Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide!

[Ironchew]

Sanders, or whoever wins the Democratic primary, needs to throw this in the face of any GOP who states they'll fight it.  "So are you going to waste more taxpayers' money fighting this like you did Obamacare?  And do you understand what Freedom of Religion really means?  Do you even know that we have more than one religion in this country?  Are you trying to turn us into a Theocracy?"

I doubt the GOP will make a concerted effort to fight it. The enduring corporatist victory for decades down the road will be the passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership so they'll be focused on that for the moment.

If they're feeling particularly duplicitous Obama will sign onto it while all the front-page news is focused on nationwide same-sex marriage.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Sanders, or whoever wins the Democratic primary, needs to throw this in the face of any GOP who states they'll fight it.  "So are you going to waste more taxpayers' money fighting this like you did Obamacare?  And do you understand what Freedom of Religion really means?  Do you even know that we have more than one religion in this country?  Are you trying to turn us into a Theocracy?"

I doubt the GOP will make a concerted effort to fight it. The enduring corporatist victory for decades down the road will be the passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership so they'll be focused on that for the moment.

If they're feeling particularly duplicitous Obama will sign onto it while all the front-page news is focused on nationwide same-sex marriage.

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but that's not what "corporatist" means.  I think the word you're looking for is "corporatocratic".

[Ironchew]

Sanders, or whoever wins the Democratic primary, needs to throw this in the face of any GOP who states they'll fight it.  "So are you going to waste more taxpayers' money fighting this like you did Obamacare?  And do you understand what Freedom of Religion really means?  Do you even know that we have more than one religion in this country?  Are you trying to turn us into a Theocracy?"

I doubt the GOP will make a concerted effort to fight it. The enduring corporatist victory for decades down the road will be the passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership so they'll be focused on that for the moment.

If they're feeling particularly duplicitous Obama will sign onto it while all the front-page news is focused on nationwide same-sex marriage.

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but that's not what "corporatist" means.  I think the word you're looking for is "corporatocratic".

"Fascist" is closer to the mark.

Back on topic, I'm glad to see such a big part of Republican identity politics utterly defeated.

[dpareja]

Sanders, or whoever wins the Democratic primary, needs to throw this in the face of any GOP who states they'll fight it.  "So are you going to waste more taxpayers' money fighting this like you did Obamacare?  And do you understand what Freedom of Religion really means?  Do you even know that we have more than one religion in this country?  Are you trying to turn us into a Theocracy?"

I doubt the GOP will make a concerted effort to fight it. The enduring corporatist victory for decades down the road will be the passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership so they'll be focused on that for the moment.

If they're feeling particularly duplicitous Obama will sign onto it while all the front-page news is focused on nationwide same-sex marriage.

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but that's not what "corporatist" means.  I think the word you're looking for is "corporatocratic".

"Fascist" is closer to the mark.

Back on topic, I'm glad to see such a big part of Republican identity politics utterly defeated.

The big danger of relying on the courts for something like this is that the courts can overturn their own precedents.

EDIT: Further, courts have no inherent power to enforce their own rulings. There is nothing stopping a future administration from declaring that they do not recognize the legitimacy of this ruling (or of, say, Windsor) and refusing to exert federal authority to compel states to solemnize and recognize marriages performed between two people of the same sex, and should that occur there is nothing stopping a state administration from refusing to solemnize or recognize such marriages. To quote Justice Scalia's dissent:

Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.” With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

[Ironchew]

Yeah, but case law is supposed to not be a trivial thing to overturn. We still have a functional judicial branch that would pay attention to something like that.

Five partisan justices notwithstanding, sadly.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Sanders, or whoever wins the Democratic primary, needs to throw this in the face of any GOP who states they'll fight it.  "So are you going to waste more taxpayers' money fighting this like you did Obamacare?  And do you understand what Freedom of Religion really means?  Do you even know that we have more than one religion in this country?  Are you trying to turn us into a Theocracy?"

I doubt the GOP will make a concerted effort to fight it. The enduring corporatist victory for decades down the road will be the passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership so they'll be focused on that for the moment.

If they're feeling particularly duplicitous Obama will sign onto it while all the front-page news is focused on nationwide same-sex marriage.

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but that's not what "corporatist" means.  I think the word you're looking for is "corporatocratic".

"Fascist" is closer to the mark.

Back on topic, I'm glad to see such a big part of Republican identity politics utterly defeated.

Again, minor nitpick, but the fascists would've loathed the TPP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

And so am I.  Homophobia seems to be going the way of the dodo, at least in the West.

[dpareja]

Yeah, but case law is supposed to not be a trivial thing to overturn. We still have a functional judicial branch that would pay attention to something like that.

Five partisan justices notwithstanding, sadly.

Exactly. What happened here is that five partisan justices decided they were right and found whatever reasoning they could to support it. There is nothing stopping a different five partisan justices from deciding that today's five were wrong.

The US has no living tree doctrine enshrined as its primary mode of constitutional interpretation.

EDIT: To elaborate, what this victory will likely do is take a lot of the wind out of the sails of the movements to get same-sex marriage enshrined in statute law in the various states. After all, they've won, so why bother passing more laws about it? The danger, then, is that it leaves the status of same-sex marriages in almost forty states at the whim of whoever happens to be sitting on the Supreme Court should the issue ever reach them again. It is not particularly likely, I would think, that the Court would directly overturn statutes allowing same-sex marriage:

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage.

Overturning their own precedents is another matter entirely.

But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.

[Ironchew]

Yeah, but case law is supposed to not be a trivial thing to overturn. We still have a functional judicial branch that would pay attention to something like that.

Five partisan justices notwithstanding, sadly.

Exactly. What happened here is that five partisan justices decided they were right and found whatever reasoning they could to support it. There is nothing stopping a different five partisan justices from deciding that today's five were wrong.

The US has no living tree doctrine enshrined as its primary mode of constitutional interpretation.

The partisans mostly dissented on this decision. I apologize if I was unclear on that point.

The only thing keeping Roe v. Wade afloat today is that case law isn't trivial to overturn. Anti-woman state legislatures are trying their hardest to bring that case forward again but it hasn't worked yet. EDIT: I do agree that the judicial branch can't move nearly fast enough to counter flagrantly unconstitutional moves made by legislators and executives. It's not a good check on those other two branches.

[dpareja]

Yeah, but case law is supposed to not be a trivial thing to overturn. We still have a functional judicial branch that would pay attention to something like that.

Five partisan justices notwithstanding, sadly.

Exactly. What happened here is that five partisan justices decided they were right and found whatever reasoning they could to support it. There is nothing stopping a different five partisan justices from deciding that today's five were wrong.

The US has no living tree doctrine enshrined as its primary mode of constitutional interpretation.

The partisans mostly dissented on this decision. I apologize if I was unclear on that point.

And, in my view, the five justices in the majority are just as partisan, at least on this issue, as the four who dissented.

The only thing keeping Roe v. Wade afloat today is that case law isn't trivial to overturn. Anti-woman state legislatures are trying their hardest to bring that case forward again but it hasn't worked yet. EDIT: I do agree that the judicial branch can't move nearly fast enough to counter flagrantly unconstitutional moves made by legislators and executives. It's not a good check on those other two branches.

And even when it does move, it cannot itself enforce its rulings.

[Nemo]

I wouldn't be too worried about this ruling being overturned in the immediate future. The fundies would need to effect a large scale cultural shift towards their theology to make that happen, and I don't see them succeeding anytime soon. Most of them are so convinced that the world is going to end soon that their only strategy is to scream Bible verses in the hope that a few people will have their brains rewired supernaturally.

Naturally, this gives us a huge advantage. In order to form a successful strategy for the future, you need to believe there is going to be a future to plan for.

[dpareja]

I wouldn't be too worried about this ruling being overturned in the immediate future. The fundies would need to effect a large scale cultural shift towards their theology to make that happen, and I don't see them succeeding anytime soon. Most of them are so convinced that the world is going to end soon that their only strategy is to scream Bible verses in the hope that a few people will have their brains rewired supernaturally.

Naturally, this gives us a huge advantage. In order to form a successful strategy for the future, you need to believe there is going to be a future to plan for.

No, they don't need to effect a large-scale cultural shift. They need to get a candidate who opposes this ruling (but is smart enough not to make a huge deal out of it) elected as President, wait for one of the five justices in Obergefell's majority to retire or die, appoint someone who opposes the ruling, then shepherd a test case through the courts (perhaps involving a state official who refuses to grant a marriage licence on religious grounds).

[Nemo]

Short term, they could do that, yes. It is theoretically possible. Of course, remember how huge Rick Santorum's campaign was in 2012? Neither do I. The Republican nominee that year was Mitt Romney, a man who has been willing to compromise on social issues with the Democrats in the past.

But a large scale cultural shift is necessary if the anti gay viewpoint is to be a relevant view long term. Even if this decision does get reversed, the homophobes would still be living on borrowed time. Their demographic is crumbling fast. And unlike with racial issues, they have another major weakness. Many of the racial issues facing America, I believe, are caused more by ignorance and isolation than by genuine malice. I promise you that the white residents of my small town are disgusted by the views of the neo Nazis, yes, even the ones who posted on Facebook in support of the police in certain cases. By contrast, homosexuals can be born anywhere. My home town had maybe one or two black people attending the local high school. The fact that anyone, anywhere, can be homosexual means that ignorance will be harder to come by. That is a huge part of why the gay rights movement had such rapid success. Many young people realized that the people who were being accused of causing 9/11 by their foaming at the mouth preacher were their best friends. And with that realization, humanity's moral instinct, the very same instinct that apologists insist points to God, kicked in and told the religious fundamentalism where to shove it.

[ironbite]

I wouldn't be too worried about this ruling being overturned in the immediate future. The fundies would need to effect a large scale cultural shift towards their theology to make that happen, and I don't see them succeeding anytime soon. Most of them are so convinced that the world is going to end soon that their only strategy is to scream Bible verses in the hope that a few people will have their brains rewired supernaturally.

Naturally, this gives us a huge advantage. In order to form a successful strategy for the future, you need to believe there is going to be a future to plan for.

No, they don't need to effect a large-scale cultural shift. They need to get a candidate who opposes this ruling (but is smart enough not to make a huge deal out of it) elected as President, wait for one of the five justices in Obergefell's majority to retire or die, appoint someone who opposes the ruling, then shepherd a test case through the courts (perhaps involving a state official who refuses to grant a marriage licence on religious grounds).

That's a good scenario but unlikely as SCOTUS is very loath to go against itself without a huge culture shift to accompany it.  I mean yes the SCOTUS did back up Jim Crow laws but a huge culture shift happened and now look at where we're at.  It's just the nature of the court to not go against itself unless society has changed to that point.

Ironbite-and I really don't see society changing back to pre-Obergefell days.

[Iczerfour]

about damn time!   wooo! way to go!

[Radiation]

I must say that I am very very happy about this. I don't see marriage in my future but I am happy for those that now have the recognizance of a legal marriage and to be with their loves for life.