The outcome of this case is clearly of tremendous significance. Nonetheless, I believe the gay rights movement is missing the forest for the trees. The only states that continue to ban gay marriage are those where gays are generally treated poorly. Marriage rights in the Deep South are tangential to the matter of gay rights. Discrimination in public accommodations -- restaurants, stores, jobs, and recreational facilities, among others -- is the next and far more important frontier. Marriage is essentially private. Discrimination in matters public is what equality is mostly about. Why would anyone obsess over the right to marriage in Mississippi, when an employer in New York City is pretty much free not to hire a gay just because he or she is gay? There needs to be a civil rights bill. And whatever Justice Kennedy decides pales in importance to the next and greatest challenge. It is long overdue for the gay rights movement to come out of the closet.
2
With all the problems facing the nation, same sex marriage should be the least of them. What difference does it make in the larger scheme of things? Nothing as far as I can tell.
4
Okay -- not a popular position, but it is probably far better for everyone to let the people decide social issues, especially when they are clearly moving in a direction supported by a large majority - ie towards same-sex marriage. Why get the court involved at this point? Legal marriages at the state level already have federal support by law and each state is coming to the table in its way and time. Abortion remains a divisive and painful issue precisely because it was imposed by the federal government -- why literally shove same-sex marriage into that category? Because, abortion has worked as a divisive issue for both political parties, that's why. Perhaps the hope is that same-sex marriage can do the same.... And we all just want to get along -- right?
2
The grant of Marriage itself does not exist under federal law. They are going to leave it to the States.
4
If marriage equality goes nationwide, I predict we will be able to avoid a major Roe V Wade style culture war, since this issue has been on the national stage for almost a couple decades. Over 70% of americans live in states where same sex marriage is possible, yet traditional marriage continues to be the norm and not the exception. Contrary to social conservative worries, there's no evidence that traditional marriage has been upended by this. Everywhere I look in my neighborhood, I see mommies and daddies with little kids. Society has clearly moved on, and is mostly comfortable granting this 3% of Americans the socio-legal status that is their due. Young people are clearly befuddled as to what the fuss is all about.
Abortion by comparison is deeply private, and is an emotionally fraught wedge issue That battle has no end in sight.
Abortion by comparison is deeply private, and is an emotionally fraught wedge issue That battle has no end in sight.
9
I think I would have to move out of Virginia if the Court upholds discriminatory bans against gay marriage. If that were to happen, there would be nothing to stop "sincerely held religious beliefs" laws from becoming law. Virginia right wing legislators have already been proposed.
6
I'm hoping for as big a margin of victory in this one as possible; 6-3 or even 7-2 if Alito can bring himself around. That sort of walloping would really show the opponents of same-sex marriage just how alone they are in this fight.
15
The arc of the Universe does indeed bend towards justice. This should be a 9-0 decision, but it won't be. However, the Justices won't live forever. My daughter is 16 and she is a bright, engaged person who simply cannot understand why this is an issue. Her generation, the "millennials", view the world differently. In huge numbers they believe in equal rights and equal treatment for all. Don't forget, high school students today grew up with Barack Obama as President. They watch Modern Family and see Mitch and Cam as just another funny couple on TV. They are passionate about fixing the climate. A few old men on the Supreme Court don't scare me anymore.
42
There are 6 Catholics and 3 Jews on the Supreme Court, with most of the Catholics having no qualms about imposing the rules from their religion on the country as a whole.
24
Until we were married in 2013, I always struggled to know how to adequately introduce or describe the man who I have loved and lived with for many years, and who our two small children know as "Papa". "Partner" was too business-like. "Companion" too vague. "Friend" too weak. "Lover" too shallow. There was no adequate word. Now he is my "husband" and my "spouse." These are at last the right words to describe him, and I am glad I can now use them. I hope the Supreme Court makes these words available to other same-sex couples who wish to be spared my dilemma or seek the many legal benefits of marriage.
44
"Equal rights" would, it seems to me, mean "equal" "rights". That means that anyone who wants to get married, should be able to do so. Anyone who wants to get divorced, should be able to do so. Anyone who is protected by the state should have the same protection and when that protection is slanted toward the rich and/or white, then adjustments have to be made such as "gun on, camera on" for police, and independent prosecutors to prosecute when unarmed civilians are killed. If the protection is equal. then the cameras and the independent prosecutors should prove that. Equal means equal for women, too. 78 cents for every dollar earned by men for the same job is not equal. We as Americans should have the absolute and unquestioned right to equal access to services - whatever they are - provided by the government. Whenever any of us lack equal access, we do not have the country we claim to have. We as Americans should have equal liability for wrongdoing as well, and the failure to have that - favoring rich and white over poor, black and other minorities means that we do not have the country we claim to have. For 200 years Americans have fought and died in the USA to try to get equal rights. Now is the time for a complete re-write of our Constitution. To provide for equal access, equal responsibility, equal burden. Now is the time. Who can stand against such an idea? Only those who do not want us to have the country we claim to be.
30
Resolve this issue, and affirm the right of gay and lesbian citizens to marry! Then, let's keep going-- dismantle Citizens United, really institute SINGLE PAYER health care, fund our public schools like crazy, tax churches like the rest of us, and make corporations pay their fair share of taxes. Invest in our infrastructure again, pay a liveable minimum wage, and revamp the tax code so that the top 3 percent of earners in the US pay proportionately what the rest of us do. I could go on dreaming......
49
It all comes to a few thinking they know better what is good for people that people themselves. Guess of which ideological side they are.
9
Equal protection of the law is one of the more important rights granted by the Constitution. If the Supreme Court decides to carve out an exception based on sexual orientation, we are all in a lot of trouble. What's next?
26
The only (so-called) 'arguments' opposing 'gay-marriage' that I have ever heard have to do with the 'preservation' of 'marriage-as-we-know-it'. It is hard to see how the marriage of two gay-partners poses any threat to any conventional marriage that is not likely to crumble and dissolve for any of many other reasons (incompatibility, infidelity, ennui, to name but just a few - NOT including 'because there's a married gay-couple living down the street. Its what should be termed a 'straw-man' a concept very very frequently used by Republicans breathlessly attempting to 'get their way' in politics.
19
Too early to predict 5-4?
And, if the decision is for gay marriage, then it will actually be a boon for the Republican Party, as it will less likely be an issue in 2016 and this is an issue that hurt them in 2012 and will increasingly do so.
And, if the decision is for gay marriage, then it will actually be a boon for the Republican Party, as it will less likely be an issue in 2016 and this is an issue that hurt them in 2012 and will increasingly do so.
8
I still don't understand how there is a "right to marry". This was only proposed because of the govt.'s giving benefits to married couples. The argument should be why an over reaching and social engineering govt. is tolerated? Why is govt. in the marriage business? Also, the divorce lawyers are also foaming at the mouth because with gay marriage comes gay divorce. This just adds to our already over litigated society.
5
The statement that "all other" appeals courts have ruled to the contrary is meaningless unless you tell the reader how many. It could be one or two, in which case the writer would obviously be trying to slant his "news" report. It could be four or five or six, in which case you should say so. It would also help, and take up very little extra space, to say how many federal appeals courts there are. I think the number is twelve.
6
People have the right to agree or disagree with Supreme Court decisions. But they are the final court in the US and should be respected for decisions made whether you agree with them or not. I do not agree with the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch at all times but it is what makes our form of government unique. It has survived the test of time and our way of government will be a hallmark for all in the world. Disagree or agree is our right. But respect the institutions of our way of government.
3
It is gratifying to learn that some states are able to express "moral disapproval" in state law. I can only imagine the joys of living in states in which a couple of dozen wholly owned legislators are in charge of the private conduct of adults. Promoting the doctrine of "global warming" is now a form of blasphemy in Texas.
16
An affirmation of gays right to wed would be a good outcome in my mind. But , then, will all those who celebrate the outcome also stop their bigoted harassment of those who believe otherwise due to Christian devotion and let them live their lives in peace as well?
8
What you actually mean is that this is too important an issue to be actually decided by citizens in individual states using their rights accorded under the constitution.
Especially as they have already done so in many states and you don't agree with their opinions or the results.
~ Liberal institutions straightway cease from being liberal the moment they are soundly established: once this is attained no more grievous and more thorough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions. Nietzsche - Twilight of the Idols
Especially as they have already done so in many states and you don't agree with their opinions or the results.
~ Liberal institutions straightway cease from being liberal the moment they are soundly established: once this is attained no more grievous and more thorough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions. Nietzsche - Twilight of the Idols
10
Alas! This SCOTUS has demonstrated little love for civil rights.
12
What makes me think that Antonin Scalia is going to say something really, really stupid?
28
I was born in '46. In the '50s my favorite composer was Tchaikovsky. When I read about his life I learned that the events surrounding his greatest symphony, #4, involved his being gay. Living in an extreme homophobic society led to his attempted suicide and eventually inspired that monumental music.
Although we benefited from his persecution I couldn't help but feel that his treatment was unfair. Since then my personal interactions with the gay side of humanity have left me wishing for, hoping for the day when nobody cares what you are.
Although we benefited from his persecution I couldn't help but feel that his treatment was unfair. Since then my personal interactions with the gay side of humanity have left me wishing for, hoping for the day when nobody cares what you are.
19
If governments stopped pandering to "married" couples--inheritence tax exclusions for example--there would be no need for government-defined marriage. Please treat us all as individuals and respect the legal contracts we enter. Do we really want state and federal lawmakers defining marriage and families? Think of how they've twisted themselves in knots to define something as simple as income.
9
For the Court to uphold the appellate decision would be a great tragedy.
3
Actually, while it is true that Justice Kennedy may well end up being the swing vote on this (as he has on many issues), it is too early to rule out a "surprise" such as the one in which Justice Roberts voted for the Obamacare mandate. While I have as little faith in SCOTUS as an increasing number of people do, I still believe the Court may surprise us yet.
1
As a long-time member of the SCOTUS bar,I have followed the court's decisions closely on divisive cultural issues. My prediction is that the Court will rule 5 to 4 in striking down gay marriage bans and allowing full faith and credit for out of state gay marriages.Kennedy will likely write the decision. However,there will be dissents and concurring opinions which will confuse the issues. Scalia and his strict construction adherents on the Court will, in dissent, argue that nothing in the language of the constitution addresses gay marriage and that the only reason gay marriage is allowed in so many states now is the SCOTUS DOMA decision,not public will. He will be right,of course,and this will encourage state legislatures to,similar to the aftermath of Roe,pass laws seeking to adversely impact gay marriage. As for Justice Ginsburg,she has frequently commented that Roe got too ahead of the states. Likely she voted against cert in conference.As for Justice Roberts,given the upcoming presidential election year,he will likely vote to overturn gay marriage bans. Do you know why?
3
Because of the separation of cultural tradition and state in the United States, and the principle of the individual as an atomic unit endowed with rights, there is an argument that any individual should have a right to marry any other individual. However, communitarian critiques of this system have been gaining ground from both the cultural right and cultural left for the last 40-50 years. If the argument from the right for tradition holds any sway, it is in part owing to communitarian identity theories that cultural left intellectuals have helped make prevalent. The argument is unusual in an American context, but it would be that "marriage" has had a particular meaning throughout the entirety of human history, in almost all cases having to do with a community sacralizing the union between a man and a women for the sake of generating the biological future of the community. This may seem a repulsive notion to modern individualistic Americans who think of their choices as wholly atomic and independent of any purpose for the history or community in which they live, but it is a natural matter of fact that historical communities cannot continue without such arrangements. The fact is only obscured by the highly individualistic culture in which we live. It might not be a wholly unreasonable compromise to affirm that the ancient meaning of "marriage" should not be altered while not denying gays the legal rights to all the legal benefits of marriage under a civil union designation.
