Skip to main content

Natalie Dicou (L) and her partner Nicole Christensen wait to get married at the Salt Lake County Clerks office in Salt Lake City, Utah, December 20, 2013. A federal judge struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional on Friday, handing a
A Utah couple waits to get married
Following the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act last year, Utah was the first state where a federal judge ruled that citizens have a right to marry the partner of their choosing regardless of their sex. Now the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has become the first federal appellate court to uphold that right, finding in favor of those same Utah plaintiffs—and it's not even Friday:
May a State of the Union constitutionally deny a citizen the benefit or protection of the laws of the State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen chooses to marry?

Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.

Because the Supreme Court previously stayed the lower court's ruling, the appeals court is maintaining that stay while (it expects) defendants appeal yet again, so this new ruling has not yet gone into effect. But it's been clear for some time now which way the winds of change are blowing, and all of these cases (including a brand-new one also decided today in Indiana) will make their way to the Supreme Court very soon. With the justices joining school kids in taking their annual summer break, it won't be soon enough, but the end is finally in sight.

11:18 AM PT: The judge in Indiana, however, did not issue a stay, so same-sex marriages are already underway. However, Republican state Attorney General Greg Zoeller said his office plans to appeal and seek a stay.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  My straight parents were divorced in 1969... (43+ / 0-)

    I'll bet this ruling was the cause of it.  

                   —Average GOP voter                          
       

    “When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.” —Abraham Lincoln

    by Pragmatus on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 09:50:03 AM PDT

  •  I suppose the state had legal arguments (7+ / 0-)

    to the contrary but I'd sure hate to argue in support of these bans.

  •  The opinion includes (24+ / 0-)

    an excellent discussion of the Court's sexual orientation case history:

    The Supreme Court’s sexual orientation jurisprudence further precludes us from defining the fundamental right at issue in the manner sought by the appellants. In Lawrence, the Court struck down as violative of due process a statute that prohibited sexual conduct between individuals of the same sex. The Court reversed Bowers v.
    Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), which in upholding a similar statute had framed the question as “whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time.” Id. at 190. The Lawrence Court held that this framing “fail[ed] to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake” and “misapprehended the claim of liberty there presented to it.” 539 U.S. at 567. The Court acknowledged that “for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral,” but held that its obligation was “to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” Id. at 571 (quotation omitted). “[B]efore 1961 all 50 States had outlawed sodomy,” yet “[h]istory and tradition are the starting point but not in all cases the ending point of the substantive due process inquiry.” Id. at 572 (quotation omitted). The Court firmly rejected Bowers’ characterization of the liberty at issue: “To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.” Id. at 567. The Court’s rejection of the manner in which Bowers described the liberty interest involved is applicable to the framing of the issue before us. There was clearly no history of a protected right to “homosexual sodomy,” just as there is no lengthy tradition of same-sex marriage. But the Lawrence opinion indicates that the approach urged by appellants is too narrow. Just as it was improper to ask whether there is a right to engage in homosexual sex, we do not ask whether there is a right to participate in same-sex marriage.

     We must also note that Lawrence itself alluded to marriage, stating that “our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage,  procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.” 539 U.S. at 574. The Court quoted Casey’s holding that matters “involving the most intimate and  personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment” and ruled that “[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 574 (quotation omitted).

    Opinion of the 10th Circuit (PDF)
  •  What all the bans come down to is simple: (24+ / 0-)

    "It's icky, and it's against my religion."

    Neither is an adequate defense under American law.

    This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

    by Ellid on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 09:56:53 AM PDT

  •  Bwahahahaha (16+ / 0-)

    The Tenth Circuit covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.  This'll deal with Oklahoma too.  As I recall, they had a hearing on an Oklahoma case last week.  

    "It's too LATE to stop now!" - John Lee Hooker

    by Rolfyboy6 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:05:24 AM PDT

    •  Tough Month to be a Tea Bagger Ain't It? nt (11+ / 0-)

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:10:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you actually mean (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MKSinSA

        the President isn't using the IRS to destroy traditional marriage?  Also, Benghazzi.

