What do you think of the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage?

Supreme Court says same-sex couples have right to marry in all 50 states.

“States cannot keep same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their unions, the Supreme Court says in a ruling that for months has been the focus of speculation. The ruling was made by a 5-4 decision,” writes NPR’s Bill Chappell.

The justices ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, which is linked to three other cases. Together, they involve a dozen couples who challenged same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee – the only states whose bans on marriage between gay and lesbian couples have been sustained by a federal appeals court.

The justices had been asked to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to a) license same-sex marriages and b) recognize such unions that were made in other states.

Today’s Question: What do you think of the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage?

  • Lee

    GREAT decision! Is there still an out so that if a religious organization doesn’t want to perform a gay marriage, that organization does not have to marry the couple?

  • Roger Ruegg

    Now perhaps it is time for government to totally get out of the “marriage” business and treat all unions as civil unions. This could give cover to religious organizations to not recognize gay marriage but still provide legally required civil union benefits and rights

    • Khatti

      Yeah. I’m interested in polyamory so this makes sense. People always got hung up on the name. The word “Marriage” had to be in it somehow. I personally didn’t care if they called it a Ham and Swiss on Rye if the necessary protections were there.

    • MiMg

      nah, the way the Supreme Court made it is just fine, 2/3rds of Americans agree

      • Dave W

        You are incorrect everywhere it was voted on it lost by a large margins.

        • Yanotha Twangai

          Except in MInnesota.

        • MiMg

          actually you are incorrect, if we had waited until people tolerates African Americans, the South would STILL have slaves! THAT is why we NEED the Supreme Court!

          • Dave W

            You are not a race

  • W

    This is great! And I’m even more excited for my Friends same sex wedding this weekend!

  • Robert

    Has the court issued a definitive ruling on whether Catholics and others are required to inflict moral self-harm by.forced participation in a gay wedding/adoption/etc? I can only find articles about turning down those cases

    • Gordon near Two Harbors

      Catholics have already inflicted moral self-harm by hiring and hiding thousands of pedophiles. I would worry about that a lot more than granting equality to people whose sexual orientation is determined by God and nature.

      • Robert

        You’re right, since there is sin in the Church, we should stop caring about the souls of others.

      • Dave W

        You are miss informed also, when you look in your pant that’s your gender, if you hook up with someone with the same equipment you can’t reproduce, so much for nature it even says man and man can’t make children so man would not exist for long one life time without the help of there opposite sex.

        • Yanotha Twangai

          The question of who can or can’t “make children” would be a valid concern if SCOTUS had been trying to abolish heterosexual marriage. Since that’s still allowed, it’s a non-issue. Even with whatever negative effect gay marriages have on reproductive rates, there will be no shortage of human beings for the foreseeable future.

    • Mark

      Divorce has been legal for quite some time and Catholics still can refuse marriage to those who haven’t been through the church’s annulment process (as well as those who are not Catholic).

      The ruling only affects civil marriage and cannot change church rules due to the first amendment.

      • Robert

        That wasn’t really the question though. Obviously the Church can still refuse to perform the marriage. Unfortunately, participating through providing services to the ceremony through a business or similar situations aren’t covered as nicely. I think SCOTUS may have been dodging those cases until they issued a definitive ruling on SSM

        • David P.

          Is your question regarding the legality if denial of service based on the client’s sexual orientation? That was not the question before the SCOTUS. They didn’t dodge the question. They weren’t asked. This question is not likely to come before the SCOTUS until different federal circuit courts have conflicting rulings. To date, the federal courts have always ruled against the denial of service based on sexual orientation (or race, nationality, religion or gender).

          • Robert

            Of course they didn’t dodge it in this particular ruling. I was referring to the multiple times they’ve turned such cases down in the past. IE http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/07/300256656/supreme-court-rejects-wedding-photographers-case

            Of course in the past the court has ruled against discrimination based on race, religion, etc, as any 5th grader could tell you. However, in this instance, the Catholic faith holds that abetting a homosexual union is a serious issue that also imperils the soul of those who assist the union. The question here is whether the religious freedom/well-being of those who hold to such beliefs are outweighed by the right of an SSM couple to have access to public services.