3
That's ridiculous. There has to be ONE last good reason for stopping the government from recognizing the reality of their relationship. Um... What if we go back to the 'It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve' thing... that played nicely there for a while, right? No?
Um... nnnnn... tssssss...
Aw, forget it then. I actually met some of them gays and they seem like nice people. They have a dog and keep their yard up and everything.
Um... nnnnn... tssssss...
Aw, forget it then. I actually met some of them gays and they seem like nice people. They have a dog and keep their yard up and everything.
9
To all the people who will inevitably post a comment here suggesting that same-sex marriage is some kind of perversion or that God said this or God said that or that there's nothing in the Constitution about same-sex marriage or any of the other specious arguments that have been repeatedly either ignored or thrown out by courts across the country, I just want to say, I respect your right to have an opinion, but the country has moved on. Get over it.
15
If the SCOTUS were to uphold the Sixth Circuit ruling, the unwinding of existing gay marriages would take decades of legal battles. There's no way to put this genie back in the bottle.
The expansion of liberty by allowing gays to fully enjoy the same rights as straights has caused no rips in the social fabric of our society. Let's hope the Court finally puts this issue on the "settled law" side of the legal ledger.
The expansion of liberty by allowing gays to fully enjoy the same rights as straights has caused no rips in the social fabric of our society. Let's hope the Court finally puts this issue on the "settled law" side of the legal ledger.
13
Scalia: Marriage must be protected because it's sacred.
So how come straight marriages are auctioned off on reality TV, and straight people like Newt Gingrich merrily divorce their cancer-ridden wives?
So how come straight marriages are auctioned off on reality TV, and straight people like Newt Gingrich merrily divorce their cancer-ridden wives?
23
Well, gentlemen, I wish I could be even cautiously optimistic that the Court will do the obvious and right thing, but I feel a bit Eeyorish about this situation. Although the movement toward full rights for any and all couples--or people--has been at warp speed in the last two years, I'm afraid I am never surprised at the willingness of the Supremes to simply get in the road and stop traffic. This whole issue seems so clear and so simple that it's hard to imagine they won't, finally, just put the official stamp on it. I agree with Mr. Spitzer that "the issue of gay rights has already been decided by the American public," but when has that fact ever been the basis of official rulings? We're living in a culture of severe disconnect and often things just don't quite make sense. On the subject of gay rights, we will hope the great voice of the people has gathered enough momentum to roll right over opposition.
12
Marriage equality in the US is of course a done deal; your own constitution guarantees it. Perhaps the impending Supreme Court decision will finally put an end to the peculiarly American twisting of the democratic process in which a citizen gets to decide whether or not his neighbor should enjoy the same basic rights that he himself already enjoys. That's not democracy--it's rule by plebiscite. Or 'proposition.'
In a democratic system, we elect people who we believe represent our interests and beliefs, and then we let them govern. If we don't like the policies they implement, we vote them out of office. I'm not suggesting that Canadian politicians are somehow morally superior to their American counterparts (though I may secretly believe it), but no one running for office in Canada would think of invoking his or her personal religious beliefs in the context of a political campaign--and in Canada we have no explicit constitutional separate of church and state--not because it was overlooked, but because to anyone of average intelligence it's obvious that when religion and politics mix, you're living in a de facto theocracy.
Marriage equality has been the law nationally in Canada for 9 years, and the effect on our society has been that tuxedo rentals have doubled. The Mormon church here was not able to spend millions to keep gay people second-class citizens, and we have no Scalia, with his religious dogma and delusions of wisdom, on our Supreme Court.
In a democratic system, we elect people who we believe represent our interests and beliefs, and then we let them govern. If we don't like the policies they implement, we vote them out of office. I'm not suggesting that Canadian politicians are somehow morally superior to their American counterparts (though I may secretly believe it), but no one running for office in Canada would think of invoking his or her personal religious beliefs in the context of a political campaign--and in Canada we have no explicit constitutional separate of church and state--not because it was overlooked, but because to anyone of average intelligence it's obvious that when religion and politics mix, you're living in a de facto theocracy.
Marriage equality has been the law nationally in Canada for 9 years, and the effect on our society has been that tuxedo rentals have doubled. The Mormon church here was not able to spend millions to keep gay people second-class citizens, and we have no Scalia, with his religious dogma and delusions of wisdom, on our Supreme Court.
28
The only argument those against same sex marriage have is that their religious book tells them its wrong.
I have news for them. We don't live in a theocracy. Their religious book does not dictate our laws. Not everyone believes in or follows their religious book. We've moved past it and in many cases made us better people.
I have news for them. We don't live in a theocracy. Their religious book does not dictate our laws. Not everyone believes in or follows their religious book. We've moved past it and in many cases made us better people.
44
By continuing to acknowledge that the Founding Father's did not really intend that all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable including life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence the law reflects historical reality. Nor did the Founding Father's think that "we the people" meant that everyone was a "person" or a "free person".
Blacks, women, Native Americans and LGBT were among those not intended to be persons. Law has nothing to do with reason or logic or fairness or justice. Law is socioeconomic political educational ethnic sectarian racial history.
Legal ethics requires that lawyers and judges avoid even the appearance of impropriety. As the least democratic branch of our divided limited power democratic republic the judiciary particularly the Supreme Court of the United States have a delicate tough obligation. The judicial nomination process and our SCOTUS currently reflects our hyper-partisan political dysfunction.
Moreover, although only 24% of Americans are Catholic and 2% are Jewish six of the SCOTUS justices are Catholic and three are Jewish. Marriage and LGBT status both have a sectarian and civil secular basis. The appearance of impropriety that faith and personal preference color their opinions is blatant and unfortunate. With 36 states recognizing gay marriage and changing public opinion will SCOTUS "follow the election returns" and physical biological reality?
Blacks, women, Native Americans and LGBT were among those not intended to be persons. Law has nothing to do with reason or logic or fairness or justice. Law is socioeconomic political educational ethnic sectarian racial history.
Legal ethics requires that lawyers and judges avoid even the appearance of impropriety. As the least democratic branch of our divided limited power democratic republic the judiciary particularly the Supreme Court of the United States have a delicate tough obligation. The judicial nomination process and our SCOTUS currently reflects our hyper-partisan political dysfunction.
Moreover, although only 24% of Americans are Catholic and 2% are Jewish six of the SCOTUS justices are Catholic and three are Jewish. Marriage and LGBT status both have a sectarian and civil secular basis. The appearance of impropriety that faith and personal preference color their opinions is blatant and unfortunate. With 36 states recognizing gay marriage and changing public opinion will SCOTUS "follow the election returns" and physical biological reality?
6
One basic question: why does anyone have to wait until June? The marriage between 2 consenting adults is a "no brainer" much less something necessary to be pondered by SCOTUS.
Ooops! Almost forgot!
This is the crew that thinks money doesn't buy "influence" when given to politicians. Silly me, of course SCOTUS will do whatever the string pullers and influence peddlers WANT them to do, just about like everyone else in DC.
So whatever "lobbyists" same sex marriage folks have better start cranking out the old "dollar machine" and buy themselves enough influence so that Ms. Ginsberg doesn't sound like the ONLY justice with a fully functioning brain.
Otherwise, don't merely depend on SCOTUS to do the "right thing". The approval of ACA came only because Chief Justice Roberts, a GOP/TP stand-in, thought that Mr. Romney would win in 2012 and render all of ACA mute; he chose poorly. I do not expect this SCOTUS to do anything logical or right based merely on the arguments presented; the conservatives on the Court will always do what their sponsors "suggest" (As I recall, Justice Scalia went duck hunting with then V.P. Cheney yet didn't recluse himself the following month when a case was to be heard that directly affected Mr. Cheney's pocketbook).
If I were gay, I would still be worried about the state of same sex marriage particularly at the hands of this Supreme Court.
Ooops! Almost forgot!
This is the crew that thinks money doesn't buy "influence" when given to politicians. Silly me, of course SCOTUS will do whatever the string pullers and influence peddlers WANT them to do, just about like everyone else in DC.
So whatever "lobbyists" same sex marriage folks have better start cranking out the old "dollar machine" and buy themselves enough influence so that Ms. Ginsberg doesn't sound like the ONLY justice with a fully functioning brain.
Otherwise, don't merely depend on SCOTUS to do the "right thing". The approval of ACA came only because Chief Justice Roberts, a GOP/TP stand-in, thought that Mr. Romney would win in 2012 and render all of ACA mute; he chose poorly. I do not expect this SCOTUS to do anything logical or right based merely on the arguments presented; the conservatives on the Court will always do what their sponsors "suggest" (As I recall, Justice Scalia went duck hunting with then V.P. Cheney yet didn't recluse himself the following month when a case was to be heard that directly affected Mr. Cheney's pocketbook).
If I were gay, I would still be worried about the state of same sex marriage particularly at the hands of this Supreme Court.
18
This will finally all be over come this summer and we will all have reason to celebrate (this will be a very special 4th of July)!
As Scalia wrote, "what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising the liberty protected by the Constitution?”. Besides, there is no way that the SCOTUS is about to take away this fundamental right which is now legal in 36 States.
As Scalia wrote, "what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising the liberty protected by the Constitution?”. Besides, there is no way that the SCOTUS is about to take away this fundamental right which is now legal in 36 States.
25
Our treatment of gay marriage is perhaps the most high-profile example in America of the extraordinary leniency granted to religious communities. Because there is no solid legal ground for banning gay marriage; as the editorial points out, this has now been demonstrated over and over. The argument against equality in this case--the only reason there's a case at all--stems largely from religious belief, and what's more, from a worldview that says religious belief should determine the boundaries of the freedom and rights of everyone. (This is now branded as "religious liberty," though you have to be a certain kind of religious to find it liberating.) This is not the only issue in our society that's dominated by this worldview, and so my hope is that striking down bans on gay marriage will be a kind of "teachable moment" for a lot of Americans. Deeply held religious beliefs are generally not a good reason for curtailing someone else's liberty, and even those who would place the Bible above all other documents must recognize the authority of the Constitution in this country.
5
I’ve read numerous articles in the NYT and elsewhere that ponder why people on the left don’t turn out to vote as much as people on right. Being very far left, my reason is that I gave up on the Democrats decades ago and this article highlights my complaints. 15 years ago I doubt that a single Democratic senator or representative would have gone on record in favor of gay marriage. Even eight years ago is iffy. For the most part, the reasoning was political expediency. Not a single Democratic leader was willing to speak their conscience. And this is not the only issue they failed to speak out on. For example, it was Warren Buffett that had to tell Obama that it was ok to talk about higher taxes for top wage earners.
Regardless of the lack of leadership on the Democratic side of the coin, I have been flabbergasted by how craven (pusillanimous?) the Democrats have been to push their agenda or even take credit for some of their policies that worked; which I find absolutely mind blowing because in politics, if you’re afraid to take credit for your successes, you might as well lay down in front of a door and write “Welcome” on your back. When the Democrats find someone who is willing to lead, drop me a memo.
Regardless of the lack of leadership on the Democratic side of the coin, I have been flabbergasted by how craven (pusillanimous?) the Democrats have been to push their agenda or even take credit for some of their policies that worked; which I find absolutely mind blowing because in politics, if you’re afraid to take credit for your successes, you might as well lay down in front of a door and write “Welcome” on your back. When the Democrats find someone who is willing to lead, drop me a memo.
