Hey SCOTUS! Good work! Now, how about legalizing cannabis in all 50?
Man reading that comment from Scalia sounds like one of Mules rants. But then again that has been his M.O. for his entire tenure in the court. Here is a Justice on SCOTUS trashing his own institution because he does not agree with the ruling.
Just another example as to why Justices should not have lifetime tenure and really should be voted in by the people and not appointed by a biased President along party lines.
Hey SCOTUS! Good work! Now, how about legalizing cannabis in all 50?
For your own personal needs wouldn't it be easier to move to a state where you can legally have MJ????....just a thought....because I don't see that happening for quite a while......
We have to look to see who's coming on board after the next elections and how they will deal with this issue....There are a few other concerns that don't really go in line with our Civil Rights. I don't know if MJ is a civil right....I do live in CA so it's not like I'm not with ya....just don't know if it really goes to the same level
Since it's legal in several states, I don't view it as a civil rights issue as much as an EQUAL rights issue. There are citizens of the United States of America who matter-of-factly enjoy and exercise more freedoms than do others. You can grow plants on your patio that would land me in prison. I see that as injustice.
Since it's legal in several states, I don't view it as a civil rights issue as much as an EQUAL rights issue. There are citizens of the United States of America who matter-of-factly enjoy and exercise more freedoms than do others. You can grow plants on your patio that would land me in prison. I see that as injustice.
I get it and even though CA allows me with a prescription to grow if I choose....I don't....The federal Govt right now is not exercising their rights over my states right as they aren't with WA an CO and the other Medical MJ states. That stance may not last depending on who gets elected and how they deal with federal laws over state laws long before the Supreme court will hear it.
But I get what you're saying about Equal rights....
Good job SCOTUS!
Ted Cruz says this now makes same sex marriage mandatory.
Hey Mule... Who you got your eye on? You going to elope or have a big family wedding?
Good job SCOTUS!
Ted Cruz says this now makes same sex marriage mandatory.
Hey Mule... Who you got your eye on? You going to elope or have a big family wedding?
Is everyone from WP invited? Let me guess - alloak will be best man? I hear Warren and Matt will be playing at the reception. Congrats!
Man reading that comment from Scalia sounds like one of Mules rants. But then again that has been his M.O. for his entire tenure in the court. Here is a Justice on SCOTUS trashing his own institution because he does not agree with the ruling.
Just another example as to why Justices should not have lifetime tenure and really should be voted in by the people and not appointed by a biased President along party lines.
Scalia is just a big headed blowtoad. His ego barely fits in the room with the other justices. He torches a fellow SC justice (Kennedy) for his vote - very classy, Justice Scalia. Looks like this is not a good week for Scalia. However, with these losses he can still look back on the Citizens United vote as a trophy, even though it is one of the worst decisions ever.
Anxious to see the response of the GOP prez contenders. Maybe they can repeal the Supreme Court for tyranical decisions.
Are you listening, Huckabee? Can you just imagine seeing him perform the ceremony at a gay wedding - priceless.
Good job SCOTUS!
Ted Cruz says this now makes same sex marriage mandatory.
Hey Mule... Who you got your eye on? You going to elope or have a big family wedding?
Is everyone from WP invited? Let me guess - alloak will be best man? I hear Warren and Matt will be playing at the reception. Congrats!
I'd show up for the reception, lets put it that way. Who's on Bass?
Welcome to the club, suckers.
Man reading that comment from Scalia sounds like one of Mules rants. But then again that has been his M.O. for his entire tenure in the court. Here is a Justice on SCOTUS trashing his own institution because he does not agree with the ruling.
Just another example as to why Justices should not have lifetime tenure and really should be voted in by the people and not appointed by a biased President along party lines.
Scalia is just a big headed blowtoad. His ego barely fits in the room with the other justices. He torches a fellow SC justice (Kennedy) for his vote - very classy, Justice Scalia. Looks like this is not a good week for Scalia. However, with these losses he can still look back on the Citizens United vote as a trophy, even though it is one of the worst decisions ever.
Anxious to see the response of the GOP prez contenders. Maybe they can repeal the Supreme Court for tyranical decisions.
