Itinerant Air-Cooled

Dang....two doozie rulings; one on Obamacare and one on gay marriage, and nothin' posted. I see the conservatives point about allowing states to self govern, having a country ruled by law vs. by man, etc. However, what I don't understand is why they don't see this as an 'unalienable right' .... pursuit of happiness, liberty, and freedom. How is this different than Brown v. Board of Ed?

I've heard some conservative talking heads fret that their church will be forced to marry same sex people. Um, no. The KKK is allowed to march in the streets, hold meetings, etc all legal like - I seriously do not see the gov't forcing churches to marry same sex couples if it is not part of their belief system. This is all about legal access and legal equality ... i.e. making life/death health decisions when one isn't able to - heck even visiting in the hospital. It's about having both spouses recognized as parents, it's about being able to extend health benefits. I'm kinda scratching my head why people feel this is an affront to the constitution ...... can someone please explain this view point?

I'm with you. It amazes me that it took us this long to recognize that a person's choice of partners is in no way a legal decision. My policy has been simple...if you're not having sex with me, then I don't have a say in who you are having sex with...

On a similar but different topic, why are so many looking at southern confederate flags as racist, and NOT focusing on how divisive these symbols are. Even if the flag is not racist, it IS divisive...and that IS a problem at the state level.

The same is true for marriage rights. If an individual wishes to be divisive and impose religious limitations on himself, he has that right. But...on the other hand...a state does not have the right to impose divisive legislation.

The thing to keep in mind is that the SCOTUS' s decision was on if various state's laws violated a right set forth under the Federal constitution, specifically the 14th amendment which put the case within the purview of federal law. Of course the Supreme Court does have the right to hear cases where state law infringes on federally protected rights. The right to marriage is such a right, as has been held in multiple Supreme Court decisions over the past 40 years or more. Marriage is a matter administered by individual state law, but that doesn't necessarily mean state law is the entire part of the equation.

(As a comparison, if you commit a crime and are prosecuted under state law (as is the case 95% of the time), you still have federal rights (5th Amendment, competent counsel) that cannot be removed by the state).

Part two of the decision was that one state is not allowed to not recognize a lawfully married couple from another state if that one state does not allow for SSM. Specifically Ohio did not recognize a Maryland marriage and would not allow for the deceased spouse to be buried in a family cemetery plot.

I was not terribly surprised to see this decision as numerous state and lower federal courts have made similar rulings in the past 12 years.