world

Gays celebrate landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage

48 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2013 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

48 Comments
Login to comment

Finally...

Congratulations on your wedding day!

5 ( +9 / -4 )

The headline, while technically correct, gives the impression that hetereosexuals are not pleased with the decision when, in fact, many who champion equality are.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

So is banning gay marriage (by the States) unconstitutional or not?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So is banning gay marriage (by the States) unconstitutional or not?

For now it is. But if states want to permit it, that's OK too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So is banning gay marriage (by the States) unconstitutional or not?

The equality described in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution goes to the same sex marriage.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The DOMA ruling comes on the heels of related news from Florida, where the leaders of Exodus International, a conservative Christian organization, closed its doors and admitted they were wrong to try to counsel gay men into becoming something they were not.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Good news, and about time! Actually we are celebrating basic human rights in what is supposed to be one of the most advanced nations on earth.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@combinibento @globalwatcher

Thanks.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

When Japan will join the club? It's about time!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

When Japan will join the club? It's about time!

America is a nation of laws. We have a long history of the Civil Rights Movement.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@CrazyJoe and others.. the DOMA decision does not appear to invalidate the state constitutional amendments that define marriage as "one man one woman". The DOMA decision only makes the federal government transparent in the definition and leaves it up to the states. Therefore, in marriage equality states (and DC), the federal government will recognize same sex marriages while in states like Arizona and Texas, they will not.

The decision by the court to not address the California Prop. 8 decision and let the lower court decision stand only (currently) has an impact on California but it does not invalidate individual state constitutions and laws. Some conservatives are praising today's decision because the court upheld state's rights.

I have heard that the DoD will start recognizing same sex marriage where it comes to military benefits, etc. regardless of where the military personnel is stationed or their spouse is living.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

JT: I think the title is inaccurate. Like it was said above...I think it should just read "People celebrate...". I'm straight and still celebrated the ruling with a gay friend. It's great to see DOMA struck down.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Michelle BradleyJun. 27, 2013 - 09:59AM JST

@CrazyJoe and others

The constitutional basis for striking down the law was not entirely clear, as it had elements of federalism, equal protection and due process. Justice Kennedy said the law’s basic flaw was in its “deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A few days ago the Supreme Court stuck down a key component of the Voting Rights Act. This may result in the disenfranchising of millions of black voters. I consider that ruling far more significant for the US in the long run, because if the reactionaries get back in control, all the rights fought for by minorities, women, etc., risked being reversed. Likewise for Social Security and other programs enacted by FDR back in the 1930s.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

“The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable,” added Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis at the American Family Association.

Who makes policy on the belief that bestiality will become "normal"? Paranoia.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Further degradation of western society. Really, you are successfully destroying an institute of a normal family. Don't be surprised if your young generation will become plain imbeciles.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Hooray for California! So happy for all gay couples, a few of whom I am privileged to count as friends of mine and who have set a wonderful example to me and my children of how respect, integrity and love for one other should be.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

So happy for all gay couples, a few of whom I am privileged to count as friends of mine

You feel privileged to count them as friends just because they are gay? I don't think they will be happy to hear this.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

This is just another nail in the coffin of the downfall of the good ole US of A and the world in general.

The apostle Peter said it best: "But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption"

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

The ChronicJun. 27, 2013 - 01:33PM JST

Is that you, Justice Scalia?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Did anyone actually read Scalia's descent? It's rather well-written, and doesn't really contain anything much against the ideal of "homosexual equality." He was much more concerned with the growing power of the Supreme Court and the reliance of the American people of a body of 9 to decide what is right for all. He felt that the court focused too much on the morality of the issues. To quote,

"[The ruling] envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decided all constitutional questions, always and everywhere 'primary' in its role."

There's more, but you get the idea. Anyways, I just found that interesting.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Thechronic I was wondering when religion would rear its empty head on this topic. I'd say this is another nail in the coffin of religion and its bigotry in the US. The beneficiaries in this case are gay couples. We're inching forward.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Congrats to San Francisco, the US, and homosexuals as a whole, and thank you Supreme Court. It's great to see the US taking up the gauntlet and moving forward. Let's hope other states and nations follow suit.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@Jimizo...Oh yes...it's morally correct accept that two men sodomizing each other should be considered normal and acceptable behavior. Oh yes...we sure have come a long way!!!

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Did anyone actually read Scalia's descent?