8
The acceptance or non-acceptance of gay marriage is a matter of society changing its mind, and as such it should be the legislative branch that approves or does not, since there the changing opinion of the people is most accurately represented. The Court oversteps when it suddenly discovers a right where none has existed before. Unfortunately, eager to become more powerful, it has been making the law this way too many times recently. If you wish to declare that gay marriage is inarguably now a right, just tell the rest of us on what date it became a right. It certainly wasn't just a little while ago.
I say the above as someone who has voted for gay marriage.
I say the above as someone who has voted for gay marriage.
3
Really? Procreation is the latest subject that wil be used to argue against same-sex marriage?
If my understanding of biology is correct, a same-sex couple will produce exactly the same number of children whether they are married or not. Procreation between men and women, though harder to predict, will be similarly unaffected by a Supreme Court ruling in this matter. Could this really come down to one Justice's "swing vote?" Is the SCOTUS still split on something so fundamental?
While the furtherance of equal protection as a Constitutional principle is much more important than partisan politics, a close vote from the Supremes will certainly remind voters that the political party of next President is of the utmost importance for all sorts of issues. (How's that "Citizens United" decision workin' for ya?)
If my understanding of biology is correct, a same-sex couple will produce exactly the same number of children whether they are married or not. Procreation between men and women, though harder to predict, will be similarly unaffected by a Supreme Court ruling in this matter. Could this really come down to one Justice's "swing vote?" Is the SCOTUS still split on something so fundamental?
While the furtherance of equal protection as a Constitutional principle is much more important than partisan politics, a close vote from the Supremes will certainly remind voters that the political party of next President is of the utmost importance for all sorts of issues. (How's that "Citizens United" decision workin' for ya?)
4
Titles like "Defense of Marriage" are complete misnomers. Oh, marriages do come under assault, with divorce and affairs as exhibits A and B. Gay marriage, however, is just another addition to the institution of marriage, one whose time has long since come. Those who say that heterosexual unions would be demeaned are looking for cover to demean other adults.
4
How can I be afflicted by my neighbors' simple joy? Is not the benignness of society gently increased? Have you seen the pictures of the rapturous and adorable couples?
Everybody who is kind wins. Somersaults all around.
Everybody who is kind wins. Somersaults all around.
4
It's too bad that (at this point and as far as we know) none of Justice Scalia's siblings or children are homosexuals.
Of course, he could be so self-righteous and clueless that it might not matter.
Of course, he could be so self-righteous and clueless that it might not matter.
4
If the Supremes decide against gay marriage, and that is possible, the consequences would be disastrous.
A negative decision would unleash a furious backlash from the gay community that would have powerful political consequences for 2016 and beyond. If ever the conservatives wanted gay people to just shut up and go away, to the contrary - their worst nightmares would be made reality by a negative decision.
A negative decision would also undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court like no other decision since it bestowed the presidency to GW on a silver platter.
But the Supremes are said to be sensitive, even touchy, about their perceived public image. If so, they would do well to take note that the public mood has moved past them and proceeded into the future, and the justices would to well to pick up their step and keep pace with reality.
A negative decision would unleash a furious backlash from the gay community that would have powerful political consequences for 2016 and beyond. If ever the conservatives wanted gay people to just shut up and go away, to the contrary - their worst nightmares would be made reality by a negative decision.
A negative decision would also undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court like no other decision since it bestowed the presidency to GW on a silver platter.
But the Supremes are said to be sensitive, even touchy, about their perceived public image. If so, they would do well to take note that the public mood has moved past them and proceeded into the future, and the justices would to well to pick up their step and keep pace with reality.
5
It is time for the government to get out of the marriage business. There is no rationale for for our government to give exclusive benefits to married couples. It is certainly unfair to single people or anyone without a government marriage license.
5
"rights embedded in the Constitution?"
An activity that most states treated as criminal at the time the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified, a notion unknown to the history of marriage before a few Massachusetts judges dreamed it up a decade or so ago, this is a "right embedded in the Constitution?" It is an agenda festooned upon the Constitution which will make the resistance to Roe v. Wade look like a romp in the park--and likely (rightly) fray American civil discourse to the straining point. THAT is an issue for the American people, not the predilections of Anthony Kennedy.
An activity that most states treated as criminal at the time the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified, a notion unknown to the history of marriage before a few Massachusetts judges dreamed it up a decade or so ago, this is a "right embedded in the Constitution?" It is an agenda festooned upon the Constitution which will make the resistance to Roe v. Wade look like a romp in the park--and likely (rightly) fray American civil discourse to the straining point. THAT is an issue for the American people, not the predilections of Anthony Kennedy.
5
Sure this is going to end it---just like Roe vs Wade ended the right to abortion issue. Just wait a few decades----
5
The argument is not a new one but it has yet to be refuted in any way. If gays are guaranteed the right to marry then how can you deny the same right to Mormons who want multiple spouses? Funny how this point is always completely ignored by the NYT and other liberal media. If they deny this right to Mormons they can't justify giving the right to gays to marry. If they let Mormons have multiple spouses, they risk alienating public opinion against the entire issue.
6
The debate about same-sex so-called "marriage" is over. Homosexuals have always had the same marriage rights that everyone else has had, to wit: the right to marry ONE HUMAN BEING of the OPPOSITE sex. That is what marriage is. If you don't like marriage (i.e, the union of ONE man and ONE woman) then don't get married.
4
“responsible procreation” is a joke when 30% of white & 70% of black births are illegitimate. WE HAD upset & uproar 50years ago when Pat Moynihan raised alarm about black birth rates when 30% were illegitimate! THE white #s are deceptive since the upper classes and upper middle class have few illegitimate births; but Lower CLasses & lower middle class have much higher illegitimate birth rates.
How in God's name & legal equality of all AMERICANs can we deprive a same sex couples the right to marry. Adoption is common among married male couples; thank God rescuing children from the awful life of rotating foster homes & abuse.
How in God's name & legal equality of all AMERICANs can we deprive a same sex couples the right to marry. Adoption is common among married male couples; thank God rescuing children from the awful life of rotating foster homes & abuse.
4
@stu Freeman
Spitzer is right stu. Though your doubt isn't baseless, the tide is certainly turning. The vast majority of Americans recognize this issue as one of civil rights. Yes, it should have been established earlier, but we live in a democracy, and part of the imperfection of giving every citizen a voice is recognizing that the ignorant get to speak equally. The issue HAS been decided by the public. You need to have faith that the system will catch up. It's certainly not fair that it should have to play catch up, but that's democracy. That's reality. Your assertion otherwise--citing the voting public over two decades ago--speaks to a level of disillusion and disenfranchisement that bolsters the arguments of the remaining fringe bigots that exist.
Spitzer is right stu. Though your doubt isn't baseless, the tide is certainly turning. The vast majority of Americans recognize this issue as one of civil rights. Yes, it should have been established earlier, but we live in a democracy, and part of the imperfection of giving every citizen a voice is recognizing that the ignorant get to speak equally. The issue HAS been decided by the public. You need to have faith that the system will catch up. It's certainly not fair that it should have to play catch up, but that's democracy. That's reality. Your assertion otherwise--citing the voting public over two decades ago--speaks to a level of disillusion and disenfranchisement that bolsters the arguments of the remaining fringe bigots that exist.
1
If you guys are for 'marriage equality', how come only homosexuals are privileged in changing marriage laws? What about incest-sexuals and polygamists? Why doesn't the NYT push for same family marriage and multiple marriage?
This isn't about equality or liberty. It's about power and privilege. Homosexuals are heavily represented in powerful institutions and have lots of friends and allies in high places. Homosexuals are the darlings of Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley oligarchs.
US is supposed to be diverse and represent the values of peoples from all over the world, but Wall Street oligarchs and media cronies are shoving this radical agenda down our throats when in fact most people around the world are appaled by 'gay marriage'.
American youths are so addled with celebrity culture that they agree with anything endorsed by Kardashian and Oprah.
And those who stand up for true marriage are destroyed and hunted down more viciously than communists during the 'McCarthy Era'.
So much for freedom. Just how can anyone say a man using another man's anus is biologically and morally the equivalent of a man and woman having real sex to produce human life? Even homosexuals were born of man and woman whereas not a single life was ever created through homosexual union. So, where is the equal value between real sex/marriage and homosexual encounter and 'gay marriage'?
It's like saying creationism should be taught in schools the name of 'science equality'.
This isn't about equality or liberty. It's about power and privilege. Homosexuals are heavily represented in powerful institutions and have lots of friends and allies in high places. Homosexuals are the darlings of Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley oligarchs.
US is supposed to be diverse and represent the values of peoples from all over the world, but Wall Street oligarchs and media cronies are shoving this radical agenda down our throats when in fact most people around the world are appaled by 'gay marriage'.
American youths are so addled with celebrity culture that they agree with anything endorsed by Kardashian and Oprah.
And those who stand up for true marriage are destroyed and hunted down more viciously than communists during the 'McCarthy Era'.
So much for freedom. Just how can anyone say a man using another man's anus is biologically and morally the equivalent of a man and woman having real sex to produce human life? Even homosexuals were born of man and woman whereas not a single life was ever created through homosexual union. So, where is the equal value between real sex/marriage and homosexual encounter and 'gay marriage'?
It's like saying creationism should be taught in schools the name of 'science equality'.
9
Young people growing up gay will now be able to envision a future with marriage as a possibility, full citizenship a reality, a time when barriers fall and they can fulfill their hopes and realize their dreams. Everyone benefits when the country moves yet another step closer towards equality and the lofty goals of "liberty and justice for all." That this is happening, and may soon become a reality in my lifetime, is remarkable. That I will soon have full citizenship in the country of my birth is a dream come true.
5
My Catholic convert brother who is incapable of procreation was allowed to marry his high school sweetheart and adopt three children, the last of which is finishing up their Ph.D., and try to learn how to raise and love them.
As a homosexual I was not allowed to do this.
The reason?
"Precisely."
As a homosexual I was not allowed to do this.
The reason?
"Precisely."
9
Certainly the specious logic that the courts should not rule on issues of Constitutionality in deference to voters and legislators is so absurd one marvels it was said from a U.S. Appeals Court.
But it will pave the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to make a more definitive ruling on the subject, consistent with previous rulings they have issued.
What I hope is that the people who feared marriage equality will one day see that happy, legally protected, monogamous couples and their children are a positive addition to society.
But it will pave the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to make a more definitive ruling on the subject, consistent with previous rulings they have issued.
What I hope is that the people who feared marriage equality will one day see that happy, legally protected, monogamous couples and their children are a positive addition to society.
1
- the Constitution protects “adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.” -
And what about prostitution and polygamy?
And what about prostitution and polygamy?
5
Yes, it's time for the Supreme Court to ratify, once and for all, the dramatic social change that recognizes same-sex marriage in over 30 states that include 70 percent of the population. This is truly one of the most amazing social transformations in my lifetime; and I hope that you are right that Justice Anthony Kennedy will once again be the deciding vote in ending this form of sexual discrimination. It's now time for same-sex marriage with all its legal implications to be the law of the land in all 50 states.
6
Why do you expect the Supreme Court to abandon their leave-it-to-the-States policy this time? Do you trust this particular court to make nationwide binding decisions on abortion rights, gun rights, and a hundred other critical personal issues?
3
Similar to his reasoning in other civil rights cases, Justice Scalia will point out that the Constitution doesn't refer in any way to gay people. Therefore, he will argue, gays have no rights because apparently they had none (or perhaps didn't exist) when the Constitution was adopted -- just as there is no mention of abortion. We can only hope that Chief Justice Roberts will join a majority favoring recognition of gay rights today.
1
Kennedy is a trader to the conservative movement and to his own faith. In Wisconsin we had a State Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage, and instead of trying to change the amendment by using democratic methods the courts find that they have to legislate from the bench.
