Same-sex, whole-milk marriage: 50 Shades of Gay

[Primula Baggins]

Yes, not gutting the Fair Housing Act was almost as surprising a decision as not gutting the ACA. I've read about this kind of drift within the Court in other periods in the past. Wasn't Earl Warren appointed as a conservative? Or do I misremember? But I guess such changes are likely given lifetime appointments.

I have no doubt that Roberts remains a conservative. He just seems more willing that some of the others to form his opinions from what he hears rather than from what he already "knows" to be true.

OTOH, Kennedy has been disappointing more than once as a "more liberal" justice. So it balances out in some surprising ways.

Nevertheless, this is going to go down as a historic term.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, Earl Warren was a three term GOP Governor of California (still the only person to be elected to three consecutive terms as governor of California, although Jerry Brown has also been elected to three terms), and was GOP VP candidate in 1948. Previously, as California attorney general, he was a driving force behind the Japanese internment camps during World War II. He hardly seemed a candidate to become the Chief Justice overseeing some of the most progressive decisions ever made by the SCOTUS. I don't think that that Roberts will ever be known in the same vein, but it does seem likely that he will oversee some momentous progressive decisions. I don't think it is likely that he himself will vote for marriage equality, but I would not put it past him.

[Primula Baggins]

We'll find out tomorrow or Monday.

[Primula Baggins]

Same-sex marriage is the law of the land.

http://www.scotusblog.com (live blog at the top of the page)

[River]

Nice!

[Primula Baggins]

Link to the opinion:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14 ... 6_3204.pdf

It's 5-4, Kennedy holding with the four liberals. All four dissenting justices wrote their own dissents, joining each other in various combinations. There were a lot of boxes.

From Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog:

Holding: Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.

and

And to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when a marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Wow. I wasn't even looking because I was so sure it would not come down until Monday.

[yovargas]

.....excuse me while I try to put my eyeballs back in my head.......

[Primula Baggins]

You're a bachelor now, yov!

[Primula Baggins]

Wow. I wasn't even looking because I was so sure it would not come down until Monday.

I know. But someone pointed out that this is the anniversary of Windsor (and the Texas decision overturning sodomy laws).

Plus, think of the Pride parades this weekend!

ETA: From Kevin Russell of SCOTUSblog:

The majority bases its conclusion that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right on "four principles and traditions": (1) right to person choice in marriage is "inherent in the concept of individual autonomy"; (2) "two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals"; (3) marriage safeguards children and families; (4) marriage is a keystone to our social order.

[Teremia]

From a cabin in the woods in Maine, some dancing around to join the party!!!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Four separate dissents is almost unheard of. And this is the very first time in his entire tenure that Chief Justice Roberts has read his dissent from the bench. The first time. And it might be the most strident dissent that Scalia has ever written. And that is saying something. This is a great day, but this is a good indication of just how divided the country still is on this issue.

If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.” (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.

[yovargas]

I had been thinking that this was a fairly likely result, that this could end up being their decision, but to have it actually be real, just like that.........I'm finding myself in a state of disbelief. Like, can this be really real? Really? Really really?

I'm actually tearing up right now.....

[Primula Baggins]

You and millions of other people, yov. Boom. Swish. That's it.

Voronwë, Scalia is a card, but I'm glad he's Sarcastic Scalia instead of Gloating Scalia today.

[axordil]

Every time Scalia gets on a roll, the first thing that comes to mind is the old United Negro College Fund ad: A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Yeah, I know, unpleasant irony.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I had been thinking that this was a fairly likely result, that this could end up being their decision, but to have it actually be real, just like that.........I'm finding myself in a state of disbelief. Like, can this be really real? Really? Really really?

I'm actually tearing up right now.....

It seems both anticlimactic and shocking at the same time. I'm not quite sure how that can be.

[yovargas]

A couple quotes I saw on twitter....

The term "Gay Marriage" is a term of the past. From this day forward, it should be referred to only as Marriage.

States where #gaymarriage is now legal are shaded in light gray. #SCOTUS

Capture.JPG (33.07 KiB) Viewed 4891 times

....you guys, I'm feeling a tad emotional right nows....

[Jude]

So, new thread title? Unless majority = all.

[Frelga]

Wow! Even I am tearing up, and I've already been married for longer than some posters have been alive.

Scalia's snark about Freedom of Intimacy is a good example of privileged thinking.

[yovargas]

You know, I like Scalia. I consider myself more of a "strict" Constitutionalist like him. I also worry about courts overstepping their boundaries and about stretching interpretations of the constitution. I don't automatically support a court decision just because I like the end result; that's not how courts are supposed to operate. I am pro-choice but that does not automatically mean I find Roe v Wade's legal reasoning sound. I support the attempt at broadening US healthcare access but am still uncomfortable with the legal grounding of the Obamacare mandates. Like Scalia, I would also like more "disciplined legal reasoning" and less "mystical aphorisms". I would not support this ruling if I believed it was based on the latter and not the former even though I so very much want all gays to have the option to marry legally. Fortunately, this isn't one of those. I am far from a legal scholar but from my POV, the marriage bans are (or were!!) clear violations of our 14th Constitutional amendment, no mystical aphorisms needed. I am quite happy that I can support this decision both on legal principle and on the wonderful effect it will have on thousands, maybe millions, of people's lives.



Now, maybe this would be a good time to start using okcupid again...........