I think Hillary Clintons chances of being elected president just took a serious hit.

The person who walks the office dog is one of the attached plaintiffs in Obergefell. I confidently expect to be invited to consume a large celebratory drink, somewhere in Ypsi tonight. Pity I don't drink alcohol any more :-(

Makes you wonder how the court can get it so right one day, and so wrong yesterday.

llater,

llamas

"Makes you wonder how the court can get it so right one day, and so wrong yesterday."

Yeah, it's interesting how John Roberts can rail about the Constitution one day, and on another day effectively give the President an Enabling Act.

The political implications of this should be interesting. I don't think that support for gay marriage, or opposition to it, is as divided along party lines as most people think. Rather, it seems to be split among different constitutient groups; not all of the supporters are Democrats, and not all of the opposition are Republicans.

Me, speaking strictly from a political standpoint, I'm glad the sideshow's over. Once the media gets bored with the current Confederate-flag franzy, which should take about another week, then everyone might have to start thinking about important issues.

Yeah, it's interesting how John Roberts can rail about the Constitution one day, and on another day effectively give the President an Enabling Act. ~ Posted by: Cousin Dave at June 26, 2015 8:55 AM

Robert wrote a dissenting opinion in this case. He voted with the minority - Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito.

Roberts wrote in his dissent: "But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise 'neither force nor will but merely judgment.'"

He went on to say that rendering gay marriage legal by Court fiat would do damage to the ongoing democratic efforts to get the public at large to accept it.

"Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions"

Because, as we all know, single people are horribly lonely.

I'm gonna wait and see when the first lawsuit trying to force, say, a Catholic priest to perform a SSM drops. I'll put up 100 quatloos that it will happen in the next 5 years, 10 at the latest.

I'm glad you are now on board with polygamist unions Amy. As the chief justice wrote in his dissent "It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage."

This ruling very much validates polygamist as well as same sex unions.

Dallas comic book store: https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/614412846525480960/photo/1

Ben, tiresome and ridiculous argument. Straight people get to marry the one consenting adult of their choice. Not a herd. Now gay people get that same right -- and the Social Security and other benefits that come out of it.

And if you're somebody who wants to shack up with six people, why is that any of my business or anyone's but yours, as long as you aren't living off the rest of us or beating your dog?

Given polygamy is more "traditional" than monogamy

And given the government should not endorse or discourage certain non criminal behaviors

I fail to see why religious conservatives, libertarians, or so called progressives should care if poly marriage is made legal.

Hell, religious conservatives should be championing plural marriage as it is more traditional and a guy with two or three women is far less likely to cheat

One of the things that is going to happen is some same sex couple is going to be refused service by a bakery and the couple will SCREAM in response, "THE SUPREME COURT MADE THAT ILLEGAL!" That is the way some people will view today's decision, which has nothing to do with discrimination by wedding-related businesses.

Great comments from the dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas, insisting that government can't take away human dignity, even if they make you a slave.

"The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away."

Chew on that, you liberty-loving individuals who thought being free and equal was "important" or something.

Kennedy: "They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Absolutely. Way to go Supremes (well, five of you.) I think most people guessed it would be 4-4 with Kennedy being the deciding vote and that's exactly how it played out.

It's a good day for believers in equality, a bad day for religious conservative bullies.

Roberts: "It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage."

Not just that, but also human-animal marriages. After all, once you expand the definition of marriage beyond one woman and one man, you simply cannot draw any lines, right?

Hell, religious conservatives should be championing plural marriage...

Islamic religious conservatives do. Allah is totally cool with it. He allows Muslim men to have up to four wives.

One of the things that is going to happen is some same sex couple is going to be refused service by a bakery and the couple will SCREAM in response, "THE SUPREME COURT MADE THAT ILLEGAL!"

That's already happened. But it's been misrepresented. When they screamed that, they were actually referring to the baker's cronuts.

"I'm gonna wait and see when the first lawsuit trying to force, say, a Catholic priest to perform a SSM drops. I'll put up 100 quatloos that it will happen in the next 5 years, 10 at the latest."

The Catholic Church won't marry people who were previously divorced, and the state cannot compel them to. How is this different?

I'm so old I remember when words meant something.

"Allah is totally cool with it. He allows Muslim men to have up to four wives."

And as many young boys as they like.

Great comments from the dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas, insisting that government can't take away human dignity, even if they make you a slave.

One thing that bothered me about the majority opinion written by Kennedy is that it seems to be underpinned by the assumption that it is the government that grants rights to its citizens - when the US Constitution is written to specifically say that the government cannot infringe upon the already-granted rights of its citizens.

"Ben, tiresome and ridiculous argument. Straight people get to marry the one consenting adult of their choice. Not a herd. Now gay people get that same right -- and the Social Security and other benefits that come out of it."

Only someone who doesn't understand due process, and equal protection constitutional arguments could possibly say this is a ridiculous concern.

Those trying to jump on the band wagon to collect spousal social security are going to find that it will benefit only a tiny fraction of married two earner couples, and I believe you have to have been married for ten years.

Gog_Magog: Because, as we all know, single people are horribly lonely.

He didn't say that single people are lonely. However, it might be argued that single people who wish to be married but can't be are lonely.

No one is talking about today's global wave of terror attacks because of this.

You'd think I'd be very happy about the marriage thing, and I am, but it feels like the Red Wedding.

Gog_Magog: Because, as we all know, single people are horribly lonely.

He didn't say that single people are lonely. However, it might be argued that single people who wish to be married but can't be are lonely.

Posted by: Patrick at June 26, 2015 2:10 PM

If you can't find some who wants to hang with you, I sincerely doubt that a theoretical right to marry is going to help much with that loneliness thing.

Ben? As in, "Ben David"?

Where's my answer?

"If you can't find some who wants to hang with you, I sincerely doubt that a theoretical right to marry is going to help much with that loneliness thing."

Funny that. I don't think pointy heads can comprehend that.

