The Supreme Court loses a game of chicken

The effects are good: the court has denied appeals on same sex marriage rulings.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the hotly contested issue of gay marriage, a surprise move that will allow gay men and women to marry in five states where same-sex weddings were previously banned.

By rejecting appeals in cases involving Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana, the court left intact lower-court rulings that struck down bans in those states.

Other states under the jurisdiction of appeals courts that struck down the bans will also be affected, meaning the number of states with gay marriage is likely to quickly jump from 19 to 30.

It would have been entertaining and infuriating to watch the Catholic fossils on the court wrestle with a problem that all rational people have already resolved, but it’s also about time to quit playing games with people’s lives and move on already.

But only 30? Twenty states clearly need to get their act together.


  1. Apostropher Royal says

    The ability to gain kudos for legalising gay marriage seems to have well and truly passed (setting aside but never forgetting that kudos for basic human decency is depressing in itself). I forget who said it, but the key thing now is which state will have the ignominy of being the last. Anyone care to wager?

  2. Cuttlefish says

    There is nothing that prevents them from taking up such a case later within this session. Every site I have seen report this has noted that there were so many to choose from that it was reasonable for the SCOTUS to take their time. Especially since a case may be coming up which rules *against* SSM (6th district, IIRC?), which would create a conflict and a much more fertile ground for a ruling.

    Expect them to take up a case; this isn’t done.

  3. Matrim says

    @Apostropher Royal, 2

    I don’t think there will be a “last one,” I’m guessing it’ll be another state sweep like this.

  4. gussnarp says

    I’m concerned about all the court shenanigans, and I’m generally happy with this Supreme Court decision. On the one hand, I would love for the court to strongly strike down all the marriage bans, on the other, I’m not certain they would. I would hate to have the wrong Supreme Court precedent set. I’d also really like to see more states fix it themselves in their laws and constitutions. In particular, I want my state of Ohio to amend its constitution to remove the marriage ban and enshrine the right of any two unrelated people to marry. Sadly, there appears to be some disagreement among the pro-marriage groups here over the wording of an amendment. I’d hate to see infighting stop us from doing the obvious right thing. I had heard that the amendment petition had enough signatures, but I guess maybe it didn’t have them for this year, because it’s not on our ballot.

    But all those concerns and issues aside: I’m not about to tell anyone to wait for their civil rights, and if any couple thinks it’s worth fighting all the way to the Supreme Court, then all I can do is support them. But I hope the people sitting on those petition signatures win the race and we get to make a statement that we want to do the right thing and make marriage equality the law of the land in a way the Supreme Court is unlikely to erase.

  5. Saad says

    Potential articles from 1966:

    U.S. Supreme Court declines to intervene in gay interracial marriage cases.

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the hotly contested issue of gay interracial marriage.

    State officials defending their bans counter that the Constitution does not dictate how states should define marriage and that there is no deeply rooted legal tradition that supports a right to gay interracial marriage.

    These are merely suggestions. The reader may choose to substitute the year and oppressed class for their favorite one. For instance, you may opt for the 19th century and slavery or the year 1919 and women’s right to vote).

  6. says

    Call me a cynic but I think the real reason the Supremes did not take this case was they (mainly Scalia, Thomas and Roberts) wanted to have an affect on the next election. By not taking the case, gay marriage has a big win before this election, thus the anti gay people get angry NOW and will turn out to vote NOW.

    Had they taken the case they clearly would have found in favor of gay marriage but the decision would have been made next summer or so. Too late to increase the turnout of the crazies for this election.

    We are being manipulated. (Or at least some of us). Now I don’t think a lot of the crazies are being manipulated, because most Americans have come around to the sane side on gay marriage. But in close elections, all you need sometimes are a few to change an elections outcome.

  7. futurechemist says

    Officially, SCOTUS refusing to hear the cases shouldn’t say anything about the position they will eventually take when they hear a case.

    Unofficially, it means a lot. Short term, it brings marriage equality to Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Utah, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas (I’d pay to see someone set up a wedding chapel across the street from the Westboro Baptist Church). But it also sends the message that SCOTUS didn’t see a major problem in the court decisions for those states, and that they’re not in a rush to overrule them. It also means that the justices sees the 8th Circuit’s decision banning same-sex marriage in Nebraska 8 years ago to be so unimportant in light of recent events that they don’t need to correct it. All this will probably be noted by judges in the remaining 20 states. The 9th circuit is very likely to strike down the Idaho and Nevada’s bans soon, and if SCOTUS refuses to hear that appeal, it would add Alaska, Arizona, and Montana.

    But as soon as a more conservative circuit (5th Circuit – Texas, maybe 6th Circuit) rules against marriage equality, then SCOTUS will take up the case.

  8. azhael says

    If there is a last state to join the 21st century i doubt it will be populated by the kind of people who consider it an ignominy….rather i expect they’ll mourn that they succumbed to the homo hordes and proudly tell their grandchildren that they were the last to fall. Because when you are the last to recognize basic human rights to, you know…human beings, you are an unredeemable piece of shit.

  9. Saad says

    They *could* strike it down effective immediately, but the lives of people who happen to not be them is a game to them. How long would a state law last that said judges traveling through the state must pay extra tax and stay for no more than one day?

    Privileged assholes.

    gussnarp, #5

    I would hate to have the wrong Supreme Court precedent set.

    What precedent? Striking down a blatantly black-and-white oppressive law effective immediately? What a wonderful precedent to set. Nothing bad would happen because of it ever anywhere.

  10. twas brillig (stevem) says

    f there is a last state to join the 21st century i doubt it will be populated by the kind of people who consider it an ignominy…

    yeah, rather. I presume they will proclaim it, proudly, that they were the very last to succumb to that dreadful law; that they had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, by the unfair “majority”. If those gheys want to marry, they can just go over to that disgusting state over there, to do so.
    [but I’m just kicking my strawman…. never mind]

  11. gussnarp says

    @Saad #10: It’s almost like you didn’t read anything else in my comment except the 11 words you quoted.

    I’m just not as confident that the conservative, Catholic majority on the court will rule correctly as you are.

  12. freemage says

    Saad: I believe gussnarp is afraid that, if this SCOTUS were to hear the issue, they would make either just a flat-out wrong ruling, or, arguably worse because it could be harder to undo the effects of, a ruling so narrow that it carves out all sorts of exceptions to the general principle, making the rest of the fight that much harder a slog.

    Timing when a case reaches the court is, sadly, part of how the game is played.

  13. Saad says

    gussnarp (#12),

    I read all the words but misunderstood your tone as saying what you think ought happen at the Supreme Court level as opposed to what would realistically happen. Not sure why; a second reading makes it quite clear.

    freemage (#13), thanks for the explanation.

    It is indeed sad that this has to be played like a game at all.

  14. gussnarp says

    @Saad, #14: Thanks for replying graciously to my snark. I just want to be exceptionally clear that marriage equality should be the law of the land by any possible means and no one should have to wait for their civil rights.

    I just worry. And I really do want to see state constitutions scrubbed of hate.

  15. colnago80 says

    I predicted that the court would punt at this time and will continue to punt until there is a conflict between the circuits. If, in fact, the 5th circuit rules to uphold the lower court decisions, then there will be no conflict. IMHO, Kennedy would be quite happy not to have to make a decision and to kick the can down the road.

  16. says

    Once SSM goes forward in these added states, I can’t see how it can be undone. California’s Prop 8 was overturned on the premise that it denied already existing rights, even though those rights were only (months) recently recognized at Prop 8’s passage.

  17. carlie says

    markmckee – I appreciate your support of the issue and share your concerns that we should always look for political underpinnings to decisions like this. However, just a note – it goes against the general gestalt of this blog to use the term “crazy” to refer to people who have unfounded or ridiculous beliefs, as it does a side smear on people with mental conditions that have historically been called “crazy”. It also allows us to shove the anti-gay people away as somehow “other”, when in reality they are just people who believe something terrible, and we need to remember that we are all prone to be able to believe awful things if we are taught them enough. Please don’t take this as a firm rebuke; it is commonly used that way, and we understand that, but the commentariat here try to be more aware of our language and usage.

  18. azhael says

    Oh my fucking god, the comments….the horrible, horrible comments….
    I need a brain brush…and a strong UV light…

  19. says

    azhael @22:
    Dude, you should have heeded my warning :)
    I had a brief case of SIWOTI*, but after 3 or 4 comments, that was cured.

    *Someone Is Wrong On The Internet (I’m sure there’s someone out there unfamiliar with the acronym)

  20. Usernames are smart says

    I forget who said it, but the key thing now is which state will have the ignominy of being the last. Anyone care to wager?
    — Apostropher Royal (#2)

    *Looks around*

    Texas, for sure.

    Oh wait, maybe Alabama.

  21. says

    Apostropher Royal @ 2:

    I forget who said it, but the key thing now is which state will have the ignominy of being the last. Anyone care to wager?

    I’ll put money on South Dakota, with North Dakota being second to last.

  22. colnago80 says

    Re Kamaka @ #20

    Wrong, the SCOTUS ruled that the plaintiffs in the Prop. 8 case lacked standing to appeal the district court’s decision so that the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, that was based on the premise that rights once granted couldn’t be taken away, was vacated and the decision reverted to the District Court, which ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional on other grounds.

  23. says

    michael kellymiecielica @ 28:

    To be fair, you can vote ‘no’ on the poll in the linked article without being bigot.

    I don’t think you can. A person can tell themselves they are voting no because legal technicalities, or other bullshit, but the bottom line is their bigotry.

  24. markr1957 says

    My bet is on my home state, Louisiana. Then again the daughter of a good friend is at present in California getting married to her partner because they can’t get married here. Both sets of parents have flown out to be at the wedding, and hundreds of friends have wished the couple well, so it isn’t as though all Louisianians are backwards reprobates.

  25. gussnarp says

    @Iyeska, flow mali – I can imagine someone voting no because they disagree with the refusal to hear the cases, thinking the court should hear them and issue a decisive ruling affirming marriage equality.

  26. says

    gussnarp @ 32:

    @Iyeska, flow mali – I can imagine someone voting no because they disagree with the refusal to hear the cases, thinking the court should hear them and issue a decisive ruling affirming marriage equality.

    Sure, I acknowledged as much, I just don’t buy it.

  27. says


    “I don’t think you can. A person can tell themselves they are voting no because legal technicalities, or other bullshit, but the bottom line is their bigotry.”

    umm…you can. This is so mind-boggling obvious that it pains me to have to explain this.

    The poll on the article is “Do you agree with the Supreme Court action today in these cases?” A “no” answer only indicates that you think the S. Court should have taken up 1 (or more) of the cases. It tells us nothing of why a person thinks the S. Court should have taken up the case. Granted a large percentage of the “no” votes are probably because bigots don’t want LGBT people to enjoy their equal rights, but it is also the case that a person could’ve voted “no” because they want the S. Court to finally resolve the issue in favor of LGBT having their rights finally being recognized and see this as a totall waffling punt by the court.

    Or in other words,

    I’m queer, I favor gay marriage, and I voted “no” on the poll because I’m wish the S. Court would stop kicking the can down the road.


  28. hiddenheart says

    michael kellymiecielica@35: On the other hand, I’m also queer and in favor of marriage equality, and I very much want this Supreme Court not to take it up. There’s an easy four votes against marriage equality, a fairly easy four votes in favor, and so it’d come down to how homophobic Justice Kennedy is feeling any particular day. I hate his self-righteous, self-glorifying pomposity so much and absolutely do not want marriage rights hanging on his whim. I regard deferring a decision as by far the best available outcome, even though it’s not the most desirable outcome overall.

  29. moarscienceplz says

    IANAL, but I have to disagree with Cuttlefish. I think the SCOTUS has done all they want to do on this subject. This is what happens when intelligent people get sucked into dogmatic worldviews, whether the dogmatism comes from the Catholic church or from Tea Bagger-esque conservatism.
    As legal eagles, I think the Justices realize that no good argument has ever been presented to stop SSM, so they are stuck: either buy into the stupid and bigoted arguments and go down in history as being on the same moral and legal level as the Dred Scott court, or thumb their noses at their religion and/or their conservatism (which is economic religion).

  30. azhael says

    @23 Tony
    I wish i had seen your comment before i decided to take a look out of sheer boredom…oh god…i think it’s in my hair…and i barely have any! Bleeeeeeerrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhh…..

  31. David Wilford says

    As to the legal implications about this non-decision I’m mostly clueless, but I’m pleased that same-sex civil marriage is now legal in my state of Wisconsin, and hopeful that this will soon be the case in every state.

  32. says


    The composition of the court is highly unlikely to change before the issue has to be taken up as we are literally only months away from either the 5th or 6th circuit from bucking the trend (most likely) and ruling against marriage equality. If the circuits split in the next round, the court all but has to take up the issue. Barring an unexpected death, the decision is still going to come down to Kennedy. In which case, I rather get it out of the way in the off-chance* Kennedy decides to utterly destroy his legacy. If we have to start the long, long process of repealing the amendments it is far better to start now then later. Also, if the case does go against marriage equality it is better for people on the ground that it happens sooner, as less people will have their marriages invalidated.

    All this (in)action does is place the entire thing in a holding pattern for 6 months to a year.

    *Kennedy has penned the three major gay rights S. Court cases, in Romer, Lawrence and Windsor. Brick by brick these decisions have lead to the legal landscape where it is nigh impossible to ban same-sex marriage. Kennedy, regardless of anything else, is highly unlikely to do Scalia-level contortions to escape this. I can totally see Kennedy voting in favor of marriage equality only too be consistent.

    I also don’t think it’s a given that Roberts is a no vote, through he is a very likely to be a no vote.

  33. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Ed was saying he expected this to go to SCOTUS this year. I’ve been saying that I don’t think that’s as likely, but I haven’t been nearly as sure as Ed seemed. He’s a court watcher much more than I am. I pay very little attention to trends in granting/denying cert. So I wasn’t going out on a limb, but this is in fact the decision that I expected.

  34. Crimson Clupeidae says

    Slightly OT:
    re: the comments at CNBC.

    I wonder why it is so bad. Poll after poll shows that those supporting real marriage equality are in the clear majority now, and it continues to improve. Yet, like you-tube, reading the comments would make one think that the whole world is infested by the likes of ISIL. There’s always a case of squeaky wheel and all that, but I wonder why it is, on so many issues, the reactionary turdblossoms are the ones that overwhelm the comments.

  35. says

    I have to say that I’m sympathetic to those who would vote no, wishing that the Supreme Court would go ahead and vote on Marriage Equality now. Part of me wishes they would, bc this feels like drawing out this important issue, which has the effect of delaying justice (delayed justice is denied justice).
    OTOH, the makeup of SCOTUS does not fill me with the greatest confidence that they’ve vote correctly.
    So I’m torn.

  36. gussnarp says

    @Crimson Clupeidae (@44):

    I expect that basically reasonable people have ceded the comment space to the trolls. I usually only comment in relatively safe spaces. I have essentially written off the comments at all general news websites, YouTube, Reddit, and pretty much any general audience website as cesspools of hate and vitriol I’ve no interest in wading into. And I’ve got a long history of writing comments and a bad case of SIWOTI. But it’s just not worth wading into those spaces. Meanwhile, the right wing trolls seem to have really stepped up trying to take over those spaces. A quick look at NPR comments, for example, will reveal that there are obvious conservative trolls who wouldn’t listen to NPR unless they were tied down in front of a radio against their will, but who seem to hover about the NPR website waiting to make comments about “libtards” and “liberal bias”.

  37. says

    I really like the timing here. Utah clerks are once again issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples … and the nifty timing means that this progressive move takes place the day after the mormons held their semi-annual General Conference in which thousands of mormons congratulated themselves on being right about everything.


    Same-sex marriages in Utah began again Monday after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear appeals from five states trying to revive their same-sex marriage bans, effectively legalizing gay and lesbian union in 11 new states.

    A mandate from the 10th Circuit issued about 10:10 a.m. Monday lifted a hold the court had put in place on any movement toward the legalization of gay and lesbian unions as a way to allow Utah time to appeal its case and attempt to reinstate a voter-approved ban on such marriages. […]

    “This is a day of celebration and victory for all of Utah, for all families,” plaintiff Kody Partridge said, as her wife Laurie Wood stood behind her, rubbing her shoulders and squeezing her hands.

    “Now it’s not ‘maybe — well kind of,’ ” Partridge added. “We are married. The state will recognize our marriage and the community will, as well.”

    “We’re delighted that we don’t’ have to wait any longer,” said plaintiff Karen Call, whose wife Karen Archer has been struggling with a terminal illness. “We’re getting married, folks!”

    More than 1,200 Utah same-sex couples wed in the immediate aftermath of the December ruling, during a 17-day window when such marriages were legal and before the Supreme Court stayed Shelby’s Dec. 20, 2013, ruling striking down Amendment 3 as unconstitutional. Those couples have been in a self-described state of legal-limbo since January, waiting to see if the state would recognize their unions and extend benefits. […]

  38. says

    Here’s a mormon response to the news:

    “Children are entitled to be raised by a married mother and father,” the statement read. “Sutherland Institute is deeply disappointed that the Supreme Court has failed to correct the lawlessness of lower courts that have deprived the people of Utah and other states their ability to protect that entitlement. While it appears that Utah is being forced by the federal courts to recognize same-sex marriages, there are still other states whose laws the courts have not yet disrupted.”

  39. azhael says

    @47 Tony

    I didn’t reply, i just run away in horror. Those people are terrifying and the only response they deserve is a giant FUCK. YOU. anyway…
    Well, and perhaps people queuing up to piss on their graves when they die…

  40. anteprepro says

    Certain websites are intractable. Cesspits. You could try to dip in and tell them how filthy it is and that they should try to clean that shit up, but they will invariably just fling more shit at you. Sometimes, you are best off just warning others to stay away. That is basically the case for Yahoo, AOL, and to some degree, much of Youtube. But I…I fear that the cesspit is actually too big. It’s spread too far. Websites got too bad to seem worth it for decent human beings, and then they metastasized, spreading elsewhere and making whole new areas into inhospitable, toxic ground as well, since we all know how effective ignoring trolls is. There is no right answer here. I have no strategy aside from trying to defend the places we care about from the kind of shit we see rotting away the places that we didn’t.

  41. Sili says

    I know I’m not supposed to wish death on anyone, but I to Hell with it. Scalia looks unhealthy as it is, and I sincerely hope that something will get his ire up enough that he has an aneurysm. Soon.

  42. anteprepro says

    I wouldn’t even wish death on Scalia, fucking hellborn troglodyte that he is. No, I just wish that he gets locked in a closet until he retires. And then when he does die, I hope he suddenly becomes acutely aware of every life he has ruined, and that he will be haunted day after day on his death bed, knowing that he will go down in history as the odious, selfish, right-wing thug who made arbitrary rulings that affected millions of people in the name of his personal preferences. I hope he leaves the Court alive, lives long enough to see that everyone acknowledges him as a villain, and then finally dies slowly and quietly, the burdens he placed upon others finally weighing upon him, wishing that they would just show him mercy and finally crush him.

  43. says

    The National Organization for Marriage has weighed in:

    […] “We are surprised and extremely disappointed that the US Supreme Court has refused to grant review of the same-sex marriage cases pending before them,” Brian S. Brown, the group’s president, said in a statement. “This is wrong on so many levels.” […]

    “The effect of the lower court rulings is to say that a constitutional right to same-sex ‘marriage’ has existed in every state in the union since 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified, but somehow nobody noticed until quite recently,” he wrote. “That’s the absurd belief we are being told to accept.” […]

    Yep, they’re in such a tizzy.

    […] given what the Supreme Court has allowed to happen, the only alternative to letting unelected judges impose their view of marriage on Americans across the country is to pursue a process that will allow the American people to decide for themselves what is marriage. It is critical not only to marriage but to the republican form of government in this country to amend the Constitution to reaffirm the meaning of marriage. We therefore call on the US Congress to move forward immediately to send a federal marriage amendment to the states for ratification.[…]

  44. says

    I should have listened to you all. Instead, I read the comments. It’s hard to make the National Organization for Massiveassholery, I mean Marriage, sound reasonable, but the commenters at that story went out and achieved anyway.

  45. Scientismist says

    “The effect of the lower court rulings is to say that a constitutional right to same-sex ‘marriage’ has existed in every state in the union since 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified, but somehow nobody noticed until quite recently,”

    (Thanks to Lynna, OM @55 for providing NOM’s comments.)

    This particular piece of nasty (and historically ignorant) rhetoric used to really burn me, until I realized that they are only defining themselves as foreign to modern civilized human society. NOM also calls it “absurd,” “mind-boggling,” “wrong” and “illegitimate” for SCOTUS to pass up an opportunity to enforce NOM’s bigoted prejudices; and that is precisely because they see it as “absurd,” “mind-boggling,” “wrong” and “illegitimate” that anyone would consider gay people to be human beings. Sorry, NOM, you’ve lost that battle. It wasn’t the 14th Amendment in 1868 that turned the tide, it was Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

    To the extent that gays are human, they’ve always had the constitutional right — more properly, the human right — to marriage. They also had the human right not to be hung, imprisoned, or castrated, too (that last one was Thomas Jefferson’s idea of a more “lenient” law — it never passed). But nobody noticed that either. It’s only a bit more than 50 years ago (1962) when the first state (Illinois) adopted a criminal code reform that eliminated penalties for consensual homosexual acts — but you still couldn’t solicit someone to participate in such acts. And that’s the way it stayed for about another 10 years. Gays in America had the legal right to have sex in Illinois, and only Illinois, if they could find someone to do it with without ever asking. Ask, and you could go to jail.