        "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure" - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100, dissenting; opinion

        by HugoDog on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:24:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Colorado ban (14+ / 0-)

      had its first hearing last week and the judge flat out laughed at the defense arguments.  Our repub AG argued that 15 previous court rulings striking down bans were wrong and Judge Crabtree asked "They all got it wrong".   And when our AG brought up the old procreation BS the judge mentioned two over 65 year old friends getting married to shut down that argument.  

      When Judge Crabtree rules it looks like the Colorado ban is going down too.

      When was the last time anyone in DC told America the f*cking truth?

      by jaf49 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:18:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Colorado is in the 10th circuit (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jaf49, coloradorob, skrekk

        This ruling ought to cover Colorado's case as well. Does the precedent go into effect right away, or does it wait for the stay too?

        •  There's another aspect in Colorado (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kfunk937, jaf49

          There is a movement to put the question to overturn the state constitutional ban on the ballot. There's still debate as to whether it should be on the ballot this fall or in 2016. (The last I heard the CW -- and I don't mean the TV network -- was to wait until 2016.) Of course, the way these court rulings have been going, it may be a moot point by then.
          Anyway, all the polling says that if the matter were voted on again, the ban would be repealed. The only reason we 'only' have civil unions is NOT because the legislature didn't want to pass marriage equality, but because that wasn't even an option thanks to the state constitutional restriction.

          "Free your mind and the rest will follow...."

          by midknightryder13 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 02:02:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The precedent is instructive but not binding (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jaf49

          until the 10th Circuit issues a mandate, which it won't due until any further appeals issues are resolved. Then it will be binding on Federal district courts, but not on state officials and (I think) not on state courts. In any case, it's unlikely that Colorado's marriage ban will ever reach a Federal court; the Colorado Supreme Court will almost certainly have the final say on the matter.

          Unfortunately when smart and educated people get crazy ideas they can come up with plausibly truthy arguments. -- Andrew F Cockburn

          by ebohlman on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 04:25:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A federal court ruling most certainly IS binding (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jaf49

            on states!! The only thing which makes this not binding for the moment is that they also issued a stay while further appeals are being pursued!

            A state supreme court cannot overrule a Federal court ruling, nor can they overturn a ban which is in their state Const. Only a Federal court can truly overturn a STATE Const. ban. The state can try based on US Const. arguments but it is an automatic guaranteed appeal to Federal court to make if official.

            Bottom line is once the Federal courts lift their stay and rule (as they did) that the state marriage ban is null and void (e.g., overturned) then it is just that.

            The state has no choice but to comply with Federal court rulings.

    •  Oklahoma was heard at the district level (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kfunk937, skrekk

      back in January, and the case is still pending at the 10th; it was heard by the same panel a week after the Utah case. There are procedural issues with the OK case that precluded it from being consolidated with the UT case, so a separate ruling (again, by the same panel) will be forthcoming.

      Unfortunately when smart and educated people get crazy ideas they can come up with plausibly truthy arguments. -- Andrew F Cockburn

      by ebohlman on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 04:21:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Did the judge leave the door open? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jkusters
    A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.
    Would a state be able to employee other "tests" that they could then use to deny, or refuse to recognize marriage a license?

    Say a test on intimate secrets that each partner should know about their significant other?  Force people to create their own questionnaire for their partners to answer.  Like the Newlywed game.  Only failure would result in rejection of their marriage license application.

    It would be funny to see how many straight couples would fail that one.  

    Maybe enough to get our country to rethink the idea of marriage and what it means to people individually.  Not just commercially or religiously.

    •  age and blood relationship (10+ / 0-)

      I'm guessing this caveat is a nod to the fact that there are constitutional laws prohibiting marriage if one party is below a certain age (which varies by state) or if the parties to be married are parent-child or cousins (or other permutations).

