demonize their opponents rather than any substantive arguments. The pro gay rights side has come out far ahead because far more people are willing to believe that bigots are evil than that homosexuals are evil.; 6/26/15, 10:52 AM
Cato Renasci said...: I think you should fix the poll: There is no option if one thinks it's bad law, opposes same sex marriage, but believes it's up to the state legislatures, not the courts.; 6/26/15, 10:55 AM
Cato Renasci said...: Maybe it's time to get the state out of the marriage business altogether.; 6/26/15, 10:57 AM
PB said...: OK. Where do we stand now? Marriage is what sanctifies and validates a relationship between any two people with the state and society must accept it. The growing "Yes means yes" movement seems to be diving down into regulating the most intimate behavior. Soon, the two will be joined and the state may not sanction any intimate behavior between two unmarried people as legal and allowed (and certainly not between 3 or more, except the orgy exception may open the door to legal polygamy). Then we'll evolve into very short-term (30 minutues) marriages in order to be allowed to have intimate relationships.; 6/26/15, 10:57 AM
garage mahal said...: Marriage is a legal arrangement established by the state. The rituals your church adds on only matter to you and your church. Nobody else cares.; 6/26/15, 10:57 AM
PB said...: States can't go out of the marriage business now. That's part of the ruling.; 6/26/15, 11:04 AM
Captain Ned said...: This issue should have been left to the States. The only reason to Federalize it is to secure the foundations needed to attack organized religion and use the power of the State to force them (most specifically the Catholic Church) to marry gay couples, allow gay clergy, and allow women as clergy.

The Establishment Clause is in for a huge beating from the Freedom From Religion brigades. After today, they will not rest until they change the outcome of the Investiture Controversy and forever establish temporal domain over religious affairs.

I will say that after yesterday's decisions I expected Roberts to make this 6-3 for "legacy" reasons.; 6/26/15, 11:05 AM
Rob said...: Not to be missed is Scalia’s footnote 23:

"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: '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,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Let me note, however, that if Scalia were ever to hide his head in a bag, it would have to be a very large bag.; 6/26/15, 11:07 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "I will say that after yesterday's decisions I expected Roberts to make this 6-3 for "legacy" reasons."

-- I'm sticking with the subsidy case being his 6-3 "legacy" compromise.; 6/26/15, 11:09 AM
MaxedOutMama said...: As written it is REMARKABLY bad constitutional law, but I still, on the balance, favor civil same-sex marriage, or rather some version of that which strips out any assumptions regarding children born to one of the partners, but leaves the rest.

In practice, a ruling the other way might also be very bad constitutional law, because there are intersex people, and those people would literally be entirely excluded from the institution were a strict one man/one woman rule to be given the imprimatur by the SC. I cannot believe that would be a constitutional result.

I am literally scandalized by the idea that a government recognition of coupled status should be held in any way by any person or persons to ennoble that couple. I have always been scandalized by that idea which seems to constantly pops up in these rulings. It literally disgusts me.

A relationship between two people may be a great and noble thing, but it is not made great or noble by outside government endorsement, nor in fact by any ceremony conducted by a priest, minister, JP, rabbi or so forth.

Our society has descended into a tragic nose-dive from reality.

FWIW, I expect really bad ramifications from these lines of decision about 20 years down the line, because of course this reasoning will be applied elsewhere, to damaging effect, which will ultimately be highly destructive.

Also, FWIW, I believe that some same-sex relationships are more noble and gracious than some heterosexual relationships. It's what's going on inside the relationship that dignifies it rather than what's going on outside it.

I could not answer your poll because none of the answers quite fit my position.

I do believe that traditional marriage is a gendered institution which evolved to balance out the disparate instinctive needs of the partners, but mostly, to protect the children of such relationships.

The CIVIL marriage which evolved as a recognition of traditional marriage is a separate institution, and I don't see how constitutionally it may be restricted to a male/female pairing.

