Supreme Court ruling makes pride parades historic, jubilant

It's a great day for everyone when people stand up to those who try to wall off members of their own country and make them second class citizens. It was depressing that so many were denied the right to be with their loved ones when they were in the hospital, have rights of survivorship, etc.

In San Francisco, police say a bystander was shot at a gay pride event at the city’s civic center Saturday when several men got into an argument unrelated to the celebration. A 64-year-old man was shot in the arm, and he is expected to survive, Officer Carlos Manfredi said on Sunday.

Oh, of course.

In San Francisco, a parade that at times resembled a rainbow-colored dance party snaked through downtown.

I was there. It was great. So much love and joy.

Sooo much cheerful ness and love. Wish I was there #lovewins

FANTASTIC news, exhilarating, in fact. :-)

History is pivoting right in front of us.

Absolutely amazing to see how (relatively) quickly attitudes have changed in just the last decade - especially in the US - wrt this issue, which shouldn't even be an issue IMO.

Looking back, first slavery got the boot. Then opposition to mixed race marriages (illegal in America until circa 1965?). Now opposition to gay marriage.

We are on a roll! 

Key point I came to realize about gay marriage is that it's way more than just a gay rights issue - it's a human/civil rights issue, which - to me - puts the drive to legalise GM right up there with the civil rights movement in the US in the 60s, only in a different area. 

This is big stuff. Epic.

PS: Funny to see so many heads exploding on the Right. 

To each his own.

Whatever floats your boat(as long as you aren't harming others). But don't push it on others.

Though I support the recognition of the voluntary union of two adult humans, I disagree with the finding of the SCOTUS.

puts the drive to legalise GM right up there with the civil rights movement in the US in the 60s, only in a different area.

Actually they are not even close to being the same thing, but I get your point.

PS: Funny to see so many heads exploding on the Right.

Sorry, but not only on the right. Please stop making this a Right ONLY issue. It's not. NOT everyone on the left is a FREE hippie tree loving social liberal. You do have a lot of liberals being conservative when it comes to gay marriage, but each to his own.

Please stop making this a Right ONLY issue.

Funny, it was a right only issue until the SCOTUS smacked down the right on this issue. This is what often happens when the right loses. Not that everybody on the right is giving up, some like Sanatorium and Huckaby are saying that the SCOTUS does not decide about laws in the USA. Some would call that treason . . .

Wonder now if the many gay republicans who are hiding in the closet will come out now into the open now that GM is fully legal. What's to hide any longer? Right bass4funk?

Marriage might have its roots in religion, but over time governments and other entities started to attach rights and privileges to it. In this day and age, denying gay marriage is also denying admitting privileges, signing rights in contracts, survivor benefits, etc. You can't keep looking at the issue strictly from a religious or historical angle if we're going to use it to decide who can be in a hospital room.

@SuperLib"It's great day for everyone"

It's great day for gays and lesbians only. Though I'm glad that the USA is getting more and more gayish. As I said before, someday even the President of the USA will be gay.

@yamashi

"someday even the president of the USA will be gay."

You say that like it's a bad thing....

Funny, it was a right only issue until the SCOTUS smacked down the right on this issue. This is what often happens when the right loses.

I hate to say this, but kindergarten bantering is not what this is all about. It's not about who loses on the right or left. If anyone lost its the people and the states that should have had the right to vote whether they wanted gay marriage or not.

Not that everybody on the right is giving up, some like Sanatorium and Huckaby are saying that the SCOTUS does not decide about laws in the USA. Some would call that treason . . .

So you do watch Fox. Great! So then you also know both weren't going to be baited into commenting on something that they feel should be taken up with each State. The law passed and that's it. Now we have legalized gay marriage and we have a Black president, NOW for once for all, can you libs stop whining that the US is a racist country.

Wonder now if the many gay republicans who are hiding in the closet will come out now into the open now that GM is fully legal. What's to hide any longer? Right bass4funk?

Who cares, as long as they are conservative, great by me. Like I said, I live in a one of the largest lesbian communities on the West Coast. But Dallas also has a large lesbian community. Dallas a conservative state, imagine that.

Poor states rights. They had a nice little run there where they could discriminate against gays, and that nasty Supreme Court said that wasn't legal anymore.

Sheesh, talk about having your rights violated.

@SuperLib

It's a great day for everyone when people stand up to those who try to wall off members of their own country and make them second class citizens.

This ruling does not do that. However, it does make religious people and people with moral objections second class citizens. So thanks for nothing.

You can't keep looking at the issue strictly from a religious or historical angle if we're going to use it to decide who can be in a hospital room.

It isn't necessary to change marriage law to give people the right to have their significant others visit them in the hospital or any other benefits. That was always just an emotional talking point unrelated to reality. Since so many people are not married these days, and the trend is for that to increase in the future, it would be better to not base things like visitation rights on marriage.