      •  AGE is a measure of Legal Consent. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ebohlman

        and blood relations I'm not sure can legally be used as a bar. We understand the scientific reasoning, but opening that door leads to all manner of things including eventually ... eugenics.

        I know states do it, I'm not sure it is actually legal. As a public health argument, it is tenuous as it relates to only you and is not "contagious" to the rest of the population.

        •  Note that per Zablocki, restrictions on (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Jester, LoveIsEqual, skrekk

          marriage only rise to the level of requiring strict scrutiny if they "substantially interfere" with the exercise of a fundamental right. Since age restrictions don't preclude a marriage between the involved parties but just require a reasonable waiting period, it's unlikely that they'd be considered substantial interference (note that NE requires parties to be at least 19 and MI requres them to be at least 21; the waiting periods are likely too short to meet the test).

          Consanguinity restrictions only preclude one from marrying a very small number of potential partners. The people restricted from marrying are by definition not legal strangers to each other, and hence prohibiting them from marrying each other does not leave them without any way of establishing kinship the way a gender-based prohibition does.

          Unfortunately when smart and educated people get crazy ideas they can come up with plausibly truthy arguments. -- Andrew F Cockburn

          by ebohlman on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 04:34:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Sure. States can deny licenses to people (5+ / 0-)

      who aren't of age or who are related to each other.  

      Your example of the Newlywed Game was actually a question when I took the bar exam—can states require couples to undergo compatibility counseling first and deny licenses to those who are deemed incompatible?  The answer is no.  

      •  Oh, drat.. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sfbob, equern
        can states require couples to undergo compatibility counseling first and deny licenses to those who are deemed incompatible?  The answer is no.
        So that's why the divorce rate is so high.

        Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

        by davidincleveland on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:23:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why, and why not? (0+ / 0-)

        What's the legal distinction here?

        •  I think it boils down to the sufficiency of the (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tehlaser, davidincleveland, Odysseus

          state's interests.  Marriage is a fundamental right, which means that to restrict access or marriage, states need to prove that the restriction is necessary to achieve a compelling government objective.  

          Preventing the sexual exploitation of children and preventing incest are surely compelling government objectives, and there's really no other way to prevent these things than keeping children and related people from getting married.

          Ensuring that people are compatible before marriage (by some arbitrary metric) probably doesn't rise to the level of a compelling interest.  Even if it did, there are other ways to prevent incompatible people from getting married—you can offer free premarital counseling, you can run ads asking people to voluntarily be tested for compatibility.  Plus, a test like this isn't perfect, and there's an idea that people shouldn't be preventing from exercising a fundamental right because of some hocus pocus test.  

  •  not so fast guys, please (11+ / 0-)

    i'm writing a paper on this, and
    need to get the paper wrapped before
    the supremes take this.

    Give a grad student a break.

    •  Grad students get no breaks (8+ / 0-)

      Grab a couple of coffees and work through the night.

    •  Don't worry (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, jkusters

      Unless you're writing on parchment with quill pens, you're going to have plenty of time.  The Court seems to be waiting for there to be a difference between the Circuits.  The next Circuit up to bat is likely to be the 9th, with the Idaho case, and I think it's safe to say they'll overturn Idaho's ban on equal protection and possibly due process grounds.  Then there's the 5th, which might overturn the Texas case, but that would still mean the Court wouldn't be in a position to hear the case before the 2015-16 session.

      "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by jg6544 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:29:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The 5th causes me the most concern (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        davidincleveland

        I would suspect that the 9th would rule in favor of gay marriage. I'm not so sanguine about the 5th.

        That would give the SCOTUS the opportunity to weigh into the case, and they potentially could go either way.

        As long as the circuits agree, there's less of a likelihood that SCOTUS would get involved.

        I'll be eagerly waiting for the response to the appeal by SCOTUS on this decision.

        If they let it stand, that could be the best outcome.

        However, that MIGHT give the 5th circuit to find against gay-marriage, just to drag in SCOTUS in the hope they would then agree. So, in a way, I'm hoping the 5th rules before SCOTUS decides on the 10th appeal, and SCOTUS agrees to let the 10th decision stand.

