Same sex marriage now legal in the whole USA.

We DO have a constitutional objection to it....it's called DOMA......marriage between one man and one woman. There are NO laws on a Federal level that has ever been passed even with Dems in full control of both Houses and a Dem president advocating gay marriage.....that's why SCOTUS three years ago threw a case out back to the 5th District in San Francisco and didn't decide it then. The PEOPLE in that State voted to have gay marriage be illegal in that State and on appeal, that court overruled their vote.......once SCOTUS threw out that case, the Circuit Court in San Francisco had the final word.

Didn't matter what the PEOPLE had to say..........and it doesn't again now with this decision.

That ISN'T Democracy by any means, no way, no shape, no how, Kees......That's a Monarchy of Totalitarian proportions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

What I meant to say: it's a cornerstone of the US Constitution that the Supreme Court is the institute to decide on interpretation of the law as written. They are right by definition, because there's no other institute that can overrule them, until the law is changed.

That's better than it being the privilege of Ayatollah Khomeini or Abul Bakr al-Baghdidi or Kim Jong-un or Muammar Kadaffi, if you mean that with totalitarian. it's not my choice to compare the USA with those countries.
And I think it's better than God's law (called" Sharia" in some countries) prevailing over civil law.

Kees

SCOTUS is there to 'interpret' the law AS IT IS WRITTEN...and when the ACTUAL WORDS are ignored in order to 'interpret', what results is the law literally being REWRITTEN by SCOTUS and that's NOT what the Constitution gives them authority to do.

Did you read the definition of Totalitarianism? "Totalitarianism is concept of a political system in which the state holds total control over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible."

When you talk about INDIVIDUAL States, you use a capital "S"....when you talk about the reigning government, there is no capitalization of that letter and it is used in the SINGULAR. Obamacare specifically stated in the law itself in the challenge that "if the States (notice the PLURAL usage) didn't create their own exchanges, no subsidies would be paid to their citizens. Roberts et al 'interpreted' that to be 'state'.....SINGULAR, meaning the Federal Government.

And now they have 'interpreted' a law that doesn't even exist as 'since it DOESN'T exit banning gay marriage' there is no objection......and yet DOMA, which DOES exist, specifically omits them from what is legal via Federal law and it was done deliberately to name only ONE type of recognizable marriage.

Isn't that rewriting law in your eyes?

Indeed, most of that countries I alluded to (I can include Putin from Russia now) are homophobic and tend to restrict gays in their private life. It's rather strange that you use that word in the same sense when SCOTUS does just the opposite, giving them their freedom.
Since the thread wasn't about Obamacare, I consider that as off-topic and won't comment.

Kees

break off Texas into a separate nation.

lose their insurance so you could crow that you were right?

What happens when the Congress votes to eliminate Medicare and Social Security or privatize both? Will you be behind that as well?

Also SCOTUS is supposed to decide whether a law is constitutional.

There was already an allowance for 'partnerships' Diana that covered the insurance issues......This decision has/had nothing to do with that.

I would be for privatizing Social Security and Medicare....I've stated that before.

There was never a challenge to DOMA, the existing law. SCOTUS 'created' a new law regarding gay marriage and that's NOT their job to make law. They've now done it three times...once two/three years ago regarding Obamacare's legality by changing the word 'fine' to a 'tax' (thank you, Roberts) even though both sides argued and agreed that it was a fine, the second time was two days ago with the decision regarding the word "STATES" and changed it to 'state' in their 'interpretation' so taxpayers would continue to be burdened with the payments for insured when they aren't entitled to it according to the actual law, and today.

This site makes a different claim.

Over the past several years, DOMA has been challenged dozens of times - and several cases worked their way through the Courts.

THIS decision was not based on any challenge made by attorneys on both sides of DOMA..........All other challenges to DOMA prior to yesterday were thrown out by SCOTUS.

Stop nit-picking JP......

I showed differently...NOT "nit-picking".

that says that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't remember it being mentioned at all.

Also I have yet to hear an argument that gay marriage should be outlawed that doesn't involve religion. Remember we are a secular nation, not a Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist or Wiccan nation. So the arguments cannot include any religious reference.

the PEOPLE voted against gay marriage......and APPOINTED judges in local and circuit courts overruled their votes........now SCOTUS as written a whole new definition of marriage, going not only against CURRENT Constitutional Law, but also against the PEOPLE who voted a majority to NOT recognize gay marriages.

