As expected, there have been plenty of proclamations from religious extremists about the upcoming end of the world. They think God will judge the US harshly for allowing people in love to get married. Slavery? Killing of natives? Internment camps? Nope, those didn’t attract God’s judgment, but this will.
Catholic priests are saying, without a hint of irony, that this decision will cause children to be sexually molested. 
Various commentators are once again floating the “Now we have to allow people to marry their pets” argument because, as we all know, whenever new rights are gained, logically we have to extend them to animals next. That’s why dogs have the right to vote.
Then there was that “friend” on Facebook who said, “Since sin is now legal, murder will be next.” Yes, of course. The two are absolutely comparable. There’s just no way to refute such logic.
I’ve stopped trying to argue with True Believers whenever possible (including the gun nuts, the 9/11 “Truthers”, the various conspiracy-minded among us). But what bugs me the most is when they can’t even see the basic irony in their own arguments.
These Christians are almost always the ones screaming about how terrible it is that Sharia Law could be used in America. Sharia Law has many things in common with evangelistic Christian law — a prohibition against gay marriage, admonitions about women being subservient to men, and so on — but if anyone tried to use the Quran to pass these into our laws, these Christians would be up in arms.
But it’s not because they’re against forcing religious laws upon America — they just want it to be their religion we’re all forced to follow.
Fox News commentator Allen West (a non-lawyer) wrote an article recently saying that since the Supreme Court gay marriage case says this must be applied over the entire country, then clearly it has set a precedent to allow for “conceal and carry” in all states.
This shows a real misunderstanding of the law.
First of all, the gay marriage case had to do with the 14th amendment, which prohibits discrimination against people. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has called corporations “people” it’s not about to call guns, cars, or toasters “people” any time soon.
The analysis used in the gay marriage case is old. Like 50 years old. This same analysis was previously used to give rights to blacks and then later to women. It has just been expanded to include gays and lesbians. It is not a new analysis.
If the gun lobby could use this same analysis to do what the gun lovers want, they would have done it 50 years ago.
The short version: If the government wants to take away the rights of someone, the law must pass the “strict scrutiny” test:
It is very difficult for laws that discriminate to pass this test. The Supreme Court did not change this test at all, but merely added gays and lesbians to the test (at least as far as marriage goes — other discriminatory laws against gays and lesbians will be challenged under this test soon and should also fail, using this case as precedence).
This test is not used to determine whether everyone has the exact same rights as they travel from state to state — but West (and the people who foolishly believe him) are convincing themselves that they are being discriminated against because they don’t have the same rights as someone in another state.
Under this logic, there would be no more federalism at all. Using that logic, any law passed in any state would have to be enforced in every state.
Does that mean that marijuana would be legal everywhere? Hooray! Oh wait, we’d first have to decide which state laws apply — What if it’s decided that the state laws that prohibit guns from being carried everywhere are the laws that apply over the entire country? Why are these people assuming it’s the law they want that will prevail?
“But but,” the gun lovers scream, “the court said that you have to give gays these rights because it’s based on ‘certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy’ and dadgummit, it’s our personal choice to buy guns without background checks and carry them into churches and shopping malls whenever we want to!” Besides being ridiculous and not at all what the gay marriage case was about, this is also not what the 14th amendment is about.
Seriously, I’m not even going to dignify this by explaining why. If you can’t see why there is a difference between the fundamental right of all adults to get married and the right to own an inanimate object, then you’ve become so brainwashed by your guns and the gun lobby that there is no hope for you.
By Guest blogger Terri Lynn Coop
June 26, 2015 was one of those days when the wheel of history turned. At the center of the social media celebration and barrage of rainbows is the 35-page opinion on marriage equality penned by Justice Kennedy.
As both a lawyer and an ally, I find the opinion to be succinct, elegant, iron-clad, and a doorway to further equal rights activism here in the good old USA. After I held a series of light-hearted law “lectures” on the subject on Facebook, Mike invited me here to the ‘Quest to take a look at some of the key parts, both obvious and less so, of the opinion.
Overall, the Court grounded the opinion firmly in the 14th Amendment rights of Due Process and Equal Protection under the law. Out of that principle has sprung the right to privacy in what the court calls “intimate relations.” Kennedy went straight to the keystone cases such as Loving that struck down racial bans on marriage and Griswold that protects the right of married people to use contraceptives (yeah, that had to be litigated).
“This Court has invoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex-based inequality on marriage . . . and confirmed the relation between liberty and equality . . .”
Strong words right there. We can’t have personal liberty without equality.
“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.”
Part of deciphering judicial opinions is to look for the key words and phrases. Here it is “may not.” In other words – NO. No as in Grumpy Cat NO. Nyet. No way, no how are same-sex couples to be deprived of the fundamental civil right to marry.
The Court went on, conflating liberty and personal identity:
“The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights . . . In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.”
The Court has just connected being gay with personal identity, autonomy, dignity, and civil rights. That sets up a key statement from later on in the opinion.
