U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas signals that gay marriage will be law of the land

If Justice Clarence Thomas is to be believed (no fair asking Anita Hill) gay marriage will be the law of the land once an appeals case is heard later this year. He and Judge Anthony Scalia (remember when a character portraying Scalia married William Shatner and James Spader on their law show? that was a hoot and a holler) apparently unsuccessfully tried to block the most recent state to legalize gay marriage, Alabama, from throwing in the rice. Thomas wasn't a happy camper, and wrote about it:

www.usnews.com...

He criticized his fellow justices for looking "the other way as yet another federal district judge casts aside state laws," rather than following the customary course of leaving those laws in place until the court answers an important constitutional question.

"This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the court's intended resolution of that question," Thomas wrote in an opinion that was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia. "This is not the proper way" for the court to carry out its role under the Constitution, he wrote, "and, it is indecorous for this court to pretend that it is."

The opinion was remarkable less for the legal result it suggested than for its open criticism of fellow justices.

If, hopefully, he's correct in his assessment of his fellow justices, it's all over but the pouting.

An added bonus: You know the meme that Thomas never or seldom talks from the bench? That's true for on-the-record court comments, but when I was lucky to get a front-row spectators seat in 2008 at the Court the guy never shut up. He chatted up the Justice next to him a mile a minute. That same morning I won a staring contest with Justice Kennedy, driven by my memory of his vote in Bush v. Gore. It went on for at least two minutes (so it must have lasted for at least a minute, taking time-memory into consideration), and, with Bush v. Gore standing solidly with me, he didn't have a chance.

a reply to: Aleister

Sure hope so.
About time you caught up with the UK .

What part of the constitution are they using as a basis for overturning? I forget...

I don't really see why the government should be involved in regulating marriage at all. Can't they just offer certain civil benefits when the proper conditions are met and let people figure it out from there? Next they will be forcing churches to perform the ceremonies. In my opinion, separation of church and state works both ways.

I mean if the church's want to perform them, that's fine with me. I don't really care as long as no one is forced into anything. For example, I'm not a huge fan of polygamy but I don't know if it's the government's role to tell people they can't have it. My only concern would be whether or not the kids grow up well adjusted, which I believe studies show is indeed the case.

What do you guys think? Do you think that each state should get to decide? What about "full faith and credit"?

a reply to: boymonkey74

When Saudi Arabia and Vatican City declare gay marriage, the battle of the same-sexes is over. The ongoing case to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court (the Court needs to settle the matter because the circuit governing Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and Michigan ruled against it) will be announced by the Summer. 2015 seems to be the year that the U.S. will legally have gay marriage throughout, a remarkable turn-around in the last ten years.

originally posted by: sdubya\
I mean if the church's want to perform them, that's fine with me. I don't really care as long as no one is forced into anything.

This ruling would not force churches to do anything. As marriage has many legal and financial benefits it would make them available to same sex couples.

They can start their own faith!
THEY can now learn the term "Modesty" as we know it.
Maybe lose the stupid CHIP anyway.

a reply to: sdubya

It's no longer a question of the state's deciding, that's so 20th century. This seems to be a done deal and, with 37.3 states already having the law (in Missouri it's only legal in St. Louis, I don't know why), the judicial route has worked for supporters of the issue. Me, I'm not gay (not that there's anything wrong with it), but am in favor of freedom and equal rights wherever those two partners happen to walk.

a reply to: cavtrooper7



Why do you need a specific faith to get married? People cna just go down to the justice of the peace and get hitched now without a religious service.

a reply to: GV1997

Point missed,moving ON away from the chip on your shoulder...

a reply to: Aleister

I'm glad this whole ordeal is finally over(or about to be hopefully).

I am kind of glad gay marriage wasn't legal earlier in my life though. I had some pretty #ty ex girlfriends that I'm glad I had the best excuse not to marry.

Which went like this:

"Sorry, it's Texas...ummm...how bout' dinner instead?"

Either way though, I am just ready for it to be done and for everyone to be able to move on to more important things like the horrible managed care health insurance scam and exploding behemoth corporation structures.

originally posted by: sdubya
What part of the constitution are they using as a basis for overturning? I forget...