Nope Rad. Different person. As Isab pointed out I was fairly surprised by how they legalized it. They had an option to legalize gay marriage while barely opening the door for polygamist marriage. Instead they kicked the door wide open. I expect within 15 years the judiciary will legalize polygamist marriage. And the more the merrier I say.

Why is the government in the marriage business at all?

Why is the government in the marriage business at all? ~ Posted by: KateC at June 26, 2015 3:52 PM

Legal recognition of a union provides benefits like survivor benefits from Social Security, automatic medial power of attorney, joint ownership of assets, etc.

That said, marriage is more than a mere legal contract.

Society recognizes marriage as a union where it does not recognize cohabitation. "Spouse" carried connotations and recognized societal obligations that "um...friend" does not.

My fingers have dyslexia today.

It should have been

• medical power of attorney
  
• "Spouse" carries
  

"No one is talking about today's global wave of terror attacks because of this."

Sing it sister. This is a sideshow, a very carefully orchestrated one. That back door in the funhouse is for employees only. Move along.

And Conan, I was comparing Roberts' words today about supposedly defending the Constitution, with his concurring opinion in the Obamacare case yesterday. Which matters a hell of a lot more than which living arrangements the government will or won't grant its stamp of approval to.

Rights of survivorship to social security came about because wives typically stayed home and cared for kids, while concurrently statistically living longer than their husbands. It was to keep old widows from starving and becoming homeless. It's not so needed now, and certainly not by 2 career couples: social security needs a HUGE overhaul. Won't happen till a crisis forces it, and even then it'll probably be deemed "too big to fail" and another few trillion "borrowed" to cover it a few more years.

SO long as our military is kept strong, I'm actually not that worried by the debt: at some point, some country will try to force us to pay up, and we won't, and that will be the end of that. I think it's too far gone to be solved any other way-our welfare class certainly aren't going to accept "austerity measures" to pay off that debt. Simply balancing the damn yearly budget seems impossible, so there's no way they'll cut enough to allow actual payments on the debt.

I don't care so much about gay marriage, although there are ALWAYS unintended consequences when the government does anything. It was going to happen eventually. I hate the way it did, I hate the way it's proponents acted, like they want to smear peoples faces in it instead of actually winning the hearts and minds. I'm VERY worried by the fact that the federal govt now seems to think it can simply do whatever the hell it damn well pleases, screw the states sovereignty, screw the democratic process, screw it all. Ya'll are happy when it goes your way. But powers given an office or court can't be ungiven, and the republicans ARE coming, eventually. Ruminate on that.

momof4 stated it clearly. Words no longer matter.

Disdain for individual rights AND responsibilities is now the norm.

Gay marriage is a straw issue that was on the way to being normal just as inter-racial marriage is now vs. the 60's.

It could have been made legal in an entirely different way but then there would not be the logic of control that is now set in place.

Words. They are all that matter and they only matter when we agree on them and trust in our agreement.

Otherwise, familial relationships rule and the gov't becomes Big Daddy who knows what you need regardless of whatever the history books say.

POWER. SCOTUS has shown in the past 2 days where the power lies and it is not in the words or the intent of the law.

POWER. We really don't want any political entity to have the power that is being handed over today and yesterday.

Cousin Dave: I don't think that support for gay marriage, or opposition to it, is as divided along party lines as most people think. . . . not all of the supporters are Democrats, and not all of the opposition are Republicans.

I'm curious as to how divided-along-party-lines you think most people think it is? My feeling is that most people have a fairly accurate read on it: they realize that there are Democrats opposed to it and Republicans in favor of it but they believe that most Republicans are opposed and most Democrats are in favor. A poll result on the news tonight would confirm this: it didn't say anything about the percentage of Democrats in favor* but it said that 67 percent -- a clear majority -- of Republicans are opposed to same-sex marriage.

* I would guess that the percentage of Dems in favor is about the same as Repubs opposed, and perhaps even higher.

Nicole: No one is talking about today's global wave of terror attacks because of this.

Precisely! That's because it's part of the world-wide gay agenda. Gays want to divert attention from terror attacks by bloodthirsty Islamists because they have a little-known alliance. Very few people know this but the only thing that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi loves more than beheading people is steamy sex with young male models.

JD,

It is more of an age thing than a party thing. Also a religion vs. secular thing. Republicans skew older and more religious.

Ben, I don't disagree with that. No one is saying that people in both parties are exactly the same and it's simply that party label that makes them have different opinions.

But survivor benefits, joint ownership, etc. could be handled by a civil union and contract which could be separate from any marriage ceremony. You can have anyone be a joint owner or have power of attorney.
Seems more symbolic and of additional gov't interference in daily lives.

Kate, a number of people have said -- and I agree with them -- that an ideal system would be one where every couple gets recognized by the state for legal purposes via a civil union and can then go on to be religiously blessed (i.e. "married") by the religion/religious official of their choosing.

However, I can guarantee you that religious conservatives would oppose even this scenario, because it would allow same-sex couples to be "married" by liberal religions/religious officials and this would run counter to the beliefs of religious conservatives.

I'm gonna wait and see when the first lawsuit trying to force, say, a Catholic priest to perform a SSM drops. I'll put up 100 quatloos that it will happen in the next 5 years, 10 at the latest.

Oh, please. I'm betting it happens within the next 12 months.

However, I can guarantee you that religious conservatives would oppose even this scenario, because it would allow same-sex couples to be "married" by liberal religions/religious officials and this would run counter to the beliefs of religious conservatives.

Posted by: JD at June 26, 2015 9:36 PM

So what'? As long as the state doesn't sanction marriage, which in my opinion they should not, opposition is just social disapproval.

Something we should all retain our constitutional right to do.

The state has already made it so cumbersome and risky for men to get married, that many of them don't do so any more.

After the novelty wears off, I expect same sex couples to reassess the wisdom of combining assets with their lovers, many of whom are not going to be good life partners, and marriage, and divorce rates will drop even lower than they are now.

However, the real problem for the Democratic Party, is that a lot of their core constituencies, Jews, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics have strong cultural values, really don't like gay marriage, and may stay home in great numbers on Election Day.

So what'? As long as the state doesn't sanction marriage, which in my opinion they should not, opposition is just social disapproval.

