The Four Dissenters.....
Last edited Sat Jun 27, 2015, 06:45 PM - Edit history (2)
to today's opinion on same sex marriage should be ashamed of themselves. They should be embarrassed (and I believe that history will no doubt harshly judge them) by the inflammatory rhetoric of their individual dissenting opinions in a quest to justify bigotry and unequal treatment to law-abiding American citizens based merely upon who they are. In the tradition of Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessey v. Ferguson they seek to legally rationalize a concept that is fundamentally wrong-especially when viewed in light of some of the most basic principals of constitutional law to which these four justices regularly proclaim their allegiance.
You see when all is said and done, this is a very simple case. The cloud of emotion, bigotry and religious belief that obscure the simple legal concept of equal protection under the law may be sufficient justification for ordinary citizens to comfort themselves with in their opposition to the extension of the right to marry to all citizens, but to people with the legal background and the solemn responsibilities of a Supreme Court Justice, it is inexcusable. They know better and yet they pander to politics, and what's worse insensate hatred. Their legal contortions to support their dissent have little basis in law and scarcely hide their personal agendas. These four will no doubt be remembered in ignominy along with the late and unlamented Chief Justice Taney as nursemaids of prejudice. Fortunately, we are not living in the 19th Century and their views are not (however barely) the majority on the current Court.
The basics of this case couldn't be much more clear. There's a difference between marriage as a religious concept and marriage as a civil concept. Nobody is telling any church how to operate or any person what their religious beliefs, no matter how bigoted or backward they are, should be. When it comes to the government however, the right to discriminate does not exist. Marriage as a civil concept establishes three basic things: recognition of a monogamous relationship that is intended to be long-term, rules about how that relationship is recognized and managed legally and an orderly process for the dissolution of that relationship-should it become necessary. Denying two people (or more correctly and entire class of potential couples) access to the legal recognition and administration afforded marriage simply because of who they are is a fairly clear-cut violation of the principals of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
That's a fairly clinical way of looking at an emotional subject. However, that's what you should expect from the Supreme Court. When it comes right down to it, the principals that the United States was founded on, and what they have evolved into over time, are sound and generally produce results that recognize things like basic dignity and fairness (Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion notwithstanding). When those fundamental ideals have been ignored or hidden by ancient prejudice, it has resulted in things like legal recognition of humans as property or the concept of "separate but equal". Today is not that day.
It means nothing to my marriage if the gay couple next door wishes to make a legal and emotional commitment to each other and have that committed relationship recognized. It does mean something to know that their relationship will be subject to the same rules and principals that govern other similar relationships (like my own marriage) and to know they are treated fairly by our system of laws. Thankfully the majority has recognized, in very eloquent terms, the value of those ideas. The justices in the minority of this decision have shamed themselves for history.
So today is a good day in the annals of American jurisprudence. It's a day when the underlying principals that make the American system of justice and government great prevailed. It's good to know that the politics and posturing that has seemingly hijacked those principals can be overcome. To my fellow Americans who are gay (and especially to my friends and relatives who fall into that category) I am very happy that should you fall in love and wish to enter into a long-term committed relationship with the person you love you will now have access to a legally recognized marriage-just like everyone else who falls into THAT category. I am sorry that something that should have been so fundamentally acceptable was such a struggle to achieve. But that is now behind us.
I'm usually quite tolerant of ideas or opinions that differ from my own. Nothing is learned from solitary certitude and the hubris of believing in the infallibility of your own intellect is a dangerous thing. I am convinced however, that today's decision is the correct one-for fairness, for humane and decent treatment of all people in our country, and for making our society a bit better. No court decision or law will ever eliminate hatred or bigotry from people's hearts but, at least on this subject, those dark intentions will no longer be the law of the land. I'd like to highlight, but not dwell upon, the failings of Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts, because today is a good day. But make no mistake, history will judge these four very harshly.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Laxman, J. 
Imagine if these four loons were in the majority! 
They'd probably be citing Dred Scott as precedent for their decisions allowing for indentured servitude or letting CEO's own their employees. All it would take would be one bad appointment.
Scalia's dissent in that article? Shoddy reporting! I'm sure it would have been hilarious.
Like 'buck wild celebrating should be restricted to the shadows' or some such nonsense.