Yes; despite me disagreeing with his views on most issues he is always a joy to read. In his dissent he seemed resigned to the fact that eventually the court will overturn state laws banning gay marriage. Ironically the majority's opinion was based on the "we should defer to the states" attitude that he is usually so passionate for.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@The Chronic Well considering gays have been executed ( biblically warranted ), castrated and subjected to appalling therapies in the past, I'd say giving gays equal rights is progress. Maybe that's just me.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Readers, no more comments like this please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ The Chronic - oh yes, because straight couples never do that, and if they did, we'd ostracise them too, right?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Another victory which praises sexual pleasure in western culture. This has definitely gone too far. Unstable relationships based on sex, multiple partners, sexually transmitted diseases. And people call this debauchery a victory of their ideals. Ideals of what? Life without taking responsibility for anything? Homosexuality is a learned behavior. How can people be born gay even if they need to learn how to walk? This is ridiculous. Society can't just pat everyone on the head and tell everything is fine, there are some standards which should be maintained.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

@Piotr 'Unstable relationships based on sex, multiple partners, sexually transmitted diseases' Erm, isn't marriage, gay or straight, a good way to reduce this kind of 'debauchery'?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@Jimizo Not really. People divorce more often nowadays, and marriage itself means next to nothing. People don't even think about having a stable relationship and even plan breaking up. Perhaps people no longer need each other to survive and want to be together just for pleasure. But I don't find many short relationships a good thing for your mental health. It's a vision of reality where people are nothing more than sex toys for each other. That's sad.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Further degradation of western society.

Yes please.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Meanwhile, anyone who values traditional marriage are now a minority, and are automatically branded bigots and haters, regardless of the fact that many aren't against homosexuals as people.. The hypocrisy of reverse discrimination.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Ironically the majority's opinion was based on the "we should defer to the states" attitude that he is usually so passionate for.

Combinibento - it's not so ironic as predictable. Scalia will defer to the States when he knows his agenda is not accepted nationally but will act unilaterally when he knows it can be enforced, and he will castigate legislating morality unless the morality legislated affirms his own views.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Victoria,

These threads always bring out the latents....

Why oh why would anybody else get agitated about what other consenting adults get up to in private ?

So when you hear shrieking about beastiality, polygamy or pedo's - you can bet these individuals are battling worse than the simple suppression of homosexuality!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The Prop 8 decision means that the legal fight will likely return to the courts in California. “You always hope there’ll be a large sweep, but we knew this would be a long fight,” said Dazols.

The bottom line of this ruling for CA is that the Court ruled that the plaintiffs in the case had no standing or right to file the appeal of the appeal court. Gov. Brown and the CA AG, decided not to fight the appeals court decision because they wanted the state to have gay marriage, even though the majority of the people voted against it. The plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case could not show direct cause for filing the appeal. If there would have been certain county clerks in CA who would have appealed the case, then we would have had a situation where there was a valid person who has reason to appeal. Gov. Brown, and the Attorney General, even though they may have wanted to support gay marriage failed the majority of the voters in CA, in not putting forth the effort to file the appeal to the Supreme Court.

I agree that this should be a states right decision, and for the record, the people of CA voted for it and decided that they didn't want it. So in effect, the Gov and AG went around the people. There may be some county clerks who may go back and file the appeal, and then we will be right back where we were before.

The real issue here is that not so much about the gay marriage issue, but we have seen how the state of CA can find a way to do an "end around" on the Initiative process. If the people of CA vote an initiative that restrict them, and they don't like it, all they have to do is run it through the courts and if the courts agree with them, not do the right thing and file the appeal. So in effect they have taken the voice of the CA people away from them. This may be fine now than they have a Dem supermajority in the CA legislature, but this can come back to backfire on them when the Rep may someday gain a majority in CA politics.

To sum it up quickly: Majority rule was not followed by the CA Gov, and the AG. They shopped around the appeals process to find a judge to get what they wanted. Next you will see them do the same thing to measures like Prop 13 in CA that makes hard for the legislature to raise property taxes to fund bond measures, now that they have set a precedent, they will use the same tactic to get around the voters again. The real losers will be the taxpayers and voters.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The real issue here is that not so much about the gay marriage issue, but we have seen how the state of CA can find a way to do an "end around" on the Initiative process.

Are you serious?

Refer to the first decision: Laws which discriminate against gay couples wanting to marry are unconstitutional. A majority of people of a state may want to enact a discriminatory law, and may in fact accomplish it, but the US Supreme Court will now strike it down, just as it struck down DOMA.

Yes, it is much easier for state officials to find an "end around" a prejudiced and bigoted local majority simply by following the law of the land. Once individual states have enacted laws against marital discrimination, the federal decision ensures that all other states have to honor the marital status.

You make it appear that local majorities are more important, and should be, than the federal constitution.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

First of all, States' rights should be the rule, not the exception.

Secondly, government should have NO say in interpersonal relationships.

The decision of marriage is a personal and oft religious one. No government should have any say in the matter. If a person opts to marry a tree, I wouldn't care, though the person could be deemed Looney_tunes.

