Holy Moly - We've Got Nationwide Same Sex Marriage!

[AK47bp]

Most Washington insurance stopped covering domestic partners when same sex marriage was legalized.

It's why big steve got married. Pay attention.

I just wonder how long the South would have held on to segregation if the federal government hadn't stepped in and this is nearly the same thing.

People wanting to restrict others just because they don't like who they are.

States rights are a different argument. This is a time when fed should have stepped up and it did

The insurance covers domestic partners, it's the company providing the plans that can choose to offer it to DP's or not.

[snoqpass]

Its gotta be tough being a white conservative Christian southern red neck right now, at least there is still NASCAR

[snoqpass]

Allows all the Kenny Chesney fans to come out too, can't wait for Lindsey Graham's announcement

[Benny Profane]

Scalia melts down. This guy is so fucking sad.

"The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

* * * * *

[W]hat really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not.

They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.

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. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.)

Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.” (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.)

I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop-philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.

I’ve deleted the footnotes from these two passages, but I wouldn’t want you to miss Justice Scalia’s footnote 22:

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."

[HansJob]

"The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me." Then why all the histrionics, Tony?

[Rubicon]

"The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me." Then why all the histrionics, Tony?

Because he is a principled individual who values federalism, unlike the justices on the other side of this decision and all those in the public who are celebrating this decision, who value only those principles that further their political agenda and view all the rest as nothing more than obstacles to be overcome.

[BmillsSkier]

How come?

Was there much wording that already referred to same sex spouses and treated them differently from others or that treated husbands differently from wives?

Surely spouse will still be a spouse.

Or are you suggesting that they're now going to be writing exclusionary language into them? That'd take some balls.

I can't speak for all states but WA recognizes domestic partnerships for healthcare enrollment. The only difference is the value of the DP's benefit is taxable so if someone marries their DP the benefit just becomes part of the cafeteria plan.

How would a healthcare plan need rewritten to cover a same sex spouse? And a comp plan? Gay people have the same medical needs as straight people.

No one is writing exclusionary language. That's silly and in light of today's ruling it's basically buying future litigation to do so.

The insurance covers domestic partners, it's the company providing the plans that can choose to offer it to DP's or not.

Yes. From the two coworkers I spoke to in the elevator today from the HC and Exec Comp teams, they will be very busy reviewing and amending plans in the coming months. They said they've been on the phone all day with clients. Companies decide to offer DP benefits, as has been mentioned, not the state.

These guys said they're going to be swamped. Good for them.

[Benny Profane]

Because he is a principled individual who values federalism, unlike the justices on the other side of this decision and all those in the public who are celebrating this decision, who value only those principles that further their political agenda and view all the rest as nothing more than obstacles to be overcome.

Wtf? Federalism? You can't get away with that one without explaining yourself.

[hutash]

These guys said they're going to be swamped. Good for them.

Sounds like HR is going to need to do some hiring...so once again liberals improve the over all jobs report

[Harry]

Wtf? Federalism? You can't get away with that one without explaining yourself.

No shit.

I don't think Rubicon understands the definition of Federalism.

[frorider]

Because he is a principled individual who values federalism, unlike the justices on the other side of this decision and all those in the public who are celebrating this decision, who value only those principles that further their political agenda and view all the rest as nothing more than obstacles to be overcome.

This post is rich in irony but I'll let that slide. Fwiw the journey of acceptance I've seen my religious conservative friends and family go through here is, generally, related to an acknowledgment of the libertarian viewpoint on this issue. Take solace in the fact that this is one of the biggest Fuck You's we can give to ISIS and the like.

[The AD]

I think this is exactly the kind of thing the Supreme Court should be ruling on. If they aren't making decisions on the rights of Americans what's the point in even having a Supreme Court?

[frorider]

If they aren't making decisions on the rights of Americans what's the point in even having a Supreme Court?

Affirmative Action job for Clarence?

[BmillsSkier]

Sounds like HR is going to need to do some hiring...so once again liberals improve the over all jobs report

You're unfamiliar with the workings of a big firm - hiring divides income into smaller pieces - it's nearly verboten. They will keep staff at the same levels and load more work on the existing attorneys and maybe a few more paralegals. Sucks for those guys for sure but they'll be rewarded handsomely.

[PNWbrit]

You're unfamiliar with the workings of a big firm - hiring divides income into smaller pieces - it's nearly verboten. They will keep staff at the same levels and load more work on the existing attorneys and maybe a few more paralegals. Sucks for those guys for sure but they'll be rewarded handsomely.

Or hire a bunch of contract attorneys (no health care cost) and bill them at huge markup.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Today was a good day.

States rights? What a fucking sham. Today is a victory for human rights and our entire system of government. If you fail to grasp this you should be asking yourself, "When did I become a hateful old fuck?"

[BmillsSkier]

Or hire a bunch of contract attorneys (no health care cost) and bill them at huge markup.

Option 2.

But Option 2 still costs more money so I'd expect the shit to roll downhill and some younger associates hours requirements just went up.

[snoqpass]

Today was a good day.

States rights? What a fucking sham. Today is a victory for human rights and our entire system of government. If you fail to grasp this you should be asking yourself, "When did I become a hateful old fuck?"

Things would be a lot better if people didn't use politics to act like dicks to each other but that's its called politics

[2FUNKY]

Stoked on the decision, cannot wait for gay divorce court to hit the tv, that's gonna be some good shit.

[stuckathuntermtn]

don't know don't care. Not my circus not my monkey. It still makes for bad law

Where, again, did you study case law?

[twodogs]

Assman thinks 5's are 10's. Pay no mind. Here's to the queers!!

[mtngirl79]

The haters are acting like they banned heterosexual marriage and now everyone has to go out and marry a same sex person or their taxes will double. Geez.

[frorider]

Ironically, Antonin Scalia actually anagrams to "I Sanction Anal."

.....

[mtngirl79]

I'm sure he does.... anal that is

[mtngirl79]

don't know don't care. Not my circus not my monkey. It still makes for bad law

That's racist!