I don't believe same-sex relationships are the same as differently-sexed relationships either. I refuse to believe nonsense on either side.

Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders.; 6/26/15, 11:16 AM
Etienne said...: With the President writing Executive Orders every week, and the Court legislating law, do we really need a Congress anymore?

As Scalia has said, it's no longer about adjudicating, its a completely new ball game.; 6/26/15, 11:22 AM
Rob said...: BTW, am I the only one who sees Obergefell v. Hodges and thinks Obergruppenführer v. Hodges?; 6/26/15, 11:25 AM
Etienne said...: I think the States should demand that the Federal Government now issue Marriage Licenses, and write the rules for getting one.

The States then can shut down their courts and defer all Marriage decisions to the Federal Government. It will save them billions.; 6/26/15, 11:27 AM
mccullough said...: The states are happy to make money off marriage licenses. They aren't getting rid of them. The federal government might want to require a license as well for the $$$.; 6/26/15, 11:29 AM
Etienne said...: With the Feds taking over the institution of Marriage, it will be the greatest welfare program since the Great Society. What should we call it:

1. The New Deal
2. The Great Society
3. ___________________________; 6/26/15, 11:29 AM
Anonymous said...: It's a bad idea to have government at any level involved in marriage. Marriage is a religious institution; leave it to the churches to decide amongst themselves who to marry. What government has an interest in is civil unions for the purposes of dealing with the legal ramifications of a union. That's it. Other than that government should butt out. It should be structured such that anybody married by a recognized church (the church of I Love My Cat doesn't count) would automatically receive civil union status from the government. Some churches would agree to marry same sex couples, some may not, but that's between the church hierarchy and their parishoners. Your church won't perform your same sex marriage? Leave the church or settle for a civil union. Just for the record, there would be no difference between a civil union and a marriage and civil union from a legal perspective. Atheists can settle for a civil union or go to a church if the church will have them. It's up to them. Again, from a legal perspective they would lose nothing by settling for a civil union. We as a country have got ourselves so wrapped around the axle on this question and to me it seems the way out is really pretty simple.; 6/26/15, 11:31 AM
scf said...: I cannot vote because my choice is not in the list.

My choice is this:
It's bad constitutional law, I personally oppose same sex marriage, but I do not oppose it being adopted by legislatures.; 6/26/15, 11:34 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: BTW, Obergefell stated very clearly that his goal was to force others to recognize the legitimacy of his marriage to his male partner. Marriage, to Obergefell, wasn't real if other people didn't think it was real. It was not about "the love between two people" to Obergefell.; 6/26/15, 11:38 AM
sunsong said...: “The politics of resentment and agitation, that signals to people outside our circle that they aren’t particularly liked or appreciated or even wanted, is suicidal.”
~ Peter Wehner; 6/26/15, 11:38 AM
sunsong said...: “It happened without a Summer of Love, without Timothy Leary, without a groovy anthem or a shaggy new national look. In the past decade or so, there’s been a silent revolution in American culture, one at least as profound as the ’60s upheavals.
“We’ve hardly taken notice of it, because it happened in people’s minds instead of in the streets, happened in ordinary people instead of in the elites and the punditocracy.
“Compared to just a few years ago, we have a completely different set of ideas about what constitutes acceptable behavior. As Caitlyn Jenner puts it in her new reality show, “I’m the new normal.”
~ Kyle Smith; 6/26/15, 11:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Blogger scf said...
I cannot vote because my choice is not in the list.

My choice is this:
It's bad constitutional law, I personally oppose same sex marriage, but I do not oppose it being adopted by legislatures.

6/26/15, 11:34 AM
---------

me too; 6/26/15, 11:40 AM
Etienne said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/26/15, 11:45 AM
CWJ said...: sunsong @11:38,

Tell that to your bloody-minded retribution-obsessed gay gestapo. I don't think you and they are on the same page.; 6/26/15, 11:48 AM
MacMacConnell said...: So now they should change the laws concerning covering domestic partner benefits, only married people get them.