Let me be more clear, Isab. By "oppose" I don't mean that that religious conservatives would be content to merely wag their religious conservative fingers in disapproval. They would want to, and would likely attempt to, prohibit liberal religions/religious officials from marrying same-sex couples.

JD,
A church/grouup should be able to have "membership" rules/mores. If you disagree w/those rules look around for groups that do also and join them.

Today a conservative group does not care what a liberal group does or does not.

"Would likely attempt" to do what? What can a Baptist group do to an Unitarian group?

How can they "prohibit" anything?

Let me be more clear, Isab. By "oppose" I don't mean that that religious conservatives would be content to merely wag their religious conservative fingers in disapproval. They would want to, and would likely attempt to, prohibit liberal religions/religious officials from marrying same-sex couples.

Posted by: JD at June 27, 2015 8:09 AM

I think you are getting hysterical here. At this point no one is going to be able to *prohibit* anyone from performing marriage ceremonies.

But you may not be able to force them to either. Some states may radically change their marriage laws, so they are in the business of just issuing licenses, not performing marriages.

if people who object can stop something at the ballot box, that is called democracy in action. If they try to do it at the point of a gun, you can have them arrested,

This is what I don't like about you SJWs. You think that any personal or political opposition to what you like should be squelched.

Note to JD. You can't make anyone like you, or your lifestyle through this tactic. And you sure as hell won't win them over to your side of the argument,

I personally would like to see most of the drug laws in this country go away, but not through Intervention by the Supreme Court.

I suspect we may be edging closer to an actual Constitutional convention in this country.

We have been heading this way since the courts ruled against congressional term limits in the 90's.

At this point no one is going to be able to *prohibit* anyone from performing marriage ceremonies.

But I said nothing about "at this point", Isab. My contention had to do with the scenario I outlined above.

if people who object can stop something at the ballot box, that is called democracy in action.

So if enough people in a state voted in favor of, say, preventing Latinos from getting married or barring blacks from shopping at grocery stores, that would be perfectly legal because it's "democracy in action", right?

This is what I don't like about you SJWs. You think that any personal or political opposition to what you like should be squelched.

While there are, no doubt, some "SJWs" who feel and act this way (e.g. those who attempt to ban a speaker from a university if they don't like the speaker's opinions), I believe that most are not like that.

If conservatives want to line up behind Scott Walker and push for a Constitutional amendment that would allow states to decide whether gay marriage should be legal, that's fine with me. However, Walker's fellow Republican, Lindsey Graham, doesn't think this is such a hot idea: "Given the quickly changing tide of public opinion on this issue, I do not believe that any attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution could possibly gain the support of three-fourths of the states or a supermajority in the U.S. Congress. Rather than pursuing a divisive effort that would be doomed to fail, I am committing myself to ensuring the protection of religious liberties of all Americans."

"While there are, no doubt, some "SJWs" who feel and act this way (e.g. those who attempt to ban a speaker from a university if they don't like the speaker's opinions), I believe that most are not like that."

And now you show how delusional you are. Sorry man, but the vast majority of SJWs are fascists too.

So if enough people in a state voted in favor of, say, preventing Latinos from getting married or barring blacks from shopping at grocery stores, that would be perfectly legal because it's "democracy in action", right?

In a democracy, yes.

Which is why our founders set up a republic

Sorry man, but the vast majority of SJWs are fascists too.

You're certainly entitled to paint with a ten-mile-wide brush, Ben.

lujlp, are you saying that in a democracy there would be no constitution, with no legal bodies -- at the state or federal level -- to decide what is and what is not constitutional?

Sorry man, but the vast majority of SJWs are fascists too.

You're certainly entitled to paint with a ten-mile-wide brush, Ben.

lujlp, are you saying that in a democracy there would be no constitution, with no legal bodies -- at the state or federal level -- to decide what is and what is not constitutional?

lujlp, P.S. INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL

In political terminology, the initiative is a process that enables citizens to bypass their state legislature by placing proposed statutes and, in some states, constitutional amendments on the ballot. The first state to adopt the initiative was South Dakota in 1898. Since then, 23 other states have included the initiative process in their constitutions, the most recent being Mississippi in 1992. That makes a total of 24 states with an initiative process.

If conservatives want to line up behind Scott Walker and push for a Constitutional amendment that would allow states to decide whether gay marriage should be legal, that's fine with me. However, Walker's fellow Republican, Lindsey Graham, doesn't think this is such a hot idea: "Given the quickly changing tide of public opinion on this issue, I do not believe that any attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution could possibly gain the support of three-fourths of the states or a supermajority in the U.S. Congress. Rather than pursuing a divisive effort that would be doomed to fail, I am committing myself to ensuring the protection of religious liberties of all Americans."

Posted by: JD at June 27, 2015 10:46 AM

What you posted above, is an opinion, not an argument, by a politician. Who cares what Lindsay Graham thinks?

A Constitutional convention is different from a constitutional amendment process, and would be unlikely to focus on gay marriage. Who cares? I certainly don't, but don't like the way the court got there.
It portends a further erosion of both social values, and respect for the courts and the law.

They went the Roe v. Wade route, which has been fought through the courts in one aspect or another for fifty years now, with no end in sight ( and less and less access to abortion)

It would be nice to get back some of our first amendment second amendment, 4th amendment, and 10th amendment rights, that have been eroded by judicial fiat.

are you saying that in a democracy there would be no constitution, with no legal bodies -- at the state or federal level -- to decide what is and what is not constitutional?

Posted by: JD at June 27, 2015 11:14 AM

A republic is a representative form of democracy. All true republics are democracies, but not all democracies are republics.

Very few countries have a real three part systems of checks and balances such as the United States has, or had rather.

Who cares what Lindsay Graham thinks?

I suspect that Graham has a very good read on the situation. If Walker and his like-minded conservatives want to attempt a Constitutional amendment that is, as I said, fine with me but they will almost certainly fail, with Graham being proved right. So they probably should care, but they won't because they would rather fail while heroically trying to SAVE AMERICA FROM HOMOSEXUAL DECADENCE! than heed Graham's advice.

