Back to previous post: “You’re asking me to agree that my great-grandparent and great-great-grandparents were monsters.”

Go to Making Light's front page.

Forward to next post: On sale yesterday: Jo Walton’s The Philosopher Kings, Book Two of Thessaly

Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)

June 26, 2015

It is so ordered
Posted by Abi Sutherland at 01:54 PM * 117 comments

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.

In 27 days, Martin and I will celebrate our 22nd wedding anniversary. He’s been married longer than he was alive and unmarried; I reach that balance of my days in December of next year. We formed one another as adults and as people within the context of marriage.

And the legal advantages of marriage have formed our lives as well. Being married to a British citizen meant that I could live in Europe and obtain my own UK passport. The entirety of society is set up to make it easy for us, from inheritance rights to taxation, from law courts to social conventions.

And all these things were a great big door slammed in the faces of our friends and family, if the paths of their lives and the ways of their hearts led them to try to form this tremendous bond with someone of the same gender as themselves.

I have watched these restrictions ebb away over time. I remember when the UK passed civil partnerships, and I wanted to dance in the streets. I delighted in moving to a country where gay marriage is unremarkable. I rejoiced with my home state when it got rid of Proposition 8. I grinned when I tried to explain the laws against same-sex marriage to my kids and was met with fascinated horror.

But now I’m just crying with happiness, borrowed from all of my loved ones who have wanted this for so long, fought for it, marched in the streets for it. I thought I was elated when Obamacare was not overthrown (another cause I care deeply about). I was wrong.

This is elated.

Comments on It is so ordered:
#1 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 02:22 PM:

I know that today, and blog posts like this, are probably a little weird and offputting for people who aren't doing the whole marriage thing, or who are poly, or who aren't on the gender binary.

Please be clear that I also love and rejoice in those of my friends who have not, through choice or fortune, formed this kind of bond. And I hope that those of my friends who form more complex bonds than simple pairs will receive the legal protections they need as well.

Also, those of my dear ones who do not fit into the gender binary, please don't feel that my joy in this diminishes my value for you in your own identity.

#2 ::: EJ ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 02:43 PM:

In that I work at the agency that inflicts SCOTUScare on the American people, and because I am passionate about it, I was actually elated yesterday. But, there was a little dust in my eye when I got to tell my (lesbian and married) deputy the news this morning. Oh - and elation, too.

I suppose this makes no sense, but the former (ACA) was a more intellectually-based elation and the latter (SSM) was more emotional.

#3 ::: duckbunny ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 02:43 PM:

I can't speak for anyone but myself, so I won't try.

I'm poly, and non-binary trans, and not into the marriage thing, and I had great difficulty not tearing up at work over the news. This is wonderful. Sure, it's not a legal ruling that applies to me - wrong country - and not a freedom I expect to make use of - wrong everything else - but that doesn't signify today because these are my people, this is my family, and today we have been given something that matters desperately to so, so many of us.

I can't be eloquent today. Every time I try it turns into the Magnificat.

#4 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 02:45 PM:

Earl Warren reaches out from beyond the grave and completes the work of Loving.

#5 ::: albatross ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 02:53 PM:

This is stunning. Sometimes, the world just gets *better*.

#6 ::: P J Evans ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 03:01 PM:

Can we hope he slugs the dissenting (in)justices, as well? Or haunts them, at least?

#7 ::: Diatryma ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 03:12 PM:

I think I know what I want to do for my State Fair embroidery. I'm going to have to work fast. But I want that last paragraph in a tapestry. I want to embellish it. I want to make it beautiful, make it into art, make it into something that people see on a wall and aren't even a little puzzled by. I want to print it and calligraph it and write it on the sidewalk in chalk.

I hadn't been paying attention. I thought the ruling was to keep what we had, not to win the whole marriage pot.

#8 ::: Chaomancer ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 03:18 PM:

This is beautiful. Like duckbunny, I'm poly and I'm not into marriage, but I can't contain my tears of joy. It's a great day for *everyone*.

The language of the decision is lovely, too - especially the closing:

"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 judgement of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered."

Sometimes they do in fact send a poet.

#9 ::: lorax ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 03:25 PM:

I'm still tearing up every time I read that last paragraph. I'd be surprised if parts of it don't make their way into marriage vows this weekend from couples who have been waiting a long, long time.