    How is a society ever going to recognize the human rights of a class of people they don’t even consider to be human? But in the intervening years, the humanity of gays has won recognition. It’s only been a bit over 10 years, but now that we’re human, you have to give us our human rights.

  46. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Gays in America had the legal right to have sex in Illinois, and only Illinois, if they could find someone to do it with without ever asking. Ask, and you could go to jail.

    I am happy to say that things have gotten better. No matter what SCOTUS says about appellate court rulings, SSM has been approved by the state legislature, and is now the law in the Land of Lincoln.
    *raises tankard of grog in salute*

  47. greg hilliard says

    I wish the court had taken this up, but even if it did and ruled in favor or marriage equality (as it should), you would then have the cultural right screaming about activist courts, just as it has since Roe vs. Wade.

  48. whheydt says

    Re: kamak @ #20…

    That’s what the 9th circuit said, but SCOTUS vacated that on the grounds that those defending Prop. 8 lacked standing to appeal to the 9th Circuit. The final decision was that of the trial court, which ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional on Equal Protection and Due Process, NOT that it was revoking a right already granted.

    On the surface, there is a similar situation with Nevada, but there, the state started the appeal and then–effectively–abandoned it and allowed a third party to (badly) defend the law. The other side pointed out that, while they had no objections to the defenders being given standing to defend the laws, they lacked standing for an appeal to SCOUTS if they lost (citing the Prop. 8 case). The net result is that once the 9th Circuit rules (virtually certainly for marriage equality), the Nevada anti-SSM laws are toast.

  49. anteprepro says

    For those who want to know what the comments say but also don’t want their eyes to bleed so much, here is the cliff notes version of the first five key ridiculous comments: (Quotes are all paraphrases)

    “This is all because rich gay couples want tax breaks!!!”
    “Gays is persecuting Christians! FASCISM!”
    “Online internet poll disagrees with the Court’s non-decision! Democracy dictates that gay marriage should be banned!!!”

    Final hilarity: Liberal says “Conservatives think marriage is so fragile” and conservative shrieks, exact quote: “It’s not that fragile — it’s taken the left almost 40 years to destroy it.” I mean, the only response to that one is laughter.

  50. says

    Missouri would love to be last. We’re the state whose Republicans wanted to impeach the governor for making the smallest possible change to our income tax system to accomodate the SCOTUS DOMA ruling. Apparently, he was supposed to change the tax code. Not simply allow gay people to follow it as passed by the legislature. And he had to do this by executive order, because the legislature wasn’t lifting a finger to accommodate the ruling. He made the smallest possible change, and the Republicans went apeshit.

    We might not be last, though… One of our judges just ruled that the constitutional ban does not apply to out of state marriages. That’s not far enough, but it’s not a bad start.

  51. marcus says

    I found the comments at the link quite refreshing. There are actually quite a few people speaking up for equality (I made several comments in that regard myself) and the rest is just bile, bitter rage, and the tears of bigots. I even poked a few of them just for fun. Fuck them ever so much. :)

  52. yak2 says

    As for Scalia, he needs to go out like this…

    Westley: To the pain means the first thing you will lose will be your feet below the ankles. Then your hands at the wrists. Next your nose.
    Prince Humperdinck: And then my tongue I suppose, I killed you too quickly the last time. A mistake I don’t mean to duplicate tonight.
    Westley: I wasn’t finished. The next thing you will lose will be your left eye followed by your right.
    Prince Humperdinck: And then my ears, I understand let’s get on with it.
    Westley: Wrong! Your ears you keep and I’ll tell you why. So that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, “Dear God! What is that thing,” will echo in your perfect ears. That is what to the pain means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.

  53. says

    marcus @66:

    There are actually quite a few people speaking up for equality (I made several comments in that regard myself) and the rest is just bile, bitter rage, and the tears of bigots.

    I left a few myself, but I didn’t stay long. That shit makes me want to break stuff.