Isab, I'm still interested in your answer to my question above:

So if enough people in a state voted in favor of, say, preventing Latinos from getting married or barring blacks from shopping at grocery stores, that would be perfectly legal because it's "democracy in action", right?

enough people in a state voted in favor of, say, preventing Latinos from getting married or barring blacks from shopping at grocery stores, that would be perfectly legal because it's "democracy in action", right?

Posted by: JD at June 27, 2015 12:55 PM

Of course not, because as I said, we have a system of checks and balances, and not majority rule.

In a simple democracy, with no checks and balances these things would be ok, but no where at no time in U.S. History have blacks been prevented (by law) from shopping in grocery stores, or Latinos ( what ever that means) been prevented from marrying.
Gays have never been prevented from marrying either. Just not to their same sex partner....

However, if a state or states said they were no longer in the business of performing marriages, changed their laws to call what we used to call marriage, into something called a Civil Domestic contract, and said, no government benefits would acrue to any spouses without a license from that state or another state, in my opinion, they would be within their rights to do so, as long as they didn't discriminate against same sex partnerships, and probably pretty soon against groups of three or more, and first and second degree relatives.

They could also change their laws so there were no state spousal benefits at all, if they were so inclined. What they could not affect is federal benefits.

Of course not, because as I said, we have a system of checks and balances, and not majority rule.

Thank you.

And, as you well know, the Supreme Court is one of those checks and balances.

When people are being denied an opportunity that others have -- and there is no reasonable basis* for this denial -- then a system of checks and balances can (and should) check and then balance this imbalance.

* Words in a book which state that all evil began when a woman (who was, by the way, created from a man's rib by a "loving" supernatural being who once ordered a man to kill his son as a test of faith) ate a piece of fruit offered to her by snake do not constitute a "reasonable basis."

"people are being denied an opportunity that others have -- and there is no reasonable basis* for this denial -- then a system of checks and balances can (and should) check and then balance this imbalance."

This doesn't mean what you think it means.

What is the reasonable basis to deny the right of sexual consent to the 17 year old, the vote to a 16 year old, or the right to buy a hand gun to a 20 year old?

Gays have never been prevented from marrying either. Just not to their same sex partner....

Isab, leader of the Women's Christian Temperance Union to a crowd of people in bar in 1919: "The Eighteenth Amendment won't prevent you from drinking. It'll just prevent you from drinking alcohol. You can drink water and soda and milk and apple cider and all kinds of other liquids! We ladies in the WCTU can drink all of those delicious beverages and you can too so, you see, we're equal!"

What is the reasonable basis to deny...

The answer is right there in your question.

What is the reasonable basis to deny...

The answer is right there in your question.

Posted by: JD at June 27, 2015 3:22 PM

The definition of *reasonable* is subjective, not objective, and you are wrong about the 18th amendment. It didn't target alcohol consumption, just the sale, production, and transport.

and the 18th amendment would survive *any* constitutional test, because unlike same sex marriage it was actually part of the constitution, which is why it had to be repealed. A court challenge wouldn't work.

I must say JD thank you for showing my brush wasn't broad at all.

Out of curiosity, how do you react to the states looking at ending marriage licencing in it's entirety due to this ruling?

The definition of *reasonable* is subjective, not objective,

Guy in Tompkins Square Park: "Dude, you look like you're about to die...what happened?"

Me (panting): "Well, you're probably not gonna believe this but I just finished running from Seattle to New York...and I did it in two days!"

Guy: "Probably not gonna believe it? There's no way you could have done that. It's simply not reasonable."

Me: "Sure it is. As my friend Isab has pointed out, the definition of 'reasonable' is subjective. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not I ran from Seattle to New York in two days."

you are wrong about the 18th amendment. It didn't target alcohol consumption, just the sale, production, and transport

Whoooosh! Sound of point flying over Isab's head.

I must say JD thank you for showing my brush wasn't broad at all.

Ben's definition of a "fascist": someone who doesn't see things the way he does.

Out of curiosity, how do you react to the states looking at ending marriage licencing in it's entirety due to this ruling?

Meine Meinung? I zink ze Feds should stampfen on ze Hühnerhälse of die Führer of diese Staaten. Heil Obama, der oberste Führer!

And Conan, I was comparing Roberts' words today about supposedly defending the Constitution, with his concurring opinion in the Obamacare case yesterday. Which matters a hell of a lot more than which living arrangements the government will or won't grant its stamp of approval to. ~ Posted by: Cousin Dave at June 26, 2015 5:25 PM

The Economist on the consistency of Roberts' judicial views in both cases:

It is easy to see why Mr Roberts' two opinions may seem at odds. He seems both willing and unwilling to have the court say what the law should be. But Mr Roberts is in fact totally consistent. A closer look at his opinions on Obamacare and gay marriage show them both to flow neatly from a reasonable and perfectly coherent conception of the division of powers.

In the majority decision in King v Burwell, authored by Mr Roberts, the court ruled that, taking into account the whole context and design of the Affordable Care Act, it is clear enough that the legislature intended to make those who purchase insurance policies from federally established health insurance exchanges eligible for tax credits, despite the fact that the clear language of the Affordable Care Act seems to restrict eligibility to those who buy policies on exchanges established by one of the states. To conservatives and libertarians who had hoped to see Obamacare overturned, it seems that the court's majority, with Mr Roberts in the lead, has taken it upon itself to rewrite a botched piece of legislation.

However, Mr Roberts, in King v Burwell, does not see the court as saying what the law should be, as a philosophical or moral matter. He sees the court saying what the law actually is, as a matter of textual interpretation. The problem with the text of the Affordable Care Act is that it is ambiguous. The overall design and intention of the legislation seems to be inconsistent with some of its language. In cases like this, Mr Robert's said, it is up to the court to resolve the ambiguity and determine once and for all the correct reading of the legislation. If you simply assume that the plaintiff's reading of Obamacare was the correct one, and that congress really intended to restrict subsidies to state-based exchanges, it may seem that the court is rewriting the law. But Mr Roberts sees himself as playing a constrained umpiring role, settling a dispute over what the law says, and his decision is actually a strong statement of Congress's policy-making supremacy over both the court and the executive branch.

