SCOTUS rules that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?smid=tw-bna

Cannot believe we got from Prop 8 to this in less than seven years.

Majority opinion:
Kennedy, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Dissents:
Roberts, joined by Scalia and Thomas
Scalia, joined by Thomas
Thomas, joined by Scalia
Alito, joined by Scalia and Thomas

Read all about it:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Good news - tight though, 5-4.

This court has always been tight. That's why conservatives are so anxious to get their mitts on the next nomination. Ginsburg will probably try to ride out an republican president, but it may be tight.

The Holdouts

Same-sex marriage was already legal in about two-thirds of the country.  The four cases collectively referred to as Obergefell v. Hodges that the Supreme Court just ruled on came from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee (the Sixth Circuit).  All of these states were defending their bans.  Some counties or other local jurisdictions issued same-sex marriage licenses in Kansas, Missouri, and Alabama, but were disputed in one way or another by the state.  In the remaining states, same-sex marriage remained banned or in legal limbo due to lower court decisions being stayed.  Those states were: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Georgia.

On the Right Side of History

The following states legalized same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court made it nation-wide.  Not all of them were altogether willing to do this.

Massachusetts (2004, state court decision)
California (2008, state court decision; 2013, federal court decision)
Connecticut (2008, state court decision)
Iowa (2009, state court decision)
Vermont (2009, legislative statute)
New Hampshire (2010, legislative statute)
District of Columbia (2010, legislative statute)
New York (2011, legislative statute)
Washington (2012, popular referendum)
Maine (2012, popular referendum)
Maryland (2013, popular referendum)
Delaware (2013, legislative statute)
Rhode Island (2013, legislative statute)
Minnesota (2013, legislative statute)
New Jersey (2013, state court decision)
Hawaii (2013, legislative statute)
New Mexico (2013, legislative statute)
Oregon (2014, federal court decision)
Pennsylvania (2014, federal court decision)
Illinois (2014, legislative statute)
Utah (2014, federal court decision)
Oklahoma (2014, federal court decision)
Virgnia (2014, federal court decision)
Indiana (2014, federal court decision)
Wisconsin (2014, federal court decision)
Colorado (2014, state and federal court decisions)
Nevada (2014, federal court decision)
West Virginia (2014, federal court decision)
North Carolina (2014, federal court decision)
Idaho (2014, federal court decision)
Alaska (2014, federal court decision)
Arizona (2014, federal court decision)
Wyoming (2014, federal court decision)
Montana (2014, federal court decision)
South Carolina (2014, federal court decision)
Florida (2015, federal court decision)

The Territories

As of 2015, Guam is the only US territory that has legalized same-sex marriage, as a result of a federal court decision.  It remains banned in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands.  This will likely change as a result of the current ruling.

Native American Jurisdictions

This is the one that everyone always forgets.  Native American tribes are considered to possess "tribal sovereignty" in a sort of parallel federal system that exists outisde the normal federal-state system.  Those with land are often described as sovereign nations.  They have significant law-making power over their own territoties (which is why Indian casinos are a thing).  Many tribes recognize same-sex marriage, although they are still a minority of all tribes.  The majority have no clear legal position on the issue.  Tribal same-sex marriages have been recognized by the federal government since 2013 due to United States v. Windsor.

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/06/13/hillary-clinton-terry-gross-interview-npr-gay-marriage/

Glad to see Minnesota on the right list.

Clinton's reinvention of herself as the "liberal alternative" is a very recent development. Both Clintons were at the forefront of the effort to drag the Democratic Party to the right after the Reagan years.

But this is also a testament to the massive changes in our political culture over the past decade and what has become acceptable to say (or not to say).

Reading through Roberts' dissent and he's concerned with the majority legislating from the bench. But his rationale for this concern is based mainly on the myth that the nature of marriage hasn't changed for thousands of years.

Scalia's on the other hand is just pure trolling.

the parentheses and brackets are all Scalia's own, quotes are from the majority's opinion wrote:"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.)

I remember in 2004 when  Massachusetts legalized it and there was footage on the news of gay couples getting married at city halls (men kissing men, etc.) and my dad said "Ew, gross!" and shook visibly. It really makes me wonder about the opposition.

Update to the global marriage equality list (in alphabetical order). Does not include sub-national units or non-sovereign territories.

Argentina
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Denmark
Finland (pending)
France
Iceland
Ireland (pending)
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portgual
Slovenia (pending)
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
United States (pending)
Uruguay

Also, parts of the following countries perform same-sex marriages:

Mexico (Chihuahua, Coahuila, Mexico City, Quintana Roo)
United Kingdom (England and Wales, Scotland)

bungobaggins wrote:I remember in 2004 when  Massachusetts legalized it and there was footage on the news of gay couples getting married at city halls (men kissing men, etc.) and my dad said "Ew, gross!" and shook visibly. It really makes me wonder about the opposition.

I try hard to understand different sites of political arguments and even when I have strong feelings I can generally understand why other people could reasonably disagree. But with same-sex marriage, I really don't see anything. I think you're right that a lot of it does come down to a sense of disgust.