The real issue is special privalages afforded to any particular group. If both Income Tax and Welfare Programs were eliminated, I suppose the situation would vanish.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Every behavior is normal and legal-the right ones and the wrong ones.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

One interesting point: the two attorneys most responsible for leading the case are Ted Olson and David Boies -- the two adversaries in the infamous Bush v. Gore case.

Olson emphasizes this is not a Democrat-Republican issue, but an issue of human rights.

Amen, Ted.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Piotr

Homosexuality is a learned behavior

Did you learn how to be heterosexual?

Unstable relationships based on sex, multiple partners, sexually transmitted diseases. People divorce more often nowadays, and marriage itself means next to nothing. People don't even think about having a stable relationship and even plan breaking up

You seem to be only blaming gays for some general human failings. Can't you understand we are all the same. Some gays have unstable relationships just like some straights do. Some have multiple partners just like straights. Some people like "kinky" sex whether they are gay or straight, some don't like it at all. WE ARE ALL HUMANS with our myriad variations. Please don't paint everyone with the same brush. It's impossible to do with any group of people

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Are you serious?

@ yabits: My comments were on the case ruled against CA and not DOMA. The same DOMA that your lefty favorite Bill Clinton signed into law, who now says that the law was bad and glad it is not in affect.

Refer to the first decision: Laws which discriminate against gay couples wanting to marry are unconstitutional. A majority of people of a state may want to enact a discriminatory law, and may in fact accomplish it, but the US Supreme Court will now strike it down, just as it struck down DOMA.

No the Supreme court did not rule that. There are other states who do not allow gay marriage, and the Supreme court ruling did nothing to change that. If they put it to the vote in those states, and it passes, then it will be the law. If not, then the people of that state have spoken.

Even when the voters of CA rejected gay marriage, gay couples still had the same legal rights as married couples. As far as the state was concerned they were "common law" marriages. Where the DOMA had it's affect were in areas such as Social Security benefits and inheritance issues. The case that brought the end to DOMA had to deal with a lesbian woman whose partner had died, and she interited her estate, but had to pay a whopping $300K in taxes (that should also be illegal, the property had all of the required taxes paid, so why pay again). Since the justices found on legal grounds that DOMA was unconstitutional, she was awarded her money back with interest.

DOMA had nothing to do with one's sexualtiy in regards to saying that homosexuality is right or wrong from a moral point of view.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Victoria Maude said: @ The Chronic - oh yes, because straight couples never do that, and if they did, we'd ostracise them too, right?

..................

Exactly right. And it just furthers my point that abnormal and deviant sexual behavior is not limited to the LGBT community. The morals of the world are going down the toilet.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Why do we even do this marriage thing anyway? I don't need my government telling me that I love this person, man or woman. It's stupid. Read something earlier today and it went a little something like, "I love you so much, that I want to get the government involved so that its hard for you to leave me." Take a step back and check it out. Marriage is a weird invention.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Chronic,

" The morals of the world are going down the toilet."

Give it up, you're quoting Ted Haggard.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The decision of marriage is a personal and oft religious one.

Not very oft in my case. Religion has played no part in my dating life, sex life, decision to get married, or in my subsequent married life. As I understand it, my marriage is recognized here in Japan as legal, and in my home country as legal, and in any country I am likely to visit as legal. Whether a religious organization considers it legitimate or not has never entered my thoughts, and never will.

So much for the religious underpinnings of marriage.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No the Supreme court did not rule that. There are other states who do not allow gay marriage, and the Supreme court ruling did nothing to change that. If they put it to the vote in those states, and it passes, then it will be the law. If not, then the people of that state have spoken.

Of course, the historical parallel is Loving v. Virginia, which, while it did not immediately invalidate individual states' laws against miscegenation, made them impossible to enforce due to the fact that any appeals process would have struck down applications of enforcement as discriminatory.

Note that the Supreme Court ruling struck down Colorado's law which forbid public officials from protecting gay rights.

A couple who are legally married in a state that does not discriminate are going to be entitled to have their marriage recognized by any state they move to. If the second state discriminates against them in any way, it faces a court battle it will surely lose. That is what the Supreme Court's decision paves the way for. The writing on the wall is clear. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion cites "equal protection under the law." Kennedy cited Plessy v. Ferguson as the precedent NOT to be allowed here

As Kennedy wrote, referring to New York law that allowed members of the same sex to marry: "DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect,” he wrote. “By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.”

The protection of same-sex marriages in the 50 states is now close at hand.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If you believe being gay is a choice then you must have gay thoughts and make a choice. Most straight dudes would say it is not a choice because they look into their past and never chose to be straight because they never had any inclination to be gay. If you believe gay people choose then you must have gay thoughts to choose from.

Come on what's wrong with conservatives wanting to take away other's civil rights? They are just trying to force their religion on others; what could be wrong with that?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites