DOMA unconstitutional (5-4); Court punts on gay marriage (no standing)

Well, duh! No kidding!

Just to square the circle before checking out of this side topic ... The point I was raising is that this assertion that people won't be forced to act in ways that violate their consciences is far, far too overbroad. It's easy to say that "no church is going to be forced to perform same-sex marriages." But lots and lots of people out there could be forced to do things that are just as in violation of their consciences, and this New Mexico case is suggestive of that.

 

While I wish there wasn't more of a fight that had to happen, this piece spells out pretty well why laws or amendments banning gay marriage could be doomed, and cites Scalia's dissent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/26/a-whole-new-era-for-gay-rights-and-human-decency/?hpid=z3

"By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this court that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex couples."

Scalia meant this as a negative, but he’s absolutely right. There is still plenty of work to do, but today’s decision will, in fact, give a powerful new weapon to those who will now set about getting state laws banning gay marriage struck down as illegitimate and an affront to the “personhood and dignity of same-sex couples.”

 

ZING!

 

Care to elaborate?

 

IB dog eat dog says people will be marrying their dogs.

 

At the risk of being an echo to others, isn't it the basic difference between being a business or being a private gathering of individuals? You are drawing the line between a photographer and a church. But once money changes hands, the photographer is no different than a restaurant.

 

Hanna Rosin: Most gay couples are not monogamous:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/26/most_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html

 

This is a great effort at elaborating my point.

 

Man, I'm glad you posted that. This has been a really fascinating part of it and I am surprised that it did not become part of the court arguments. This has been acknowledged far and wide within the gay community; the NYT wrote an article about the changing definition of marriage (the heterosexual variety) and its main source was Dan Savage regarding how the gay outlook could help straight couples.

It's a very interesting topic.

 

I don't agree (not that my agreement/disagreement matters practically; this will, I am almost certain, wind up at the Supreme Court some day). I don't think we sign away our individuality (or our consciences) the moment we enter the commercial world.

 

People still trying to equate sexual habits with morality.

In reality, it just means that homosexual couples are better at separating the concepts of love and sex. If both parties in the marriage are ok with this, it doesn't make the marriage any less committed than anyone else's.

And, it's not cheating.

People who want to get on their high horse about the sanctity of heterosexual marriage seem to forget about how much adultery occurs.

 

I assume you're agreeing that the photographer in question is not being compelled to do anything. I guess technically you're right ... all she had to do was pay the complainants' $6,600+ in attorneys fees, etc., as a result.

How'd you put it?
Snort!