Political correctness being what it is, I hope that when the Supreme Court legalizes homosexual marriage in the 50 states as I believe it is time to do to get the matter done with, it makes it crystal clear that this does not mean they are requiring anyone to approve of homosexuality or regard it as a normal state of affairs equivalent or superior to conventional marriage.
In past years, a statement such as this would have been completely unnecessary, but things are moving very fast in this country and five or ten years from now, there's no telling where we will be.
In past years, a statement such as this would have been completely unnecessary, but things are moving very fast in this country and five or ten years from now, there's no telling where we will be.
2
I agree: It’s time to finally settle this issue in favor of same-sex marriage.
The court’s incremental approach was well-taken. To grant the right earlier would have seemed an imposition, even if constitutional. But the country has had time to acclimate and see the arguments in opposition, such as the destruction of family, were not valid. In fact, the nation seems stronger when it lives up to governing principles.
Some say states should be left to decide. I feel otherwise. Hawaii legalized same-sex marriage in 2013 and, as elsewhere, found the days after were much like the days before. It wasn’t an issue in the gubernatorial election last year, even though the GOP candidate was an outspoken Christian. But it was an ever-present undercurrent, one I fear will have a corrosive effect in the lack of a federal decision.
I grew up at a time when homosexuality was seen as an aberration. Then more and more people started coming out. When Hawaii became an early battleground in the marriage issue, I saw it in a theoretical way. That changed when state lawmakers dramatically voted down a bill proponents had sought. I was speaking with one of them when she stopped, hugged me, and started crying.
“We just want to know other people see us as full citizens,” she said.
I had never viewed it from that perspective. But I got it then. And I I became a better person for it. So thank you, to those who fought to bring us to this day.
Justices, do the right thing.
The court’s incremental approach was well-taken. To grant the right earlier would have seemed an imposition, even if constitutional. But the country has had time to acclimate and see the arguments in opposition, such as the destruction of family, were not valid. In fact, the nation seems stronger when it lives up to governing principles.
Some say states should be left to decide. I feel otherwise. Hawaii legalized same-sex marriage in 2013 and, as elsewhere, found the days after were much like the days before. It wasn’t an issue in the gubernatorial election last year, even though the GOP candidate was an outspoken Christian. But it was an ever-present undercurrent, one I fear will have a corrosive effect in the lack of a federal decision.
I grew up at a time when homosexuality was seen as an aberration. Then more and more people started coming out. When Hawaii became an early battleground in the marriage issue, I saw it in a theoretical way. That changed when state lawmakers dramatically voted down a bill proponents had sought. I was speaking with one of them when she stopped, hugged me, and started crying.
“We just want to know other people see us as full citizens,” she said.
I had never viewed it from that perspective. But I got it then. And I I became a better person for it. So thank you, to those who fought to bring us to this day.
Justices, do the right thing.
11
Once again, as in few times before, we look to our Constitution for its promise, a promise greater than its writers could even imagine. What gift they have left to us.
Liberty and justice for all, even beyond their understanding of the true meaning of the words.
Liberty and justice for all, even beyond their understanding of the true meaning of the words.
3
It is time to disentangle civil unions from religious marriage. I've never quite understood why they were commingled in the first place ... strikes me as incompatible with the First Amendment (or even the Second Amendment, if we consider "shotgun weddings").
7
Assuming the supremes rule in favor of same-sex marriage in all the land, it will effectively remove a political football for the conservatives to toss around in the 2016 election. What WILL they do?
7
When the NYT editorial board says that it is time to end the debate on same sex marriage or any other issue, it means that it is time for opponents of whatever its, the Times', position is, to shut up. Ipso facto, whatever the Times thinks conforms to the spirit of the times, is not only permitted by the constitution, but is demanded by it. The same goes for the four sure votes on the court for demanding same sex marriage, but with varying levels of sophistication in their arguments. What it will come down to is of what Justice Anthony Kennedy is able to persuade himself.
8
I'm glad gay marriage is coming to its final conclusion legally. Such arrogant and self righteous judgements gets old and people quit listening simply bc we've all heard the arguments before.
Do you realize in England when King Henry VIII was presiding people who used their left hand (instead of right) predominantly were excluded and experienced all kinds of prejudice ....simply bc they were left handers?
People, let's move forward and put such ignorant and prejudice judgement behind us.
Do you realize in England when King Henry VIII was presiding people who used their left hand (instead of right) predominantly were excluded and experienced all kinds of prejudice ....simply bc they were left handers?
People, let's move forward and put such ignorant and prejudice judgement behind us.
6
I would worry more about the detrimental effect of the Citizen's United decision on our Nation.
9
The hard, unforgiving "religious, Christian" right can be expected to turn the full battery of their financial backers in the shadows to persuade their "friends of the Court" that certain of our citizens do not merit respect or, really, a place in their own country. LGBT persons are duly tax-paying and law-abiding citizens who deserve equal protection under the law. Their intimate, private, personal preferences do not at all bear upon any serious matter such as the common defense of a nation under attack. It is to be ardently hoped that SCOTUS will submit the only verdict that it should: a just and lasting confirmation that every American citizen is entitled to all of the benefits and blessings which make up the very reason for our Constitution's reason for being: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Those who hold to a stricter, less generous view of private human conduct might do well to keep in mind that when one American citizen's liberties are infringed, so are the rest of ours.
5
My husband and I were married in Massachusetts ten years ago yesterday, shortly after same sex marriage became law.
Number of happily married years together: 10
Number of heterosexual marriages destroyed: 0
Number of happily married years together: 10
Number of heterosexual marriages destroyed: 0
24
God forbid the American people should ever think they have the right to decide what form the institution of marriage should take in their own country. The mandarins at the Times know better! Clearly, the matter must be forced by a single swing judge on the Supreme Court!!!
7
It is time to eliminate second-class citizenship for committed, same-sex couples in ALL states, just as in 1967 it was time to permit interracial marriage in all states in Loving v. Virginia.
Ruling otherwise would destroy any vestiges of the Supreme Court's legitimacy remaining after Citizen's United.
Ruling otherwise would destroy any vestiges of the Supreme Court's legitimacy remaining after Citizen's United.
11
The US Constitution is entirely silent on the issue of marriage. Therefore under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution it is for the States and the People to decide. The Supreme Court cannot legitimately rule otherwise. But of course that did not stop Roe v. Wade from being wrongly decided over 40 years ago.
Moreover, marriage is not a right at all. Marriage is a privilege and a set of responsibilities. To frame it primarily as a right is to entirely misunderstand its social purpose.
If marriage is a Constitutionally-protected right, then how can government limit it at all? How can government restrict any two people who profess to love one another from being married? Why should brother not marry brother? Sister marry sister? Mother marry adult son? Why not 3 people who love each other? Why not any number at all? Hey, if they love each other, who are we to judge?
And if same sex marriage is “equal” to traditional sacramental marriage, then why not teach same-sex practices to 8th graders in public school alongside human reproduction? It’s equal, right? That will be the next “right” on the agenda.
Moreover, marriage is not a right at all. Marriage is a privilege and a set of responsibilities. To frame it primarily as a right is to entirely misunderstand its social purpose.
If marriage is a Constitutionally-protected right, then how can government limit it at all? How can government restrict any two people who profess to love one another from being married? Why should brother not marry brother? Sister marry sister? Mother marry adult son? Why not 3 people who love each other? Why not any number at all? Hey, if they love each other, who are we to judge?
And if same sex marriage is “equal” to traditional sacramental marriage, then why not teach same-sex practices to 8th graders in public school alongside human reproduction? It’s equal, right? That will be the next “right” on the agenda.
8
JM, while a 5th grader in a civics class could give you a valid response, lacking that here:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967).
"The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice." Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
While the US Constitution doesn't mention marriage, marriage has been defined as a Constitutionally protected civil right by the United States Supreme Court 15 times since 1888.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967).
"The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice." Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
While the US Constitution doesn't mention marriage, marriage has been defined as a Constitutionally protected civil right by the United States Supreme Court 15 times since 1888.
4
I have no problem at all with two people of the same sex marrying. I understand that. I am happy for any people finding love with each other. My problem is with raising kids. Do you think two women in a marriage with boy children can really relate to what boys are experiencing in puberty? And how do two men guide a pubescent girl experiencing menses? And sex? I consider myself a very liberal thinking person, but I have to say, I don't know how two people of the same sex can really parent a child that is of a different sex from their own, without the help of a partner that knows what's up. This doesn't seem to me like something that should be difficult to understand. It takes two sexes to have and raise children. I look forward to responses, because I'm all in favor of people loving and marrying each other regardless of gender, but I don't get this.
4
Do you know how many children are raised by single parents due to divorce or death? Gay people do have friends and family of the opposite sex who can help with these issues for those who aren't comfortable. My widowed father handled the teen girl angst and menses issues with aplomb with less drama than some of my peers faced with their mothers.
2
So are you saying single people should be prohibited from birthing or adopting children of the gender different from the parent? Or widows/widowers must give up custody of any of their children who don't share the surviving parent's gender? Isn't that the logical extension of your argument?
2
Anne, consider the many heterosexual parents, who are widowed when their spouse dies, and then lovingly guide their opposite-sex children to adulthood. Same-sex couples have this capability as well. The requirement is love for the children, not the experience of your own puberty. Many children are reared in homes with both a mother and father who face their adolescent experience alone because neither parent assumes a guiding role.
3
I'm very curious as to what the vote will be. It would be great if it were 9-0. But I'm realistic. Part of me sees a 7-2 vote, with Alito and Thomas voting their unbending conservative Catholic conscience, the equal protection clause be damned; could be 6-3 if Antonin Scalia decides to continue to vote his Catholic conscience notwithstanding the legal rationale for marriage equality he so eloquently stated in his dissent in Lawrence v Texas; could also be 5-4 if John Roberts decides he wants to re-establish his social conservative bona fides by voting his Catholic conscience (interesting confluence here, eh, those 4 have consistently been the 4 Justices who have voted the "teaching" of the Roman Catholic religion). I cannot imagine under any circumstance how Justice Kennedy can do anything but vote in favor of marriage equality given everything he has written in his prior decisions.
So were I a gambler, I would place my money on a 5-4 decision. The 4 most socially conservative Roman Catholic justices will vote against in order to preserve their credulity in the social conservative world.
So were I a gambler, I would place my money on a 5-4 decision. The 4 most socially conservative Roman Catholic justices will vote against in order to preserve their credulity in the social conservative world.
6
Yup. Too many conservative Catholic men on the Supreme Court.
2
So should we deny parenthood to single mothers and fathers who have children of the opposite sex. Ridiculous! John Roberts and this reader hopefully read the thinking of John F. Kennedy when he explained he understood separation of church and state.
2
Indeed this has been a long time coming. I am a 73-year-old gay man who has been living with another gay man (he is a year older) for over twenty years. We have owned two homes together. But for that entire period we could not marry here in Florida, not until we actually did ten days ago. Our lives are no different than they were except for this: I can now call him my husband. And that makes me equal to all women who can call the men to whom they are married, husbands. The Supreme Court has an obligation--yes, I mean it, an obligation--to recognize that the majority of people in this country want men like me to have the same rights as everyone else. Not just in some states (now all but 15) but all states no matter what the political climate might be in those states. The bogus arguments against marriage equality have, indeed, been blown apart. No heterosexual marriages have fallen apart because men like me marry men like me. I expect the Supreme Court to follow the logic of this editorial--at least the majority to do so. Even the Chief Justice might finally do the right thing. Does he really want his legacy to include a vote against men like me? I think not.
76
I never cared what gay people did, whether they lived together or married or adopted kids. It never bothered me.
