Did the good, white Christians that objected to mixed marriage on religious grounds after Loving v. Virginia worry about being called bigots after that ruling?

e pluribus unum is better.

More Catholics need to learn from the Jesuits. Luckily I went to a Jesuit school, among other blessings in my life. I'm going to post here a post by Fr. James Martin, SJ.

"No issue brings out so much hatred from so many Catholics as homosexuality. Even after over 25 years as a Jesuit, the level of hatred around homosexuality is nearly unbelievable to me, especially when I think of all of the wonderful LGBT friends I have.

The Catholic church must do a much better job of teaching what the Catechism says: that we should treat our LGBT brothers and sisters with "respect, sensitivity and compassion."

But God wants more. God wants us to love. And not a twisted, crabbed, narrow tolerance, which often comes in the guise of condemnations, instructions and admonitions that try to masquerade as love, but actual love.

Love means: getting to know LGBT men and women, spending time with them, listening to them, being challenged by them, hoping the best for them, and wanting them to be a part of your lives, every bit as much as straight friends are part of your lives.

Love first. Everything else later. In fact, everything else is meaningless without love."

If more people could love them enough to be happy with just their ability to marry, much less that they are married, life would be more grand in my eyes.

Catholics are, on the whole, terrible at being Christians.

@bo,

Scalia's was not the opinion I suggested you read. I quoted it, but it is the Chief Justice's exceptionally strong opinion that you should read. (Scalia is just fun to quote, as always).

@Jeff, bo

Yes, some legal words were used. But however much it may strike you as outrageous (and I can't imagine why it would), the Supreme Court has developed a fairly sophisticated framework for applying the fourteenth amendment; it has not been used as a "catch-all," or if it has, it has done so with some serious analytical strictures, precisely because the justices do not want to place themselves in the role of unelected legislators.

This case did not engage that framework, and it explicitly stepped beyond the lines the justices had set for themselves. (I don't know why I'm explaining all this to you -- Chief Justice ROBERTS's opinion does an amazing job of it). It also did not announce any form of NEW line or standards. It just said "equal protection, fundamental rights, blah blah, gay marriage." The problem is, you can do this with absolutely any issue you feel strongly about. Virtually all laws involve some kind of unequal protection, and this is exactly why the Court had worked so hard to come up with a framework for that law.

But by all means, bo, please continue to assert a two-sentence argument and pretend it is valid, and that all pretense to actual knowledge of law is just so much sophistry. You're a credit to the learned.

@jmo,

"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)."

Only 11 of them had done so democratically (either legislatively or by direct vote). The rest were by judges, so, it's completely unclear whether this "represented the massive majority of the public." It doesn't much matter, though: the Supreme Court is not SUPPOSED to represent the public. It is supposed to interpret the law correctly, irrespective of whether the public agrees or not. It is only when they abandon that role that we evenhave to worry about whether they represent the public. And then it's easy: they're not elected, so no.

Incidentally, @jmo,

"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 did not call their legal expertise into question. I objected to the fact that this opinion contains no legal arguments, so that their legal expertise is not on display. I am complaining because I am paying a first-rate legal expert and getting third-rate platitudes, all the more because the platitudes carry the same legal weight that the legal opinion was supposed to.

Semck, I am not gonna pretend to know better than the Supreme Court. I am also not going to pretend that just because they work stupidly ridiculous schedules for most of their professional lives and are supposedly apolitical that they don't have their own biases. Scalia in particular has proven time and time again to be as biased to the right as anyone in any of the circuits or the Supreme Court is biased to the left. So yeah, I guess he is fun to quote. He is the voice of Fox News in our court system.

What I am also not going to do - and please, say what you will - is read a legal opinion on a matter I see as largely irrelevant, which is whether or not the justices are acting as lawyers or moralists, both of which they are entitled to be in my opinion. I will instead celebrate this landmark court case, wish a number of friends of mine around the country all the best as they finally marry in the state in which they live, and hopefully attend as many of those weddings as I can. I will also continue to adore the picture of the brightest rainbow I think I have ever seen, which just so happened to appear over the top of the pines in the late afternoon today and appreciate that this country and the world are better off as a result of this decision.

I don't really feel like arguing about one of the things I have been most passionate about for years. The argument for me is over. I don't have to fight anymore. I can marry anyone I want - man, woman, or anywhere in between; black, white, or anywhere in between - and right now I am just proud to say that.

Also, for what it's worth, conservatives should be more upset right now that the subsidies under the ACA were upheld rather than that freedom rang for 9% of the population and all who have ever enjoyed their company.

http://j.gs/10388079/government-cheese

@bo_sox,

"Semck, I am not gonna pretend to know better than the Supreme Court."

And you're also not going to expose your fragile mind to an extremely well-crafted argument, painfully constructed to be accessible to nonexperts while powerful to experts, as to why you should be concerned about the way in which it happened. Fair enough.

I'll ask again: is there any strong political belief that you have that you would NOT be OK with having enacted by fiat by the Supreme Court?