          • David P.

            I believe that question has been answered. Of course, you can invoke your belief system on others in commercial transactions, and perhaps have the opportunity to learn first hand how the courts would view it. Or you could talk to your priest or bishop, and get their perspective, especially considering the recent writings of the pope.
            Again, I am grateful we live in a country that is governed by secular law and not a theocracy.

          • MiMg

            stop lying about “imperiling the soul of those who assist”

          • Dave W

            Stop lying??? The lgb is based on lies, such as , that is not a real woman you are having sex with (or man), or that’s not a real pinis its rubber so who lives a ly?

          • MiMg

            YOU are the liar, that is ALL you rethugs do

        • MiMg

          Robert, it’s NOT “obvious” to MOST Republicans. If you are employed by either a public or private employer, you SHOULD be FORCED to do your JOB, period

    • MiMg

      “forced moral self harm”, give me a break Robert

  • bob hicks

    Good decision. As more than one wag has commented, same-sex couples should have the same legal rights to be miserable as opposite-sex couples do!

  • Justin McKinney

    This is a great decision! It was high time for the court to make a decision that will end up on the right side of history. There is no legal basis for denying same sex couples the same rights as others, and this decision does not force those who are against it to perform said marriages.

    • Dave W

      Where have you been ? Tell that to the baker that was shut down tell that to the florist, tell that to the pizza restaurant in Indiana who had to close its doors when asked they would cater a same sex reception and no they had to shut their doors because of the harassment. So why don’t you open your eyes what you say isn’t happening is happening.

  • Junebug

    Considering all 5 conservative members of the court are Catholic, I am a little pleasantly surprised this happened. Just wishing the other 4 would have joined them. I’m especially disappointed that Clarence Thomas who has had two marriages would deny other loving and deserving same sex couples even one marriage.

  • David P.

    I think that with the SCOTUS rulings on this and the ACA, there is a bus-load of Republican candidates that will need to edit their stump speeches.

  • kevins

    Happily, Minnesota led the way. The just and correct way.

  • Matt Karl

    It’s the right decision. It’s a just decision. No one (gay or straight) chooses their orientation. And gay and lesbian couples can be just as loving and committed as straight couples.

    • Dave W

      Incorrect sex is a decision not a race, if it were a race there would be a home country like Italian is Italy, German is Germany African Africa. So get it strait its all a sex act nothing more and it is a choice. I chose what american voters said every time male and female as a marriage.

      • Matt Karl

        Do yo know any gay people? Any gay couples? If not, you should get to know some before judging what sexual orientation is all about.

        • Dave W

          I sure do and I don’t pull any punches with Them either, being around them building a house I noticed a lot of drama and Lie’s and cheating. And yes they are good people at heart and l have always let them know what l think when asked ,but never mean or belitleing as they are people with feelings to. So yes I do know them but I am who I am also and I will never change, and the supreme court and the lbg will never Chang me nor most all the people I know will never be moved either.

  • Lynx636

    “Driven by social activism” means driven by the people. And most of the American people agree that marriage should be a right for all consenting adult couples, whatever their races or genders.

    • Khatti

      Particularly if those people are social activists.

  • PaulJ

    So, it is not how you wear your hair, now it’s where your heirs are; those black robed seniors seem to have taken the gayness out of that particular lifestyle.

  • Khatti

    Inevitable…that pretty much covers it. Now we can get on to the next thing: polyamory. In fact I need to contact my state representative and see about getting a bill into the legislature to legalize polygamy and polyandry.

    • Go for it!

      • Khatti

        I must confess I don’t have a lot of faith in him doing anything with my request. My representative is just to the left of Torquemada, but he’s the dude I have to go through. It’s times like these I miss California’s proposition system.