When they started saying I was a bigot, or mean, or a hateful person because I didn't support them (I wasn't against them, either), I realized that there were a bunch of gay jerks to go along with a bunch of straight jerks in the world.
I, now, could care less even more.
When they started saying I was a bigot, or mean, or a hateful person because I didn't support them (I wasn't against them, either), I realized that there were a bunch of gay jerks to go along with a bunch of straight jerks in the world.
I, now, could care less even more.
3
For those of you who are not attorneys, have never been before a court including the US Supreme Court let me disavow you of a myth....judges, least of all the Supreme Court, do not rule on the merits, the law or the facts. They decicde what they want to do and back into a decision finding the law andicking the facts that support what they want to do. Judges are guided by personal bias, politicial pressure and personal psychology.
That is why the decision will be 6-3 in favor. Here is why.
Kennedy is on board. Roberts as well but because he wants to insure his legacy as a great jurist and the legacy of the Roberts Court. This depsite not beleivjg. In the right to gay marriage.
Scalia puts his incredible arrogance coupled with his intolerant Roman Catholic belief before any ethical duty he has to be a fair jurist.
Thomas, wanting to be accepted by the white conservatives, he so desprateky aspires to be, (enough to dump his black wife for the white conservative wife), pretends he is not black including forgetting that this is the same issue that would have prevented him from his curtent marital situation 50 years ago. He is a no.
Alito is the worst...a gutless syncophant. The poor kid shuned at Princeton and Yale desperate to be part of the Toni world of the Bushes. Now that he is part of that world, and continued entry requires towing the conservative line, he will seel his soul, and vote. He is a no.
What a disgrace the Roberts court is.
That is why the decision will be 6-3 in favor. Here is why.
Kennedy is on board. Roberts as well but because he wants to insure his legacy as a great jurist and the legacy of the Roberts Court. This depsite not beleivjg. In the right to gay marriage.
Scalia puts his incredible arrogance coupled with his intolerant Roman Catholic belief before any ethical duty he has to be a fair jurist.
Thomas, wanting to be accepted by the white conservatives, he so desprateky aspires to be, (enough to dump his black wife for the white conservative wife), pretends he is not black including forgetting that this is the same issue that would have prevented him from his curtent marital situation 50 years ago. He is a no.
Alito is the worst...a gutless syncophant. The poor kid shuned at Princeton and Yale desperate to be part of the Toni world of the Bushes. Now that he is part of that world, and continued entry requires towing the conservative line, he will seel his soul, and vote. He is a no.
What a disgrace the Roberts court is.
3
I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not gay. I have a few friends who are, but living where I do (Georgia, buckle of the bible belt), they can't be legally married (yet).
As a student of history, this last 18 months has been breathtakingly fascinating. History usually gets made in a span of decades or centuries - not a matter of a half dozen seasons. View the rapid pace of change has been, and continues to be thrilling. Even if the Supreme Court somehow figures out a way to punt, the events of the last couple of years will not be erased.
Regardless of the outcome, when the social history of the 21st century is written, these events, and the confirmation of marriage rights for same sex couples - will fill an important chapter.
As a student of history, this last 18 months has been breathtakingly fascinating. History usually gets made in a span of decades or centuries - not a matter of a half dozen seasons. View the rapid pace of change has been, and continues to be thrilling. Even if the Supreme Court somehow figures out a way to punt, the events of the last couple of years will not be erased.
Regardless of the outcome, when the social history of the 21st century is written, these events, and the confirmation of marriage rights for same sex couples - will fill an important chapter.
3
Christianist advocates of Scalia, Thomas & Alito, Inc., who have sought time and again to "protect" the "sanctity" of marriage, have routinely defined marriage as "between one man and one woman." What they mean, really is, "one man and one woman AT A TIME." While Jesus never mentioned gays, He was adamantly against divorce ("let no man put asunder," and all that), so why don't the Christianists protect marriage by simply banning divorce? I don't seem to recall legislation to that effect having been introduced by the many holier-than-thou types in Congress -- could it be that too many of them may need to consult a divorce attorney? The reality is that there is no such thing as "gay marriage," regardless of how many times the phrase is thrown about. Those married may be straight or gay, but marriage is simply a legal - NOT religious - status recognized by the government. People whose blood pressure skyrockets thinking of gay people marrying should recall that even they had to go to City Hall to get a marriage license, and could have been married right there. Their wailing about gay people trampling on their religious beliefs and rights is absurd, and this tax-paying, law-abiding gay American has had his fill of it.
2
I think if our country makes this the law of the land, many conservative religions will start to bend, and eventually evolve--see the light as it were. How could religions really continue to support such archaic anti-gay dogma when The United States of America has deemed this legal. When a couple can't marry in your church but can marry in the courts, everywhere, no questions, religious kids and teens will start to question, and religious adults will look insular and obsolete and stupid--not to mention homophobic--to the kids (if they don't already) when they try and explain it away with Bible spin. The ripple effect of this decision will be huge.
2
I feel confident that the robed junta will decree that same-sex marriage laws violate the human rights of corporations.
2
I agree. This ship has sailed. It isn't turning back. Time to put this one to bed. Oops.
1
Spot on.
The decision has to not only be favorable - it has to be unanimous.
8-0, at worst.
Justice Roberts, time again for you to orchestrate things - get that camel through the needle's eye.
Game on.
Justice Kagan, time for you to stand up and be counted and write the majority opinion. Nothing whatsover to do with your personal life - just that you've spent a career getting to the Supreme court without saying too much of anything.
Game time.
Justice Kennedy, it must be downright lonely in the middle, all of these years. For the number of times this has effectively been a one-person court - you deserve a raise. But that won't be enough, for something like this.
Good game.
Justice Scalia, it's time to sit down and shut up.
Game over.
PS - I am not LGB or T. But I am left-handed. I am a minority that thinks different - and it's not a lifestyle choice.
The decision has to not only be favorable - it has to be unanimous.
8-0, at worst.
Justice Roberts, time again for you to orchestrate things - get that camel through the needle's eye.
Game on.
Justice Kagan, time for you to stand up and be counted and write the majority opinion. Nothing whatsover to do with your personal life - just that you've spent a career getting to the Supreme court without saying too much of anything.
Game time.
Justice Kennedy, it must be downright lonely in the middle, all of these years. For the number of times this has effectively been a one-person court - you deserve a raise. But that won't be enough, for something like this.
Good game.
Justice Scalia, it's time to sit down and shut up.
Game over.
PS - I am not LGB or T. But I am left-handed. I am a minority that thinks different - and it's not a lifestyle choice.
5
NYT: "Oral arguments are likely to be in late April, but there is little new to be said. Both sides’ positions have been aired out thoroughly and repeatedly for several years."
I say there is NOTHING new to be said. SCOTUS, please give us a ruling next week. We know the outcome will be to finally guarantee marriage equality for all. It's just right! Enough already! Let same-sex spouses, their children, and their families get on with attending to their loving homes-- living with respect and full legal rights.
I say there is NOTHING new to be said. SCOTUS, please give us a ruling next week. We know the outcome will be to finally guarantee marriage equality for all. It's just right! Enough already! Let same-sex spouses, their children, and their families get on with attending to their loving homes-- living with respect and full legal rights.
3
it's about time this was decided...........and of course it must end as the NYT editorial board wishes and I sense it will to the praises of the august editorial board..... ....otherwise prepare yourselves, dear readers for the CRY of "unfair" from the same august board!!!!!!.....
3
No injustice is committed by denying homosexuals the privilege to have their unions acknowledged by statute. It is enough that the libertarian streak within American culture permits homosexuals to engage in the activities defining that label. To say, however, that the state is morally obligated to extend marriage-related legal privileges to homosexuals qua homosexuals is to defend, if not an absurdity, at least a gross exaggeration.
Moreover, whether the LGBT and its supporters resort to arguments founded on the absence of harm, equality, or positive expressions of love, in each instance their appeal is arbitrarily confined to the categories denoted by their group's initials. The appeal is arbitrary because there are numerous other unions apart from heterosexual and LGBT unions whose activities satisfy the above requirements. It is nothing but prejudicial hypocrisy that impels the LGBT and its supporters to deny statutory relief to these still-closeted groups.
Simply put, this is probably the most inane policy drive in the history of our country. The entire movement emerges not from reason but from mere will and passion.
Moreover, whether the LGBT and its supporters resort to arguments founded on the absence of harm, equality, or positive expressions of love, in each instance their appeal is arbitrarily confined to the categories denoted by their group's initials. The appeal is arbitrary because there are numerous other unions apart from heterosexual and LGBT unions whose activities satisfy the above requirements. It is nothing but prejudicial hypocrisy that impels the LGBT and its supporters to deny statutory relief to these still-closeted groups.
Simply put, this is probably the most inane policy drive in the history of our country. The entire movement emerges not from reason but from mere will and passion.
6
The procreative foundation for marriage is all well and good, but it's not the only reason for marriage, nor is it the only reason couples have sexual relations, which they continue to do long after all their children have been born. If it were then heterosexual couples would copulate only for as many times as to create the number of children they want. Want two kids? Have sex twice, then you're done. Couples over 50 can't conceive no matter how heterosexual they are, and no matter how desirous of having a child they might be.
Sex for procreation alone is an animal function, whereas sex for love is a uniquely human one. Couples of any gender enjoy physical relations out of love and emotional bonding. They don't intend to make a baby each and every time.
Still, the religious among us argue, even a sterile heterosexual couple might conceive a child after a hysterectomy, a vasectomy and menopause, through divine intervention. This "miracle child" is born to a sterile couple by the will of God himself, so doesn't require sex to be fertilised, and thus doesn't require the couple to be heterosexual, since God himself is creating it for reasons of his own. If he wanted to, God could create a baby out of any union, even a homosexual one, just as easily as he could from a sterile heterosexual one, or out of thin air, just like the Virgin Birth.
If this doesn't make sense, then nor does Jesus turning water into wine - an alcoholic beverage banned almost everywhere in the Bible.
Sex for procreation alone is an animal function, whereas sex for love is a uniquely human one. Couples of any gender enjoy physical relations out of love and emotional bonding. They don't intend to make a baby each and every time.
Still, the religious among us argue, even a sterile heterosexual couple might conceive a child after a hysterectomy, a vasectomy and menopause, through divine intervention. This "miracle child" is born to a sterile couple by the will of God himself, so doesn't require sex to be fertilised, and thus doesn't require the couple to be heterosexual, since God himself is creating it for reasons of his own. If he wanted to, God could create a baby out of any union, even a homosexual one, just as easily as he could from a sterile heterosexual one, or out of thin air, just like the Virgin Birth.
If this doesn't make sense, then nor does Jesus turning water into wine - an alcoholic beverage banned almost everywhere in the Bible.
6
If you think wine was banned almost everywhere in the Bible, you clearly haven't read it.
2
This is a simple case of separating traditionally homophobic churches and organized religious bigotry from the state.
Members of religious cults will still be able to hate, persecute and ostracize homosexuals within the comfort of their own religious clubs.
We are five months away from another celebration of civil rights in this country.
Organized religion really owes the United States a public apology for their starring role in barring civil rights from so many Americans for so long.
Members of religious cults will still be able to hate, persecute and ostracize homosexuals within the comfort of their own religious clubs.
We are five months away from another celebration of civil rights in this country.
Organized religion really owes the United States a public apology for their starring role in barring civil rights from so many Americans for so long.
94
When Scalia meets his maker he will have an awful lot of explaining to do. Let's just hope that wisdom and fairness prevails. And how ironic that the Republicans, those who believe that government has no place in private matters, jump headlong into the fray and are still beating the drum against due process and equal protection. Just move on to issues worth fighting for.