Incidentally, nobody is claiming that judges are not biased. Quite the contrary. They're pointing out that, because judges are biased, they should stick to that activity at which they're good and for which they're hired: legal reasoning. Arbitrary government by nine biased men is a much older system of government than democracy, but a much worse one.

"Also, for what it's worth, conservatives should be more upset right now that the subsidies under the ACA were upheld rather than that freedom rang for 9% of the population and all who have ever enjoyed their company."

I don't like that result, but it was based on close legal reasoning and I always thought that -- legally -- that was a difficult case that could go either way. Politically I'm disappointed, but I think the Court reached that conclusion because it actually believed that was the right interpretation of the law. I have no fundamental philosophical problems with the case.

(By the way, the proportion of the population that is gay is far less than 9% -- not that it's relevant in any way to my problems with this opinion.)

I was about to say, 9% is a very high overestimate. Just a nitpick, really, but the more agreed upon number for gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc. is 2-4%.

I'm pretty sure it's around 4% in America. Interestingly, bo isn't the only person who overestimates how many LGBT people there are in the US: http://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx

Semck, the majority of people aren't like you and don't care about legal writing and precedent like you do. I don't, so if you want to reach me and actually get me to read the whole of what you say rather than lose focus; adjust. Feeble-minded as I am, I am like everyone else in that way. Not on webDip, though, which I guess is why you are here.

Are there opinions that the court should not uphold? Absolutely. Those that are illegal. Like all the rest of us.

"Are there opinions that the court should not uphold? Absolutely. Those that are illegal. Like all the rest of us. "

I really don't have the first clue what that means.

As to the, "I'm ignorant and don't really care what kind of government I live under" part, thanks -- duly noted, I guess. It explains a lot.

Scalia's was right in that this case should have waited until homosexuals were represented on the Supreme Court. Then there could have been demands to excuse all judges whose backgrounds might have tainted their views including his.

That Gallup poll is kind of disconcerting. People are really uninformed...

The way I interpret the gallup poll data there is that people believe such a large percentage of people are LGBT because of the way they are portrayed in popular media, and how loud their supporters and rallies/protests are. It's made out to be some incredibly massive injustice when the number of those actually negatively impacted is relatively minor. (Not to say that number of people being adversly affected has any bearing on the moral standing of the issue. Just why the number is so vastly inflated in people's minds.)

The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses have been invoked many times by the SCOTUS. They did it again because the recognized fundamental right to marry was being abridged. The several States were at odds with each other, circuit courts were issuing conflicting rulings on appeal, so the SCOTUS had to step in. They very clearly explained why in the majority opinion. You may not like the reasons they gave, but they are unambiguous and logically sound.

Obviously the dissenters hate these clauses because time and again they complain about them in their dissents. This is *not* legislating from the bench. It is resolving a conflict among the several States. This is why the SCOTUS has to get involved. They are called upon to address conflicts, much to the consternation of Tenthers.

Marriage is a fundamental right. So consider Jim Obergefell's plight:

He is a national guardsman. He was married to his husband in California. He was assigned to duty in Tennessee. On his military base (federal property), his marriage was legal. As soon as he and his husband stepped outside the base, their marriage was considered null and void by the state of Tennessee. This situation is utterly ludicrous to happen inside the borders of a unified country.

And so we are where we are.

I read the Roberts dissent. It didn't break any new legal ground. It couldn't. Instead, he just rehashed the same tired arguments which failed before. That was his fate.

Honestly, I think that Roberts wrote the primary dissent as a political favor. He had just sided with the ACA...again...this time with a 6-3 majority. Republican opponents of the ACA loathe him for this. So, he went all in with as much vitriol as he could muster against the constitutionally correct majority opinion to save face with his conservative friends.

"Honestly, I think that Roberts wrote the primary dissent as a political favor. He had just sided with the ACA...again...this time with a 6-3 majority. Republican opponents of the ACA loathe him for this. So, he went all in with as much vitriol as he could muster against the constitutionally correct majority opinion to save face with his conservative friends. "

Yes.

Bump.

"Semck, the majority of people aren't like you and don't care about legal writing and precedent like you do. I don't"

-bo_sox48

Everyone is uninformed about something important about our government. There is simply too much that goes into the government for everyone to be knowledgeable about important topics.

That is why this country is not a democracy. Because a democracy would require everyone knowing everything. That is why we have a representative government.

If people like abge and semck are so deeply concerned about the decisions then I suggest entering politics or the legal system for a profession. Otherwise the rest of us will go on being perfectly happy at the positive results occurring, happy with the demolition of bigotry, and legalized hatred.

To me the question is, is there anything in the decision that is so horrible that it is worth wishing the reversal which would make approve, condone, and allow the systematic creation of a lower class of people. To me the answer is no. Throughout history people have gone to great lengths to fight discrimination and hatred. In the US we fought a civil war to eliminate slavery. The US was created by fighting the British who wanted to rule us. The world rallied to fight the Nazi's who wanted to destroy all but the perfect people.

