SCOTUS declares legality of same-sex marriage in all US states

[Alpha]

What a wonderful announcement. I just can't tell if more people are going to be pissed off by this than benefit from it. Nevermind the haters though. As a NZ politician put it when it was legalised here:

The sun will still rise tomorrow, your teenage daughter will still argue back with you as if she knows everything, your mortgage will not grow, you will not have skin disease or rashes or toads in your bed. In short, don't make this a big deal. It's fantastic for the people it affects, but for the rest of us life will go on.

[01habbo]

Being that I see the US as a mostly Christian country, this is fantastic news. This is a huge step for the LGBT community. It was a fuss over here in the UK when it got legalised, it affects no one else. Why should anyone else care about what anyone else does in their lives? Definitions evolve and change and marriage is no exception to that. So pleased about this, we are one step closer to learning to accept all kinds of people.

[Heartless Angel]

Not exactly how I would have handled it, but I'm satisfied with the outcome.

[Alpha]

Not exactly how I would have handled it, but I'm satisfied with the outcome.

Out of interest, how would you have handled it?

I read a criticism stating that it was inappropriate for the supreme court to essentially overrule the democratic processes of individual states, and that a more natural progression would be to just tolerate that in some states it's legal, and in other states it's not, and to let people organise their own affairs around that. This way only breeds frustration and may make the situation worse, or so the criticism went.

I'd argue that fundamental rights should never be subject to the whims of a democratic majority. That's pretty much why the Constitution exists right?

[Heartless Angel]

Marriage is still, as far as most people are concerned, a religious ordeal, not a legal one. Half the time listening to a debate over this, you have a conservative arguing about the definition of a religious term, and a liberal arguing about rights for gay couples. These two aren't really in conflict. The state granting marital rights seems to be a violation of the separation of church and state, while at the same time, so is allowing a religious organization to define terms used in law.

I would have removed the word marriage from every law, and replaced it with civil union. The church can continue to be as bigoted as it likes, ultimately slitting its own throat in future generations, and gay couples get their legal rights, while nobody really has a legitimate platform to complain from.

[01habbo]

We had a civil union here before marriage was legalised here, the only problem was that civil union didn't have the same rights as a marriage. There was a big outrage by the church, the problem with the argument about "you can't change the definition of marriage because it's defined by religion" is that it's not just something performed by the church. A lot of people here marry outside of the church and not under God. It is not a term that is solely owned by the church. Language is ever changing and ever evolving.

[Alpha]

Marriage is still, as far as most people are concerned, a religious ordeal, not a legal one. Half the time listening to a debate over this, you have a conservative arguing about the definition of a religious term, and a liberal arguing about rights for gay couples. These two aren't really in conflict. The state granting marital rights seems to be a violation of the separation of church and state, while at the same time, so is allowing a religious organization to define terms used in law.

I would have removed the word marriage from every law, and replaced it with civil union. The church can continue to be as bigoted as it likes, ultimately slitting its own throat in future generations, and gay couples get their legal rights, while nobody really has a legitimate platform to complain from.

Semantics. Marriage is both a legal institution and a religious concept for many. The Catholic church doesn't marry people who are divorced; no one actively cares. Legally, there is no problem with people who are divorced deciding to re-marry. Therefore the Catholic church's definition of marriage has been at odds with the legal definition for many years. Repeat for homosexual relationships. If there are people who are confused by the fact that the same word can describe two related but different ideas, that is their own problem with vocabulary.

[Heartless Angel]

Semantics is the primary reason this debate has taken as long as it has, and whey there is still opposition to it. It's something easily corrected.

[Clint]

The legality versus religious nature of marriage is debatable, and perhaps the federal government overstepped their bounds by forcing a ruling that very well could have been done through individual state democratic processes, but I look at it this way; who does this hurt? You'll have some angry religious folk, they'll threaten to leave the country. A lot of people on Twitter protested by stating that they would denounce their citizenship of the United States and move to Canada (even though same sex marriage has been legal in Canada for a decade.) So aside from that pastor who threatened to light himself on fire in protest, this hurts nobody.

Now if I'm putting my opinion out on the table, I'm surprised this hasn't been done sooner. Nobody has the right to tell people who they can and cannot marry. If you are in a committed consensual relationship with somebody that you love, then by all means, if you want to marry that person, you deserve the freedom to do so. Denying anybody any sort of innocent freedom goes against everything this country stands for. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And there's no better pursuit of happiness than love.

For the first time in a long time, I'm proud of my country today. Good job, America.

Just a thought, if this is a religious issue with a lot of the Christian bulk of America, I would like to point out that in the bible, Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and Lamech all had multiple wives. Give the liberals gay marriage and the conservatives Polygamy. Boom! Everybody's happy.

[Pete]

Marriage is still, as far as most people are concerned, a religious ordeal, not a legal one. Half the time listening to a debate over this, you have a conservative arguing about the definition of a religious term, and a liberal arguing about rights for gay couples. These two aren't really in conflict. The state granting marital rights seems to be a violation of the separation of church and state, while at the same time, so is allowing a religious organization to define terms used in law.