What's interesting, and so far under-appreciated about Mr Roberts' decision in the Obamacare case, is that the court explicitly denies that the executive branch had the authority to resolve the ambiguities in the text of the Affordable Care Act. Many commentators predicted that the case would be decided on a principle known as "Chevron deference", first articulated in Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defence Council, which states that the court should defer to the executive branch's interpretation of ambiguous statutory language, so long as it is reasonable. But some on the court, Mr Roberts included, don't much care for the Chevron principle. It weakens the power of judicial review, the court's authority "to say what the law is", as first set forth in Marbury v Madison, which Mr Roberts duly mentions in his ruling. Now, in cases of large "economic and political significance", the Chevron principle does not apply. The court had not fully embraced this limit on the executive branch's authority to interpret the meaning of legislation until now, in the Obamacare decision. Although the court happens to agree with the IRS's interpretation of the statute, Mr Roberts' ruling goes to some pains to say that, because the IRS had not been specifically empowered by the legislature to make this sort of economically and politically significant determination, it did not have the authority to do so. The court need not defer to the use of authority the executive branch doesn't have.

A Harvard Law professor calls Roberts' opinion in the Obamacare case a "masterwork of indirection" and says it "establishes a principal that may haunt future presidents" taking the power to interpret ambiguous laws away from the Executive Branch and giving it back to the Court.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-25/the-catch-in-the-obamacare-opinion

Conan,

I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think Roberts is that forward looking on these topics. Much like the far left justices he knew the answer he wanted to give and hunted around for a rationalization to get where he already wanted to go.

JD,

It is good to see you being honest about your fascist impulses. :->

On CBS's Sunday Morning, a conservative minister in Texas thundered "The law of man can't replace the law of God!"

Poor religious conservatives. Poor poor religious conservatives. They've been bullying gays and lesbians for a long, long time and now that they can't do that anymore, they whine, pout, sulk, snarl and thunder.

*

Ben, when you demonstrate that your definition of "fascism" is so expansive as to include views that differ from yours, it explains why you believe that "the vast majority of SJWs are fascists."

Back to your question: how do you react to the states looking at ending marriage licencing in it's entirety due to this ruling?

All kidding aside -- although, excuse me, one more "Heil Obama, der oberste Führer!" -- my reaction to that? See my second paragraph above.

That was your definition of fascism, not mine JD. Disagreement is not the issue. The enforcement of a viewpoint through force is. As your crowing shows, Now it's your turn to be the bully. Yay! It all fits with your definition of reasonable, i.e. anything JD thinks.

Also, I guess you haven't heard about Mississippi? Texas and Oklahoma are also looking into that option. The main response I've heard is 'Well, they'll still have to recognize other state's marriage licenses.' Which isn't true.

If you paid any attention to what I've written on this subject before I in no way oppose same sex marriage. But I do oppose implementing it in this fashion. As Isab pointed out, this is very much a Roe v. Wade decision. And just like Roe it will have numerous unintended consequences, many of them harmful to the LGBT community.

On the plus side for me, I strongly support ending secular marriage. So this ruling may help me achieve a much more important goal. Yay Mississippi.

As your crowing shows, Now it's your turn to be the bully.

This is precisely the kind of whining I'm talking about: "Gays, lesbians and their straight supporters are big bullies for calling us religious conservatives 'bullies' for wanting to prevent them from getting married, for supporting laws criminalizing their behavior and for saying, for centuries, that their behavior is a disgusting abomination. Mommy, Daddy...stop them from picking on us...Waaaaahh!!"

As Isab pointed out, this is very much a Roe v. Wade decision.

As Isab also pointed out, "we have a system of checks and balances, and not majority rule."

Then I pointed out: And, as you well know, the Supreme Court is one of those checks and balances. When people are being denied an opportunity that others have -- and there is no reasonable basis* for this denial -- then a system of checks and balances can (and should) check and then balance this imbalance.

And that, my friend, is precisely what happened.

But I do oppose implementing it in this fashion. ~ Posted by: Ben at June 28, 2015 9:19 AM

Roberts pointed out in his dissenting opinion that this ruling may harm efforts to get gay marriage accepted through democratic means. Just 'cause the Court ruled it legal doesn't mean everyone's gonna accept it - although school desegregation has pretty much taken hold despite its Court-diktat origins. Roe v. Wade, on the other hand, remains a bone of contention along a wide partisan divide.

I think we would have been better off in the long run legalizing gay marriage through legislative means, rather than the courts.

My chief concern is the emotional appeal in the majority opinion will reduce future SCOTUS decisions to what feels good and not to something rooted in law.

Also, I guess you haven't heard about Mississippi?

I haven't, but I will say that I have nothing but respect for the actions of a state which which used to permit white people to own black people and where, as recently as 1962, thousands of white students, frothing at the mouth like rabid dogs, rioted because James Meredith, a black man (and a military veteran) was allowed to attend the University of Mississippi.

Mississippi is a shining beacon of equality, justice, nobility and humanity.

Conan: I think we would have been better off in the long run legalizing gay marriage through legislative means, rather than the courts.

Better off in the sense that we wouldn't be seeing conservative states throwing hissy fits for being justly called out on denying same-sex couples equal protection because the Bible says homos are nasty.

Conan: My chief concern is the emotional appeal in the majority opinion will reduce future SCOTUS decisions to what feels good and not to something rooted in law.

Fourteeth Amendment, Section 1: ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Loving vs. Virginia

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Supreme Court's unanimous decision determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional, reversing Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

So here we see another example where the Supreme Court checked an unjust prohibition, and balanced an unjust imbalance.

States' rights do not include the right to take a racist (or homophobic) shit on the Constitution.

