SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that states can not prevent same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their marriages from other states. In the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy it is stated:
The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
...and:
It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.
Original Submission
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 26 2015, @05:35PM
So, victory for Social Justice, or , not a True Scotsman?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @05:43PM
Victory for basic human rights.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 26 2015, @05:59PM
No True Scotsman it is, then. Excellent demonstration of why the term "SJW" is so completely inane and meaningless.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday June 26 2015, @06:02PM
Marriage is a basic human right like sticking one's penis in a wasp nest is a basic human right. If they really want to do something as dumb as marriage, all the power to 'em.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 26 2015, @06:13PM
Marriage is a basic human right like sticking one's penis in a wasp nest is a basic human right.
What about equal protection under the law? Is that a basic human right?
US Constitution Amendment 14: " ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Because the Constitution seems to think it is....
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday June 26 2015, @06:26PM
I'm one of those folks who believes that marriage should be something private and strictly out of the hands of government at any level, especially when you start talkin' tax breaks and other benefits -- in short, I think marriage is obsolete. That also means that I believe men should be legally allowed to marry other men, or trannies, or whatever, or even adult retards (and adult retards are capable of consent despite what the authorities tell you).
This is a much different world than it was in 1800. Your survival doesn't depend on having 5 kids to milk the cows and till the fields.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @07:01PM
> I believe men should be legally allowed to marry ... adult retards
There's hope for you yet. Some nice man might still make an honest retard out of you!
(Score: 3, Touché) by RedBear on Friday June 26 2015, @10:35PM
God damn you, sir or madam. Why did you have to post this AC? Now I can't Friend you!
Gotta be the greatest comeback in the (short) history of SoylentNews.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday June 26 2015, @10:52PM
I believe men should be legally allowed to marry ... adult retards
There's hope for you yet. Some nice man might still make an honest retard out of you!
This is the first time I've ever wished for a discussion forum to have an instant-replay feature.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:09PM
I thought that was women's work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @07:07PM
There's a problem with that: immigration. Such a policy is more or less equivalent to asking most international couples to move to the other partner's country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:12PM
Does this mean Donald Trump can marry his ego?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @05:45PM
I eagerly await the day that Scalia sputters the phrase social justice warrior. That will be the day he concedes all claim to impartiality and logic and tacitly admits its all about rationalizing his biases.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @05:47PM
http://www.reddit.com/r/tumblrinaction [reddit.com]
http://www.reddit.com/r/SocialJusticeInAction [reddit.com]
Daily reminder that SJWs are real
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @05:53PM
Daily reminder that SJWs are real
Well of course we are, silly, and our numbers are increasing, and we are winning. Deal with it.
Oh, and thank you for fulfilling Voltaire's prayer.
(Score: 4, Funny) by linuxrocks123 on Friday June 26 2015, @08:33PM
But doesn't the othering created by the terms "winning" and "losing" implicitly support the heteronormative patriarchy, no matter the surface concept? I really think true genderfuck can only be achieved when we create a safe space for people offended by this hostility. You need to check your non-loser privilege.
Also, you failed to include a trigger warning for your post, and made me feel unsafe. And you should stop raping women.
(Score: 5, Funny) by jmorris on Friday June 26 2015, @11:29PM
Ok, you made a good effort at trollin' em. Lemme give it a go. :)
I came out a week or so ago so I should post about it here so everyone is aware and can avoid commiting bigotry and badfeel.
I am now identifying as transvictim. I may be a privileged cisgendered white male on paper but I now identify as a victim. You may not, of course, question this because it is off limits to question another person's identity and how one identifies is not required to match mere reality. As a victim it is now entirely off limits to criticize me in any shape, form or fashion. Questioning my sincerity and/or authenticity are right out; such an obvious aggression and offense against civilized behavior would probably get you banned.
The line forms below to praise me for my courage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @11:32PM
> I came out a week or so ago
I wouldn't be surprised. It is always the worst gay-haters that are in denial about their own homosexuality. Something about trying to convince themselves.