Are you listening, Huckabee? Can you just imagine seeing him perform the ceremony at a gay wedding - priceless.
Some of Scalia's quotes on the decision
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8851173/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia
If Warren and Matt are playing I'm there!
I know a couple really good caterers Mule. One gay, one straight. They work together and will make you any kind of cake you want.
Getting pizza might be a problem, but heck... you can do better than pizza. Are you the bride or the groom? Who's paying?
shouldn't this have been a matter for the house and senate to vote on? I'd think that would encompass a broader scope than the SC deciding...
shouldn't this have been a matter for the house and senate to vote on? I'd think that would encompass a broader scope than the SC deciding...
That was Scalia's objection, it should be a legislative not a judicial decision. As much as I am in favor of the result, I agree with Scalia on the process.
Since it's legal in several states, I don't view it as a civil rights issue as much as an EQUAL rights issue. There are citizens of the United States of America who matter-of-factly enjoy and exercise more freedoms than do others. You can grow plants on your patio that would land me in prison. I see that as injustice.
There is no constitutional right to use drugs.
shouldn't this have been a matter for the house and senate to vote on? I'd think that would encompass a broader scope than the SC deciding...
That was Scalia's objection, it should be a legislative not a judicial decision. As much as I am in favor of the result, I agree with Scalia on the process.
I also tend to think these things should be handled democratically through legislative action as has been steadily happening in more and more states. That said I personally support gay mariage. I have no problem with it. I also support religious freedom, however, and I see trouble ahead as activists will try to eliminate the rights of the Churches (and Mosques and Synagogues presumably) to refuse to support gay marriage. That troubles me. I would hope that gay people who want to get married will be satisfied to utilize one of the Churches that permits it and leaves others alone. I would be shocked if this happens.
Since it's legal in several states, I don't view it as a civil rights issue as much as an EQUAL rights issue. There are citizens of the United States of America who matter-of-factly enjoy and exercise more freedoms than do others. You can grow plants on your patio that would land me in prison. I see that as injustice.
There is no constitutional right to use drugs.
You mean like the constitutional right to consume alcohol? The one that allows for for gambling?
Is there any wording in the constitution that pertains to marriage of any kind (I haven't read the entire document, so I don't know)? As long as we're on the subject, is there anything in the constitution that PROHIBITS OR BANS the use of drugs or other substances?
shouldn't this have been a matter for the house and senate to vote on? I'd think that would encompass a broader scope than the SC deciding...
That was Scalia's objection, it should be a legislative not a judicial decision. As much as I am in favor of the result, I agree with Scalia on the process.
I also tend to think these things should be handled democratically through legislative action as has been steadily happening in more and more states. That said I personally support gay mariage. I have no problem with it. I also support religious freedom, however, and I see trouble ahead as activists will try to eliminate the rights of the Churches (and Mosques and Synagogues presumably) to refuse to support gay marriage. That troubles me. I would hope that gay people who want to get married will be satisfied to utilize one of the Churches that permits it and leaves others alone. I would be shocked if this happens.
I'm happy with the decision
I think Roberts has a point about judicial overreach, but imo equal protection trumps that one. Remember, this is the same court that said "corporations are people too" in Citizen's United
As strongly as I believe that gays should be allowed to marry, I agree that a religious institution should not be forced to perform a gay marriage (neither my synagogue nor my wife's Church agreed to marry us 31 years ago - long story). I agree with doughron about more litigation coming.
There is no constitutional right to use drugs.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
shouldn't this have been a matter for the house and senate to vote on? I'd think that would encompass a broader scope than the SC deciding...
That was Scalia's objection, it should be a legislative not a judicial decision. As much as I am in favor of the result, I agree with Scalia on the process.
I also tend to think these things should be handled democratically through legislative action as has been steadily happening in more and more states. That said I personally support gay mariage. I have no problem with it. I also support religious freedom, however, and I see trouble ahead as activists will try to eliminate the rights of the Churches (and Mosques and Synagogues presumably) to refuse to support gay marriage. That troubles me. I would hope that gay people who want to get married will be satisfied to utilize one of the Churches that permits it and leaves others alone. I would be shocked if this happens.
