I've been wondering about ebola actually. Has that gotten any better yet?

Somewhat. Liberia has supposedly been cleared of it, which means there's only two infected countries now. Don't know how the fight goes in those two said countries though.

Stop complaining. Millions of people can finally marry the loves of their lives. It's easy to take that for granted if it's never been illegal for you.

It's a great day to be an American.

Agree totally.

Not that I'm against gay marriage or anything, but was it really Supreme Court's job this time? Their job is to interpret the Constitution, which says marriage between a man and a woman. There's really no other way to interpret that.

I feel like getting an amendment written would be the legal way to go about this.

I personally think we have more pressing matters to worry about. LIKE THE FACT THAT THE WORLD'S CHOCOLATE SUPPLIES ARE UNDER ATTACK.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/fairtrade-partner-zone/chocolate-cocoa-production-risk



OH, AND THE WORLD'S MAPLE SYRUP RESERVE WAS PILLAGED. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/02/sticky-situation-30-million-in-maple-syrup-stolen-from-canadas-strategic-syrup-reserve/

@Martian:

Their job is to interpret the Constitution, which says marriage between a man and a woman. There's really no other way to interpret that.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't say that because it leaves marriage to the states as long as their practices aren't unconstitutional.

Since 1888, the SCOTUS has ruled at least 14 times that marriage is a constitutional right that cannot be infringed upon by the government.

Since the end of the Civil War, the US constitution has included the 14th Amendment, which requires state governments to respect all constitutional rights just like the federal government.

So:

Marriage is a constitutional right (stare decisis and the Bill of Rights)
+ states must respect constitutional rights just like the federal government (14th amendment)
+ all citizens of the United States have equal protection under the law and cannot be categorically denied their constitutional rights by any level or branch of the government (14th amendment)

= SCOTUS must rule that state bans on gay marriage are illegal as they're cateogorical infringements of a constitutional right, which state governments aren't allowed to commit

QueefBalls
Level 56
Stop complaining. Millions of people can finally marry the loves of their lives. It's easy to take that for granted if it's never been illegal for you.

It's a great day to be an American.

+1000000

btw, i hate homophobes, racists, becouse they have lower IQ than mine

Edited 6/29/2015 09:40:26

Since 1888, the SCOTUS has ruled at least 14 times that marriage is a constitutional right that cannot be infringed upon by the government.

Problem with all those rulings is that marriage isn't mentioned by the Constitution. It's the ever so common, "The Constitution says what we want it to say".

If marriage of any and every kind is a right than an Amendment should be passed.

Problem with all those rulings is that marriage isn't mentioned by the Constitution. It's the ever so common, "The Constitution says what we want it to say".

I feel like you've got a somewhat skewed view of the Supreme Court. Their job is explicitly to interpret the Constitution, which in itself (being an extremely short governing document) is a loose framework that was never intended to specify every little thing but instead provide a general basis for government behavior and civil liberties in the country. Fortunately, unlike India's constitution, the U.S. Constitution doesn't attempt to cover every single little thing directly but instead provides a set of principles that the government must obey. Furthermore, by specifying the role of the Supreme Court and judiciary system as interpretive, it specifically recognizes their authority to understand and enumerate the rights protected by the Constitution.

This is common in a common law jurisdiction- in fact, this power of judges is the basis for common law (which, of course, is the basis for government in the United States federal government as well as 49 out of 50 states- Louisiana being the exception as it has a mixture of common and civil law).

Simply put, these justices weren't making anything up. They were applying specific portions of the Constitution exactly as the Constitution demands they do.

Those 14 rulings were not them adding new content to the Constitution but instead comprehending the (deliberately vague) language of the Constitution. They specifically cited the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and identified the right to marriage as one of the liberties that the clause protects. Again, this was a power that was left entirely to them by the design of the Constitution and the wording of the Bill of Rights- it was their job to use their rulings to determine exactly what these liberties constituted. That is exactly the role of a judge in a common law jurisdiction- to interpret law (in accordance with existing precedents) and set precedents.

Regardless of whether you agree with their reasoning (and before you say you don't, I'd recommend you actually read the case briefs- they were written by people with far more training and expertise in constitutional law than you or I have- arguably the best interpreters of constitutional law in the country by the nature of their job, so the reasoning isn't as flimsy as you appear to think), the "it's not in the Constution" argument simply reveals a flawed understanding of the United States as a common law jurisdiction and the role of the Constitution within that jurisdiction. It's also demonstrably false on face because there were specific constitutional citations provided in each of those fourteen rulings- citations that passed the test of time through Courts of multiple leanings.

