Say yes!

apparently that poster is Canajun

http://able2know.org/topic/215417-7#post-5980163

where we've had same-sex marriage federally for a decade and longer in some provinces

______

can't imagine where he thinks he's going to move

Sounds like he'd fit right in with the MENA set. Here's hoping...

The GOP is now looking at developing a campaign that , in effect says, "We were for you all the time, we were just testing the courts resolve to back us "

Bet you'll be surprised how many citizens will buy into their shyt.

In sort-of related news, Seoul has finally allowed its first LGBT parade to be held after blocking the organizers' attempts for years. It's going down (!) today and it may leak into tomorrow. If I'd known the date in advance, I'd have run up there and shown my support. Or at least flipped off all the religious fundies who were planning to stage a protest over it.

And I notice that there's no story about it in the local papers...

That's actually not too far from the truth. We see that kind of backfilling in the dissents of Scalia and Roberts. Scalia starts off his dissent by stating: "The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me." Roberts's argument, in short, is that gays were just on the verge of winning through the political process, and they should feel bad that the supreme court has now taken away their chance to gain a legislative victory.

I think Republican politicians will increasingly take the same approach as Scalia and Roberts. In sum: "gay marriage isn't a big deal to me, I just think it should have been left to the state legislatures." Jeb Bush is already almost there. I expect other candidates who are not on the lunatic-fundie-right, like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, will take similar stances.

From now on the judge will say the following to the different kind of couples:

"I declared you husband and wife" to straight couples.

"I declared you gay spouse #1 and gay spouse #2" to male homosexuals.

"I declared you lesbiasn spouse #1 and lesbian spouse #2" to lesbians.

"I declare you husband and male transgender" to a man marrying a male transgender.

"I declare you female transgender and wife" to a female transgender marrying a woman.

There is no reason to hide the real identity of the persons getting married, on the contrary, their identity must be exposed to society as the best way of acceptance of their sexual orientation.

To hide their sexual orientation making mandatory a sole expression as "I declare you spouse #1 and spouse #1" suggest the idea that there is shame of what the couple really is.

Being inclusive is not changing the established rules but expanding them.

There is no reason to "punish" straight couples by calling them "spouse #1 and spouse #2" when they have the constitutional right to be recognized by everybody as "husband and wife".

Put on your rainbow t-shirt and just wear it all about.

I'm super-excited about tomorow's parade here. It's going to be amazing!

But I don't have a rainbow shirt or a rainbow anything. And they sure as hell don't sell them around here.

really? they must send them all here

K-town is full of rainbow souvenir stuff

OK, to be honest, I haven't been looking. But it would make sense for them to manufacture them here for overseas orders. I guess I'll have to keep an eye out for them now.

Have you read the complaint, the decision and the dissents?

(the decision and dissents are linked in this thread - you'll have to find/read the complaint yourself)

Once you've read them, come back and tell us what the answer to your question is.

Have you studied American history/law yet?

Once you have, come back and answer the question - with details.

If you check their prior post history, the responder is a 16-yr-old male who is begging for any attention at all. Just consider the source.

I'm aware of that. That is why I'd like the poster to do the research - learn more about America while they're on their summer break.

Sounds good to me. Tnx for explaining.

Who them? They're the justices of the US Supreme Court, "established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution in 1789", the "highest federal court of the United States", holding "ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law".

Don't be a lemming. Educate yourself.

he's 16 - I sincerely hope he does

How about husband #1 and wife #2 or Husband #2 and Wife #1, and so and on?