http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

 

It's about time, is all that I have to say.  Always more work to be done, though!  I'm happy at least this issue, is no longer an issue in the US.

As said above, it was about time. Anyone should be allowed to marry whoever they want, and it is now possible. I'm actually secretly laughing mockingly at the super conservative states where gay marriage was still banned. Like "Bam, in ya face yo". Humanity should move forward, not stay anchored in the past with outdated customs and ways of life.

I'm pretty sure this is unconstitutional. 

From what i learned the founding fathers had a big thing for (personal) freedoms so which of the following is what freedoms represent:

• People having to opportunity to enter in a same sex marriage, including the legal status and everything that comes with that status.
• People preventing other people's choices, desires, opportunities etc.. based on their religious beliefs/feelings or what ever.  

People telling other people what they can and can't do with their lives is the opposite of freedoms.

The land of the free and the home of the brave should be proud of and defend same sex marriage just like any other freedom, isn't that what the constitution protects and what it was intended for and your countries motto stand for?

I'm pretty sure this is unconstitutional. 

The ban is unconstitutional? Or gay marriage? 

This is a good day for personal freedom, equality, and those on the right side of history. Extra proud to be an American today.

The ban is unconstitutional? Or gay marriage? 

I'm pretty sure the federal government doesn't have the power to do this. No where in the constitution is marriage mentioned, so this decision should have been up to the states. I'm not upset about the whole gay situation, I don't really care either way. If I'm understanding this correctly, I'm upset that the federal government overstepped its powers. The Constitution does not specifically mention marriage, so anything regarding it should have been left up to the states and the American people, not the federal government.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.^[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which undergirds the entire plan of the original Constitution, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. In drafting this amendment, its framers had two purposes in mind: first, as a necessary rule of construction; and second, as a reaffirmation of the nature of the federal system.^[2]

 

Edited June 26, 201510 yr by TheDivineHustle

I'm pretty sure this is unconstitutional. 

The Supreme Court appears to think otherwise. In fact, they seem to think that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, which is why they struck down every ban in every state as a violation of the Constitution.

 

 

Thank you! 

Edited June 27, 201510 yr by stevizzle123

I'm pretty sure this is unconstitutional. 

Oh you mad huh??

Oh you mad huh??

Yes, I'm mad that the supreme court thinks that it can do whatever it wants.

The Supreme Court appears to think otherwise. In fact, they seem to think that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, which is why they struck down every ban in every state as a violation of the Constitution.

Wouldn't it be unconstitutional for the federal government to declare gay marriage illegal as well? Shouldn't the federal government just simply not be involved at all, and allow the states to decide?

Yes, I'm mad that the supreme court thinks that it can do whatever it wants.

Wouldn't it be unconstitutional for the federal government to declare gay marriage illegal as well? Shouldn't the federal government just simply not be involved at all, and allow the states to decide?

We're under the Obama administration. Corruption is to be expected.

Yes, I'm mad that the supreme court thinks that it can do whatever it wants.

Wouldn't it be unconstitutional for the federal government to declare gay marriage illegal as well? Shouldn't the federal government just simply not be involved at all, and allow the states to decide?

It would (probably) have been illegal for the federal government to make it illegal through statute, yes. And it would (probably) have been illegal for the feds to make it legal through statute. But states are bound by the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding;" the 14th Amendment is not unconstitutional pretty much by definition. So, the Supreme Court (in its capacity as the final arbiter of the meaning of the United States Constitution, which is not a controversial status) is on pretty firm ground deciding what the Constitution says, and applying the Constitution to the states. Whether a state law violates the Constitution is a case arising under the Constitution, and the Constitution explicitly gives the federal courts jurisdiction over all such cases. Basically, there's no real argument that the Supreme Court should have left this to the states.

The actual (somewhat similar) counterargument is that it should have been left to the political process, and courts shouldn't rule on such an issue. This actually is a general rule of thumb for courts, but if the 14th Amendment requires states to allow same-sex couples to marry, that's a legal question instead of a political one. The dissenters argued essentially along that line (this is a matter for the political process), but the majority felt otherwise. But that would apply just as much to federal laws; there's no reason for a federal court to defer to the state on interpretation of federal laws (state laws are a different matter), and if the Constitution bans something then states can't say otherwise.