Loving v. Virginia: For same-sex marriage

Up until 2014, five U.S. Courts of Appeals considered the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. In doing so they interpreted or used the Loving ruling differently:

. The Fourth and Tenth Circuits used Loving along with other cases like Zablocki v. Redhail and Turner v. Safley to demonstrate that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a "fundamental right to marry" that a state can not restrict unless it meets the court's "heightened scrutiny" standard. Using that standard, both courts struck down state bans on same-sex marriage.[29][30]

. Two other courts of appeals, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, struck down state bans on the basis of a different line of argument. Instead of "fundamental rights" analysis, they reviewed bans on same-sex marriage as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The former cited Loving to demonstrate that the Supreme Court did not accept tradition as a justification for limiting access to marriage.[31] The latter cited Loving as quoted in United States v. Windsor on the question of federalism: "state laws defining or regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons".[32]

. The only Court of Appeals to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage, the Sixth Circuit, said that when the Loving decision discussed marriage it was referring only to marriage between persons of the opposite sex.[33]

"However, the real problem for the Democratic Party, is that a lot of their core constituencies, Jews, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics have strong cultural values, really don't like gay marriage, and may stay home in great numbers on Election Day."
_______________________________

We'll have to wait and see. After all, there are 16 months to go - other issues could easily become far more important, by then, to otherwise conservative minority voters.
_________________________________

"Poor religious conservatives. Poor poor religious conservatives. They've been bullying gays and lesbians for a long, long time and now that they can't do that anymore, they whine, pout, sulk, snarl and thunder."
________________________________

From the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/gop-hopefuls-denounce-marriage-equality-ruling.html?_r=0

By Jeremy W. Peters.

Last paragraphs:

...There are no members of the senior Republican leadership in Congress who publicly support same-sex marriage. There is not a single openly gay or lesbian Republican lawmaker in the House or the Senate. Just one Republican governor, Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, signed a brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn laws banning same-sex marriage.

“I would have expected there to be at least one candidate who’s in favor,” said Mary Cheney, a daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, who is a lesbian and has pushed Republicans to be more inclusive on gay rights. “At this point, I’m not really sure it’s an act of bravery to support marriage equality. The horse has already left the barn.”

Absent a surprise change of heart by one of the Republicans, the Democrats will look to use same-sex marriage to their advantage. Democrats see the issue as one that allows them to hold up their nominee as empathetic and compassionate, while portraying the Republican as retrogressive and out of touch. Hillary Rodham Clinton hinted at the party’s line of attack on Friday when she said, “As love and joy flood our streets today, it is hard to imagine how anyone could deny the full protection of our laws to any of our fellow Americans — but there are those who would.”

Many Republican strategists privately say they believe 2016 will be the last year their nominee can get away with not supporting gay marriage rights. The key question, they say, is whether by 2020 the damage to the party will already be done.

“It may be a fatal problem for them as the generation turns,” said Charles Francis, who served as chairman of the Republican Unity Coalition, an alliance of gay and straight Republicans that worked with the administration of President George W. Bush. But after Mr. Bush decided in 2004 to support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Mr. Francis resigned.

“Republicans have had a few opportunities, a few exit ramps,” Mr. Francis said, “and they’ve steadfastly failed.”

Great comments from the dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas, insisting that government can't take away human dignity, even if they make you a slave.

Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
____________________________________

I saw that. I'd love to know if there's a way of finding the most popular jokes about public figures when they talk like that - regardless of whether professional comic writers write them or not.

Can't wait to read the dissenters' words in their entirety...

P.S. to Ben about "bullying"...

Gays, lesbians and their straight supporters (like me) would have every right to want to pass laws denying the right/opportunity for marriage to conservative religious people who have been instrumental in preventing same-sex couples from being married. But that would be bullying. It would be acting just like the people who have been the bullies.

But you don't see that, do you? No one is calling for that. If conservative religious people want to marry and breed and teach their children that gays and lesbians are disgusting and that God thinks they should be put to death, they should have that right/opportunity.

Rejoicing that the bullies aren't allowed to have their religious conservative jackboots on your neck (or nuts) anymore isn't bullying.

Thanks for posting that, lenona.

“Republicans have had a few opportunities, a few exit ramps,” Mr. Francis said, “and they’ve steadfastly failed.”

Well this isn't surprising. They need to placate all their Leviticus-quoting voters.

Great comments from the dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas, insisting that government can't take away human dignity, even if they make you a slave.

I missed that earlier. Thanks Gog (and lenona.) Well y'know, the evils of slavery are so overrated. It wasn't that bad. For one thing, you always had a job. You were never unemployed. Sure it was brutal backbreaking work and your white owners whipped the shit out of you if they didn't think you were working hard or fast enough but, hey, you always had work (and your dignity!)

But after Mr. Bush decided in 2004 to support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage

Republicans* are all "States Rights! States Rights! States Rights! Yay Bible! Yay God! Boo Homos!" when the states have laws forbidding same-sex marriage, but the thought of a state allowing same-sex marriage** makes them scream "Fuck States Rights! Fuck States Rights! Federal Law! Federal Law! Yay Bible! Yay God! Boo Homos!"

* to be fair, not all Republicans

** CNN 2/25/04: The president said he decided to endorse an amendment because of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's recent decision granting marriage rights to same-sex couples, and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision two weeks ago to begin giving marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

Oh, yes - forgot this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/opinion/gail-collins-supremes-hit-a-high-note.html

483 comments.

"Donald Trump blamed Jeb Bush for the court’s gay rights decision, which is even more creative than Jeb Bush blaming Barack Obama for the one on health care."

Lenona, I had read that column by Collins yesterday...loved it.

As for Trump

"What do you say to a lesbian who's married, or a gay man who is married, who says, 'Donald Trump, what's traditional about being married three times?'" Tapper asked in a taped interview, which the host said was conducted ahead of the Supreme Court's ruling Friday against bans on same-sex marriage.

Trump didn't argue with the question, saying the hypothetical lesbian or gay man would "have a very good point.

...

Tapper asked him again what he would say to a lesbian or gay man who was married and pressed him on traditional marriage.

"I really don't say anything," Trump said. "I am just, Jake, I'm for traditional marriage."

Traditional Marriage: a marriage between one man and multiple trophy wives (although not all at the same time.)

