Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage

Wanna borrow my Terrible Towel to cry in, Tony? You really are having a rough day.

 

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It seems that denying a citizen of the United States the legal right to get married—enjoyed by millions of citizens in the United States—is denying that person the "equal protection of the laws" as defined by the 14th Amendment. Dismiss it as the "justices' feelings" all you want, but that is the justification they used. Just because you disagree with their decision doesn't mean they didn't use Constitutional reasoning to come to their conclusion. The Court said voters can't pick and chose who gets to enjoy a right under the law and who can't.

As for this "this opens the door for polygamy" nonsense, polygamy is denied to all. It isn't a right we say some can enjoy; we say no one can practice it. Same goes for pedophilia. No one is legally allowed to engage in that act, and that's the difference with same-sex marriage.

So I'm sorry your side lost, but the ruling was justified under the constitution.

 

I'm actually having a fine day. Stupidity all around, but at my age I figure I'll be dead before we're a full Idiocracy.

 

Polygamy is denied to all. So was same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is just as different a definition of marriage as a multi-partner marriage. Neither is what marriage was 20 years ago.

 

Slavery was legal in this country, too, at one point. The definition of a citizen eligible to vote did not include women.

On the other hand, we're not giving people who aren't citizens the right to vote.

Just because we have made some changes that were not just necessary, but actually correcting injustice, does not mean all bets are off.

 

Don't get Tony thinking of the good ol days OOP

 

Wasn't something similar said with interracial marriage? How did that work out?

 

Several years ago, the whole "polygamy" argument was what changed my mind. I was against gay marriage but I felt that argument was so stupid that I began to support equality.

And as far as I know, churches still don't have to perform same-sex weddings.

 

I'm curious. Why were you against gay marriage?

 

That's going to be the interesting thing to watch going forward. Can't the Catholic church already say no to non-Catholics or people who might otherwise be not in good standing ie divorced people? Seems like it would be a natural extension of that, but I guess we won't know until the first person tries it.

 

Churches have always been able to say no to whatever they choose.

 

And they still are. The opinion makes specific reference to this.

Anyway, anyone in NorCal want to mail me a copy of Saturday's San Francisco Chronicle The combination of this ruling and the start of Pride will be something to see.