This is exactly how common law and stare decisis are supposed to work, and the judiciary branch doing its job.

Edited 6/29/2015 16:30:00

I feel like you've got a somewhat skewed view of the Supreme Court. Their job is explicitly to interpret the Constitution, which in itself (being an extremely short governing document) is a loose framework that was never intended to specify every little thing but instead provide a general basis for government behavior and civil liberties in the country. Fortunately, unlike India's constitution, the U.S. Constitution doesn't attempt to cover every single little thing directly but instead provides a set of principles that the government must obey. Furthermore, by specifying the role of the Supreme Court and judiciary system as interpretive, it specifically recognizes their authority to understand and enumerate the rights protected by the Constitution.

Yes, their job is to interpret what was written in the Constitution. However, there is a difference between interpreting established law and for all intents in purposes creating new law with very little to no ground in the actual writing. I'll try and make an example.

Freedom of Press can be extended to websites, for news websites are a modern extension of newspapers. The same wording of the 1st amendment logically extends here.

However, there is nothing at all in the Constitution regarding marriage. The ruling in question completely relied on reading into words that aren't actually there.

Yes, the Constitution was meant to be flexible, but that's why we are able to add amendments. The type of radical,liberal interpretation of the Constitution that we've seen here and in other cases sets a very bad precedent. With the kind of logic we're employing the Constitution could be bent to fit any type of agenda and justify anything that's not an obvious contradiction. All on the basis of, "Well, we think this what the founding father's would of meant, so it's law now."

Anything that adds such immense change to the law should go through the amendment process so that it can be properly added to the Constitution. Going through this process would also ensure that the decision is the will of the majority as intended with our type of government.

They specifically cited the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and identified the right to marriage as one of the liberties that the clause protects.

"....nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,without due process of law...."

Pretty much every law that exists deprives people of liberty in some fashion. However, laws exist for justified reasons and are debated upon and passed in legislatures by representatives of the people. Can laws be wrong? Yes, but if that is so than the same process should be used to change them. Only rights laid out within the Constitution are immune to legislation. (And even those are bent in some cases)

All due process guarantees is that a law is applied equally to all citizens. I.E: Theft is punishable regardless of who commits it.

Again, the problem with liberal interpretation is that it can be used to justify nearly anything. You can define nearly every possible action as a right or a personal liberty, but that doesn't mean it should be treated as such.

to interpret law

Law wasn't interpreted here, it was created. That is the issue, enforceable law was created by five people who are not even elected.

Regardless of whether you agree with their reasoning

The Supreme Court doesn't even agree with it's own reasoning in this matter.

"This court is not a legislature,whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution,judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."
-Chief Justice John Roberts

"Today's decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court's abuse of its authority have failed."
-Justice Samuel Alito

Here's my whole point with posting these quotes: It's hard to say with certainty that the Supreme Court has the power to make these kinds of decisions when it's own justices can't even agree on the matter.

This is something that should of been decided on the state level or put to an Amendment which would of ended the argument once and for all. The way it happened however doesn't sit well for many and only serves to cloud the issue with more controversy.

Eklipse shhh, we already won 😛

I really like that county in Alabama's policy of just banning all marriage its a fantastically stupid way of achieving equality, which is ultimately the goal anyway.

The US constitution is far too short to govern such a huge country, and its also too difficult to amend anymore, but hey, they made the right call this time.

The whole "let's focus on more important matters" thing is just pathetic. I have some news: Focusing on more than one issue at a time, is possible, and is already happening.

Congrats to USA. If people don't want all the focus on social justice, I recommend continuing the struggle for justice, because the only way you'll ever make focus on it unneeded, is by having it.

I live in a so-called "tolerant" country of Denmark. Maybe if I hadn't heard people playing music with "gays aren't real people" and people always using "gay" as slurs towards one-another most days back in school and high school I wouldn't have been as interested in the whole issue... But now you can be sure that I will.

And finally:

I think it's worth noting that Obergefell v. Hodges didn't actually change that much; Gay marriage was only illegal in 6 states.

I think they should just get rid of the government recognition of marriage all together.

1. All citizens are promised equal treatment under the law.
2. People who are married have to pay taxes together and must also are allow certain privileges in the tax code that un married people aren't allowed.
3. Government recognized marriages give married people privileges that unmarried people don't have.
4. This violates equal treatment under the law.
5. Government recognition of Marriage should be abolished.