Poor states rights. They had a nice little run there where they could discriminate against gays, and that nasty Supreme Court said that wasn't legal anymore.

Sheesh, talk about having your rights violated.

And what about the rights of people that oppose gay marriage? That doesn't change anything for the people that still don't approve of gay marriage. What, you think you can beat them on the head to force them to honor and respect you. I see a lot of law suits coming from both sides and the gays will NEVER persuade the people that are against that lifestyle and it's perfectly ok to disagree.

it would be better to not base things like visitation rights on marriage.

Very true. But it is still the norm, and that problem is among the things that this ruling will remedy.

I know there's an argument that this ruling tramples states' rights, but I don't see it that way. Fundamental human rights aren't decided on a state-by-state basis. That was true in Brown v. Board of Education, and it's true in this case.

Very true. But it is still the norm, and that problem is among the things that this ruling will remedy.

Traditional marriage was the norm until a few days ago. Instead of a remedy we was another problem in which a new remedy must be found. Changing marriage like this was a lot bigger change than a simple law to allow a person to designate anyone they wish to attend to them if they were hospitalized. So instead of this simple change, now we have tens of millions of people that feel their values have been disrespected. So like abortion we will now have decades of fighting and seething anger on both sides polarized arguments of the other. It didn't have to be this way.

@gcbel: No gay marriage advocates are still bigots - because they deny marriage to people other than gays and straights and limit marriage to be between only two people. So, how does it feel to be a bigot?

Wolfpack: This ruling does not do that. However, it does make religious people and people with moral objections second class citizens. So thanks for nothing.

Oh, no no no my friend. It put everyone on much equal footing and rejected the notion that you were allowed to make homosexuals second class citizens because you read the bible. Now that you don't have that special privilege anymore, and now that we're all equal, you see that as discrimination. Obviously you see a kind of pecking order and your bible puts you at the top of the food chain, and anything that disrupts that is apparently a gross violation of your civil rights.

It isn't necessary to change marriage law to give people the right to have their significant others visit them in the hospital or any other benefits. That was always just an emotional talking point unrelated to reality. Since so many people are not married these days, and the trend is for that to increase in the future, it would be better to not base things like visitation rights on marriage.

So did all those states rush out to change their laws to make it happen? Nope. They just banned gay marriage and went around telling everyone that God wants it that way. This entire lawsuit was because a gay man was not allowed to be listed as a survivor on a death certificate simply for the fact that he was gay and couldn't marry. It would seem that if changing the laws were such a quick and easy fix you could have done it by now. But you didn't. Your choice and you paid the price for it.

SuperLib JUN. 30, 2015 - 12:27AM JST Poor states rights. They had a nice little run there where they could discriminate against gays, and that nasty Supreme Court said that wasn't legal anymore.

But it might take years for that to happen because so many states will drag their feet. Many states are on unclear legal ground. Even when rights are confirmed by the Constitution, states don’t necessarily have to provide avenues to exercise those rights. States may be able to avoid same sex marriages by avoiding marriage altogether. And same sex couples might not be able to get married everywhere, churches, temples and other religious institutions could seek religious exemptions from the Supreme Court ruling.

But a new case could ask the courts to clarify the extent to which states must facilitate same sex marriages. Did the Supreme Court leave any room for states to regulate marriage in any way? The first amendment guarantees people the right to free expression, which could include expressing objections to same sex marriage by not providing marriage services. Most states it is illegal to deny services to someone based on sexual orientation. The future lawsuits could influence these business owners and couples seeking clothing, food and decor for their wedding ceremonies.

A silver lining:

The SCOTUS legalized same sex marriage by finding a right which Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, and Elena Kagan ruled as beyond a state-by-state prerogative via the 14th Amendment.

Crucial in this ruling is the fact that same sex marriage–now recognized by the SCOTUS–is not the only right the 14th Amendment shields from state-by-state prerogative and/or recognition.

Consider this pertinent aspect of the court’s Majority Opinion, written by Justice Kennedy and printed by the LA Times:

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Now the question–Are 2nd Amendment rights among those “protected by this Clause”?

If we take the SCOTUS at its word, then yes, 2nd Amendment rights are protected under the 14th Amendment. After all, it was by viewing 2nd Amendment rights as incorporated under the 14th Amendment that the SCOTUS struck down Chicago’s gun ban in McDonald v Chicago (2010).

