And it all started here

I fully support gay marriage but given the choice between the two I'd take limited corporate rights over marriage rights. Marriage won't impact more important political policy. Who cares if you're married or not when you can't drink the polluted water.

Can't we have good decisions on both topics?

But since we are on the topic, I couldn't agree more. I think the New York Times and its corporate parent should not be advocating political positions and candidates using their millions of dollars of corporate money to influence politics. When will the Supreme Court take away free speech from assemblies of people aka corporations?

sarcasm alert!

is so distraught over the end of the Republic, he started huffing lines again.

I'll definitely be tuning into ole Cap'n Howie today. Let's remember folks, gay friendly Subaru is one of his major sponsors. I wonder how Ernie Boch Jr, CEO of Subaru New England will feel about that decision to sponsor Carr when ole lardass starts spouting off about how gay marriages aren't "real".

We can only hope.

No need to add "shit stain" to his name. The definition of his last name says it all.

State bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional and void. Those states must grant marriage licenses and all accompanying rights and privileges to same-sex couples seeking them as they would to heterosexual couples. All states must recognize same-sex marriages from other states as valid.

I mean, that's what the wingnuts make it sound like so that has to be it.

There will be some county official somewhere in at least one of these states that will refuse to abide by this decision. I'm almost sure of it. There may be governors who refuse to for all we know - looking at you especially Texas Governor Greg Abbott. Will be curious to see what the Justice Department does at that point to force them to abide by it.

Somehow I don't feel like any of them were "worried".

It's not uncommon for towns to schedule their annual 4th of July festivities the week before (or after) the actual holiday. I'm going to the independence day parade in Waterbury VT this weekend to meet some friends.

The official pride parades were in the last couple of weekends, but June is still paarrrrtay time!

... as a civil contract.

http://people.opposingviews.com/puritan-marriage-b...

If anything, it should be the other way around. Clergy should have no authority whatsoever sign marriage certificates, just as they aren't qualified to take other oaths and affirmations, certify copies of documents, witness signatures or acknowledge instruments. Clergy are not appointed government officials and should have no more authority to perform a ministerial act of the government, as solemnization of a marriage certificate is, than the exalted ruler of the local Elks Club, chairman of the the local homeowners association, Grand Poobah of the Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes or any other officer in any other private organization. Leave the civil side to the civic authorities and let the clergy perform whatever rituals they see fit to recognize marriage on their own. Most countries in Europe do not recognize ritual marriage ceremonies and require a civil ceremony for a couple to be legally married.

Disclaimer: I'm a justice of the peace and it may be fair to regard me as a little biased in this matter, but my authority was granted to me via a democratic appointment process. Clergy are attain that authority only by virtue of being clergy, and do not have to prove any qualifications otherwise.

Really?

How is interpreting the 14th Amendment "judicial usurpation" when interpreting the constitution is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do? When all our state and federal laws have to be in accordance with the Constitution? This IS the job of the judiciary.

I'm going to make an assumption that you were born in the US (or, possibly, a green card holder) since you clearly would not pass the citizenship test for naturalization.

The legislative process is great at handling what the majority wants.

The judicial process is great at handling what the minority is owed.

As opposed to legislative usurpation of the Constitution? Sorry, but legislatures can not make laws that violate the rights promised to us by the Constitution. Its pretty much the main reason we have a written constitution.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/fMgpPbt.gif[/img]

Thomas and, more to the point, Scalia shit all over his well-thought discourse with their tantrums. All anyone will talk about in the dissents will be their stupidity and childishness unfortunately.

Roberts in a nutshell is saying the more legitimate path in his view is not through the courts but through the ballot box. A fair point albeit ignorant of the history of much social justice in this country. For example, would he say Brown v Board was wrong and instead school desegregation should have been through the voters, which we know would have taken a long long time? I doubt it.

Either way, this part from his dissent is disturbing. He's basically saying gays will now never truly be accepted in society because of this ruling. That's a chilling statement from the Chief Justice of the nation's highest court.

Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.

That said Romneycare was a well executed law. Obamacare has a lot of those good points - but a lot of other crap that needs to be fixed. Too many special interests had a hand in that pot. AND - most of all - there should be no exemptions for Congress - they should get what the rest of us get.

First, it's Ms. and Ms.

Second, it's Goodridge not Goodrich.

Third, they're not only friends. They're still raising a daughter together.

Fourth, so what?