I would have removed the word marriage from every law, and replaced it with civil union. The church can continue to be as bigoted as it likes, ultimately slitting its own throat in future generations, and gay couples get their legal rights, while nobody really has a legitimate platform to complain from.

Pretty much exactly this. You give everyone the same rights and let the church keep its word for itself so it can still pretend marriage is sacred.

At this point, it really should have been a "who cares?" type of issue. Granted, the people who got their right to marriage care, but gay people getting married doesn't hurt anyone.

Long story short, good for the gays, but it shouldn't be this ridiculous of a thing

[Odin1199]

Marriage is a silly concept in itself to be honest. All it does is force you to split your property and other things. Real marriage is just good friendship. Making those sacred vows and promises in front of everyone is unnecessary lol.

[Rowan]

im not religious yet im getting married because its the thing people do when they love someone and how you become man and wife. I dont care any of the politics that come with it. I do however acknowledge that there is benefits to being married for tax purposes or living expenses in the USA, which would be unfair if it excluded homosexuals, however those same benefits dont apply in Australia, so... I dont see what the issue is here personally, other than they wanna be able to express their love just like everybody else. I am not religious yet I am able to marry, why shouldn't homosexuals? Marriage may be religious in origin, but the day it was recognized in legality, is also the day the definition should have been allowed to be changed.

[Heartless Angel]

The day it was recognized in legality, the separation of church and state was violated. This should be entirely undone.

[Pete]

The day it was recognized in legality, the separation of church and state was violated. This should be entirely undone.

I agree with this on a Constitutional basis. I firmly think that you can call them domestic partnerships or civil unions. Marriage however is technically a sacrament in the Catholic church and considered sacred. However, I understand that in certain churches, marriage is a big deal and its also a big deal for tax purposes and determining income, etc.

That being said, churches can choose to marry who they want, and the state should just accept that people will want to marry whomever they wish. As long as the parties are consenting and willing to enter the marriage together, then the state should recognize it. The church, if it wishes, and if the couples wish you marry within one, can choose to recognize it.

I do however think that it should be a states rights issue. The states that want to recognize gay marriage can, and those that don't, won't. It should have been left up to the people of each state to vote, not the justices. It also brings to mind the idea of a dictatorship of sorts.

But, at the end of the day, really, who cares? Everyone should have the right to be miserable together. I just know it's a great time to be a wedding planner.

[cetra_aeris]

The only issue I have with anyone saying it should have been left up to the States individually is that I know this would have meant several states, including my own, would have tried to avoid it for as long as possible by any means necessary. Because it was passed by a higher authority of law, the states that could not or would not approve are now forced to. This doesn't fix the full problem, not really. There's a lot more they can still do to discriminate besides trying to to allow marriage, but I feel like this was a step in the right direction.

Kentucky literally went from deciding, "Okay, we won't marry you here but if you got married elsewhere then we'll accept it." to "Haha, jk we changed our mind, no marriage for you." Marriage, although possibly religious in origin, has been a legalized product for a good portion of our history. A lot of people do not even go through a church for marriage at all anymore. If there was an issue with allowing people to get married outside of the church, then that is a different debate and should be taken up with the appropriate parties. Regardless, most of the people who are whining about how this impedes their religious beliefs sicken me because they claim to be Christians yet do not appear to have actually READ the bible, outside of the random snippits that they have chosen to misinterpret.

The biggest issue with previous laws is that no one seems to understand that they are not set in stone. They are rules and regulations set into place for a different time and a different set of troubles. As time passes they may need to be altered or reworded to include current conditions and concerns. This is something our government is supposed to do so that they can better the society as a whole for future generations. Religion, while nice, has no place in a political setting and should not affect the policies of a government that is known to be home to more than a dozen differing religions. If we accept that it is unprofessional of me to tell my coworker about my family habits and personal concerns in the home, such as arguments with the spouse or ect, then it is unprofessional to bring religion to the table when discussing professional matters as well. What motivates you is yours and yours alone, but the very listing of our constitution lists that our rights are only to be pushed so far as they do not impede on another Americans rights. Denying someone the ability to marry based on an OPINION alone is impeaching of that persons rights and therefore, should not be left for a majority vote but seen for what it is and corrected by those in authority.

In my opinion, the United States is like a toddler, still whining and throwing tantrums over the smallest thing. Those who are elected into government positions and work to make and create laws are like the parents/care givers of this toddler nation and must do what all parents must; lay down ground rules and do what is best for the child even if it doesn't know how it will help. They did that when they forced the states to accept it as legal regardless of their current laws. It was the best choice for the country as a whole, and just because a few kids want to through a fit doesn't mean it still wasn't a good decision.

Some times vegetables are nasty, but they're still necessary for growth.

[KING JUNK]

This just shows America is ready to move on from all this discrimination and whatnot. I mean, it's a new generation, ya know? Change is inevitable, people are of course still entitled to their own opinions aslong as they keep violence away, ya know? I too grew up being skeptical about homosexuality in the world, however, two of my good friends have come out as homosexuals, and now I am supportive of their cause, ya know? We're all the same the only difference is sexual preference, and if we can let 2-10 year kids have smart phones, tablets, and computers. I'm sure we as a society can accept a new norm in order to have equality amongst all of us, ya know?