This Court is heavy on precedent. It is a thread through their decisions. This Court backed this pronouncement up with three cases where marriage rights were affirmed for mixed-race couples, prison inmates, and men who were behind in child support cases. Bottom line, other than the requirements that the parties be of age, of mental competency, and not related by a certain degree of marriage or blood, American citizens have the right to marry whoever they want to.
Answering the “traditional marriage” naysayers, the Court held that times change. Society changes and marriage has changed. Traditionally, women were essentially the legal property of their husband under coverture laws. As society began to accept that women were, you know, people, the equal protection laws were used to throw out the old laws.
“These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution of marriage. Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.”
In other words, there is no such thing as traditional marriage. There is only marriage as defined by the mores of society. The odd argument that same sex marriage will cause the demise of opposite sex marriage was dismissed as being “without logic.” That is judicial shorthand for “that’s just weird, shut up now.”
The last big issue addressed was the question of states’ rights and use of the legislative process to parse civil rights. The answer was another resounding NO.
The states’ rights argument centers on marriage being traditionally left to the states to regulate under the 10th amendment. Kennedy says “Okay, you asked for it . . .”
“Yet by virtue of their exclusion from that institution, same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage. This harm results in more than just material burdens. Same-sex couples are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives. As the State itself makes marriage all the more precious by the significance it attaches to it, exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects.”
Inherent in the right to regulate is the responsibility to regulate fairly. Or else SCOTUS will step in and make you play nice.
A nod is given to the “religious conscience” opposition movement, but doesn’t bode well for the flurry of what I call hate-pizza laws sure to come pouring out of statehouses in the red states.
“Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.”
Object all you want on a personal level, but when you codify it into law, well then you’ve poked the bear and that bear has big sharp legal teeth. This opinion uses the word “but” like a ninja sword.
More proof that the Court does watch TV and knows what is being said about “activist” and “imperial” courts. This is a reminder of the role of the courts delivered with straight and hard with a verbal clue-by-4:
“An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act. The idea of the constitution “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
BOOM! We don’t vote on the rights of our fellow citizens just like they don’t vote on ours. That’s why they are called rights. Also another warning to states that are toying with discrimination laws – the Court is ready and waiting for you.
This opinion is full of this type of elegant direct language. However, toward the end of the opinion is a single sentence that is easy to miss and could be a game-changer:
“And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.”
Immutable nature. Civil rights language. In that sentence the Supreme Court of the United States just said that being gay is not a choice, that it is an unchangeable part of a person’s personal identity. That opens the door, really kicks down the door, to sexual orientation becoming a protected class. Twenty-nine states now allow employment discrimination on the basis of being gay. This could be the first pebble in the landslide that buries those and other laws.
That big rainbow out there shines on everyone. We are watching history every bit as important as women getting the right to vote and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It’s a good time to be an American.
Thanks for the invite!
Terri Lynn Coop is a lawyer by education, a writer by profession, and an unapologetic geek the rest of the time. She’s been known to blog at Readin’ Ritin’ & Rhetoric. Her first novel, a legal thriller, “Devil’s Deal,” is available through Amazon.
The United States Supreme Court, in its second attempt to make Scalia’s head explode in two days, has discovered that gays and lesbians are “people” and therefore protected by the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause which prohibits discrimination against any person.
So it’s official. No more gay marriage in America. From now on, there are only marriages.
Religious conservatives across the country are now screaming about “judicial activism” and claiming that the court ruled against the will of the people, completely ignoring the fact that the majority of Americans support marriage equality these days. (Hey kids! Today’s challenge: Find a conservative that complained about the Citizen’s United decision which definitely went against what the majority of Americans wanted!)
Half of the fun of decisions like this are reading Scalia’s dissents, which contradict previous decisions he’s made and read less like a learned treatise from a Supreme Court Justice and more like your drunk uncle at Thanksgiving: “Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.”
Pure comedy gold. And so, so satisfying to those of us who love to see this freedom-hater lose.
So now I can stop posting “such-and-such state enters the 21st century” whenever a new state embraced marriage equality. And I, for one, am thrilled.
It wasn’t that long ago that acts of pure racism brought about riots in Baltimore and Ferguson. I condemned them, and wrote that those things were counter productive.
Charleston Unity March
“When you talk about destruction, don’t you know that you can count me out,” said John Lennon.
Many of my liberal friends attacked me for that position, arguing that sometimes violence was needed to bring about change in America. I still disagreed with them.
The latest attack in South Carolina led to the victims’ families forgiving the shooter, asking for peace, and asking for understanding. They used the occasion to point out how harmful, insulting, and contributing the Confederate flag flying over their courthouse is, and they said it should be taken down. And there were no riots.
And you know what? It’s working. This may have been the tipping point that finally makes that insulting flag be treated with the same attitude in which we now view the “n” word. And it’s made many people look at how harmful it is to tolerate racist symbols and actions.
If the people of South Carolina had rioted it would not have been as successful.
And that’s because the people of America are good people. We want to do good things, and we want to help people who deserve to be helped. But when instead Americans see rioters and looters, it does the opposite; it makes people say, right or wrong, that they don’t deserve our help.
