I think everyone by now knows how SCOTUS ruled on same sex marriage, and they know some of the details about why they ruled the way they did. Here's an interesting piece about Chief Justice Roberts.
Roberts’ main objection is the legal reasoning behind the majority opinion. His preference was to let the issue play out through the ballot box instead of letting what he dismissively calls “five lawyers” to determine whether marriage is a right.
“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision,” Roberts said. “Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
I know and understand what he's saying, however, there are varying opinions on this. Plus, I think it would have taken years and years of more discrimination and inequality if this had been played out through the ballet box. And frankly, I'm not a fan of allowing people who believe in the most simplistic religious teachings decide my future when it comes to equality. Because that's what this all comes down to: religion and how it's been interpreted through the years as a from of control.
I was especially glad to hear about today's ruling when I heard a gay priest that will never admit that he's gay, condemn the ruling. There's just something fundamentally wrong with that. Trust me, I know plenty of gay priests who do the same thing and live separate lives on the down low. And this is the part that Chief Justice Roberts leaves out of his reasoning...the cold simple truth. I'd rather not have people like that voting on my future in the ballot box. The Constitution exists for a reason.
You can read more here.
Scalia on Marriage
I wish they hadn't used an English Bulldog with this article. I love English Bulldogs and I think it does a disservice to them. However, it's an interesting piece about how Justice Scalia has become a caricature of himself.
“The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality,'” Scalia quoted from the majority opinion before adding, “Really? 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.”
Hmmm. If we were to ask our nearest hippie, we’re pretty sure same-sex marriage would have been the law of the land starting sometime in the sixties.
The rest is here, with more than a few comments.
Joe Biden on Marriage Equality
I actually saw this on Twitter earlier yesterday and I retweeted it because I thought it was amusing. There's a parody account for Jill Biden that tweeted this:
"Joe is running through the halls with a rainbow flagged tied like a cape high fiving everyone."
And, you can check out a photo here.
In general, I'm sure the Vice President is happy, and so are a lot of other people. Oddly, I did notice that a few gay men were having issues celebrating the ruling. One wrote a glum blog post about HIV/AIDS and how so many died. Another kept commenting on social media about how he's now been "validated" as a real citizen...commenting in a sarcastic way. Both of them are very strong points only people who are gay and over 30 will understand. It's a time to celebrate, but it's a little hard to celebrate what we should have had all along.
The Rainbow Detective Agency
Box Set Series $5.99