From a well-known comedian (in 1996) on conservatives and traditional marriage:

"Quick: What do Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Phil Gramm, Pete Wilson and George Will all have in common? Answer: They've all been married one less time than Rush Limbaugh."

(19 years later, for Newt Gingrich, that is still true.)

Y'know, one way you can tell that conservative religious opposition to same-sex marriage stems primarily (if not solely) from animosity toward gays & lesbians is that in the book of the Bible they love to quote from, Leviticus, God commands that both adulterers and gays (well gay men anyway) should be put to death, God doesn't say that gays are worse than adulterers. Both have committed acts deserving of death. Yet you don't see religious conservatives arguing that adulterers should be prohibited from marrying -- or marrying again -- in order to "protect marriage" -- even though straight people who fuck around on their spouses have destroyed -- and will continue to destroy -- countless marriages.

Also, you don't see them arguing that a man who has been convicted of raping women or molesting children should not be allowed to marry. So the way religious conservatives see it, if you're a man and you've raped women, molested children and cheated on your wife, it perfectly OK for you to get married as long as the person you're marrying has a vagina. But if your a man who has never harmed a person in your life and want to marry someone without a vagina, they think that's disgusting and horrible.

I would say that's extremely perverted.

And, today, from Ross Douthat (DOW-thut, but I will probably always mispronounce it):

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-gay-marriage-and-straight-liberation.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fross-douthat

Comments:

NM
"This column basically rehashes the incongruous arguments opponents of same-sex marriage have tried. Marriage is in jeopardy - divorce is high, single parenthood acceptable, infidelity common, more people never wed. And the solution is? Tell gay people that their right to marriage is a threat to the value of heterosexual marriage. Or, in the sour grapes theme here, say if we don't want it, you shouldn't either."

Stacy
"Liberals in blue states are more likely to have children within marriage and less likely to divorce than conservatives in red states. Well-documented fact. There was recent coverage on it in this newspaper.

"That doesn't make a really good argument for seeing liberals as opposed to marriage. It is in the Deep South that marriage is most fragile.

"This is less an ideological divide than an economic/quality of life one. Where people are better educated, economically stable, and have good life options, they tend to marry later, delay childbirth until after marriage, and stay married. In places where life is hardest, marriage is hard too. But conservatives such as Douthat are hell-bent on making life has hard as possible for everyone but themselves. And then they bemoan the consequences."

Paul
"Wow, this fella flip and flopped so deftly I had to check that my wallet was still in my back pocket.

"Gays, like straights, do not need laws to love whom they want to love. Black people loved white people ( and v. v.) when that combination could get you lynched.

"What this ruling does is give to gays all of the lawful benefits (tax, property, insurance, child upbringing) that married straights have enjoyed.

"Take away all of the 'freebies' that come with marriage and we'll see if anyone, regardless of orientation, is at all that interested.

"And may I remind my gay fellow Americans, now free to marry across the land, the reason why divorce is so expensive:

"Because it's worth it!"

I read that Douthat column last night too (and made a comment.) Douthat seemed baffled that Millenials could be in favor of same-sex marriage while tending to not choose marriage themselves. I think that all Americans should have the opportunity to go to a NASCAR race if they want. The way Ross apparently sees it, that means that I should want to go to NASCAR races myself (I have no interest in them whatsoever.)

This column basically rehashes the incongruous arguments opponents of same-sex marriage have tried. . . . Tell gay people that their right to marriage is a threat to the value of heterosexual marriage.

I don't think that the opponents really think that same-sex marriage is a threat to marriage itself. I think that's just a cover for their actual reason: they believe gays & lesbians are "bad/inferior" and, therefore, should not be allowed to marry. And if any of them honestly do think that same-sex marriage is a threat to marriage itself, then I think they suffer from a form of mental illness.

Well y'know, the evils of slavery are so overrated. It wasn't that bad. For one thing, you always had a job. You were never unemployed. Sure it was brutal backbreaking work and your white owners whipped the shit out of you if they didn't think you were working hard or fast enough but, hey, you always had work (and your dignity!) ` Posted by: JD at June 28, 2015 11:33 AM

Thomas' point was not about slavery, but that the government does not give one dignity - and therefore cannot take it away.

He pointed out that arguments in favor of gay marriage that argue for giving gay and lesbian folks dignity miss that point and imply that the government, by granting marriage rights, is bestowing dignity on gay and lesbian couples - and by denying them, is taking their dignity away. The underlying assumption of that argument is false and rooted in emotional feel-good rhetoric.

And that means the next argument before the Supreme Court will be judged on emotions, not law - a bad precedent.

Tell gay people that their right to marriage is a threat to the value of heterosexual marriage.

Here's an alternate take on that argument:

Gay marriage may actually strengthen marriage as an institution, making marriage the socially-accepted way couples unite their lives - relegating cohabitation to a mere shared living arrangement.

Those who argued that they didn't need a piece of paper to sanction their love are now arguing that that pice of paper is way more than just a piece of paper, but a sacred human right. That argument may resonate with straight people.

By arguing that marriage gives societal approbation to coupledom, one makes marriage that much more attractive to couples - straight or gay.

In a country with a soaring divorce rate, a nationwide passion for expanding marriage just might revive that wheezing institution.

Conan, I just took the mention of slavery and ran with it. I understood Thomas' point.

But clearly, using his example of slavery, just because you can retain your dignity, it does not mean that you aren't being treated unequally, unjustly or cruelly. So big fucking deal that slaves had their dignity. They were being treated unequally, unjustly and cruelly by their racist white southern owners (and racist white southern society in general.)

Likewise, gays & lesbians have long been treated unequally, unjustly and even cruelly (although, of course, nothing like slaves) by society in general, bigoted religious conservatives and even people close to them like parents (who often were, of course, bigoted religious conservatives.) Did they maintain their dignity? Probably. But again, so fucking what? If religious conservatives in Washington got a law passed saying that if you weren't religious, you couldn't drive a car, I'd still have my dignity. But once again, so fucking what? My dignity wouldn't transport me into the Cascades so I could go hiking.