Rosa Parks sat on a bus, which was illegal, and in doing so started a movement to start fighting unequal rights. This legal decision, which would have been worth a war to stop discrimination, thankfully only took 5 people.

There is literally nothing that can be said that would ever convince those who have gay friends (like myself) who understand the constant fear, hatred, and discrimination that gay people face, or by the those who live and experience that fear, hated, and discrimination. Lets say that I agree with the dissenting judges legal arguments, I still wouldn't care simply because there is nothing more important in this world then ending suffering, hatred, and fighting those who condone hatred and suffering.

These 5 people just took a massive step forward towards equal treatment for all. And if in doing so they had to violate laws to do it then oh well. To me that would make them hero's.

"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing".

And do not make the mistake of thinking that what has been happening to gays in this country for centuries is anything besides evil.

But I believe that the Constitution was made and written to protect all people from unequal treatment, to ensure the freedom, and pursuit of happiness. Hence, I believe that in their ruling they correctly interpreted the Constitution.

For those who disagree with my opinion please do not feel the need to rebuke me, I'm perfectly content with any issues you find in my logic. Just understand that until you've watched your friends suffer because of the legal discrimination they are subjected too, that you really should not be too quick to condemn this cases outcome.

jmo,

This is usually an irrelevant point, but since you've brought it up -- I do, in fact, have gay friends.

Of course, as I say, that's not really relevant -- I can understand that that makes you more sympathetic to that point of view, but what I find is that it does not make me any more desirous of living in an oligarchy.

Rosa Parks, as you point out, unleashed a great social movement. which resulted in democratic change. Such was the appropriate process here.

To your invitation that if we care about what happens, we should go into politics, I would respond very simply that this is a democracy; one perfectly valid response to having concerns is to try to educate your fellow citizens so that they will share your concerns and do something about them. You do not have to enter politics.

Finally, you may consider that I'm callous for putting my concern about a system of government ahead of concern for suffering. For one acquainted with history, the response to that is very simple as well. Oligarchies never protect rights in the long term (though they often rise to power by doing so) and they often create much misery. I am not being abstruse and academic. I am just taking the future into account as well as the present, with the observation that some things always lead to the same bad ends.

The Supreme Court may not ultimately become an oligarchy, of course. The other possibility, on its current course, would be that it loses legitimacy and a great deal of power. That too would be a tragedy, because like you I cherish its ability to protect the rights of minorities; only not arbitrarily, for these reasons.

I do appreciate your explanation, though, and I think I understand your position.

@Jeff Kuta,

Few of these justices are opposed across the board to the use of the due process or equal protection clauses of the Constitution. All but at most one of them have voted numerous times to uphold rights under them. But they have done so under analytic frameworks, and that is much more than just an academic point. To simply declare things without doing analysis is abdicating the role of a judge, and it's what happened here.

I've made this point now in this thread many times. I'm pessimistic that you'll actually read it this time.

The majority opinion offers no guidance to lower courts as to how to apply the fourteenth amendment in the future. It gives no sense how the supreme court might apply it in the future, either, other than to reflect whatever their private opinions happen to be at the time. It utterly departs from the Court's precedent on the clauses in the fourteenth amendment -- even the "liberal" precedents. It is completely lawless.

@semck:

"To simply declare things without doing analysis is abdicating the role of a judge, and it's what happened here."

"It is completely lawless."

You keep saying these things, but the first 30 pages of the majority opinion cite numerous cases and precedents to the contrary.

To which I repeat, you may not like the reasoning of the majority, but it is there. There is analysis. It is not merely "private opinions" as you wish to believe.

You prefer to belief the dissenting opinion of John Roberts (or any other other dissents). OK. That's your opinion based on the weight of legal argument.

But you can't say that the majority opinion is lawless. It's right there in black and white: On p12, "This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples have 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."

To repeat: You can disagree with their reasoning, but you can't disagree that they failed to reason.

For what it's worth (nothing), Rosa Parks wasn't the first to do what she did.

Jeff,

I can certainly see why what they're doing may appear to be an argument to somebody who (a) doesn't have much con law background and (b) doesn't take the time to analyze what their "argument" really consists of, or to read critiques of it. I can accept why you think it is an argument. Alas, a brilliant legal mind (or even a mediocre one) can pretty easily sprinkle a power grab liberally with irrelevant legal citations. It's a low standard to meet, and it doesn't constitute an argument or alleviate any of my concerns.

(Or in other words, adding the sentence "therefore, because of precedent, I must do X" does not mean that precedent compels such, or even that you've given an argument that it does. Yes. Kennedy's opinion contains the form of an argument. But it does not contain the content of one. The key points in the argument are provided by (somewhat disguised) bare assertion, not any kind of reasoning.

semck: You are doing what you claim Kennedy is doing. You are making assertions here that his opinion doesn't contain the content of an argument without providing even a single example of why this is true. I find it hard to take your point of view seriously when you appear to be claiming the mantel of con law background and having taking the time to analyze the argument. Sprinkle the cheap shot of calling the majority of our SCOTUS justices mediocre and it seems you've got an ax to grind, not an argument to make.