2
This decision should be a slam dunk. If the Supreme Court doesn't ban all restrictions on same-sex marriage, they will institutionalize second-class citizenship for gays. This is unacceptable. Gays must be afforded exactly the same rights as heterosexuals in every area of the law and society.
6
It is high time that the US finally catches up with more enlightened nations by legalizing same sex marriage for all.
Even countries with an extremely large number of Catholics such as France, Portugal, Spain, Brazil and Argentina have beaten us to that goal.
I think it is no coincidence that Americans who want to deny women both the right to receive birth control through their employer's insurance plan as well as the right to chose, are the very same that try to portray same sex marriage as an egregious affront of their religious views.
Even countries with an extremely large number of Catholics such as France, Portugal, Spain, Brazil and Argentina have beaten us to that goal.
I think it is no coincidence that Americans who want to deny women both the right to receive birth control through their employer's insurance plan as well as the right to chose, are the very same that try to portray same sex marriage as an egregious affront of their religious views.
6
I don't see a reason for the government to be in the business of blessing one relationship over another. There are sound administrative reasons for the government to know who is your designee--for Social Security, for estate succession, etc. Let that be any competent adult of your choosing . . . period. If you want to be "married," which is profoundly a religious convention, then join a religion in which you believe.
Having said that, I note that the editorial misleadingly implies that 36 states "permit" same sex marriage. Of course, a substantial number of those are via judicial opinions invalidating statutes or constitutional provisions. In addition, it is odd to suggest (as the editorial does) that constitutional rights vary with public opinion. Does that mean that it was constitutionally sound to proscribe gay marriage in 1990 but somehow it is unsound in 2014?
Having said that, I note that the editorial misleadingly implies that 36 states "permit" same sex marriage. Of course, a substantial number of those are via judicial opinions invalidating statutes or constitutional provisions. In addition, it is odd to suggest (as the editorial does) that constitutional rights vary with public opinion. Does that mean that it was constitutionally sound to proscribe gay marriage in 1990 but somehow it is unsound in 2014?
4
My greatest fear is an untimely death or disability on the Supreme Court otherwise we are going to finally win and win big.
2
The Times is doing a great service with this editorial. This kind of support should not be ignored, but celebrated. It should open the eyes of the doubtful, as it warms the hearts of the faithful.
1
What comment is necessary? Times change, and people realize that various kinds of prejudice are just wrong. Slavery is now abolished, at least in this country, and discrimination against black people is surely not gone, but illegal and diminishing. Maybe the time is really coming for homosexuals to be accorded full civil rights. Scalia is a fecalith in the body politic, blocking normal movement; a time will come...
3
This is a very difficult issue. While I support same sex marriage, I think the court is in the difficult position of either allowing states to define marriage as they see fit, or allowing any form of marriage between consenting adult humans. If gay marriage is a civil right, how can polygamy be illegal? (Isn't there a freedom of religion issue here?) Does a bisexual individual have the right to marry one man AND one woman?
From the government's (non-religious) perspective marriage is a contract between 2 or more individuals. But if states can't set parameters around those contracts, why is prostitution illegal? After all, it is merely a financial contract between two consenting adults. (Underage prostitution can still be prohibited, just as governments prohibit many things for juveniles.) Yes, you can point out all the illegal activity surrounding prostitution, but just like drugs, most of the illegal activity revolves around the fact that the act itself is illegal.
Then there is the Roe issue. A decision for same sex marriage when it likely would be achieved anyway legislatively in the near future may galvanize opponents much as Roe did to abortion opponents. For the country's sake, this would be better achieved via the democratic process than judicially.
So I don't envy the justices in having to deal with this one. They lose either way they decide.
From the government's (non-religious) perspective marriage is a contract between 2 or more individuals. But if states can't set parameters around those contracts, why is prostitution illegal? After all, it is merely a financial contract between two consenting adults. (Underage prostitution can still be prohibited, just as governments prohibit many things for juveniles.) Yes, you can point out all the illegal activity surrounding prostitution, but just like drugs, most of the illegal activity revolves around the fact that the act itself is illegal.
Then there is the Roe issue. A decision for same sex marriage when it likely would be achieved anyway legislatively in the near future may galvanize opponents much as Roe did to abortion opponents. For the country's sake, this would be better achieved via the democratic process than judicially.
So I don't envy the justices in having to deal with this one. They lose either way they decide.
4
What about polygamy? I am 99% sure that the NYT will not print this, considering in unclean bomb throwing, but it is a legitimate question. How is a loving relationship entered into by 3 people any different, in principle, for one entered by 2? To oppose recognizing polyamorous marriages while actively fighting for gay marriage is hypocritical.
3
Yeah? What about it? That's not the question before the Court. It is no more an issue today than it was fifty years ago. Slippery slope questions like this are such a red herring.
3
So the NY Times "won't print this"....Wrong again, QED!
3
In principle, there is no difference.
In practice, the Mormon church threw its polygamists under the bus when it agreed to ban polygamy in order to defuse what was becoming a culture war and join the Union. And while some young people today are exploring what they call polyamory, isn't mainstream polygamy a Mormon-ish cultural and phenomenon?
In practice, there has been a strong and vocal gay rights movement for many decades in the US, and millions of Americans across the land know, work with or are related to gay men or lesbians in open, committed same sex relationships. From my perspective, the same is not true of polygamists. They occupy a twilight sphere akin to where gays resided before Stonewall. Also, while there are gay and lesbian couples in almost all the myriad social and cultural strata and communities in this nation, I sense that polygamists are concentrated in a few sectors and very scarce in others.
The arguments for polygamous marriage are there waiting to be picked up and put to use just as gay marriage equality advocates have done since Windsor. What I don't yet see is an emergent social movement for polygamous marriage.
In practice, the Mormon church threw its polygamists under the bus when it agreed to ban polygamy in order to defuse what was becoming a culture war and join the Union. And while some young people today are exploring what they call polyamory, isn't mainstream polygamy a Mormon-ish cultural and phenomenon?
In practice, there has been a strong and vocal gay rights movement for many decades in the US, and millions of Americans across the land know, work with or are related to gay men or lesbians in open, committed same sex relationships. From my perspective, the same is not true of polygamists. They occupy a twilight sphere akin to where gays resided before Stonewall. Also, while there are gay and lesbian couples in almost all the myriad social and cultural strata and communities in this nation, I sense that polygamists are concentrated in a few sectors and very scarce in others.
The arguments for polygamous marriage are there waiting to be picked up and put to use just as gay marriage equality advocates have done since Windsor. What I don't yet see is an emergent social movement for polygamous marriage.
2
"End the debate once and for all."
Yeah, just like the Supreme Court did with abortion in Roe v Wade (1973).
Do you think it will end the debate if the Supreme Court finds there is NO constitutional right to same-gender marriage? Will gay-marriage advocates simply pack up and go home? Not likely.
Do you think it will end the debate if the Supreme Court finds there IS a constitutional right to same-gender marriage? Will gay-marriage opponents simply pack up and go home? Not likely.
Yeah, just like the Supreme Court did with abortion in Roe v Wade (1973).
Do you think it will end the debate if the Supreme Court finds there is NO constitutional right to same-gender marriage? Will gay-marriage advocates simply pack up and go home? Not likely.
Do you think it will end the debate if the Supreme Court finds there IS a constitutional right to same-gender marriage? Will gay-marriage opponents simply pack up and go home? Not likely.
13
I foresee mandatory "waiting periods" for same sex marriage licenses. And gay couples will be forced to look at pictures of loving heterosexual couples before getting married.
3
That we are still arguing over how two consenting adults decide to associate is absurd. I look forward to the day when we can eradicate the ancient, irrelevant ideas regarding the government's involvement in such matters. The Constitution is clear about equal treatment under the law. If a gay couple wishes to marry, the state has the same responsibility to them as it does to a bi-racial, heterosexual couple who wishes to marry, or an African-American, heterosexual couple who wishes to marry, or a Caucasian, heterosexual couple who wishes to marry, or....
32
It's a black day in America when we have a male catholic corporate majority on the U.S. Supreme Court and WE the people can no longer trust them to behave in the best interests of society at large because they are beholden to the corporate/radical right conglomerate for their positions. It's a black day when people are afraid of the American Supreme Court. This person is.
54
Agreed! The uber-rightwingers on SCOTUS have successfully made a Rabid Republican Kangaroo-court of their part of our Federal Government, and have thereby committed a shameful act of treason. (And there's not a thing we-the-people can do about it! Sieg Heil)
1
The Supreme Court ultimately affirming this right will further institutionalize our inalienable right of each human's equal significance. David Brooks pointed this out in his Friday discussion with Mark Shields when, almost as an aside, he noted that with what is already in place, prejudices are falling away.
In 1948, Life Magazine conducted a study of the "American democracy" we were incubating in the rebuilding, post-WW II world.
In one issue, they examined the inalienable right, "... pursuit of happiness" from our Declaration of Independence. Two panels of distinguished scholars worked on its meaning. The outcomes of the first was passed to the second for further analysis and ultimately, consensus about meaning.
The consensus was that during Jefferson's era, philosophers felt a person couldn't be truly happy unless they felt significant. That, not a right to a knee-slapping good time, was Jefferson's intent.
That was the basis of our Revolution. Only a monarch was significant and granted total personal freedom. The colonies were claiming every human had the same degree of significance ... freedom.
This has been the gold-standard and balancing act at the root of our long struggle extending the freedom promised all our citizens.
As a concluding act, we need a monument to the fair-minded Vermont legislators who started this journey, signed into law by Gov Dean, with a special plaque to the 34+ of their colleagues who had sacrificed their seats in the next election.
In 1948, Life Magazine conducted a study of the "American democracy" we were incubating in the rebuilding, post-WW II world.
In one issue, they examined the inalienable right, "... pursuit of happiness" from our Declaration of Independence. Two panels of distinguished scholars worked on its meaning. The outcomes of the first was passed to the second for further analysis and ultimately, consensus about meaning.
The consensus was that during Jefferson's era, philosophers felt a person couldn't be truly happy unless they felt significant. That, not a right to a knee-slapping good time, was Jefferson's intent.
That was the basis of our Revolution. Only a monarch was significant and granted total personal freedom. The colonies were claiming every human had the same degree of significance ... freedom.
This has been the gold-standard and balancing act at the root of our long struggle extending the freedom promised all our citizens.
As a concluding act, we need a monument to the fair-minded Vermont legislators who started this journey, signed into law by Gov Dean, with a special plaque to the 34+ of their colleagues who had sacrificed their seats in the next election.
60
"Life, Liberty.." etc comes from Lucretius' poem "On the Nature of Things". It was the central tenet of the Epicurean school of philosophy. They expressed it as "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Pleasure". I guess Jefferson, who owned four copies of the book, thought that 'pleasure' might be a bridge too far for Puritan Massachusetts adapted that into 'happiness'. Either way I think it's hilarious that our much-vaunted national motto comes from a pagan philosopher.
1
I believe intimate behavior between consenting adults is private and none of the government's business.
Therefore [except for incest laws ] I support the right of two adults
[ heterosexual or homosexual] to marry.
It seems to me that much of this debate or discussion is not really about "marriage".
There seems to be the belief by many opponents of same sex marriage that homosexual behavior is dirty or perverted and that approving the right of same sex marriage is giving approval to homosexuality.
That some heterosexual couples engage in some of the same sex acts that homosexual couples do is irrelevant to opponents.
Yes they will reluctantly allow for domestic partnerships but not same sex marriage because that gives approval to "perverted" homosexual behavior.
We have severe economic problems in this country.
Can't we address these instead of being concerned about what consenting adults do in private.