Try again......This IS Totalitarianism, NOT Democracy.........

UNITED States of America?

Married in one state....move to another state...get married again....second kick at the can?

Never mind gay, straight, or just a little bent.

You think your tax laws are confusing now.....try having different states recognizing different definitions of "marriage".

Thanks for letting the rest of the world profit from the mistakes of the UNITED States of America. I wonder why America was one of the last to recognize gay marriage.....Russia might be a place for the anti-gays to live...Putin agrees with them.

We have three branches of government.....both BO and now SCOTUS have determined that they can rule by 'edict' and make the third branch of our government irrelevant.........

Again, JP, for your benefit.......BO and SCOTUS do NOT make law.....ONLY Congress can do that, and SCOTUS realized that just last year when it kicked a gay marriage challenge back to the State of California's Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Somehow, they have now decided that if it's good enough for BO, it must be good enough for us.

However, even though they SAY that gay marriage is now legal in all 50 States, there is NO LAW that says that because Congress hasn't passed or even written one. Can you say "Civil Disobedience" across the country?

I think that any gay couple in the USA when registering a marriage is refused by some civil servant can go a judge, tell him what SCOTUS said (just in case he doesn't know) and will get what they want.

Kees

If gays really wanted 'love and understanding' they would do exactly as you suggest.....if you can't find someone to do what you want, keep looking. Unfortunately reality has shown that forcing someone to submit to their demands is more to their liking.

SCOTUS have determined that they can rule by 'edict' and make the third branch of our government irrelevant......

One persons "edict" is another persons "interpretation"

Judicial Branch

The judicial branch interprets the meaning of laws, applies laws to individual cases, and decides if laws violate the Constitution.

Someone has to be "the final arbitrator/the decider/GWB", 2 parts of the gov draft the laws, they go into affect, people complain, file law suits and the 3rd part of the gov makes a decision on if the laws are constitutional.

Can you say "Civil Disobedience" across the country?

To which I would say......... DUH!!!!

interprets the meaning of laws, applies laws to individual cases, and decides if laws violate the Constitution".....

First the law has to EXIST, JP........there has NEVER been a law regarding gay marriage on a Federal Level for the Judicial Branch to do any of the above.

Second, without the law being in existence, the rest of your post is garbage....because this particular case wasn't a complaint against the existing law called DOMA.

BO was right about one thing....but he said it about the Obamacare case and not the gay marriage case. SCOTUS, for a second time, should have never heard the case at all.

SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to ADD/CREATE a law that doesn't exist....nor can they AMEND one that does. That is Congress's job ONLY, and there has never been, even under Dem rule, a law to amend that one. The case heard before SCOTUS was NOT a challenge to DOMA as it stands. Because SCOTUS had just recently ruled that they had NO jurisdiction over gay marriage and refused to hear that case, they sent it back to the STATES to decide.

NOTHING was different this time..........

If you can't figure out what I'm saying, you simply don't understand the English language or you don't understand how OUR country's three branches of government works.

Hannibal? Really? Perhaps you're the one needing brain 'surgery' since your comprehensive level is so low as to be non-existent much like the gay marriage 'law'.

I showed there was...let's talk about that....never mind all the other crap you're trying to use to deflect from YOUR incorrect claim/falsehood.

Spit it out!!! Admit YOUR claim there has NEVER been a law regarding gay marriage on a Federal Level is incorrect.

In 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.

I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.

A former President of the United States of America can admit discrimination...Why can't you admit you've, I'll call it, "misspoken.

A act/law that "doesn't exist" is named the Defense of Marriage Act? Exactly HOW does that work.

Don't know where you get that. It's a positive statement of what is considered a marriage. That's all. Rules out other unions simply by stating what type of union is a marriage.

also homosexuals aren't mentioned, neither are lesbians....

"same sex" ......fewer words to cover more bases, legal speak for a whole bunch of other "groups"

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Some might accuse you of "nit-picking".

...because I tell the truth, can you?

What would your "God" think about you using/worshiping (doing the work of Satan) a symbol of the Satan?

you're mad.

without a legal amendment by Congress....

"Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

Yet you and others claim that they haven't created a law all by themselves..........They don't have that Constitutional authority to do so any more than BO has. There is no possible way they could interpret the written existing law any way other than how it's written.

Makes one wonder if this is also an impeachable offense since they are appointed and not elected..............