I'm sitting less than two miles from the Supreme Court building right now, and wasn't able to be there this morning. I'd expected the decision to come Monday, on the last day of the term, and had requested the morning off then. Instead I've been sitting at my desk, crying tears of joy every time I look at social media or at the news.

#10 ::: Serge Broom ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 03:29 PM:

In September, I'll have been with my wife for a number of years equal to the years I was alive sans her. I wish the same to everybody who wants it.

#11 ::: Stefan Jones ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 03:34 PM:

Woke to the sounds of heads detonating this morning.

Figured it was either the Martians come back with sonic weapons tuned to cranial frequences, or the big decision coming through.

* * *

This has got to be a horrible distressing week for cultural conservatives. You can feel sorry for their distress, in the same way you feel kind of bad for King Kong after he's been machine-gunned and is about to fall off the Empire State Building.

Kind of bad, without doubting for a second that falling off the Empire State Building is what has to happen.

Well, that analogy falls down because King Kong died, and the cultural conservatives will wake up tomorrow to discover that the sun hasn't been snuffed out, their spouse hasn't run off to join a polygamist cult (unless they were going to anyway), and certain people they were Wondering About seem a lot happier and maybe there's nothing wrong with that anyway.

#12 ::: Stefan Jones ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 03:36 PM:

The Onion is so on the ball this morning. Particularly the story about the dissenting judges realizing that someday they were going to be the villains in a movie.

#13 ::: Serge Broom ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 03:44 PM:

On Twitter, George RR Martin wrote: "I'm excited to plan more weddings."

#14 ::: John Fiala ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 04:09 PM:

I posted something in the open thread, but what the hey:

Still overjoyed. It's a good day.

#15 ::: Stephen Frug ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 04:10 PM:

Amazingly wonderful.

I've taught recent US history in various contexts, and it's always hard to convey the magnitude of the revolution in social attitudes towards LBGT people in, well, my lifetime (born 1971). Compared to the uneven, back-and-forth progress-but-also-regress on issues such as race and gender equality, there has been a quick, powerful march here that is genuinely stunning. May it happen in more areas of neglected justice!

#16 ::: Jenny Islander ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 04:18 PM:

I played the live NBC coverage for my children and explained why I was literally weeping for joy. I have no idea what their orientations are, but it is now the law of the land that no one can deny their right to marry* or say that they are no longer married just because they crossed a state line--no matter who the loves of their lives turn out to be. My youngest most likely won't remember a time when it wasn't like this.

*One person. It'll come.

#17 ::: P J Evans ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 04:19 PM:

At Daily Kos, TrueBlueMajority pointed this out:

Lawrence v. Texas:
June 26 2003

U.S. v Windsor:
June 26, 2013

Obergefell v Hodges:
June 26, 2015

#18 ::: Edmund Schweppe ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 04:43 PM:

I'm at this year's Fourth Street Fantasy. The pre-convention writer's seminar was just getting started when Tom Whitmore came into the room and announced the verdict; we interrupted the seminar for sustained cheers and not a few damp eyes.

The first panel of the convention will be starting in about an hour. The panel's title, "Does the Arc of Fantasy Bend Toward Justice?", is particularly appropriate today.

#19 ::: Steve Halter ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 04:48 PM:

Today, life is cool.

#20 ::: Sarah ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 04:52 PM:

Miriam the Prophet took her timbrel in her hand,
And all the women followed her just as she had planned.
Miriam raised her voice in song,
She sang with praise and might,
"We've just lived through a miracle, we're going to dance tonight!"

#21 ::: Lizzy L ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 05:03 PM:

When the decision was announced this morning, I walked into my placid, sunny back yard and screamed with joy. Sunday I will march in the 45th SF Pride Parade. And I will be very proud.

I remember Stonewall. And now we are here. Wow.

Somewhere, Frank Robinson is smiling.

#22 ::: Errolwi ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 05:17 PM:

Just throwing in a link to the relevant part of Open Thread 206.

My Twitter stream this morning also has lots of Australians continuing to mock their Parliamentarians for their continued inaction. Deeply embarrassing, opinion polls are strongly in favour, but the MPs are against.

Joy to all from NZ.