For the record, I have been saying Marriage should be abolished for years now but that always sounded like "giving up" to the social right and "to radical" for the lgbt community.

Do you know how ISIS celebrated Same-sex marriage in the USA? They threw 4 gay men off of a rooftop to their gory, bloody, brutal deaths. But apparent the GREAT INJUSTICE of the world that got HOURS AND HOURS of media coverage is that gays in america used to not be able to get married.

America is the most hypocritical country in the world.

Ban the Confederate flag but not the Nazi flag.

Make a big issue out of Same Sex marriage but not pay any attention to the Gays in the middle east who are being led to the slaughter.

Act like there is a "War on Women" in America and verbally bash each other when Women in Saudi Arabia and the middle east can't drive, can't go out in public without a man, can't show their face, and can't own land.

Give amnesty to people who crossed the border illegally but lock up the drug offender who wasn't hurting anybody or sucking the economy dry.

Go to war in Iraq to get the non existent Chemical weapons but just allow Iran, a country that sponsors terrorism to get NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Wtf does america stand for anymore?

Give amnesty to people who crossed the border illegally but lock up the drug offender who wasn't hurting anybody or sucking the economy dry.

Who IS sucking the economy dry then? Who? Because the Drug Offenders are certainly not helping the economy.

Rogue wins.

Ban the Confederate flag but not the Nazi flag.

The Confederate Flag is not banned. The country simply doesn't want it to be flown by government buildings, but there's no law against it either. And the companies that don't sell the Confederate flag generally don't sell the Nazi flag either.

Make a big issue out of Same Sex marriage but not pay any attention to the Gays in the middle east who are being led to the slaughter.

That's not our jurisdiction.

Act like there is a "War on Women" in America and verbally bash each other when Women in Saudi Arabia and the middle east can't drive, can't go out in public without a man, can't show their face, and can't own land.

Help I'm getting mugged! But don't worry. Someone else, somewhere in the world is getting murdered so they have it worse. Clearly that means my situation is okay.

Give amnesty to people who crossed the border illegally but lock up the drug offender who wasn't hurting anybody or sucking the economy dry.

Even illegal immigrants are net contributors to the economy- I mean, they're cheap labor so they end up producing more for less. Neither illegal immigration nor possession of drugs hurts anyone.

Go to war in Iraq to get the non existent Chemical weapons but just allow Iran, a country that sponsors terrorism to get NUCLEAR WEAPONS

No one was every stupid enough to believe that Iraq actually had 'WMD's' and America is doing a lot to stop Iran from getting nukes. It's very difficult to stop a very advanced society with many strong allies around the world, like Iran, from building a weapon that Pakistan and North Korea have achieved whilst being in much worse positions.

Iran's geography would make it even harder to invade than Iraq, Iran has far more people and a more organised military. Not to mention it would be basically impossible to get anything more through the UN with Russia's increasing hostility.

And then there's the utterly moronic notion that only the complete fucking dipshits in Foxnews keep suggesting, which bombing the nuclear facility. Intentionally creating a new chrnobyl in the centre of the region that already hates the US is no going to help anyone

I couldn't agree more with just about everything Rogue said.

That's not our jurisdiction.

It's still hypocritical that Americans are quick to boycott a restaurant chain because of the CEO's political views yet there's never a serious outcry to sanction any of our oil buddies in the Middle East who stone and hang homosexuals on a regular basis.

Help I'm getting mugged! But don't worry. Someone else, somewhere in the world is getting murdered so they have it worse. Clearly that means my situation is okay.

That's not a fair analogy. What we're talking about is more like demanding someone apologize for insulting you while somebody else nearby is getting brutally beaten to death.

Neither illegal immigration nor possession of drugs hurts anyone.

Surely you're joking? Illegal immigrants taking jobs at under minimum wage does nothing but damage the economy, it also hurts the common U.S worker by lowering the bar. Why hire some one at a decent rate when you can just pick up a couple illegals instead? Not to mention it's appalling that so many businesses get away with the abuse.

As for drug possession, it hurts the users for one. But if that alone doesn't matter to you then it's also an economical burden. Drugs due serious medical damage and usually addicts can't pay for their own medical bills because all the money went to drugs. So that means tax-payers/government has to spend great resources healing these drug users of their self-inflicted damage.

There are enough unpreventable diseases that we need to devote resources into curing without having thousands of cases of self-inflicted illness going around.