(Score: 3, Funny) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday June 26 2015, @11:58PM
I think this gets to the core of the hurt that the winner/loser dichotomy has caused us. Has no one considered the diversity that the winner hegemony has denied to losers throughout herstory? These shitlords make no distinction between 2nd place, 3rd place, or even 5th place. There are many damaged feelings here, but I see the potential to begin a healing process.
We need a sea change about our attitudes about winners and losers. Trans winners and trans losers alike need to be empowered as authentic and equal outcome identities. Your strength to come out as a trans victim deserves vindication and questions cisoutcome privilege!
It's important to recognize the intersectionality that trans victims face and the oppression they face from chauvinist ciswinners and cislosers alike.
Here's a checklist for ciswinner privilege:
We need to usher in a new era of emancipation for trans victims!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:29PM
I am /cislimbed/, as I still have the same number of limbs that I am born with.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday June 27 2015, @09:45PM
Nope, that isn't a joke, transabled is already an actual thing. It is actually getting very hard to make jokes in this area as 'reality' is already indistinguishable from The Onion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @05:15PM
Define "SJW". Both your links have the definition as "Anyone who does or says anything I disagree with".
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 26 2015, @06:17PM
However, now we know why he was using the term "jiggery-pokery" in reference to the Obamacare case yesterday.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:57PM
He sounds [vox.com] like he's ready to rage-quit the supreme court.
(Score: 1) by boxfetish on Saturday June 27 2015, @03:33AM
Can we please have Thomas or Alito rage-quit instead? Seriously.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by linuxrocks123 on Friday June 26 2015, @09:07PM
Regardless of your politics, Scalia is a great and highly principled justice, and you would know this if you followed the Supreme Court as closely as I do. Here's some food for thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson [wikipedia.org]
In case the names are too old for you to be familiar with, everyone on the majority side of that decision other than Scalia is widely considered a "liberal" justice. So we have Scalia to thank for preserving free speech in a case where the despicableness of that speech blinded the rest of the court's conservative wing -- along with normal swing vote O'Connor -- to the obviously right conclusion.
So despicable is flag burning to our culture that Congress has tried repeatedly to overturn this decision with a Constitutional amendment. Last time they tried was in the Senate, where they fell one vote short of the 2/3 supermajority necessary to begin the process. You can be sure that Scalia finds flag-burning as despicable as those in Congress attempting to amend the Constitution. But, unlike many in Congress, Scalia takes his job seriously and is not some partisan hack.
It's also worth mentioning that Scalia has filed more concurrences and dissents than almost any other justice on the Supreme Court. That is, he works harder at his job, from which he is constitutionally protected from being fired, than almost any other Supreme Court justice. I think that should count for something, too.
And finally: Scalia and Ginsburg -- who vote together least often (still 70% of the time, though) -- have become close personal friends after serving on the court together. Were he the bigot you imply he is, that probably wouldn't be the case.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @09:29PM
You have fallen victim to the fallacy that hypocrites are hypocrites 100% of time. Of course he didn't get to where he is by being a hypocrite all of the time. However, of all the justices he is the most insistent on his own righteousness. He is very explicit about his own principled reasoning but that righteousness is what makes him so blind to his failings.
And the fact that he and ginsburg are buds only proves that the common experience they have - an experience practically no one else on the planet has and very few are able to understand - creates a strong bond. Maybe they both have little else in their lives to occupy them. Ex-presidents from different parties are often buds too - being members of en elite and powerful club tends to do that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:06PM
There's not a single good person in the Supreme Court, from what I see.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:53PM
It's also worth mentioning that Scalia has filed more concurrences and dissents than almost any other justice on the Supreme Court. That is, he works harder at his job, from which he is constitutionally protected from being fired, than almost any other Supreme Court justice. I think that should count for something, too.
I think everyone here recognizes that SLOC does not correlate with quality.