Moreover, two years earlier–in District of Columbia v Heller (2008)–the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment rights were “fundamental” in and of themselves as well as “fundamental to the Nation’s scheme of ordered liberty” (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law)

So we have, on the one hand, Justice Kennedy expressing the majority opinion for same sex marriage by writing that “The fundamental liberties protected by [the Due Process Clause] include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.” And we have a 2008 SCOTUS decision (Heller) explaining that 2nd Amendment rights are “fundamental” and a 2010 SCOTUS decision (McDonald) barring Chicago from a gun ban on the basis that 2nd Amendment rights are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Because a concealed carry license is the vehicle through which many 2nd Amendment rights are exercised in states other than your own, there seems no way to avoid the implication that a state ought to have to recognize a concealed carry license from another state, just as states are now required to recognize same sex marriage licenses from other states.

Thanks?

Another interesting case that might affect gun owners, Frederic, is the one on abortion. If the Supreme Court rules that driving 500 miles to get an abortion isn't an undue burden on women (ie doesn't infringe on their rights), it paves the way for states to impose expensive "safety" measures on gun shops, potentially closing most/all of them that can't comply. If only a handful are left in the state and a gun buyer has to drive 500 miles to get one, then that obviously wouldn't be an undue burden and would not negatively impact his 2nd Amendment rights.

What imaginary about it? If the Supreme Court rules that having limited options and driving 500 miles doesn't infringe on a person's rights, then why wouldn't that be applied to other situations?

Careful Superlib, people don't like it when you point out how their negative bias towards one issue may in turn impact negatively on their positive bias towards another issue.

@SuperLib

Oh, no no no my friend. It put everyone on much equal footing and rejected the notion that you were allowed to make homosexuals second class citizens because you read the bible.

Why do you assume that my objection to gay marriage is due to religion? I am not a Christian and do not believe in the bible. It is wrong to assume that everyone that is against gay marriage basis their objections purely on religious grounds.

This entire lawsuit was because a gay man was not allowed to be listed as a survivor on a death certificate simply for the fact that he was gay and couldn't marry. It would seem that if changing the laws were such a quick and easy fix you could have done it by now. But you didn't. Your choice and you paid the price for it.

You are blaming me because the plaintiff could not make a civil agreement so he could visit his partner in the hospital? Well if I were President and could force every state in America to do my bidding I would have done so. I also would have privatized marriage. I have no religious or other moral objection to what other people do within the privacy of their own bedrooms. I just object to my marriage being associated with those sexual practices.

@Frederic Bastiat Outstanding point on Kennedy's horrible reasoning.

@StrangerLand

Careful Superlib, people don't like it when you point out how their negative bias towards one issue may in turn impact negatively on their positive bias towards another issue.

True, and Fredric Bastiat made a terrific point about that didn't he?

It is really odd how everyone now wants to declare people opposed to gay marriage to be bigots. But they never accused Barack Obama of being a bigot when they supported him for president in 2008.

@zichi

So you would be happy to have GAY neighbours if it were Mr&Mr with a civil agreement but not Mr&Mr if they were married, which could now happen to you?

I do not think it is important that I am "happy" to have gay neighbors but I am fine with it as long as they are respectful to me and my family.

Would you be happy living next to a bible thumping evangelical Christian?

My next door neighbors are Democrats. They are so far to the Left that one of them sometimes wears a shirt with the flag of the URRS on it. I do not "hate" them. We get along for the most part because we are respectful to one another. There is a homosexual couple that live down the street from me. So what. I can choose to associate with them or not - that is my choice. As long as they are respectful to me and my wife I will extend the same courtesy to them. That is called pluralism and tolerance. By the way, tolerance does not in any way imply that I have to celebrate their relationship. Their personal relationship is none of my business. Everyone's personal life is none of my business.

I do not have to like the fact that my neighbors are politically Liberal, but I also do not have to share the same political association with them. No one is forcing me to be a member of the Democrat party. The new gay marriage law is different. Even if I did not like the fact that my neighbors have a homosexual relationship, because I am already married I am compelled by law to be institutionally associated with them. That I object to. So now I want the option to define my marriage as I see fit and have it respected. Being forced to be associated with someone that I do not agree with is oppressive and disrespectful of my marriage. That is what gay marriage does to the religious and to those like me with secular and moral objections to homosexuality. The same will inevitably apply to other forms of sexuality that logic and reason now demand be included into marriage.

Be honest, do you really think gay marriage makes marriage "equal"? Are there no other sexual preferences that are still being discriminated against because they remain barred from marriage?

People keep saying that gay marriage does not have any affect on anyone else's marriage. But that is only true to those that agree with gay marriage. The other side fails to see this issue from any standpoint except their own. There is a compromise and that is to take each persons sexuality out of the equation. Current marriage law can impose penalties if one partner goes outside of their marriage contract for sex. Let's get rid of this special law called marriage law. In the past, marriage was not tied to government, to taxation, benefits, visitation rights, etc. Those things came about over time. It used to be a private thing and it needs to be again.