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

[PNWbrit]

bad law

Really?

Bad?

Two 80 year old dudes getting married in Texas is "bad"?



Edit Fuck! Texas doesn't even recognize domestic partnerships....

[Danno]

One great thing about decisions such as this: they tend to make people show their true colors. Assman wants to "collapse the federal government"; he thinks that would be a "good thing".

Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

[KQ]

As for washing Scalia's feet, anyone who thinks that guy is anything but a complete asswipe, regardless of one's political persuasion, hasn't paid much attention.

That guy is a total tool. I will not be sorry to see him step down.

[assman]

Really?

Bad?

Two 80 year old dudes getting married in Texas is "bad"?

again...nothing against anyone marring anything or anyone. The law is a bad one not for it's content but for it's reach.

[mall walker]

That guy is a total tool. I will not be sorry to see him step down.

He looks like the type of guy who breathes really heavily when he eats

[liv2ski]

That guy is a total tool. I will not be sorry to see him step down.

Agreed and don't hold your breath. The 4 that had descending/opposing positions are all ass wipes on most any issue I care about.

[mall walker]

not for it's content but for it's reach.

Interesting take from a man who cannot use the appropriate possessive form of "it"

[DougW]

Just a bit of a coincidence but saw doc on Loving case the other day,.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Supreme Court's unanimous decision determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional, reversing Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

So here is a state defending a law stopping people getting married due to race. This is when some of us were alive. That is fucked up.

[stalefish3169]

There is going to be a lot of da pooperhausen going down tonight. That's for sure. Haha

[PNWbrit]

again...nothing against anyone marring anything or anyone.

The problem is that there are people who are against them being able to.

And no one is asking to marry anything. Try and hide your bigotry a little better.

[assman]

One great thing about decisions such as this: they tend to make people show their true colors. Assman wants to "collapse the federal government"; he thinks that would be a "good thing".

Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

I could go off on probably 90% of scotus decisions as overreaching and legislating from the bench. I have articulated my position and will go no further. Really it does not matter. The last 3 asswipes that have held the position of potus have pretty much killed us a a nation anyway. Anyone with a lick of sense has seen the writing on the wall and arranged their lives and finances accordingly. If not then who is marrying what is going to be the least of your problems

[Danno]

Agreed and don't hold your breath. The 4 that had descending/opposing positions are all ass wipes on most any issue I care about.

Actually, I am ok with Roberts. I do not always, or even often, agree with him. But he isn't an ideologue, he's just a conservative jurist. Scalia is just a caricature at this point, and that makes Thomas, I guess, a caricature of a caricature. I have paid less attention to Alito -- I was much more focused on court opinions when I was in law school and he wasn't on the Court -- but he seems to fall in lock step with them.

One should be able to predict the outcome of a case based on the jurisprudential philosophies of the court, not the political alignment of the particular issue. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

[Dantheman]

did you actually read Scalia's dissenting opinion? If you value your personal freedom you should be lining up to wash his feet.

This is a solid contender for Dumbest Post in TGR History. Just...wow.

[mall walker]

Honey, get my inkwell and the nice parchment paper. I'm writing to the President. Assman on TGR thinks the Supreme Court has made a terrible mistake.

[Tippster]

again...nothing against anyone marring anything or anyone. The law is a bad one not for it's content but for it's reach.

Question: Are you married? Let's say you got legally married to someone in CO but you go to a state that doesn't recognize your marriage as valid, should you just accept their willful disregard of a legal contract you entered into in another state? The Commerce Clause and 14th amendment prohibit that from happening.

[liv2ski]

I could go off on probably 90% of scotus decisions as overreaching and legislating from the bench. I have articulated my position and will go no further. Really it does not matter. The last 3 asswipes that have held the position of potus have pretty much killed us a a nation anyway. Anyone with a lick of sense has seen the writing on the wall and arranged their lives and finances accordingly. If not then who is marrying what is going to be the least of your problems

It goes a lot further back than the last 3 asswipes. Likely started with Johnson. While this is a great day for personal freedom, as a country, Merica is screwed. But that story is for another day.

[iceman]

That may be true. Perhaps that and no more Confederate Flag will make the Red Necks succeed.

No they'll need more help than that.

[TahoeJ]

It's funny how those concerned about government overreach have no problem with laws banning gay marriage. THAT is government overreach.

As for the whole federal vs. state and pot vs. marriage bit... there's nothing about legal pot that violates the Constitution's statements about equality. Now, it does violate the Constitution in that it contradicts Federal law (kind of like a state declaring murder as legal), but that's a whole other can of worms.

[stfu&gbtw]

As much as I personally agree with gay marriage as a concept, I have to point out that the claims that assman's opinion is wrong because "good" laws have been passed federally, or that states shouldn't be able to impose (justifiably) unpopular laws on citizens, are both complete non sequiturs. Is it worth the debate, given how far out of whack the balance of federal and state power is in the context of constitutional principle? Maybe not... But that doesn't render assman's argument without merit.

[frorider]

Just to recap: a) this shit has been debated to death b) the arguments against assman's arguments are well-documented. c) this shit has been debated to death. We're done here.

[BmillsSkier]

Forget divorce lawyers the real winners are going to be the healthcare and compensation attorneys at my firm. I see 1000's of billable hours in their immediate future rewriting companies comp plans and health plans to cover same sex spouses.

Not sure if I'm jealous or glad I'm not in those departments. Big bonuses headed their way this year for sure.

[PNWbrit]

Forget divorce lawyers the real winners are going to be the healthcare and compensation attorneys at my firm. I see 1000's of billable hours in their immediate future rewriting companies comp plans and health plans to cover same sex spouses.

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.

[AK47bp]

Forget divorce lawyers the real winners are going to be the healthcare and compensation attorneys at my firm. I see 1000's of billable hours in their immediate future rewriting companies comp plans and health plans to cover same sex spouses.

Not sure if I'm jealous or glad I'm not in those departments. Big bonuses headed their way this year for sure.

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.

[mtngirl79]

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.

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

[PNWbrit]

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.

Held on?

Most of them would have it back tomorrow given half a chance.