It would (probably) have been illegal for the federal government to make it illegal through statute, yes. And it would (probably) have been illegal for the feds to make it legal through statute. But states are bound by the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding;" the 14th Amendment is not unconstitutional pretty much by definition. So, the Supreme Court (in its capacity as the final arbiter of the meaning of the United States Constitution, which is not a controversial status) is on pretty firm ground deciding what the Constitution says, and applying the Constitution to the states. Whether a state law violates the Constitution is a case arising under the Constitution, and the Constitution explicitly gives the federal courts jurisdiction over all such cases. Basically, there's no real argument that the Supreme Court should have left this to the states.

The actual (somewhat similar) counterargument is that it should have been left to the political process, and courts shouldn't rule on such an issue. This actually is a general rule of thumb for courts, but if the 14th Amendment requires states to allow same-sex couples to marry, that's a legal question instead of a political one. The dissenters argued essentially along that line (this is a matter for the political process), but the majority felt otherwise. But that would apply just as much to federal laws; there's no reason for a federal court to defer to the state on interpretation of federal laws (state laws are a different matter), and if the Constitution bans something then states can't say otherwise.

I had to read it a couple of times to get it, but makes sense I guess. Even through all of that, I still think it would have been better for the states to decide as they have been. Guess not though. I just don't want an all-powerful government. Ah well, life moves on I guess. :P

 

Edited June 27, 201510 yr by TheDivineHustle
Didn't mean to add the picture, LOL.

You can just here the conservatives yelling NOOOOO!!!!!!

 

Anyways this is a huge blow to them and now with this out of the way, we can now focus on more important issues like climate change. 

Yup. I'm glad all of America bent over backwards to please <5% of the population while there are many more important issues to focus on.

I had to read it a couple of times to get it, but makes sense I guess. Even through all of that, I still think it would have been better for the states to decide as they have been. Guess not though. I just don't want an all-powerful government. Ah well, life moves on I guess. :P

 

From my limited understanding on Federal law with marriage having been a pre-law student, the federal government has control over marriage as a definition based on social security laws and tax laws. Because you need to file with both as to your status as single or not the need for a regulated unified system for marriage gives the Supreme Court power over this through Judicial review as all state and federal courts of law are subject to being lesser courts to the supreme court which has power to overrule lower courts. This means that any state court can have its ruling changed by the Supreme Court of the United States and it becomes law.

Yup. I'm glad all of America bent over backwards to please <5% of the population while there are many more important issues to focus on.

America is known to be a nation of political correctness, especially with the left in office. Just be careful, we definitely don't want to hurt anyones feelings. That would be a serious disaster for our nation. What a joke.

 

From my limited understanding on Federal law with marriage having been a pre-law student, the federal government has control over marriage as a definition based on social security laws and tax laws. Because you need to file with both as to your status as single or not the need for a regulated unified system for marriage gives the Supreme Court power over this through Judicial review as all state and federal courts of law are subject to being lesser courts to the supreme court which has power to overrule lower courts. This means that any state court can have its ruling changed by the Supreme Court of the United States and it becomes law.

When I do research on the constitution, I can't find anything in relevance to marriage. Where did you find this information?

 

Posts merged -- cp702

Edited June 27, 201510 yr by TheDivineHustle

well social security and tax laws you'll find under.. social security and tax laws which are federal. as for Judicial Review it was never put in the Constitution it was a concept that came about later and was made as a extension of the courts powers given to it as the highest court in the land. That in and of it self is a topic that is up in the air by those who are nit picky about constitution law but if one that is pretty set in stone. And yes congress tried to limit Judicial Review and say it was unconstitutional back in the 1880's but that didn't go far because the senate argued over it so much worrying that it wouldn't pass because then the courts would rule that law unconstitutional. Yes the courts do have a lot of power and very little in the ways of checks and balances on them but you need to remember the founding fathers wanted it that way. They worried that if the other branches got to hands onto the courts they would become to political and not focus on law. So it is a bit of a hole in the system but its one that exists out of worry that other branches might corrupt the courts. (not saying if it is or isn't already)

 

Sources:

Benditt, Theodore M. 1999. Modest judicial restraint. Law and Philosophy 18, (3): 243-270

ALLAN, James, and Michael Kirby. 2009. A public conversation on constitutionalism and the judiciary between professor James Allan and the on Michael Kirby. Melbourne University Law Review 33, (3): 1032-1057

96 Minn. L. Rev. 520 (2011-2012) Judicial Review of Judicial Lawmaking; Lehavi, Amnon

And a pile of books I have in my own personal library that I don't feel like sitting down to site. as much as you might not like it the Constitution isn't the only document related to federal law about the court system. It is a very big and complex system and the Constitution and Bill of Rights is only the foundation on which many other laws are based. There is a reason why the BAR is a hard thing for people to pass, because it is so complex.