Therefore [except for incest laws ] I support the right of two adults
[ heterosexual or homosexual] to marry.
It seems to me that much of this debate or discussion is not really about "marriage".
There seems to be the belief by many opponents of same sex marriage that homosexual behavior is dirty or perverted and that approving the right of same sex marriage is giving approval to homosexuality.
That some heterosexual couples engage in some of the same sex acts that homosexual couples do is irrelevant to opponents.
Yes they will reluctantly allow for domestic partnerships but not same sex marriage because that gives approval to "perverted" homosexual behavior.
We have severe economic problems in this country.
Can't we address these instead of being concerned about what consenting adults do in private.
49
Yes, the ick factor about same sex sexual acts is a big part of opposition to marriage equality. Problem is that many miss the obvious fact that homosexual relations, like heterosexual ones, are about so much more than just sex. One does not need to get married to have sex.
1
Since the Middle Ages the 'church' has reserved the unprecedented right to determine civil marriage and who is legitimate inheritor of the crown. Bah humbug.
1
I also firmly agree that "intimate behavior between consenting adults is private and none of the government's business". Marriage also should be none of the government's business. Why does the government need to be involved? It doesn't.
1
It is not lost on me, that the Supreme Court strains gnats and swallows camels. While I agree that people should be free to marry who they wish, this is so obvious to me, it is ridiculous to view the importance this issue has assumed in the media…a red herring so to speak, to grab the public's attention, while "those theys" ( the standard three..financials, energy and defense complex) further fleece the public for their own profit. Today's other emphasis in the times on the dirty pipelines for tar sands is case in point. It is hard to wrap my mind around the madness this country/world is going through. Our politicians with the exception of a few, are gutless wonders, paid off lackeys of the powerful multinationals and their owners.
108
Gutless wonders, is being extremely, kind!
1
I agree with some of what of what you wrote, Carolyn, but, not the main point. To the millions of gay people and probably many others, including myself who have gay family members or just care, it is very important. It is hard to believe any group treated under the law with indignity would feel differently. But, I know also that many share your view too. It's why in the early sixties over another issue, MKL, Jr. wrote Why We Can't Wait. I'd agree that the stakes are not quite as high, but close enough for me. I'm glad they will resolve this and hope that it is in the direction we want. If it is, everyone will move on. If not, it will continue to be a major issue.
1
I guess if you are heterosexual, this issue seems like a "red herring." I would argue that view is nothing more than a statement of your heterosexual privilege. Please tell the millions of Americans who are denied basic HUMAN rights because of who they love, that this is really a non-issue. Really!?
1
Agreed - it is time - been waiting for decades for everyone else to catch up.
The other option was to abolish the concept of marriage, at least in a legal sense, but that goes against the real issues of raising children, having a partner to drive you to the hospital when you crunch your thumb in the stupid ladder, and a companion (for young and old).
Research backs marriage as a life lengthener/strengthener - glad Society and the Law is catching up.
The other option was to abolish the concept of marriage, at least in a legal sense, but that goes against the real issues of raising children, having a partner to drive you to the hospital when you crunch your thumb in the stupid ladder, and a companion (for young and old).
Research backs marriage as a life lengthener/strengthener - glad Society and the Law is catching up.
14
I believe that Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan, Ginsberg, Kennedy and Roberts will affirm marriage for same-sex couples..
28
I don't think our founders had this in mind when creating the Supreme Court. How society organizes itself should be up to society not a few robed men and women.
10
Our founders indeed had just this in mind when they created the judiciary to protect the rights of those who were not a part of the majority. As with interracial marriage, this is properly decided by the courts who always protect the rights of minorities against the wishes of the majority. Slavery was not abolished by plebiscite.
3
No Ed, this is exactly what the founders had in mind. The Supreme Court is part of the "checks and balances" that assures that every citizen's constitutional rights are protected.
Legislatures have enacted laws that deny same sex couples the rights that opposite sex couples enjoy - with no compelling reason other than animus toward gay people. The supreme court is the only institution that can end this discrimination and ensure equal protection under the law for gay people.
Legislatures have enacted laws that deny same sex couples the rights that opposite sex couples enjoy - with no compelling reason other than animus toward gay people. The supreme court is the only institution that can end this discrimination and ensure equal protection under the law for gay people.
4
so I guess you would have objected to the Loving case? Leave interracial marriage up to the people? You don't decide fundamental rights by a show of hands. The Court is doing exactly what it should, address fundamental human rights issues. My hope is that they get it right and do not take you unwise counsel
3
The amazingly swift change regarding same-sex marriage can more than anyone be laid at the feet of Justice Ginsberg who was instrumental in orchestrating the path it has taken to being the law of the land. They overturned DOM and the California ban but did not go further at that time. They sat back and let the federal courts interpret their rulings and we have arrived to the place we are at today where 36 states now grant licenses to same-sex couples. The tide has unalterably turned and everyone knows it. Once the issue is put to rest this summer it will come almost as an anti-climax and that's fine with me. I'm amazed by the lack of a backlash that has taken place and Ginsberg was RIGHT to let it develop as it has. When they finally make same-sex marriage the law of the land and once and for all end the discrimination that I as an American have had to live with my entire life (my right to marry as I have in NYS notwithstanding) they will have put to rest the civil rights issue of my lifetime and in a more peaceful and less confrontational way than I would have ever thought possible. The day they rule favorably on this issue (as they no doubt will) will be the day I FINALLY become a full citizen of this country.
151
The outcome of any case before the Supreme Court cannot be known before the Court's decision has been read, then read again and thoughtfully analyzed. Even if the Court does hold that same-sex marriage is a right, its opinion probably will not end discrimination based on sexual identity. Its opinion may even provide a roadmap for those who seek to discriminate on the basis of sexual identity.
2
Personally, and as a woman, I think the right of each woman to control her own body is a more significant civil rights issue. Gays who cannot marry still have the ability to live together, to engage in sex (or not), to express their love openly and publicly. I am a strong proponent of gay rights and LGBT equality, but I do not think it is the foremost civil rights issue today.
Women who are pregnant are more and more are losing the rights granted to them by Roe vs Wade and are being forced to continue pregnancies they do not want. Women are imprisoned for testing positive on drugs while pregnant, are being forced to listen to lies about the outcomes of abortion on their bodies and their mental health, and have increasingly fewer places to go to get legal abortions. At the same time, the anti-abortionists are fighting attempts to reduce abortion by making effective contraception affordable and even free.
And where the courts have increasingly upheld the rights of LGBT men and women, they have increasingly sided with the evangelical conservatives in limiting the rights of women to control their bodies and their destinies.
Women who are pregnant are more and more are losing the rights granted to them by Roe vs Wade and are being forced to continue pregnancies they do not want. Women are imprisoned for testing positive on drugs while pregnant, are being forced to listen to lies about the outcomes of abortion on their bodies and their mental health, and have increasingly fewer places to go to get legal abortions. At the same time, the anti-abortionists are fighting attempts to reduce abortion by making effective contraception affordable and even free.
And where the courts have increasingly upheld the rights of LGBT men and women, they have increasingly sided with the evangelical conservatives in limiting the rights of women to control their bodies and their destinies.
3
You make good points William. Unfortunately marriage won't make gay people "full citizens" yet; there is still the matter of discrimination in employment and housing existing in many of the states where marriage equality arrived. It's even more of a quagmire as discrimination laws differ vary by county, municipality, and states. Imagine being legally wed in Oklahoma then losing your job as a result. Imagine being evicted after your honeymoon. Will married gay people be able to adopt everywhere (including adopting the child of your husband or wife)? Marriage equality will be a massive step yet there is still much more which needs to be done.
3
While the spinning planet burns the great Justices debate whether“adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.” is constitutional.
On one side of human endeavor we build subatomic particle colliders and on the other we conjure the vengeful gods, angry at their tiny creations who defy their commands from Mount Olympus.
On one side of human endeavor we build subatomic particle colliders and on the other we conjure the vengeful gods, angry at their tiny creations who defy their commands from Mount Olympus.
72
Why did you limit it to "adult persons?" Is that immoral to you? If so, from where did you derive your moral code? Even atheistic scientists recognize that science and nature has no basis for morality, yet you seem to have a moral code [no matter how deficient it may be]. I am asking why we should follow YOUR moral code and not one that is universal and objective. You seem to have invented yours to suit your own desires and lusts. That is the very definition of subjectivity and capriciousness.
Why are you trying to force your morality down our throats? Yours has no foundation, ours does. I'll take ours, thank you.
Bigamists also are two consenting adults. Do you want to destroy that, too?
Of course you do.
Why are you trying to force your morality down our throats? Yours has no foundation, ours does. I'll take ours, thank you.
Bigamists also are two consenting adults. Do you want to destroy that, too?
Of course you do.
2
"Today, 36 states do, along with the District of Columbia — representing more than 70 percent of all Americans."
You would have a lot more credibility if you stated that only a few states, including New York, legalized gay marriage through the legislature and the governor, or through a referendum. The vast majority of states are forced to provide gay marriages because of court orders, not because of the will of the people.
If gay marriage is so popular, why haven't more states emulated New York?
You would have a lot more credibility if you stated that only a few states, including New York, legalized gay marriage through the legislature and the governor, or through a referendum. The vast majority of states are forced to provide gay marriages because of court orders, not because of the will of the people.
If gay marriage is so popular, why haven't more states emulated New York?
13
Joseph,
I think we need to be careful when discussing "the will of the people." Popularity has nothing to do with this decision, and I don't think the NYT's statement means that it does. It merely means that, in fact, those 36 states represent more than 70 percent of all Americans. That's it. For more than 70 percent of Americans, same-sex marriage is a law they live with, whether they want it or not. The next sentence, referring to Gallup polls, deals with popularity. The fact that 36 states have laws allowing same-sex marriage does concern the Supreme Court, insofar as the disagreement with the remaining 14 must be resolved.
I don't think you would (at least, I hope you would not) advocate for removing all Muslims from the US just because the majority of Americans said we should. "Mobocracy," which was a primary concern of our Founders, should not be allowed to replace responsible governance. That's why our Constitution guarantees a republican form of government, not a democratic one.
The idea that a law must adhere to the "will of the people" as in a democracy is absurd on its face, in consideration of the many popular, but unconstitutional, enacted throughout our history. The Supreme Court stands on guard (or should, anyway) against the excessive power of both government *and* the tyranny of the majority.
I think we need to be careful when discussing "the will of the people." Popularity has nothing to do with this decision, and I don't think the NYT's statement means that it does. It merely means that, in fact, those 36 states represent more than 70 percent of all Americans. That's it. For more than 70 percent of Americans, same-sex marriage is a law they live with, whether they want it or not. The next sentence, referring to Gallup polls, deals with popularity. The fact that 36 states have laws allowing same-sex marriage does concern the Supreme Court, insofar as the disagreement with the remaining 14 must be resolved.
I don't think you would (at least, I hope you would not) advocate for removing all Muslims from the US just because the majority of Americans said we should. "Mobocracy," which was a primary concern of our Founders, should not be allowed to replace responsible governance. That's why our Constitution guarantees a republican form of government, not a democratic one.
The idea that a law must adhere to the "will of the people" as in a democracy is absurd on its face, in consideration of the many popular, but unconstitutional, enacted throughout our history. The Supreme Court stands on guard (or should, anyway) against the excessive power of both government *and* the tyranny of the majority.
27
Because civil rights should not be and haven't usually been decided by plebiscite. There was no majority vote to eliminate slavery in the south, interracial marriage was made legal by the court, not by popularity. While the majority of the country DOES favor same sex marriage. Majority popularity is not the basis of civil rights.