Although I agree with the right for gay people to get married, I also agree with your point that no church should be forced to conduct a gay wedding. There are plenty of churches that will conduct them, and they can also get a civil ceremony. A marriage should be a joyful occasion and I would hope that they would only choose churches that will make it so.
Any church can still refuse to marry anyone under the first amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. For instance, the Catholic Church can still refuse to carry out the religious ceremony of marriage of two gay men. Nothing in today's decision changes anything about that constitutional granted right. Sadly, some on the right are claiming today's decision will eventually lead to the end of such rights....I don't think it will.
Fortunately marriage is first and foremost a legal procedure and secondly a religious ceremony. Thank god for separation of Church and State is all I can say as I'm a supporter of gay marriage and consider today's ruling a huge victory for those gay couples who have been denied the legal rights that heterosexual couples have had since this countries inception.
[Edited on 6/27/2015 by Chain]
some of these issues shouldn't be at all. Everyone is an all encompassing word....it's sad we have such confusion about it....
A lot of big historical things happening right now....huge social changes.....now if we can stop thinking the only solution to every problem is to shoot someone......A uniquely American issue.....
Great day in the US and a sad day all the same......burying that pastor and the start of the funerals...but then huge changes in civil rights....amazing things happening with all the SCOTUS decisions
I was always under the impression that the function of the Supreme Court was to interpret existing law, and could not pass laws or force States to change their laws. Whole new age I guess.
Whole new age I guess.
And that's a good thing.... 
I would hope that gay people who want to get married will be satisfied to utilize one of the Churches that permits it and leaves others alone.
I agree 100% with "leaving others alone". There's no reason to impose. I would imagine that you prefer to "leave others alone" so as not to create conflict when there is no need for any, right? If gays began demanding that ALL churches, synagogues, and mosques perform their weddings, then they become the problem....not the other religions.
I'm baffled that you do not share this same sentiment with that of Pam Geller. This creature WANTED a terrorist attack to happen on US soil, instead of allowing Homeland Security and the FBI to handle it.
Whole new age I guess.
And that's a good thing....
Yeah, everything is swell.
As far as the Supreme Court, why don't we just let these nine (unelected) judges, appointed for life, start writing their own laws and forcing the States into doing whatever they feel like. That would be neat, and we could even get rid of State lines being that they would be pretty useless anyway. Heck, maybe we should let these nine unelected judges just run everything.
Claim any item they want is a "right," change a definition here and there, and presto! What could ever go wrong with that?
Whole new age I guess.
And that's a good thing....
Yeah, everything is swell.
As far as the Supreme Court, why don't we just let these nine (unelected) judges, appointed for life, start writing their own laws and forcing the States into doing whatever they feel like. That would be neat, and we could even get rid of State lines being that they would be pretty useless anyway. Heck, maybe we should let these nine unelected judges just run everything.
Claim any item they want is a "right," change a definition here and there, and presto! What could ever go wrong with that?
Anything the Supreme Court makes a decision on is only brought before them because it hasn't been settled at any other level....They don't make law unless asked to.....
By the way is Everyone to you not an all encompassing word???
People went before the Supreme court and asked for a decision....they didn't take on the subject on their own....or any other subject they ruled on....
In this case they looked at the Constitution for what it says about civil right which are always trumped by religious belief.....you can believe what you want even if means making someone less equal but you can't exercise it because we have civil rights that over take opinion...
To me the best part of the ruling is to equalize benefits for spouses/significant others. But there is a tightening now as well as a loosening. Since marriage is now legal in all the states rights will (or at least should) be given to people who have made the decision to enter into a legal agreement. No more push to cover common law matings
An article in the Chicago Tribune showed why this is important. Even though same sex marriage was legal in Illinois, if that couple traveled to Michigan, their marriage was not recognized - so if one went to the hospital, the other was not legally seen as a spouse and did not have the same rights..... people in a same sex marriage had to know the laws of any state they visited or traveled through......... this makes it so they are recognized as married everywhere in the US - a good thing, I think........... 
