Scotus decision and how it is impacting ohio

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

The first same sex marriages were performed in Ohio today. Furthermore, many probate courts are staying open late in order to meet demand.

The local probate court has already stated they will perform adoptions with same sex couples as well as name changes. This also changes intestate succession a bit as well as various other laws if the couple is same sex married. This decision will have a multitude of impacts and I have yet to get through the entire decision.

I will say this is the civil rights movement of my generation. It has happened quickly and will continue to evolve. I have had calls from clients today asking how this impacts them in various types of cases (custody, property, and thereon) ... Be aware that today's Supreme Court decision WILL have far reaching impact on various parts of the law but first and foremost marriage and divorce. Then custody, and so on.

The entire decision is located at www.supremecourt.gov -- it is 103 pages long but the last paragraph of the decision (not dissent) sums it up:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. 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.

Prior to this paragraph, SCOTUS reaffirmed that religions do NOT have to condone same sex marriages:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

This is a step forward for LGBT. It is the civil rights issue of this point in time and I believe SCOTUS decided properly.

 

[LdiJ]

I couldn't agree with you more, its definitely the civil rights issue of our time. I just did not expect it to happen so soon. I really thought it was going to take another 10-20 years before it got this far.

 

[Silverplum]

So will the wedding cake legal games end now, too? Will the Christians be "allowed" to have their beliefs and not be forced into actions that go against their beliefs? Will Christian bakeries and other businesses be free to believe what they believe?

Why haven't gay couples gone to, say, Muslim bakeries and demanded wedding cakes? Are there no Muslim bakeries in the whole United States? Or are the wedding cake legal games about Christians only?

ETA interesting links: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/20/gay-wedding-cake-northern-ireland-tolerance

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/06/3035121/colorado-bakery-broke-law/

I looked for Muslims, but couldn't find a single one. Golly. I wonder WHY.

 

[Proserpina]

So will the wedding cake legal games end now, too? Will the Christians be "allowed" to have their beliefs and not be forced into actions that go against their beliefs? Will Christian bakeries and other businesses be free to believe what they believe?

Why haven't gay couples gone to, say, Muslim bakeries and demanded wedding cakes? Are there no Muslim bakeries in the whole United States? Or are the wedding cake legal games about Christians only?

ETA interesting links: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/20/gay-wedding-cake-northern-ireland-tolerance

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/06/3035121/colorado-bakery-broke-law/

I looked for Muslims, but couldn't find a single one. Golly. I wonder WHY.

"Baking Cakes Is Not Religious Conduct"

~ fin

 

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

The first same sex marriages were performed in Ohio today. Furthermore, many probate courts are staying open late in order to meet demand.

The local probate court has already stated they will perform adoptions with same sex couples as well as name changes. This also changes intestate succession a bit as well as various other laws if the couple is same sex married. This decision will have a multitude of impacts and I have yet to get through the entire decision.

I will say this is the civil rights movement of my generation. It has happened quickly and will continue to evolve. I have had calls from clients today asking how this impacts them in various types of cases (custody, property, and thereon) ... Be aware that today's Supreme Court decision WILL have far reaching impact on various parts of the law but first and foremost marriage and divorce. Then custody, and so on.

The entire decision is located at www.supremecourt.gov -- it is 103 pages long but the last paragraph of the decision (not dissent) sums it up:


Prior to this paragraph, SCOTUS reaffirmed that religions do NOT have to condone same sex marriages:


This is a step forward for LGBT. It is the civil rights issue of this point in time and I believe SCOTUS decided properly.

Finally!! WhoooooHooooooooooooooo!!

 

[Proserpina]

And the dissenting opinions: http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/marriage-same-sex-gay-supreme-court-dissent-20150626


(Did anybody really think that Scalia wouldn't object with his usual ... vigor?)

(Me neither)

 

[LdiJ]

And the dissenting opinions: http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/marriage-same-sex-gay-supreme-court-dissent-20150626


(Did anybody really think that Scalia wouldn't object with his usual ... vigor?)

(Me neither)

This:

. "When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so," he wrote.

And all of those states limited it to one man and one woman of the same race. (well, maybe there were some exceptions) One cannot invoke the intention of the country in 1868 without also admitting their societal norms and how those societal norms are no longer relevant.

 

[Proserpina]

This:



And all of those states limited it to one man and one woman of the same race. (well, maybe there were some exceptions) One cannot invoke the intention of the country in 1868 without also admitting their societal norms and how those societal norms are no longer relevant.

I was actually quite surprised at the content of at least one other judge's commentary.

Scalia? Not so much... and I don't have any particular hate-on for Scalia. I just think he's an a$$. Am I allowed to say that about a non-member of this forum?

 

[Just Blue]

I was actually quite surprised at the content of at least one other judge's commentary.

Scalia? Not so much... and I don't have any particular hate-on for Scalia. I just think he's an a$$. Am I allowed to say that about a non-member of this forum?

Yes. You are...IMHO.

 

[stealth2]

'bout time.

********

 

[davew128]

Next up, removing the bans on incestuous marriages. No, not a specious argument, there actually are such bans even in the states that passed laws earlier allowing gay marriage. The same legal arguments apply.

 

[Proserpina]

Next up, removing the bans on incestuous marriages. No, not a specious argument, there actually are such bans even in the states that passed laws earlier allowing gay marriage. The same legal arguments apply.

Oh, to toy or not to toy with you ... that is the question.

Nah. Not yet, anyway. I'll let you sit for awhile.

 

[CSO286]

"Baking Cakes Is Not Religious Conduct"

~ fin

Actually, I disagree with that particular statement. A great many people of faith look at everything they do as an act of worship, based on Colossians 3:23: "Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters,"

As such, for some people of faith, baking a cake, or cleaning a toilet IS an act of worship, and to them, IS religious conduct.

Just another viewpoint.

 

[ecmst12]

Not a good enough argument to make discrimination ok. But by all means, post prominently that you don't wish to make cakes for gay people. I'm certain such establishments won't mind the business they will lose from "sinners" anyway. I would much rather know what businesses would make such judgements about the relationships of my friends and loved ones so I can take my money elsewhere.

 

[Proserpina]

Actually, I disagree with that particular statement. A great many people of faith look at everything they do as an act of worship, based on Colossians 3:23: "Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters,"

As such, for some people of faith, baking a cake, or cleaning a toilet IS an act of worship, and to them, IS religious conduct.

Just another viewpoint.

I quoted directly from one of the links provided.