48
Right, so just ignore that the majority of Americans are now said to support this. Sea changes in public opinion may not be reflected over night in legislation or court decisions--both take time. Some states did it legislatively; other states through court decisions. Now we hope the Supreme Court will reflect what has clearly become a national consensus and settle the matter across the board in terms of the Constitution. This is precisely how such changes should take place.
2
This train has left the station. With so many states recognizing marriage equality, and so many couples already married, even this Court won't try to reverse the tide. For once, Justice Scalia was right.
7
If SCOTUS fails to deliver on this, Democracy be damned: we'll be the laughing stock of modern history, if not all civilization.
37
If this decision isn't 9-0 in favor of gay marriage, the GOP can fold its tent.
18
In many states, gays were initially allowed to marry, then they couldn't and then they could. As a result, many gay couples suffered because of the uncertainty in their personal lives. The Supreme Court could have stepped in and settled the issue a long time ago but did not because of its right-wing ideological tilt. Let's hope they get it right this time.
25
Beautifully written piece by the NYT Editorial Board. Thank you.
23
Everyone seems to be predicting a 5-4 split in favor of marriage equality. I'm not so sure. It may be overly optimistic, but the 7-2 rulings refusing to put a hold on lower court rulings, thereby allowing thousands of same-sex marriages to take place in many states, give me hope that one or more of the conservative justices will join in a favorable ruling. I think that Justice Roberts, for instance, who has defended LGBT rights in the past, may be less socially conservative than people think.
10
There's a risk here that might have been avoided.
While it may be unlikely, any decision by the U.S. Supreme Court could complicate the efforts that have been so successful across America to win this fight by the ballot box. An eventual decision may not directly affect the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, but could be limited to the constitutionality of the bans that have been upheld by a lower federal court -- and, depending on the decision, could invalidate the vacating of such bans by other states.
And that would be a shame, because we've never before seen such a rapid popular change of conviction in our people on a matter so basic. As Lincoln might have said on a very different subject, proscriptions were being placed on a path of eventual extinction.
What happens in those states where bans were overturned if the bans in states where a federal court upheld them are upheld in turn by the U.S. Supreme Court?
While it may be unlikely, any decision by the U.S. Supreme Court could complicate the efforts that have been so successful across America to win this fight by the ballot box. An eventual decision may not directly affect the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, but could be limited to the constitutionality of the bans that have been upheld by a lower federal court -- and, depending on the decision, could invalidate the vacating of such bans by other states.
And that would be a shame, because we've never before seen such a rapid popular change of conviction in our people on a matter so basic. As Lincoln might have said on a very different subject, proscriptions were being placed on a path of eventual extinction.
What happens in those states where bans were overturned if the bans in states where a federal court upheld them are upheld in turn by the U.S. Supreme Court?
2
Scalia is sleazy enough to reverse his own opinion in Lawrence v. Texas regarding gay marriage. He won't have any problem convincing Thomas and Alito to oppose as well. Normally I would include Roberts in that group but in this case he may be more concerned about his own legacy of leading a court opposing equal rights granted by the Constitution.
Lets hope so.
Lets hope so.
28
I got to this page by clicking on "The Supreme Court and Gay Marriage
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD. It’s time to end the debate on same-sex marriage, once and for all." The whole reason I clicked on this is to find out how this ruling was going to be for once and for all, but Roe v. wade was for from for once and for all. I expect continued legal cases no matter the outcome.
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD. It’s time to end the debate on same-sex marriage, once and for all." The whole reason I clicked on this is to find out how this ruling was going to be for once and for all, but Roe v. wade was for from for once and for all. I expect continued legal cases no matter the outcome.
10
In those states allowing same sex marriage the legal cases have disappeared. Nothing happens and life goes on. This is not Roe v. Wade much more like Loving.
2
"I expect continued legal cases no matter the outcome." Your conflating Roe vs Wade with marriage equality tells me that you HOPE there will be continued legal challenges to equality. I think you will be sorely disappointed. 80% of those ages 18 to 29 support marriage equality, so in a few years when that generation will be in charge of decision making no one will understand what the big fuss was about.
2
Why not. bro. Whatever else it is, it surely is 'good politics'. After all, successful shepherds use border-collies to round-up their flocks of sheep - what's wrong with politicians doing the same to keep their flocks in line?
The Court is NOT deciding the ultimate legality of same-sex unions. The Court is deciding whether the individual states or the federal government have legal authority over this issue.
The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution reads as such: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Will the Justices exhibit as much wisdom as did our Founders? Given that we are a society unable to even define wisdom, probably not.
The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution reads as such: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Will the Justices exhibit as much wisdom as did our Founders? Given that we are a society unable to even define wisdom, probably not.
2
The SCOTUS of 1967 gives precedent to the court deciding on the rights of marriage, civil rights were extended by the court as well. Slavery was not abolished by plebiscite either. The founders did indeed delegate questions on basic civil rights to the courts in order to protect a given minority from the tyrranny of the majority. If not, there would have had to have been a referendum or legislative action on slavery in every state in the Confederacy. There was, as you may know, no such thing.
11
Ah yes, States' Rights....where have I heard that before....1860 anyone? In matters of human rights and equal protection, states' rights are, rightfully, trumped.
8
It's funny how some conservatives are spewing the same arguments they used against the Brown v. Board of Education and the Loving v. Virginia decisions.
If we left these issues to be decided by the states (or voters), they would've never passed. In 1967, interracial marriage was legalized by the Court even though 96 percent of white people opposed such marriages at the time.
In fact, approval of interracial marriage only crossed the 50 percent mark in 1993!
If we left these issues to be decided by the states (or voters), they would've never passed. In 1967, interracial marriage was legalized by the Court even though 96 percent of white people opposed such marriages at the time.
In fact, approval of interracial marriage only crossed the 50 percent mark in 1993!
95
Which is why we are a nation of laws and not of men.
3
Heard a proponent of same sex marriage bans say that "the people" should resolve the issue, not the courts. I suppose that this gentleman would have said in 1954 that racial equality should have been determined by "the people". Where would this country be had that been the way to determine whether minorities were entitled to equal rights?
76
Even more ironic, were the people to actually decide the question right now, it appears same sex marriage would carry the day by a wide margin! What someone who makes this argument right now really means is, the will of the people as they felt about these things several decades ago should hold sway forever.
4
Or leaving the issue of slavery up to the states. It took a tragic civil war to settle that question.
4
Exactly. When you point this out to them, they just sit there with their mouths open. I don't think they think they give any thoughts to these statements before making them.
2
Because this is a case that will have impact on the very fabric of society, oral arguments in this case are historic and should be videorecorded for posterity and to inspire future high school students giving them a true appreciation of how American government works and of the importance of the US Supreme Court. It's a shame and a true loss to history and posterity that the videorecording of these oral arguments won't occur.
6
Audio recordings are available forever, they don't dare do video because all of America would see Thomas sleeping during arguments.
1
Scalia was right in his analysis of the implications of Justice Kennedy's opinion in 2003 but, as always, wrong in judgement.
24
I read this and await the SCOTUS decision with great anticipation. And fear.
I do not trust SCOTUS to do the right thing a ruling against marriage equality could set marriage equality for all back a long, long time.
I am one of the lucky ones - I live in a state with full rights but there are many Americans who do not and deserve to live with full equality.
If not now, then when? I too, ask myself this same question. I don't have an answer.
I do not trust SCOTUS to do the right thing a ruling against marriage equality could set marriage equality for all back a long, long time.
I am one of the lucky ones - I live in a state with full rights but there are many Americans who do not and deserve to live with full equality.
If not now, then when? I too, ask myself this same question. I don't have an answer.
7
No matter what the court decides, Antonin Scalia will go down as one of the worst justices in the 20th century.
He simply doesn't understand the meaning of equality as embedded in our Constitution...or of human dignity for that matter.
He simply doesn't understand the meaning of equality as embedded in our Constitution...or of human dignity for that matter.
136
Worst justice? Probably. Most often on the wrong side? Definitely. Yet while I disagree with Justice Scalia just about all the time, I must grudgingly say I admire his prescience, his grasp of the issues, and even his legal brilliance. Scalia knew exactly how this whole issue was going to play out (his Lawrence dissent) and even provided (much to his chagrin, I'm sure) the basis for the legal arguments against the bans in the past 13 months (starting with the Kitchen decision in Utah). Argle-bargle? Without a doubt. But we cannot deny his role, equal to Justice Kennedy, in actually being the harbinger of change on marriage equality. I don't want to give the impression I'm endorsing Justice Scalia by any measure, but I also fully admit the power of his words. Without him, we would not have gotten this far since the Windsor decision. Give the man his due (and you know this is sticking in my craw just typing this).
4
Is it possible to be worse than Justice Thomas ?!
Agreed. He also has no compassion for those who aren't like him.
Sixty Minutes did a report on him many years ago. The most striking thing was that this man never received a grade lower than an A in all of his years of school, college and law school. He thinks he's perfect, all-knowing and infallible. His Catholic teaching should tell him only God is all those things.
It's a shame that such an egomaniac is in the position to affect all of us mere mortals so dramatically--and with so little thought for us.
Sixty Minutes did a report on him many years ago. The most striking thing was that this man never received a grade lower than an A in all of his years of school, college and law school. He thinks he's perfect, all-knowing and infallible. His Catholic teaching should tell him only God is all those things.
It's a shame that such an egomaniac is in the position to affect all of us mere mortals so dramatically--and with so little thought for us.
7
Aren't there no less than 4 R. Catholics on the Roberts Court? If so, are there 5 "liberals" to carry the day? Or, with its reputation for doing next to nothing, will this court allow the continuation of the current patch work, leaving same-sex partners to move to a state with marriage equality if it is not already allowed (in its state)?
In the best of all possible worlds, it just might be reasonable to have a court that reflects the times, even if it is the best of times and also the worst of times...
In the best of all possible worlds, it just might be reasonable to have a court that reflects the times, even if it is the best of times and also the worst of times...
2
Robertygeary9:
The Supreme Court has 6 Catholics (Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor) and 3 Jews (Ginsberg, Bryer and Kagan) as Justices. Not one Protestant in the bunch.
The Supreme Court has 6 Catholics (Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor) and 3 Jews (Ginsberg, Bryer and Kagan) as Justices. Not one Protestant in the bunch.
4
'Next-to-nothing', robert??? What do you call that travesty: 'Citizens United', with which SCOTUS changed the very meaning of the word 'democracy' to 'Oligarchy'
3
Let's face it: whatever happens will come down to the vote of one Justice Anthony Kennedy. Which is to say that the destiny of millions of Americans to enjoy or not enjoy the same rights as the rest of their countrymen will be hanging on the vote of a single imperfect human being. It should never have come down to this. Placing that much authority in the hands of one individual is unconscionable, regardless of how this ends up.
156
I would disagree. It seems to me that the issue of gay rights has already been decided by the American public. No decision by the Supreme Court or Legislation by Congress can reverse the determination that has already been made. Not everything may happen in the next instant, but the issue of gay rights has been irrevocably settled.
41
@W.A. Spitzer: I wish I had your optimism. Unfortunately, the American public also voted to elect Ronald Reagan and two guys named Bush who've created a Supreme Court majority that includes three obvious homophobes. No act of Congress can reverse that situation either.
122
Stu, I think (I hope) it's going to be more like a 7-2 vote, with Roberts and Alito voting to overturn the bans as well. As they've signaled in more recent decisions (ie, the lifting of the stay in Florida), it's going to be an interesting turn of events. In the end, I think only Scalia and Thomas are going to vote to maintain the bans; I think the other seven justices have seen how the 14th Amendment (not mentioned in the Windsor decision) takes precedence.
6