        I ain't holdin' my breath on all this, though!

        What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

        by equern on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 12:18:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are there still vacancies to be filled on the 5th? (0+ / 0-)

          (n/t)

        •  The case currently before the 5th (0+ / 0-)

          is an appeal of a preliminary injunction, and the SCOTUS rarely takes those; whichever way the 5th rules, it still goes back to the district court for further consideration.

          If I were a conservative judge on the 5th, I'd try to find a way to rule that the case didn't meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction without going deeply into the merits, in hopes that some other circuit would be the one to get stuck with the stigma of a Dredd Scott-style ruling.

          Unfortunately when smart and educated people get crazy ideas they can come up with plausibly truthy arguments. -- Andrew F Cockburn

          by ebohlman on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 04:42:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  5th Circuit (0+ / 0-)

            Nowadays, if you polled the sitting judges on this court, a majority of them probably wouldn't find anything wrong with Dredd Scott.

            "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

            by jg6544 on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 01:45:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  a tip: (9+ / 0-)

    if someone comes up to you and says "next, people we be allowed to marry more than one person, or marry their pet!!!"

    Respond thusly:

    "Hey, all we wanted was our Constitutionally sanctioned right to marry a person that we choose.  If YOU want to go for polygamy and the right to marry your dog, go for it."


    "Republicans: the party that brought us 'Just Say No.' First as a drug policy, then as their entire platform." ---Stephen Colbert

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:15:48 AM PDT

    •  People already claim pets as children (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass, sfbob, AlyoshaKaramazov
    •  The irony of Utah Defending Tradtional Marriage (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smileycreek

      If any one pulls the "next, people we be allowed to marry more than one person, or marry their pet!!!" just remind them that Mormons entered the Salt Lake Valley in July 1847. The Utah Territory didn't become the State of Utah until Jan 1896 because the Mormons practiced Polygamy. Marriage Equality is about removing the gender/sex discrimination inherent in the marriage laws. The re are other reasons that the state could limit who can enter into a marriage, as has been mentioned. The only reason I can think of to prohibit polygamy (whether polygyny or polyandry) is that the conservatives don't want anyone to have that much interpersonal recreation, so to speak.

  •  IANAL (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass

    does this mean the SCt has to take the case now?

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:17:44 AM PDT

    •  My guess is they won't. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TrueBlueMajority

      They already ruled on GLBT rights in U.S. v Windsor.

    •  No. (2+ / 0-)

      The Supreme Court only has to hear cases in which it has original jurisdiction, such as when one state sues another.

      By custom, the court takes cases when 4 of the 9 justices vote to do so, so they need 6 justices to agree to ignore a case.

      But if they do that in this case, the ruling stands, the stay will be lifted, and the precedent applies to Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, and Oklahoma.

      •  i mistakenly thought there was a circuit conflict (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ebohlman

        apparently there is not one

        i already understand how certiorari works

        Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
        Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 03:43:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is a contradictory ruling from the 8th (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TrueBlueMajority

          circuit, but it was 8 years ago and so much has changed in ME jurisprudence since then that I doubt the SCOTUS will see it as creating a true circuit split. All the live cases in the 8th are either Federal cases involving out-of-state recognition (which was not an issue in Bruning) or state cases.

          Unfortunately when smart and educated people get crazy ideas they can come up with plausibly truthy arguments. -- Andrew F Cockburn

          by ebohlman on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 04:47:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  So let's game this out. (8+ / 0-)

    Utah will appeal to the Supremes.  They can either hear the case or decline to hear it.

    If they hear it, then it will go on the docket next year and probably be argued in the fall.  Then at this time next year we will all be waiting on the inevitable: a 5 to 4 ruling that State Bans on Gay marriage are unconstitutional.

    On the other hand, they can decline to hear it. At this point, there is no "circuit split" on the matter.  Every ruling since Windsor has been on the side of marriage equality.  That could allow them to choose not to hear it.  That would mean marriage equality comes to Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.  But the ban would remain in place elsewhere.  

