Supreme Court Won't Block Gay Marriages

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court refused Friday to block the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriages from taking place next week.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20040514/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_courts_4

And bring your sweetie too!

there.

He made a jackass out of himself and has backed off.

you just KNOW Scalia and Thomas are fuming now.

-snip-

In the Supreme Court's last ruling involving gay rights, justices ruled last year that states may not punish gay couples for having sex. In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) complained that the court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda" and was inviting same-sex marriage.

Fundies, and anti gay rights people are banging their heads against the wall like the Iraqi detainees in an effort to knock themselves out so they won't feel the pain!

p-town is sounding great for a summer getaway!

wailing and gnashing their teeth at this very moment. :7

it has always been. Nothing bad will happen because of gay marriages. That means they may have to question their fudie teachers.

the Fundies really do have themselves worked up over this, at least in my state. Check out my thread on this in the Minnesota Forum. :hi:

This is so crazy I took it as a hoax, but nobody's discredited it.

Monday morning's gonna be pretty strange on the gay news channels.

While I was in Boston last week, I saw that Cambridge intended to begin issuing marriage licenses at the stroke of midnight trumping Provincetown.

Governor Romney's rooting around for a 1913 statute backfired against him and made him look even a bigger fool.

Well, I'm glad I was the one to break this milestone story here at the DU. It seems fitting to me.

Congratulations to all who have worked for years for this and to all the couples who have seen their children taken away from them and never gave up fighting at great personal costs.

My hero, Frederick Douglass said it best: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong that will be imposed upon them, and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows or with both. The limit of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. "

:toast:

FRederick Douglas made it crystal clear!

It is a great day!

I'm reading one of his books (can't remember which one; it's in Vol. I of a two-volume anthology, I Was Born A Slave). I was especially struck by his description of the revelation he had when his master caught his mistress teaching him to read: that American slaves could not be kept enslaved if they were educated.

The oppression of the American slave and our inability to marry are analogous in this: as more and more people are stripped of their ignorance, of their blind and stubborn belief in all the things that gay marriage is not, and educated as to what it is, opposition to our marriages will fall away.

But it's a good thing we don't have to wait, in the U.S., for the majority to catch up with what's right. If we did, I'd be living in a slave state today.

Although I recently broke up with my partner of ten years, and don't anticipate marrying anytime soon, this is great news for all gay people, and all of the open-minded straight people who support us.

:hi: I'm sorry to hear of your split. I hope you're recovering well. Also hope you stick around. DU's a wonderful community.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

How do ya like that, Pope baby?

:bounce:

Justice Souter made the announcement. I laid there and thought about it for a few minutes. It's good.

From the article I read before finding this thread:

The Supreme Court's decision, in an emergency appeal filed Friday by gay marriage opponents, does not address the merits of the claim that the state Supreme Judicial Court overstepped its bounds with the landmark decision.

I'm glad the Court rejected this one. I've no doubt SCOTUS is waiting for a better opportunity to rule on the issue. It won't be long -- I'd say less than five years -- before couples wed in MA begin to sue for their marriages to be recognized in other states. The denial of that recognition will be unconstitutional, and that's the argument I hope makes it to the Court first. (Edit: and I hope the couple that brings it were longtime residents of MA when they wed -- not someone who visited the commonwealth for the purpose -- then later moved out of the commonwealth because their life's circumstances dictated it. I don't want the RRWN to be able to argue, whining, that the couple moved to another state just to challenge portability.)

For now, Justice Souter, I thank you and admire you for being the one to announce this.

Bush sr. appointee trashes Chimpy

This whole full faith and credit thing in the constitution. I'm surprised I've not heard anything about this in relation to gay marriage and Massachussetts specifically. Doesn't it mean that marriages performed in Mass. must be honored in all other states? I'm convinced I'm missing something otherwise the fundies would be bringing this up every shrieking chance they get.

in my thread in the Minnesota Forum (Action alert: "Defense of Marriage.") if you'd like to know what has been going on in our state.

Fortunately, the session ends Monday morning, with no action taken on the bill.