"I find it cute you think you know the law better then 5 members of the Supreme Court."

You know, of course, that I'm going to pull out this quote next time YOU disagree with a Supreme Court decision?

I'll only do it to point out how incredibly inconsistent you'll be being, though, not because it makes any sense. We're free to reason for ourselves in this country, and I for one took the time to get a pretty decent legal education. I feel no compunction at all pointing out when I think a legal argument falls short, and if all I get in response is namecalling, I don't think much of that argument either.

jmo, stop being such an asshat. It wasn't a unanimous decisions. 44% of the judges dissented. Surely that warrants discussion.

I'm waiting to see this guy set himself on fire:

http://www.hngn.com/articles/103690/20150624/texas-pastor-will-set-himself-fire-protest-over-gay-marriage.htm

Come on, Pastor. Our friend Ava ate a shoe. Are you as big a man?

We're 50-50, Jamiet. Still waiting on krellin.

Semck, if the bit you posted is representative of the rest of Scalia's dissent, it sounds to me like a guy who has been incredibly biased and bigoted throughout his tenure as justice is pissed that the justices around him don't carry the same biases as he does. For you to pretend that a position as prestigious as a Supreme Court justice is free of bias is a show of naivety - yes, that was the intention, but give me a break. Scalia is as biased as the rest of them and for a change our *representative republic* (not democracy) actually did its job and represented the Constitution and, more importantly, the will of the people despite Scalia's dissention.

You can be upset all you want. I doubt you are the type to be against marriage equality, libertarian-esque as your politics are, but the piece of his dissention only tells me that he is bitching that biased Presidents biasedly put biased people, himself included even though he fails to admit it, in the Supreme Court.

"You know, of course, that I'm going to pull out this quote next time YOU disagree with a Supreme Court decision?"

I cannot recall ever being opposed to one of their decisions. I don't always agree with them, but I don't call their legal expertise into question based on my moral concern with the implications of their decisions. I'm willing to consider the reasoning behind their decision, which is something you don't seem willing to do.

"jmo, stop being such an asshat. It wasn't a unanimous decisions. 44% of the judges dissented. Surely that warrants discussion."

If you have something to discuss then feel free. If you're only point in posting is to call me an asshat then feel free to shut up.

Well said bo. Nice job pointing out that despite the Court being "non-representative" geographically, they in fact represented the massive majority of the public (by this I mean that a overwhelming majority of states already accepted gay marriage before this ruling). One does not have to be something to represent something. For example, a man can support women's right to abortion. A natural citizen can support immigrant rights. You don't need a court of 9 immigrants to rule on immigrant cases.

Citizens United was a crappy ruling.

I support gay marriage, but I don't think SCOTUS was really on solid legal ground here. Forcing the issue with shaky foundation was not the proper way to go about this. States have been legalizing gay marriage pretty rapidly. The courts are not supposed to create law; they interpret it and rule it unconstitutional if necessary. They're encroaching on legislative power.

All they did here was interpret the 14th amendment to say that laws stopping gay marriage are unconstitutional.

I did discuss something: that it's preposterous to dismiss semck out of hand because he's not a justice when the justices themselves cannot agree on the topic. This Supreme Court is incredibly fraxtured and almost never comes out with rulings that are beyond a simple majority. To act like the Justices are infallible is very simple-minded of you.

I don't see what more than an obvious interpretation of the 14th Amendment was needed. I don't understand the need to cite precedent or offer a dense book of interpretations of various terms and whatnot. The 14th Amendment is designed as a catch-all and that's how it has always been used.

@Chaqa ... some states are legalizing it but most are doing so only because they had been forced to by courts.

@bo

If it's so obvious then why was it a 5 to 4 dedicision? If it was 8 to 1 then sure. But how can you say it's obvious when it wasn't obvious to almost half of the Justices?

I agree with smeck in this that it's not proper for Justices to assume the will of the people, especially when they do not demographically represent the people.

One fear I have from this ruling is that it will lead (and some instances are already occurring) where gay couples will request churches to perform weddings/ceremonies and allow them to use church facilities and when a church or church parishioner refuses, he/she will be subject to fines or other legal recourse.

Already there is talk about churches who refuse to marry gay couples will lose their tax exempt status, and some businesses who refuse to provide services for gay weddings on religious grounds are already being sued for discrimination.

in such instances as these, it is the violation of the separation of church and state where the state is attempting to decide what we are permitted to believe and how we are permitted to exercise our peaceful faith.

"To act like the Justices are infallible is very simple-minded of you."

If you read what I've posted you'll notice I gave other reasoning and explained that I understood the dissenting opinion and simply disagreed with it, and the logic it is based upon.

You didn't discuss anything, you came in, made an attack without apparently reading the rest of the conversation and then left. Glad to see you're at least getting involved now instead of making attacks and running.

Churches shouldn't have tax exemptions.

I'll agree with that.

JMO, I'm not disagreeing with your reasoning, I'm disagreeing with your attitude that your opinion is self-evidently right and anyone who disagrees is a bigot just because you have one more justice on your side.

So you have a problem with that, but not the initial post I was replying too operating on the fact that we're a democracy? I called smeck a bigot because of various points he made. I'll call tru one because of past times where he's claimed that all gay people will burn in hell, and various other statements of the like. I do not recall saying anyone who disagrees in general is a bigot though.

Tru: separation of church and state doesn't mean "the state stays out of my church affairs" it means "the state doesn't make decisions from a church perspective".

Besides, I think the argument that this will cause people to be sued for discrimination is very weak. Assuming that it's inappropriate for people to be sued for discrimination for not providing services (a big assumption about a complex topic), then that's a problem with the discrimination laws, and not whether or not marriage is legal.

The various points? He made one point before you were down his throat.

no religious organizations should have tax exemptions

if a religious affiliation wants to practice in this country, they should be obligated to follow whatever the current laws are, even if their members dont agree with the laws

Also, maybe I should have said this earlier.

I would rather the state issue no one marriage licenses, but since they do, I'm very glad gays can now get them in all 50 states as well.

As to the argument of Constitutionality, it seems like a wasted discuss, tbh. The Constitution has been so mangled it's really not worth it. Whether or not it was absurd in this particular case, at least it was to do something good.

I learnt everything I know about the US constitution from TV (but where would we be without uniformed political opinions on webdip)- isn't this exactly the sort of thing it's supposed to be for, though?

No, ATC. TV is NOT supposed to be your main or only source of knowledge. :)

It's Webdip onthe Internet^^

From the opinion, p2.

"(b) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage
between two people of the same sex. Pp. 10–27.
(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices
central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices
defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v.
Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479,
484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests
of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them
its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry
but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord
between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal
stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.
Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is
protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388
U. S. 1, 12, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v.
Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95, held that prisoners could not be denied the
right to marry."

Seems like they get right to the heart of the legal matter and reasoning, despite what some here may claim.

Pay attention to this ruling, in particular, "...including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs." Transgender rights advocates will bring that one back as soon as necessary.

@ATC: separation of church and state means exactly that. It is a statement that works to both ensure religious freedoms and to exercise a secular government.

Yet it says in God we trust on our currency