    We would have 25 states (plus DC) with marriage equality and 25 states without it.  

    But maybe next year, or the year after, a different circuit rules the opposite way.  Then there will be a true circuit split and the Supremes will be much more likely to take the case.  It could drag into the next presidential term, or past one or more deaths or retirements by current justices.

    We all know where the law is headed. It's just a matter of how long it will take to get there now.

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

    by Spider Stumbled on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:21:20 AM PDT

  •  Is it the end or is it the beginning... (6+ / 0-)

    of true marriage equality.

    The only argument that those who are against marriage equality is that it causes harm to society and to heterosexual marriage. Problem with that is, there is no evidence proving otherwise.

    Seriously though, from a gay perspective from coming out in the 70s, I hope that marriage equality will have a real positive and lasting impact on the gay community, so that bars, bathhouses and public restrooms will no longer be in the mainstream of gay relationships. For me, that use to be what being gay was all about.

    Now, there are churches that have begun to accept gays into their congregations and having a gay couple living in your neighborhood is seen as being positive, and brings up real estate values for your neighborhood. We are known to keep such nice yards and of course, we are known to be great interior designers and architects. I know that's sort of stereotypical but it's true.

    There is just so much positive things happening for the gay community, and along with that, gay people are changing right along with it. I just wish I could have been born later and be young enough to enjoy all these changes.

    Rule the Day, Let not the Day Rule You.

    by fidlerten on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:22:34 AM PDT

    •  I don't think it likely the club scene will (7+ / 0-)

      disappear, or even be substantially reduced.  My crystal ball shows an increase in fully integrated and lgbt friendly venues where people party the night away without paying much notice to the gender of the couples.

      (That didn't take much clairvoyance on my part, since it's already been happening for quite awhile.)

    •  I'm not going to take the "Ick! That's so (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AJayne, sfbob, wmillik, Khun David, fidlerten

      Heteronormative!" position, but I will say that there is more to gay culture than bars and bathhouses, and I'll add that hetero folks have pick-up bars and sex clubs and swinger's circles, too.

      I would like to see the LGBT community, and the various subsets of that community, maintain their unique culture as various ethnic and racial groups have done while enjoying the same rights as everyone else. Don't forget, a lot of "gay" culture has been appropriated by the straight community, too. See: Straight Guy, Queer Eye For, among others. Also see: "Metrosexual".

      I will never be, and never want to be, some suburban professional class clone that happens to be married to a man instead of a woman. That's great for some gay folk, but I also like my unique cultural identity and history, too.

      SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

      by commonmass on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:12:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well not to make assumptions or anything (5+ / 0-)
      I just wish I could have been born later and be young enough to enjoy all these changes.
      I would guess I am at least as old as you are if not older. I came out in the 70's, but I was already in my mid-20's and spent plenty of time at all of the same sorts of establishments as you recite back then. I live in San Francisco and, apart from bathhouses, which SF banned in 1984, all of those other things seem to be flourishing still here. Despite the fact I no longer patronize them (I visit a gay bar perhaps once per year, if that).

      Not only that; I met my partner, TrapperSF, when I was 50 years old. So never give up.

      •  Somewhat OT (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jkusters, fidlerten

        I'm moving to Los Angeles in August -- to return to school. I'm 56 and am currently single. I also came out in the 70's, but have been unable to find a partner. (And I HAVE looked for more than 35 years and have a history similar to you.)
        Maybe all I need is a change of venue -- for the fifth/sixth/seventh/eighth, I lost count ;-) -- time.

        "Free your mind and the rest will follow...."

        by midknightryder13 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 02:09:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Replying to all those who replied to my comment... (0+ / 0-)

          There will always be those who enjoy going to the bars, the bathhouses and even public restrooms to find their fun, just as in the heterosexual world there will always be men who use prostitutes and go to bars or just drive the main strip of town to find what they're looking for.