Does anyone really give a shit what less than 2% of the population do with their genitalia?; 6/26/15, 11:52 AM
chickelit said...: So --according to the poll, it's bad Constitutional law no matter what your personal opinion of SSM.

Waiting for the learned Constitution Law Professor's annalysis of that one.; 6/26/15, 11:55 AM
traditionalguy said...: A friend of mine told me SSM has at last been voted on and has won the vote....5 to 4.

That stumped me. She is right, and yet there is more to it... Or maybe Like 65% of Americans I am tired of with arguing with any one about Gay Agenda issues.; 6/26/15, 11:56 AM
Etienne said...: Does anyone really give a shit what less than 2% of the population do with their genitalia?

Not unless they try to get welfare for it by legislation of the Court, or Executive Orders by the President.; 6/26/15, 11:57 AM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: MaxedOutMama and Zeke Pratt: Great points. I'm with Zeke: Civil unions for all (gay and straight alike). Leave "marriage" in church/synagogue/mosque. Some religious institutions will perform same-sex marriages; some won't. If you dislike your church's policy, there are others. And you can always get a civil union without the assistance of a church.

This is the only policy that simultaneously appeases those for whom "marriage" has a specific religious meaning and assuages every demand of the gay contingent (e.g., hospital visitations, inheritance, &c.) Every party to a civil union would be treated exactly like every other party to a civil union. "Marriage" would simply be block-replaced with "civil union" wherever it occurs in Federal and state law.

It does have some small ancillary drawbacks. I, for example, would no longer be "married-married," as we had a civil ceremony rather than a church wedding. But, you know, I can deal; if we'd wanted a church wedding, we'd have had one. In general, what's not to like?

Of course, the last hope that something like this might transpire vanished this morning.; 6/26/15, 11:58 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: Michelle-- and for Catholics, we're not married-married if we just had a civil marriage anyway. Spinning off civil marriage from religious marriage would bring us more in line with Europe anyway.; 6/26/15, 12:00 PM
Rusty said...: Anybody wanna bet the whining doesn't stop.; 6/26/15, 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...: I for one welcome our new judicial overlords.; 6/26/15, 12:07 PM
Jane the Actuary said...: What if we just got rid of State recognition of marriage altogether. No, I don't mean Civil Unions instead. I mean, why should there be any state benefits conferred on two people due to their assertion to be "married" to each other? You want inheritance rights? Write a will. Power of attorney, next-of-kin treatment? Arrange for the relevant contracts.; 6/26/15, 12:19 PM
n.n said...: Selective exclusion is progress, but it cannot be qualified as positive. The establishment of a pro-choice doctrine by the State is a corruption of the rule of law, religion/morality, etc., and is incompatible with human and civil rights.

I suppose it all depends on how the result is framed and presented. However, the role of secular incentives/penalties and opiates should also not be overlooked or underestimated.; 6/26/15, 12:20 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: Hee--good/bad constitutional law.

Can anyone doubt that if the men who actually wrote the Constitution could have seen what would become of it, they'd have begged King George to take them back.; 6/26/15, 12:30 PM
n.n said...: Jane the Actuary:

Civil unions are not limited to two parties, but that seems to be a moot issue today. The point of establishing trans marriage under the law is not about rights, but rather normalization, which is noticeably selective. It is also about marginalizing and depressing competing interests a la "it's over". Just as they successfully avoided addressing the issues by shifting focus to a "flag", they have done the same with [selective] trans equivalence, and for the same reasons and interests.; 6/26/15, 12:31 PM
Rick said...: Jane the Actuary said...
You want inheritance rights? Write a will.