Dignity , schmignity. To me, that's irrelevant. By being prohibited from marrying the person they love by states that once considered it totally cool to own other human beings (and other states as well), gays were being treated unequally and unjustly, as second-class citizens. That is simply unacceptable and that's what mattered.

But clearly, using his example of slavery, just because you can retain your dignity, it does not mean that you aren't being treated unequally, unjustly or cruelly.

Verily.

They were being treated unequally, unjustly and cruelly by their racist white southern owners (and racist white southern society in general.)

And their Northern owners. Even after the Civil War slavery was still legal in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, Indian Territory, and the New Mexico Territory.. Slavery was legal in New York at the beginning of the Revolutionary War.

And Northern society in general as well. The 1863 draft riots in New York City quickly turned into an anti-black lynching party as whites blamed blacks for the draft.

And Northern society in general as well. The 1863 draft riots in New York City quickly turned into an anti-black lynching party as whites blamed blacks for the draft.

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at June 28, 2015 5:26 PM

The social structure of society during the Civil war was much more complicated than just black, white, slaves, free.

The mostly catholic mostly Irish dirt poor recent European immigrants were on the lowest rung of the social ladder ( yes, lower than free blacks) and bitterly resented fighting a war to free slaves, people who in many respects were better off than they were.

They, as recent immigrants, had had no part in enslaving anyone.
Most had been little better than slaves in Ireland. They had been *free* to starve to death in the potato famine of the 1840s and fifties.

And the Irish had no interest in fighting and dying to free people who would then be their competition for jobs in America.

lujlp, are you saying that in a democracy there would be no constitution, with no legal bodies -- at the state or federal level -- to decide what is and what is not constitutional?

This sentence doesn't seem to make sense: if there is no constitution, who can decide what is constitutional?
But luj is right: in a democracy, it's one person - one vote on every issue. A republic is not a true democracy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2328118/posts

To JD:

And, IIRC, slaves couldn't legally marry - that is, marriage didn't give them any legal rights that I know of.

Slaves not only could legally marry, in many places they were encouraged to do so.

From PBS:

By the early 1700s, however, planters in both the Chesapeake region and in the Southern low country were becoming aware that they could profit economically by promoting the families their slaves were struggling to create. Marriage, they reasoned, would make slaves content and therefore docile. What is more, stable unions would lead to reliable reproduction cycles. This idea of a self-renewing slave labor force was exploited on a grand scale for the first time on the plantations of late eighteenth century America, increasing in intensity after 1807 when Congress outlawed international slave trade.

You are also wrong on the rights side Lenona. Just as Conan pointed out there were locations that actively encouraged marriage there were those that actively discouraged it because of the limits it put on the property owner.

Found it.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experience/family/history.html

Would you please point out the part that makes it clear that marriage gave slaves LEGAL rights that couldn't be broken in one way or another by their owners when it suited them - such as the right not to have their spouses or children sold and/or be permanently separated from their loved ones?

That's what happened in Roots, after all. They were "married," but not legally in the way that a white couple would have been.

From the site:

"Economic benefit almost always outweighed considerations of family ties for planters, even those who were advocates of long-lasting relationships between slaves."

BTW, Matt Walsh had some pretty unpleasant things to say about the ruling.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/gay-marriage-still-doesnt-exist-no-matter-what-the-supreme-court-says/

Don't know if that's the same Matt Walsh from Reason or not.

Interesting article, lenona.

I would agree with Walsh on the childish termper-tantrum like nature of progressivism, but perhaps disagree on the gay marriage ruling destroying marriage. The government already destroyed marriage when it removed the family from it. Welfare and an increasing acceptance of (and financial support for) single parenthood left the need for a partner in raising a family an outdated concept. Throw in no-fault divorce and you've got a recipe for undermining an institution that served Western society well for thousands of years.

know if that's the same Matt Walsh from Reason or not.

Posted by: lenona at June 30, 2015 8:23 AM

Probably not. There is no Matt Walsh at Reason. There is a Matt Welch I believe.

So I see. That's a relief. (Welch was the one who wrote the long article on paternity fraud, about 11 years ago: "Injustice by Default.")

Just stumbled on this, from 2012 - adorable!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2012/12/07/the-unlikely-faces-of-same-sex-marriage/?tid=trending_strip_5

In other words, the proponents of the “old” (read: “real”) iteration of marriage had a solid, distinctive, purposeful reason behind both the definition of the institution and the characteristics associated with it. Once you’ve removed the purpose (to create families), you have absolutely no reason to retain any of the defining features that sprang forth from that purpose.

Matt Walsh isn't just opposed to same-sex marriage. He's also opposed to marriage between two straight people who aren't planning to have kids.

The mostly catholic mostly Irish dirt poor recent European immigrants were on the lowest rung of the social ladder ( yes, lower than free blacks) and bitterly resented fighting a war to free slaves, people who in many respects were better off than they were.

From New York City draft riots:

The rioters were overwhelmingly working-class men, primarily ethnic Irish, resenting particularly that wealthier men, who could afford to pay a $300 (equivalent to $5,746 in 2015) commutation fee to hire a substitute, were spared from the draft.

The takeaway here isn't racist white northerners -- as Conan sees it. The takeaway is a long tradition: the privilege of wealthier people.

Even though the rioters went after blacks, what they were really pissed off about was people with money being able to buy their way out of the draft. The people they should have attacked were those who created this blatantly unfair $300 exemption but blacks were, of course, a much easier target.

Matt Walsh isn't just opposed to same-sex marriage. He's also opposed to marriage between two straight people who aren't planning to have kids.

Posted by: JD at July 2, 2015 2:14 PM

Other than religious reasons, there really is no good financial reason for two adults who remain childless to get married.

The code punishes two earner couples and so does Social security and all other government programs.

This is what I have been saying all along.

Also in 1850's America, working class meant you were unskilled labor.

if you worked every day, and didn't get sick, you could keep a roof over your head if you shard a tenement room with several other people, and you could usually keep yourself from starving, that is all.

Working class didn't mean then, what it means now.