          There will also be older guys, way up into their years who will do those things because some people never grow up, or get tired of trying.

          I did of course get tired of the bar scene. Public restrooms never really interested me and I'm far too old to be cruising around in a bathhouse. I do wish I had not been so picky and settled down to someone, but now I'm too difficult to live with, being I'm settled in my ways, so I'm destined to be alone.

          Still, I am happy to know that there are other avenues open to gay people, so that they can meet other gay people, find love and happiness without resorting to going to the bars or any of the venues that promote sex more than love.  

          Someday, I might even find a church to go to that accepts me for who I am, and that will make a great deal of difference in my life. Living in Oklahoma, that's not too easy to do right now.

          Rule the Day, Let not the Day Rule You.

          by fidlerten on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 07:08:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  another stay?! (4+ / 0-)

    Maybe I'm getting greedy, but I look at these decisions as clean wins nowadays when the judge doesn't immediately issue a stay. With so many of us same-sex married couples running around in the U.S. nowadays, I'm not sure what harm these judges think they're preventing by staying their decisions at this point.

  •  So it clearly states that you must be a person (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, sponson, sfbob

    in order to marry another person.  So the homophobes who keep freaking out that next we'll be asking to marry our dogs are totally off base.

    Now as for myself, I really wanted to marry my dog, Pablo, so I'm not so happy right now.

    UGH, TEXAS. Please secede!

    by u028021 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:26:34 AM PDT

  •  I'm a gay man, born in 1952. (13+ / 0-)

    I never expected to see gay marriage in my lifetime.  I'll never benefit from it because I learned to hate myself at an early age and haven't quite been able to stop bashing myself . . . but I am so unbelievably happy that  no one else needs to live as I have lived . . .

    a small ray of light is enough . . .

    and this is fucking NOON!

    "The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”" -- Paul Dirac

    by Rikon Snow on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:29:30 AM PDT

  •  gay rights (4+ / 0-)

    Gay rights was a non issue used by the right to satisfy their evangelical supporters.  Abortion rights are similarly played, yet the winds of that war are going backwards.  Same thing for voting rights.  Somehow, the right seems to love to play with, destroy, and weaken, the bill of rights.  I hate their gaming of rights for votes, and I now also hate those who support them.  I'm 69, a good age to fight for my country--less to lose, children to fight for.  I was still a proud American when I protested, and avoided, the Vietnam War--now, not so much.  So many of our "leaders" are pieces of shit, so many of their followers are malevolent bigots, I think about violence as a cure.  I know it isn't, I won't do it, but the Black Panthers were closer to the truth than I gave them credit.

    Actions speak louder than petitions.

    by melvynny on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:30:31 AM PDT

    •  No. (0+ / 0-)
      I think about violence as a cure.  I know it isn't, I won't do it, but the Black Panthers were closer to the truth than I gave them credit.
      There's an old saying that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

      In a Republic, that means that you have to find or coalesce into a community where you are the majority.  When that community is large enough to effectively control a state, you get real power.

      The major failing of many social movements is to stay dispersed.

      -7.75 -4.67

      "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

      There are no Christians in foxholes.

      by Odysseus on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 03:44:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fundamental Rights are FUNDAMENTAL Rights. (9+ / 0-)

    I love this quote from page 37 in today's ruling.  I had not seen it before (bolding mine).

    Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Hernandez, 855 N.E.2d at 24 (Kaye, C.J., dissenting)

    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

    by Eman on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:30:44 AM PDT

  •  Red state radio was FAST on this (6+ / 0-)

    At Wendy's at lunch, the loud family behind me was gathered around the patriarch's cell phone, as he read out the news of the day, and he started with how it's now mandatory to institute gay marriage, and his wife wittered as he pontificated about how "they" are changing America and overruling Americans. Next up: An Italian player bites somebody in a soccer game.

    NutPalooza should be rich this weekend.