I don't really see why the government should be involved in regulating marriage at all. Can't they just offer certain civil benefits when the proper conditions are met and let people figure it out from there? Next they will be forcing churches to perform the ceremonies. In my opinion, separation of church and state works both ways.

I mean if the church's want to perform them, that's fine with me. I don't really care as long as no one is forced into anything. For example, I'm not a huge fan of polygamy but I don't know if it's the government's role to tell people they can't have it. My only concern would be whether or not the kids grow up well adjusted, which I believe studies show is indeed the case.

What do you guys think? Do you think that each state should get to decide? What about "full faith and credit"?

All legal marriages in the U.S. are basically Civil. A government contract. Adding religion to it is a choice. (To be completely honest, there are a couple exceptions involving Covenant marriage, but it's very minute).

Whether government should be involved or not -- is not the point -- and a different argument.

This is about Equal Rights more then it is about marriage itself.

Everyone should have the same legal right to marry. Equal Rights.

Churches in the US are not and never will be required to marry anyone. They can refuse for any reason without having to justify it.

originally posted by: sdubya
What part of the constitution are they using as a basis for overturning? I forget...

I don't really see why the government should be involved in regulating marriage at all. Can't they just offer certain civil benefits when the proper conditions are met and let people figure it out from there? Next they will be forcing churches to perform the ceremonies. In my opinion, separation of church and state works both ways.

I mean if the church's want to perform them, that's fine with me. I don't really care as long as no one is forced into anything. For example, I'm not a huge fan of polygamy but I don't know if it's the government's role to tell people they can't have it. My only concern would be whether or not the kids grow up well adjusted, which I believe studies show is indeed the case.

What do you guys think? Do you think that each state should get to decide? What about "full faith and credit"?

Why would it be necessary to force the churches to have the weddings? As far as the state is concerned, a ceremony isn't even necessary. You just need to sign the wedding certificate and it can be done at a courthouse. Even then there are already churches that cater to gay weddings.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

What point was missed? You said they can start their own faith. you dont need a faith to get married only the justice of the peace. what chip on my shoulder? can people not ask you questions?

a reply to: GV1997

Appear to me it isn't you with the chip on his shoulder...

he is blowin smoke and trying to further undermine the constitution and remove states rights.

that is why marriage was never in the constitution until 38 because it is a state right

the correct direction to keep church and state seperate is by removing marriage laws federally

a reply to: OrphanApology

Yes, that's probably the only large problem, all the gay kids growing up now in America will have the same pressure of "will we get married or is she just using me like a piece of meat?" that straights have to put up with in the dating game, at least after the seventh date or year six of the relationship (whichever comes first). But that goes by the wayside in the overall balance of the law allowing the marriages. In a couple of years few people will even think twice about the rights or wrongs of gay marriage, and will be more accepting, even without them knowing it, in the process.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
that is why marriage was never in the constitution until 38 because it is a state right

This again? Show me where in the Constitution marriage was addressed in 1938. Or any year for that matter.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
he is blowin smoke and trying to further undermine the constitution and remove states rights.

that is why marriage was never in the constitution until 38 because it is a state right

You got any sources for these claims?

the correct direction to keep church and state seperate is by removing marriage laws federally

Maybe, but tax laws are so completely tied to marriage benefits that it would be hard to go that route now without rewriting much of the tax code. I don't have anything against it, but let's talk reality here. It's much easier to work within the existing framework and make it work for everyone instead of removing it from federal authority altogether.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
he is blowin smoke and trying to further undermine the constitution and remove states rights.

that is why marriage was never in the constitution until 38 because it is a state right

the correct direction to keep church and state seperate is by removing marriage laws federally

And people had the right to pick and choose who lived in their community before the Fair Housing Act.

This probably made sense in the beginning with only 13 states and fledgling communities popping up.

States still have right to set age limits etc on marriage. What they can't do is discriminate on gender, color of skin, economic status etc ---- because those are about Equal Rights.

Marriage equality is an Equal Rights issue --- that makes it a Federal issue.

a reply to: Aleister

I give it six months at that as far as us hearing of it anymore after the Supreme court decision.