Posted on 06/26/2015 7:53:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Supreme Court has struck down state bans on gay marriage and has ruled 5-4 same sex marriage is a constitutional right. Same sex couples can now marry in all 50 states and states. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion and Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the dissent, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas.
From the opinion:
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.
(4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.
"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people be come something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right," Kennedy wrote in the opinion.
"The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law and society. The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. That institution—even as confined to opposite-sex relations—has evolved over time," Kennedy wrote. "Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs."
"This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy," Kennedy continued. "Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples."
The question that now remains is how the Supreme Court will balance religious freedom, which is protected under the First Amendment, with this ruling on future cases. Kennedy touched on this point in his opinion.
"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex," he said.
The dissent from Roberts, Scalia and Thomas is searing, much like Scalia's dissent from yesterday on the Obamacare subsidy ruling.
More to follow...
This post has been updated with additional information.
I guess that was the “intent” of the 14th amendment all along, it just took a wise dyke to realize it.
Excellent question.
I weep for this country. It really was great, once. Tell your grandkids.
All across the board; the Federal government is a lawless and criminal organization. A military coup would be legal and justified.
Folks like to toy with the idea of civil disobedience. Here’s my idea that I just emailed to my County Commissioners:
Now that the Supreme Court has struck down Tennessee state law regarding marriage, it is clear that “consent of the governed” is of no consequence to the “powers that be” in Washington, D.C..
I urge to you seriously consider resisting this revolutionary decision. Continue to follow the laws of Tennessee that existed yesterday.
They are assuming that the people will meekly submit to this outrageous assault on not only American liberty, but on thousands of years of human history.
Let’s prove them wrong from the Frontier of Freedom.
REFUSE AND RESIST.
Wrong. It will be established to be superior to Freedom of Religion.
The Homofascists are gaining ground.
The time is quickly approaching when all God-fearing patriots are going to have to make a choice, are we going to idly watch the “New Rome” rot away from the inside or are we going to hit the “reset” button envisioned by the founding fathers (that would be the 2nd amendment one if you get my drift).
I never thought I would reach the point where the flag of my own country fills me with more disgust than pride, disgust at what a socialist deginerate cesspool this once great nation has become.
Criminalizing Christianity was the goal all along.
We’re gonna have a dilemma..
What form of resistance do we follow...
They are backing real Americans into a corner.
You think people in the Bible Belt, the South, really everywhere that don’t support this nonsense are going to put up with being imprisoned, thrown in jail, fined, their kids taken away, etc. For refusing to bend over? They really think we are just going to take the rape and move on?
Nope. I really think they’ve gone too far this time. They want blood in the streets. Catering to the vulgar immorality of less than .5% of the population, after upholding a law that makes it a cruel and unusual punishment for me to dish out a $2500 deductible every year, because there is no co-pay on health insurance anymore, when my scripts total over $1000 a month?
They have gone too far, and they will reap the whirlwind.
'Tis already lit.
Bullstalin, they engage in "open marriages". It's about inheritance and insurance benefits.
Marriages are down in the culture yet homomarriage that affects less than 2% of the population is supposed to be some big deal in this world.
bump
Beck is interviewing Someone from the Liberty Institute right now and he is saying 9 justices recognized religious freedom rights.
(Just who do we think we are? It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views,” Roberts dissented)
Roberts has major self-awareness issues. Everything he wonderfully said in his dissent could be applied to his opinion for Obamacare subsidies. In that decision he and the other 5 liberals pretty much torched the Constitution, so he could never blame anyone else for the death of that document, or the rule of law in this land. His hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Okay, now age of marriages varies by the states. Does that mean a 17 year old can marry a 30 year old? What is pedophilia nowadays?
I believe that is a completely different issue and has noting to do with same sex marriage aka fags marrying each other
Abortion and now Gay Marriage.
God has a lot of restraint.
what did Scalia and Thomas write?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.