    "man, proud man,/ Drest in a little brief authority,. . . Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven/ As make the angels weep; who, with our spleens,/ Would all themselves laugh mortal." -- Shakespeare, Measure for Measure II ii, 117-23

    by The Geogre on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:33:18 AM PDT

    •  Did you warn him... (6+ / 0-)

      ... that not only will this ruling turn his children gay, but that it's also turning him gay, at this very moment..?

      •  "To get my fair share of abuse..." (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        davidincleveland, kerplunk, jkusters

        I thought, "Well, I could explain this to him in a way that would smooth his feathers. I really could. Why should I bother, when his MyFace Wall or whatever it is is carefully designed to get them up again? He wants to be mad."

        Besides, lately I've seen some male heads of families whose wives would probably welcome insidious homosexuality turning their men's attentions away.

        "man, proud man,/ Drest in a little brief authority,. . . Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven/ As make the angels weep; who, with our spleens,/ Would all themselves laugh mortal." -- Shakespeare, Measure for Measure II ii, 117-23

        by The Geogre on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 12:14:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Civil Rights Are A Federal Issue (4+ / 0-)

    There is that old expression, "Don't make a federal case of it".
    However, when it comes to issues of civil rights, a "federal case" is exactly what it is.
    There can be no room for ambiguity, loopholes, chances for one state to over-rule/disregard  what has taken place in another.
    The Constitution trumps state's rights.
    These decisions by various courts are welcome and correct, but the battle will not be won until same-sex marriages are The Law Of The Land.

  •  I notice that they cast the issue in... (5+ / 0-)

    terms of sex discrimination, instead of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

    Under federal civil rights law, sex is a category that gets strict scrutiny in court decisions, while sexual orientation is not.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:05:59 AM PDT

  •  Dissent was first judge after Windsor to say no. (0+ / 0-)

    So there's going to be a five four discussion in the SCt, I'm sure of it.

    Retrospectives on 25th anniversary of Tiananmen at Chinafile.com

    by Inland on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:08:54 AM PDT

    •  No matter what . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sponson

      The Court will break 5-4 on our side with Kennedy writing the majority opinion again.  The only thing that could produce a different outcome is a retirement on the Court and even that is "iffy".  

      "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by jg6544 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:31:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm laying odds it will be 6-3, if not 7-2, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sponson, Odysseus

        and Roberts will write the majority opinion. Too many lives, too much history involved with the eventual SCOTUS decision for Roberts to be on the wrong side of it...

        •  Roberts (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AJayne

          I hope you're right.

          "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

          by jg6544 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:43:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I can see that if they decide in 2016 (0+ / 0-)

          but not in 2015; given Roberts' explicit statements in Windsor, he'd look too flip-floppy if he changed his position before a lot more than two circuits ruled favorably (and the cases from the 10th and the 4th are pretty much the only ones likely to be ripe for next term).

          Unfortunately when smart and educated people get crazy ideas they can come up with plausibly truthy arguments. -- Andrew F Cockburn

          by ebohlman on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 05:00:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That is what I thought on the recent DOMA.... (0+ / 0-)

          section 3 ruling which overturned the Federal ban on recognizing our marriages.

          But yet Scalia twisted himself into a pretzel when he voted to actually uphold the Federal portion of DOMA in direct contradiction to his repeated claims about believing in "state's rights". The Federal portion of DOMA directly violated the very state's rights he claims to believe in, yet he voted to uphold it.

          I also believed in that case that Roberts would want to come down on the right side of history but yet he also voted to uphold DOMA. And even a year ago it was obvious that Nationwide Marriage Equality is inevitable.

          I firmly believe we will win and get Nationwide Marriage Equality but unfortunately I think it will be another narrow victory at 5-4.

  •  Oh no! People are becoming committed to one (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland, Debby

    another and are helping to make stable neighborhoods and raise families, this has to be stopped now!

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:47:47 AM PDT

  •  how ironic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland, sponson

    the right wing, black and white, obsession with gender preference and the push to make same sex marriage a decisive issue on so many Bush/Cheney ballots years ago, may have actually sped up the process of marriage equality.

