It's overturned!!!!!!

[AdamSmith]

Kevin Slater writing on the other forum made this observation:

"One need not ever marry to benefit from today's ruling. By affirming fifth amendment rights of life and liberty upon the LGB community, the court establishes precedent against any manner of law which seeks to discriminate against gays. This case happened to involve marriage, but the protections affirmed therein likely apply just as well to employment discrimination, healthcare policy, criminal and family law, etc. Just as one doesn't need to use contraception to benefit from Griswold v. Connecticut's establishment of the constitutional right to privacy, one needn't walk down the aisle in order to benefit from the underlying rationale and precedent of this case."

[AdamSmith]

Changing Perspectives on Gay Marriage

Gay-marriage proponents believe that American attitudes towards gays and lesbians are on the cusp of a change. See a breakdown of support for gay marriage among different demographic groups over time.
Note: Data for these tables represent averages of multiple Pew Research Center surveys, including seven surveys from 2003-2004, six surveys from 2007-2008, three surveys from 2011-2012 and two surveys from 2013.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323689204578569973776975916.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories#project%3DGAYWED_HIGHER%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

[ihpguy]

What Nino wrote was just hateful Retirement cannot come soon enough. Even sadder is that after 20 wasted years, Clarence is still a relative youngster of 65. Sad to think that he might be at SCOTUS into his 80's

[Guest CharliePS]

Ginsberg, Breyer and Kagan apparently bailed on Prop. 8, although I would have expected them to agree with Kennedy's cogent argument for granting standing to the proponents of Prop. 8. Ginsberg's earlier hints that she favored a "political solution" might mean that she would actually have agreed with the argument for Prop. 8 if the court had agreed to hear the case on its merits. That would probably have meant that yet another referendum would have to be held in California, which would probably have gone in favor of gay marriage, if current polls are correct, but it would have prolonged the wait for old folks like me.

[Guest josephga]

I thought it was cool the cast of days of our lives shot this photo.

[Guest zipperzone]

It is a victory - but only a partial victory. When gays can be allowed to marry in ALL states, then and only then can victory be truly declared.

I know what I'm about to suggest is (a) impossible, ( unreasonable & © impractical but it does tickle my warped sense of humour. I would love to see all gays in the thirty odd states that do not permit same sex marriage, migrate to one of the thirteen that do allow it. This mass exodus would cause untold difficulties for the conservative populations not to mention the loss of crucial revenue on both municipal and state levels.

It is unthinkable to me as a Canadian who for 10 years now has been allowed to marry his male partner, that the USA still allows state residents to vote on whether or not to allow the basic right of equality to everyone.

As an out of context remark - - The Mormon Church must be really pissed off that they spent (wasted?) all those millions in an attempt to defeat same sex marriage in California. Looks good on them!

[AdamSmith]

"Chris Christie helpfully reminds us that he's a Republican":

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1219480

[AdamSmith]

The ever-dependable Pat Robertson can't help wondering if Justice Kennedy has "some clerks that happen to be gays": http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3511238/

[AdamSmith]

[AdamSmith]

Just heard a new wrinkle on NPR that would seem to argue for overturning the still-standing part of DOMA, which allows states that do not recognize same-sex marriage to not give effect to same-sex marriages from other states.

The story was of a same-sex couple married in D.C. who now reside in Virginia. Their income status is such that they would benefit from filing federal taxes jointly. However, Virginia (1) requires that they file state taxes individually, because the state does not recognize same-sex marriage, and (2) has a law requiring that state taxes and federal taxes must be filed in the same manner: that is, either individually or jointly. SO the result is that Virginia law effectively prohibits them from filing federal taxes jointly.

This looks like excellent grounds for a full-faith-and-credit challenge to strike the rest of DOMA.

[AdamSmith]

[Guest hitoallusa]

Oh my that is so rude to do to someone else's property.

[AdamSmith]

How do you know it isn't their church?

[Guest hitoallusa]

I don't think church goers dress like that to church..

How do you know it isn't their church?

[Suckrates]

And NOW, the divorce courts can be full of GAY couples too ! EQUALITY FOR ALL !

[Guest hitoallusa]

Oh my I hope not.. I hope all the married gay couples live happily ever after...

And NOW, the divorce courts can be full of GAY couples too ! EQUALITY FOR ALL !

[AdamSmith]

[Guest EXPAT]

The California Supreme Court has denied a petition from a county clerk to halt the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Two more challenges to the law still await a response.