You cannot write a will leaving assets to a non-spouse that reduces the estate tax to what it would be if the beneficiary was a spouse.; 6/26/15, 12:34 PM
Jane the Actuary said...: Hey, here's another question for the peanut gallery: does this ruling carry with it the requirement that "mother" and "father" be erased from birth certificates, replaced with Parent A and Parent B, as has been the implementation of state mandates?; 6/26/15, 12:34 PM
n.n said...: Smilin' Jack:

A strong dictator to rule over them. At least it would be inconspicuously one man's/minority's pro-choice or ambiguous law/religion. Positive progress? Maybe.; 6/26/15, 12:36 PM
n.n said...: Jane the Actuary:

"mother" and "father" ... replaced with Parent A and Parent B

To be fair, that was already an issue with the progress of womb banks and sperm depositors. Evolutionary and biological ambiguity did not begin with normalization of trans men and women. Although, there may have been a conspiracy between dysfunctional heterosexuals and trans individuals to that end.; 6/26/15, 12:40 PM
n.n said...: Rick:

re: estate tax

So, they introduced the concept of trans marriage in order to preserve higher taxes for those they choose to exclude. Ulterior motives masquerading with good perceptions.; 6/26/15, 12:45 PM
Paco Wové said...: Meanwhile, back in the real world, Attacks hit three continents amid fears of escalating Islamist violence, say the hateful ignorant Islamophobes at the Washington Post.; 6/26/15, 12:47 PM
Etienne said...: replaced with Parent A and Parent B

I've heard that spouse, has been nominated. But this won't work, because most legal forms have to be available in English and Spanish in many States, and in Spanish, which is a Romance language, there are separate words for a feminine spouse and a masculine spouse.

I'm not sure if A or B couldn't be used to connote a hierarchy in the relationship.; 6/26/15, 12:55 PM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: But "Parent A" and "Parent B" is transparently discriminatory! Everyone knows what "the A team" and "the B team" mean. "I got an A" means something different from "I got a B." &c.

Then again, are there any binaries at all where one side isn't negative relative to the other? Yin/yang is right out, obviously. 1/0? (Surely not.) Black/white? (Ditto.) About the only one I can think of is heads/tails, and even that isn't as evenhanded as you might think: "Heads" is where all the thinking goes on, while "Tails" are in the vicinity of, well, assholes. What to do?; 6/26/15, 12:56 PM
Rick said...: n.n

I'm not sure what you mean by "trans marriage". But the government became involved in marriage because it wanted to tax at rates popularly unacceptable if applied to a married unit. So rather than forego income by taxing everyone at a level palatable to a married couple they developed more intricate rules requiring division by married / single. Naturally in doing so they never considered "gay" marriage since it didn't exist.; 6/26/15, 12:56 PM
Rick said...: in Spanish, which is a Romance language, there are separate words for a feminine spouse and a masculine spouse.

If English is subject to court diktat why isn't Spanish?; 6/26/15, 12:58 PM
Dude1394 said...: My vote: i could care less about same sex marriage. But i care pretty deeply that churches nationwide are now going to be targeted as criminals.; 6/26/15, 1:09 PM
JD said...: To Unknown,
Baloney, no church has ever been forced to marry anyone. Wedding chapels are businesses, not churches.; 6/26/15, 1:21 PM
Matt Sablan said...: If the targeting of churches happens, I'll be annoyed, not surprised, but annoyed. It'll be another fight that we'll have to have.; 6/26/15, 1:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Paco Wové said...

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Attacks hit three continents amid fears of escalating Islamist violence, say the hateful ignorant Islamophobes at the Washington Post.

"...in southeastern France...a severed head was staked on a post at the entrance..."

Remember when that was the sort of thing one would expect to read in a history book, not a news story?

Meanwhile, somewhere west of Tours, the subjects of Cockaigne attend to their affairs.; 6/26/15, 1:27 PM
chickelit said...: Matthew Sablan

If the targeting of churches happens, I'll be annoyed, not surprised, but annoyed. It'll be another fight that we'll have to have.

The 1st Amendment sounds like a hill worth dying on.; 6/26/15, 1:29 PM
Mary Martha said...: You are missing a couple options.