    Obviously I don't have data for this claim, but getting marriage equality to the 'front burner' could have been slower without them.

    Children, throwing the first stone is never OK.

  •  Talk about idiots. It is called the EQUAL .... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Debby

    ... PROTECTION CLAUSE. Period.

    It is and always had been legal since 1790. Just because worthless piece of shit assholes, ignorant fuckups and other sorted scumbags regard something as illegal has NO AFFECT on the Constitution.

    You cannot allow two consenting adult heterosexuals to marry (in the eyes of the "STATE") and not allow two consenting adult homosexuals to marry. It is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL and NEVER EVER HAS BEEN.

    Every "lawyer" who has ever said otherwise is an incompetent fool who should have been disbarred on the spot. The 535 alleged "lawyers" that make up our Congress, the Presidents, etc ... including BOTH CLINTONS and OBAMA are all guilty of willful intellectual bankruptcy for decades.

    They should have been stripped of their law degrees long ago.

    I'm not an advocate either way, I literally do not give a shit who marries who, as for your Church that is a totally private matter that I not only do NOT know about but I do NOT ever want to know.

    But The State must obey the Constitution, period.

    Guess what .... POLYGAMY IS LEGAL, 100% protected Constitutional, and I warn this and future governments you better fucking straighten your asses out and get with the program.

    Slavery was ALWAYS ILLEGAL, always. Denying the vote to women and minorities was ALWAYS ILLEGAL, always, absolutely illegal and Unconstitutional.

    The Constitution has not changed, the Equal Protection clause is as fundamental and freedom of speech and freedom to practice religion. It has been present and in effect since the day the document was signed and ratified.

    The fact the old white asswipes chose to ignore the truth and reality of the very laws they claimed to serve, proves THEY are scum, not that the Constitution did not provide for equal protection until they got "religion" on a subject.

    Understand. Gay marriage is 100% legal period, Polygamy is 100% legal period .... all between CONSENTING ADULTS.

    •  Polygamy may not be legal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sponson

      And here's why. While I don't have a dog in that hunt, the legal problem is "How to treat EVERYONE involved in such a relationship equally under the law." A quick example -- say a married couple decides to bring a third person in and they all agree. Later, one of the trio decides to bring in person number four. One of the other two is fine with that, but the other is not. Is it majority rule? Or does the single veto carry the day? Can't have it both ways, but either objection VIOLATES the 14th amendment. Further, each person involved in the relationship has to have the relationship between them and EVERY OTHER INDIVIDUAL WITHIN THE RELATIONSHIP LEGALLY DEFINED. Further, you can't place a numerical limit on the number of people involved.
      It's a legal logistical labyrinth.

      "Free your mind and the rest will follow...."

      by midknightryder13 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 02:27:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What about the 3/5 clause? (0+ / 0-)

      That was part of the Constitution itself at the time of founding. Was it "Constitutional" or not?  The original Constitution, impressive and admirable as it was, was flawed.  Slavery wasn't "always illegal," the original Constitution (and the Supreme Court after that for some 70 years) protected the "legality" of slavery and declared it both legal and constitutional over and over again.

      •  The Flaw wasn't in the Constitution, it was in the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LoveIsEqual

        idiotic unscientific alleged understanding that BLACK people were not actual humans, but something less.

        As we have seen, clearing that little idiocy up immediately dictated Oops, minorities are entitled to the identical rights of anyone else. And of course, the denial to women was utterly unjustified and a pure manifestation of inherent patriarchy of the old white male assholes in power.

        It is not the Constitution that is flawed, it is the shitheads we appoint to enforce it who are flawed. ;)

  •  Woop! One of those two judges on the right side (0+ / 0-)

    was, back in the day, one of my professors.

    A homo in a bi-national relationship - at 49, I had to give up my career, leave behind my dying father, my family & friends and move to Europe. And I'm one of the *lucky* ones: Immigration Equality

    by aggieric on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:33:25 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site