  54. chrislawson says


    As legal eagles, I think the Justices realize that no good argument has ever been presented to stop SSM…

    I’ve read enough Scalia and Roberts to know that they wouldn’t know a good legal argument if it hit them in the face. They’re not even consistent with their own past legal reasoning. Whatever supports their politically conservative position, no matter how pathetically constructed the argument is, they will support it.

  55. marcus says

    Tony @ 68 I hear you my friend. The fact that people who love each other are getting their heart’s desire pleases me wonderfully. (I do love telling the selfish dog to get his silly ass down out of the manger as well.)
    However, if we had been on the losing end of this decision…
    (I realize we haven’t actually ‘won’ yet, but I can’t but help believe that it is imminent.)

  56. says

    Senator Ted Cruz, rabid right-wing Republican, weigh in:

    “The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible,” said Sen. Cruz. “By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.

    “This is judicial activism at its worst.” […]

    “Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.”

    S. 2024 allows states to discriminate against same-sex couples, and it allows states to ignore same-sex marriages performed in other states. Imagine what that would mean for a couple that moved from, say, California to Texas. Right-wing voters love Cruz’s stance. But I think that even if Cruz is wooing them for a 2016 presidential run, there won’t be enough rabid-right voters to get him elected, especially if he stays on the anti-gay-marriage train.

  57. says

    More on the mormon response: this is from an official LDS press release:

    […] “succession of federal court decisions in recent months, culminating in today’s announcement by the Supreme Court, will have no effect on the doctrinal position or practices of [the LDS Church], which is that only marriage between a man and a woman is acceptable to God,” the Salt Lake City-based faith stated on its website. “In prizing freedom of conscience and constitutional guarantees of the free exercise of religion, we will continue to teach that standard and uphold it in our religious practices.” […]

    Excerpts from the Comments associated with the Salt Lake Tribune article:

    Wouldn’t it be nice if the Mormon’s walked the walk instead of just talking the talk….I challenge the church to endorse passing a non-discrimination housing and employment bill.
    I find treating the LGBTQ community as second class citizens, and actively working to deny them rights, and THEN releasing a statement saying they are completely on their side the height of “evil and mean spirited.”
    We will just move forward, loving our brothers and sisters who don’t believe as we do. As far as the doctrine goes, Marriage is ordained of God to be between a Man and a woman. This is the doctrine and it is up to Gods children to either obey or reject his prophets. No earthly political decision will change that fact. May God bless this land.
    The perfect example was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
    As far as the Temple goes, I foresee the day when 2 people will get married civilly and then go to the temple. If not the government will eventually require those in the temple with authority to marry homosexual members to each other. That cannot and will not be allowed.
    Ignoring the fact that Adam and Eve never actually existed, the government cannot require your church to marry anyone it doesn’t want to.
    Oaks [Elder Dallin Oaks, a mormon apostle] wasn’t and isn’t civil. He is on the board of directors for a pure hate group (outside his church) and when saying be civil to adversaries he is using Mormon speak; the adversary to him means Satan. All he did was use simple code to say ” keep the home (hateful/spiteful) fires burning while publicly pretending otherwise. It reflects his duplicitous nature.

  58. David Marjanović says

    “The effect of the lower court rulings is to say that a constitutional right to same-sex ‘marriage’ has existed in every state in the union since 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified, but somehow nobody noticed until quite recently,” he wrote. “That’s the absurd belief we are being told to accept.” […]

    Uh, that’s how it works in America. It’s normal over there. :-|

  59. Brittany says

    I bet the last state (or at least one of the last states) to legalize gay marriage is Nebraska. They have a gay marriage ban that was upheld by the circuit court, and there isn’t a ton of progressive energy to do anything about that. That’s partially because the Western part of the state is chock full of bigots of all stripes. But it’s also partially because most of the support for gay rights is located in Omaha and Lincoln, which are so close to Iowa that it’s almost trivial to go get married there if you live in one of those two cities. It’s not a perfect solution, but it takes away much of the urgency of the issue. Consequently, the LGBT rights movement in Nebraska tends to invest effort into issues other than marriage, such as combating bullying in schools and guaranteeing trans-inclusive mental health care. At least that’s somewhat reassuring…even though the pro-gay marriage issue is somewhat dead in the water there, at least there is still strong activism on other important LGBT issues.

  60. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Uh, that’s how it works in America. It’s normal over there. :-|

    Yeah, it took us over a century to decide the GLBT contingent are real people. Shameful I say….