I think it is bad constitutional law... but I don't really care about this issue either way. I DON'T CARE

This impacts *maybe* 3 percent of the population. Why has our society had to be roiled and flip turned upside down about this nothing issue? Why are we not focusing on ISIS or education, or crime?

The whole thing just seems like a sideshow.

Now that this decision has been made I would *like* to think that we can all focus on issues that are more important to more people. However, I fear that we will continue to have a focus on this non-issue. Perhaps in an effort to pick apart the first amendment.; 6/26/15, 1:29 PM
buwaya said...: Mary,
Its because you don't understand the issue, and for that matter most people don't either.
This is just a skirmish in a much larger war. Gay marriage is a position on a battlefield which one side has captured. The war is not over, it will continue on all fronts, and the public will be directed to focus on some other position. This is a cultural and political war, so no genuine real-life problem is addressed sincerely, and if any such are involved they are exploited only for rhetorical purposes.
One side wants total power for a corporatist-bureaucratic nomenklatura and wants to destroy all other independent powers, such as churches.; 6/26/15, 1:47 PM
Indigo Red said...: I have yet to read the decision and don't know whether or not the decision is good or bad Constitutional law. I've read enough analyses of the actual decision to believe at the moment, it doesn't mean what people, especially Gays, think it means.; 6/26/15, 2:11 PM
Static Ping said...: What constitution?; 6/26/15, 2:13 PM
Anonymous said...: The poll tells us more about Ann Althouse than it does about the respondents.

She was unable to see the option, "It's bad constitutional law, but I support when it's passed by a legislature."

She see's those who disagree with her as unreasonable.; 6/26/15, 2:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Blogger Unknown said...
My vote: i could care less about same sex marriage. But i care pretty deeply that churches nationwide are now going to be targeted as criminals.

Yes, it'll start with the loss of their tax exempt status. This is the easier target, so it's further up the slippery slope.; 6/26/15, 2:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Blogger PML said...
To Unknown,
Baloney, no church has ever been forced to marry anyone. Wedding chapels are businesses, not churches.

Are you saying that both a wedding chapel and a church cannot both be, under the eyes of the law, a non profit?

It's pretty interesting the distinction you're making. As if common sense will be applied. But once we get to the courts, the ivy league knows more words than you or I. And they will see quite clearly that the words church and business are meaningless. What has meaning is that they are both the same in that they are non profits.; 6/26/15, 2:45 PM
Fritz said...: Help! I'm being disenfranchised!

Sorry, I can't vote because there are no selections which contain "I don't care whether a state allows gay marriage or not."; 6/26/15, 2:58 PM
Fritz said...: chickelit said...
Matthew Sablan

If the targeting of churches happens, I'll be annoyed, not surprised, but annoyed. It'll be another fight that we'll have to have.

The 1st Amendment sounds like a hill worth dying on.

I believe it was Patton who pointed out the idea of a war was to make the other guy die on his hill.; 6/26/15, 3:00 PM
Renee said...: Talked to my kids about truthfulness and honesty. No one has two moms or two dads without first losing a biological parent.

If they meet someone claiming two dads or two moms. Be patient and when they turn 18 help them find their biological kin.

I told them indeed I was fearful, that our disagreement on the law give the presumption we are hateful & ignorant. We hate no one, but marriage served acspecific public obligation. Kids deserve to know who they are and be raised by both mom & dad ideally as a family.

