Gay Marriage

@ druscilla the misfit
Loving v. Virginia is different because it defied precedent (ie, other Supreme Court cases said it was fine to criminalize interracial marriage and the court came out of left field so to speak in Loving v. Virginia by overturning precedent), as opposed to this case which creates the precedent that states can define marriage as they choose. If anything, they rejected the principles outlined in Loving v. Virginia

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Marriage is not a civil right, based on this new ruling. It's a privilege to be provided by states under their own terms. Every other line in the majority opinion is "deemed by the state". So, this isn't about "gay" rights at all, it's about state rights. It's just as much a win for conservative states as it is for places where gay marriage is legal. Until we have a case like Loving v. Virginia that says marriage rights cannot be infringed upon by the states, I don't think anythings going to change... and I don't see a ruling like that coming from the current Supreme Court. The only reason the states "holding out" legalized interracial marriage is because of loving v. virginia... they wouldn't have done it on their own. (Didn't Alabama just recently even recognize that decision?)

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/private-companies-grapple-with-supreme-courts-doma-decision/2013/06/28/4225ae28-df6c-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html

This is another reason why this was a cop-out, terrible decision. It's so unclear.

@ Kurtni

To my knowledge, there is no precedent for legalizing same-sex marriage through courts / by having laws which forbid it deemed unconstitutional or otherwise illegal because they're discriminatory anywhere in the world? Important LGBT legislation was passed in Europe because previous discriminatory legislation was challenged in court (for example, the Gender Recognition Act) but same-sex marriage is too controversial for politicians to leave it to courts.

@ kafka.
In the U.S, the Supreme Court has never before heard a same-sex marriage case until recently. Proposition 8's case was the first time they agreed to hear a case that directly asked the question of same-sex marriage. Instead of making a ruling on it, the court basically bounced it back to district court and constricted the case to California only. Because the court declared the proponents had no standing, Prop 8 will not make it back to SCOTUS unless California's government decides to defend Prop 8.

From what I remember, Ginsburg talked about the case a few months before the ruling. She said that she wasn't keen on the court making a sweeping ruling nor a narrow ruling because she was scared that if they legalized same-sex marriage, no matter how narrow, then LGBTQ Americans would face backlash and be forced to suffer for the rulings. Basically, from the way she put it, Ginsburg (and possibly other liberal justices) didn't want to rule on Prop 8 because they don't believe America is ready for same-sex marriage and they didn't want to hurt LGBTQ Americans. So I guess, it is the same in the U.S as it is in Europe. The court doesn't want to touch it because it's too controversial and could lead to innocent citizens being hurt.

If the Supreme Court wanted to, they could legalize same-sex marriage the same way they legalized interracial marriage, by making a sweeping ruling declaring marriage is a fundamental right. They legalized interracial marriage by declaring that marriage was a fundamental right, which meant that States could not illegalize it because that would be violating someone's civil rights. But the court has never declared marriage to be a fundamental right for same-sex couples, just heterosexual couples. We probably won't get our current Supreme Court to rule that marriage is a fundamental right because our current one has a conservative lean to it. It's just not possible right now.

But that's just how the U.S' court system works, I'm not entirely sure how it works in other countries. ^^'

---

@ Kurtni
I can see what you're saying. Personally, I had actually never thought about it like that but your post really made me think. In retrospect, the ruling really wasn't very good for the majority of LGBTQ community in the U.S, really only just good for California. In a way, the happiness Californians are feeling right now is based in selfishness, because we're only paying attention to how we've been helped. There's been so much relief from people that it's been hard for Californians to look past us getting marriage equality and seeing how the ruling is affecting other States. To be honest, it never even occurred to me that the court was basically saying it's a State's rights to ban same-sex marriage if they choose to until I read your post. I kind of just more-so looked at it as the court simply dodging the issue again, but what you said makes a whole lot of sense.

kafka.:

@ Kurtni
To my knowledge, there is no precedent for legalizing same-sex marriage through courts / by having laws which forbid it deemed unconstitutional or otherwise illegal because they're discriminatory anywhere in the world? Important LGBT legislation was passed in Europe because previous discriminatory legislation was challenged in court (for example, the Gender Recognition Act) but same-sex marriage is too controversial for politicians to leave it to courts.

Several states have legalized same sex marriage through court decisions (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa) . I know there isn't any SCOTUS precedent. Like in Loving v. Virginia, we need a case that defies previous precedent and creates a new one. Federal same sex marriage legislation will never pass in the US, and I doubt it would pass in conservative states in my lifetime... or my hypothetical kids lifetime.
@ Airi.
I don't think I'd call it selfish to be happy. It's great to see LGBT marriages get federal benefits and to see Prop 8 struck down... but we have a really big issue now with states with constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage, because the Supreme Court just said states get to define marriage how they see fit. Any challenges to amendments banning same sex marriage will likely not even be reviewed by the Supreme Court because they already addressed the issue.

@ Kurtni
Oh no, I didn't mean it in a bad way! Oops. "Selfish" wasn't quite the right word I was looking for, but it's all I've got at the moment. ^^' Probably wasn't the best word to use. I guess I was trying to say more like, people in California (myself included) are more so just focusing on ourselves only for the moment, which is why most of us have been praising the Supreme Court lately. I wasn't trying to make it sound bad or anything, sorry if it sounded that way. ^^' It's hard to explain what I was trying to say.

I agree with what you're saying though. Your post actually made me think a lot, you're the first person I've seen put the ruling in that light and it makes a lot of sense. It gives a lot to think about.