It is interesting to trace the concept of equality;

Racial equality - acknowledging similarities
Gender equality - acknowledging similarities

Age equality - acknowledging differences
Weight equality - acknowledging differences
Marriage equality - acknowledging differences
Cultural equality - acknowledging differences

Conformity arguments only work on those not trained to recognise them (the wrong side of history, what not to say, etc).

Ugh, politics.

richardbrucebaxter wrote:Marriage equality - acknowledging differences
Cultural equality - acknowledging differences

Huh? You're gonna have to elaborate here because I don't see that at all.  Particularly on the point of marriage equality, where so many of the arguments boil down to pointing out the similarities between loving, committed, long-term same-sex partnerships (even without legal recognition) and typical heterosexual marriage, particularly when it came to the kids/adoption argument.

Conformity arguments only work on those not trained to recognise them (the wrong side of history, what not to say, etc).

C'mon man, just say what you're thinking instead of this vague passive aggressiveness.

The latter involve saying a difference is good (diversity), while the former involve saying a difference does not exist (illusion or artificial construct).

Personalised arguments don't work either.

richardbrucebaxter wrote:It is interesting to trace the concept of equality;

Racial equality - acknowledging similarities
Gender equality - acknowledging similarities

Age equality - acknowledging differences
Weight equality - acknowledging differences
Marriage equality - acknowledging differences
Cultural equality - acknowledging differences

I'm afraid I'm not seeing the distinction you're making either, Richard.

It seems to me that in each case you listed it's natural to acknowledge similarities while at the same time acknowledging differences.
The two are in no way mutually exclusive. They actually complement each other quite well.

And just to clarify, when we talk about "equality" we're all talking about equal treatment under the law, right?

I am not suggesting there are not multiple ways in which to categorise the ideals (or that these are mutually exclusive). Only that they can be categorised as such based on the logic identified.

The motivation behind age, weight, sexual-orientation, cultural, and ability-independent equality is that diversity exists and is good (ie that there is no ideal). The motivation behind racial and gender equality is that a perceived diversity (such as a difference in desire and performance) does not exist (ie there is an ideal and it can be achieved regardless). Of course there are secondary motivations, common motivations, etc; but this is how the movements tend to progress based on those pre-expectations engrained in us by nature.

I think that's an interesting point and a unique perspective. Some differences we want to say don't exist, other differences we want to say don't matter, or even celebrate. The fact that both come from similar movements is something to think about.

But they all still come down to saying perceived differences should not be barriers.

richardbrucebaxter wrote:The motivation behind age, weight, sexual-orientation, cultural, and ability-independent equality is that diversity exists and is good (ie that there is no ideal). The motivation behind racial and gender equality is that a perceived diversity (such as a difference in desire and performance) does not exist (ie there is an ideal and it can be achieved regardless). Of course there are secondary motivations, common motivations, etc; but this is how the movements tend to progress based on those pre-expectations engrained in us by nature.

You could just as easily frame ability-based and sexual orientation equality as arguing that those differences do not prevent people from attaining the same ideals as the non-disabled or the heterosexual, respectively.  Plenty of people do, while others don't.  You can also argue for racial and gender equality while still recognizing differences in the cultural experiences of minorities vs the majority and of women vs men (eg, multiculturalism).  Plenty of people do, while others don't.  Your dichotomy here is artificial and does not reflect the range of viewpoints that people hold on these issues in the real world.

We expect things to be different (race, gender) and are told they are the same.

We expect things to be the same (age of right functioning, weight, sexuality, culture, physical/mental ability) and are told they are different.

I am not inclined to believe this categorisation is artificial..

richardbrucebaxter wrote:We expect things to be different (race, gender) and are told they are the same.

We expect things to be the same (age of right functioning, weight, sexuality, culture, physical/mental ability) and are told they are different.

I am not inclined to believe this categorisation is artificial..

Again, I'm afraid I'm not following you Richard.  What precisely do you mean when you say "the same"? Is it what you were referring to earlier as "equal"? Those are two very different concepts, both dependent on usage.

I asked earlier if when you said "equal" you were referring to "equal treatment under the law".  If that's what you meant, then when you say "we expect things to be different (race, gender)" I assume you're referring to the systemic injustices in our legal system, and when you say "and we're told they are the same" I assume you're referring to the hypocrisy that denies the injustice.  

I can follow you that far, but I can't seem to extend the principle to second half of your statement. It seems to me that the injustice and hypocrisy is more or less equivalent in principle (though not necessarily equal in magnitude) in each case.

How'm I doin'?

It relates to;

a) seeing a physical difference as normal/natural/good (while expecting this physical difference to be more than just appearance). A respective 'equality' movement suggests that the physical difference does not exist.

b) seeing a physical difference as an aberration/unnatural/bad (while expecting there to be normality). A respective 'equality' movement suggests that the physical difference is good.

Surely on point A its not that a equality movement suggests physical difference does not exist, but that such a difference is and should be irrelevant when evaluating the worth of a person? You can still acknowledge the difference without compromising the equality of someone (I have to do that all the time when doing care work, I cant ignore the differences, its why they need care and I am there but it does not effect their right to equality)