Oldest is confused, isn't the distinction obvious only a man can get a woman pregnant. It's not the same at all.; 6/26/15, 3:27 PM
chickelit said...: Don't any lawyers read your blog, Althouse? It seems like a consensus that it was bad constitutional law.; 6/26/15, 4:10 PM
Anonymous said...: How is this doing? I voted on it once, but now it won't bring up the outcomes unless I vote on it again, which I think would not be playing fair.; 6/26/15, 4:25 PM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: You can click on the links below the poll. One of them is view results.; 6/26/15, 4:36 PM
Gahrie said...: More than 78% think it was a bad decision.; 6/26/15, 4:43 PM
aberman said...: Exactly what Eric said. Rick Perry's basic view "Opposed, but should be left to the States" is not represented here. 10th Amendment matters to some people.; 6/26/15, 5:00 PM
Cruising Troll said...: Bad Constitutional law. Bad and not legitimate when adopted by legislatures. Bad but legitimate when adopted by citizen referendum. To understand the distinction, simply look at the cluster-f%@k in California, where the Legislature adopted it, and was promptly smacked down by the citizenry with Proposition 8.

Bottom line, this is such a fundamental issue that only the people doing so directly, or as directly as possible, can legitimately make the change.; 6/26/15, 5:17 PM
Michael K said...: "She was unable to see the option, "It's bad constitutional law, but I support when it's passed by a legislature."

Yes, at least she expressed her bias, probably because of her son.

I really don't care if gays "marry" and I think it is a fad resulting from the AIDS crisis but it has done much damage and will do far more to the country and the normal culture. If you want to see the advocates inter natural state go to a gay "pride" parade in San Francisco. This is lunacy turned loose.; 6/26/15, 6:53 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: In related news, people with extremely biased views often favor the rulings that provide cover for the result they seek.

One is tempted to ask conservatives what the 14th amendment even means to them.; 6/26/15, 7:31 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: A la Dickie Cheney, we can see that conservatives generally only respect people's rights if it involves them personally or a member of their own family.

So perhaps half of all conservatives either have no gay relatives or just disowned them, as sometimes happens.; 6/26/15, 7:36 PM
chickelit said...: Althouse ignores her own poll--insists that Obergefell is good Constitutional law no matter the voters opinion on SSM--no wonder she's lost ground as a serious law blogger.; 6/26/15, 7:38 PM
sean said...: Shouldn't there by a choice for "it's bad constitutional law, but I don't care about gay marriage"?; 6/26/15, 8:06 PM
Michael K said...: "Shouldn't there by a choice for "it's bad constitutional law, but I don't care about gay marriage"?

Yes but that would not support her argument. That's my opinion.; 6/26/15, 9:08 PM
Michael K said...: "So perhaps half of all conservatives either have no gay relatives or just disowned them, as sometimes happens."

From another idiot that thinks 25% of the population is gay.; 6/26/15, 9:09 PM
Known Unknown said...: I think it's great the R&B has such amazing powers to peer into the hearts of men.; 6/26/15, 9:34 PM
sunsong said...: “For anyone who ever doubted that we could bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice, today the United States again took a giant step toward the more perfect union we the people aspire to.”
~ Evan Wolfson; 6/26/15, 10:22 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Althouse ignores her own poll--insists that Obergefell is good Constitutional law no matter the voters opinion on SSM--no wonder she's lost ground as a serious law blogger.

LOL. Legal reasoning by popular mob rule. Hahahhahaha.

You guys (and her following and commenters generally) are her blog's biggest impediment to being taken seriously in a legal context.; 6/27/15, 2:36 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I think it's great the R&B has such amazing powers to peer into the hearts of men.

Not much peering is necessary. When love (or even empathy) is lacking, it's obvious.; 6/27/15, 2:37 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Wow. It's still a huge % that thinks it was bad law, even if they liked the result.; 6/27/15, 8:25 AM
friscoda said...: Read Somin's analysis of good result, really, really bad analysis (not sure that it rises to the level of law as it is so incoherent); 6/27/15, 9:46 AM
Anthony said...: All of you complaining that the option "bad con-law, personally oppose, but would accept if legislated" are missing the point of the pool. Our hostess wants to know how one's view of the issue affects one's view of the SC reasoning. As it stands now, 71% of the same-sex marriage *supporters* here believe it's bad constitutional law. That's pretty interesting.; 6/27/15, 12:10 PM