        • KTN

          Other than you, do you see much call for polygamous marriages.

          • Khatti

            I’m willing to find out the hard way. One thing that occurs to me is that I live in a part of the state that is losing population. No one is going to move here for the climate or the wages. Perhaps a further change in the marriage laws would encourage people such as the Mormons to move here. Whatever else that can be said about Mormons they are very organized and hard working. That’s just one thing of course. And, to flip it on its head, what is the argument against polygamous marriages?

          • Khatti

            And what do you mean other than me? We Minnesotans have a healthy respect for minorities. What could be more of a minority than one dude?

    • Matt Karl

      This slippery-slope argument does not hold up under analysis. Orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual) is completely different than the desire to be married to more than one person at the same time.

      People do not chose their orientation. It is an inherent, neutral part of the human makeup — like gender, race, national origin, age, or handedness. Orientation is set before birth or in the early years of life. (If you don’t believe me, ask the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, or the National Association of Social Workers.)

      On the other hand, a person’s preference for the number of simultaneous spouses (one or many) is not an inherent, neutral part of the human makeup. No one is born a polygamist.

      Saying that gay marriage will lead to polygamy is like saying “If we allow women to vote, we’ll have to give fathers multiple votes: one for each of their children.” There is just no connection between the two.

      • Khatti

        Damn babe, you talk a really good game–if only it mattered to me. I’m interested in making these things legal, not dissecting the differences and similarities with gay marriage. The only part of the argument I’m interested in is why gay marriage should be legal and polygamy and polyandry (no one seems to notice the polyandry part) should not. the immutability of being a lesbian or homosexual doesn’t enter into the equation.

        • Yanotha Twangai

          On the terminology, polygamy means multiple marriage, polyandry means specifically multiple husbands, and polygyny means specifically multiple wives.

          • Khatti

            Yes I’ve heard the polygamy/polygyny debate. I use polygamy because it is the accepted term here (anyway). I’m not terribly interested in how much scientific debate there is on sexual inclination here. What matters to me is whether or not this should be a right under the new circumstances. One of my mine arguments for making polyamory legal is economic.

      • Yanotha Twangai

        I used to have a friend who told me he couldn’t imagine being married to just one woman and only having sex with that woman for the rest of his life. He said the idea seemed unnatural to him. Sounds like an orientation to me. But then he wasn’t arguing for polygamy, only explaining why he planned never to get married.

  • KTN

    Yesterday there was same sex marriage, now there is just marriage. A great day for love today.

  • Gordon near Two Harbors

    A great and historic decision. Over time, this decision will be viewed with the same reverence that the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s are by every true American. The concepts “Justice for All” and “All men are created equal” cannot be disregarded or ignored in this country.

  • Pearly

    Zzzzzzz………

  • MiMg

    best decision they’ve ever made

  • Salim

    As a Muslim baker, should our people be forced to cater and celebrate a gay wedding or as printers, should we also be forced to make banners for a group that wants to celebrate a gay wedding? Serving is one thing, but being forced to actively particpate in something against the Koran is not protected by our religion?

  • lindblomeagles

    Supreme Court got this case right. A small fact others continuously get wrong every time gay marriage is discussed is this: Marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman for centuries because gay people weren’t given any rights at all for centuries. That’s really why societies never explicitly codified heterosexual marriage because most societies believed that if they made all other gay behavior illegal, gays would never have a chance to ask that their unions be recognized equally with heterosexual marriage. The “protecting religious beliefs” nonsense is just another way to deny gays entrance into our society. A real business person employed by the marriage industry wouldn’t worry what the couple looked like. Weddings make a lot of money! Photographers, caterers, DJs, tourist attractions, and floral arrangers make good money when wedding season comes around. Thus, if you want to make money, the last thing you should consider is proclaiming “sanctity of religious beliefs,” when asked by a gay couple to be a part of their wedding.