#23 ::: janetl ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 05:50 PM:

P J Evans @ 17: I can't find it now, but last night I read a post that speculated that the SCOTUS would be ruling in favor of marriage equality. The theory was that they added an extra announcement day, and put it on a Friday (apparently they don't normally do Fridays) and it was on the anniversary of the two previous rulings.

I read it out to my husband, and we scoffed. The theory may have been all wrong -- it's just coincidence -- but it a glorious day!

#24 ::: Soon Lee ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 06:13 PM:

Congratulations & welcome to the club!

Also, Rainbow Connection.

#25 ::: Steve Wright ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 07:40 PM:

Well, I'm a straight male Christian, and I think this is wonderful.

Because it's a victory for equality, and human decency, and love. And that's a win for everyone.

#26 ::: Lila ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 07:47 PM:

I've been in love with my husband more than twice as long as I'd been alive when we met. We've been married more than 1.5 times as long as I'd been alive when we married.

This is the best news I've heard in... well, forever.

#27 ::: Patrick Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 08:25 PM:

"Somewhere, Frank Robinson is smiling."

Lizzy, you just made me gasp with joy.

#28 ::: Tom Whitmore ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 08:56 PM:

Echoing Patrick @27, Lizzy. I've been talking about Frank several times today with people, and he'd be so happy!

#29 ::: Don Fitch ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 09:53 PM:

I'm a person (old geezer, actually) of little perception or complexity, but for several years I've been puzzled by this whole fooararah. I remember when marriage between people of different races (mostly Black & White, but I think some states accepted or rejected others) was legal in some states but not in others, and I believe SCOTUS decreed that _all_ states had to accept this. That seemed totally sensible to me as a basic aspect of The United States. (*) I've simply never understood why same-sex marriage would or could be handled differently.

(Mind you, though I'm not quite _that_ old, I've never agreed that some states' contention that "Personal Property" includes a "right" for some people to own other people, and that this should be enforced throughout the nation. We did that for a while, to my historical embarrassment.)

(*) No, if you're licenced to carry a weapon openly in one state I don't think this should carry over to states where that's normally illegal.

#30 ::: Cat ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 10:05 PM:

I'm so glad.

I wrote a song that touched on this in late October of 2013, for a song contest on the theme "Once Upon A Time." It was about progress in civil rights and one of the verses was about gay marriage, which at the time was legal in fourteen states, and when I sang it for my friends, people were triumphant about getting that far. I'm just going to link it here, and rejoice in how out-of-date that line is in less than two years, people!

#31 ::: Elliott Mason ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 10:14 PM:

Cat, I'm reminded of the time I sang "Hell Froze Over Today" at a filkcon, which contains the line, "And the rich folks said, 'Please, tax the hell out of us!'" on the day after Warren Buffet had said just that thing.

#32 ::: Stanoje ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 10:37 PM:

Isn't that a thing to wake up to. I'm on a different continent, but considering how much of our culture is imported from the US, I'm happy to say that this will help my country, too, at least in a small way. Basic human decency is a global matter.

#33 ::: kate ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 10:57 PM:

As music, the US National Anthem isn't actually much good, or easy to sing. I'd rather have America The Beautiful as the anthem.

All that said, here, have the DC Gay Men's Chorus singing the hell out of it in front of the Supreme Court today.

Also, holy guacamole, WE WON.

#34 ::: Anne Sheller ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 11:22 PM:

A week from tomorrow fireworks will fill the evening sky. And today's ruling will be one of the things I'll celebrate.

#35 ::: dotless ı ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2015, 11:29 PM:

Sitting here with my wonderful spouse, just reviewing the day, looking at the many reactions—commercial and personal; exulting, subtle, joyous, and somber. Pausing to feel very lucky, and happy, and a little teary.

#36 ::: Steve C. ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 12:50 AM:

A picture accompanying a tweet had these words which seemed apropos:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Thomas Jefferson

#37 ::: Jacque ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 01:52 AM:

I am neighter gay (I don't think), nor married, nor likely to get married, but here's where I get to share my story about my buddy M. He and his lady K (who are also poly) very deliberately held off marrying, because they didn't want to exercise a right and privilege that was denied to a large segment of the population. When Massachusetts legalized SSM, K made them matching rainbow vests, and they went down to the Boston courthouse at midnight to stand in line and get their marriage license along with all the gay couples.

#38 ::: Serge Broom ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 02:17 AM:

This week's events don't make a convincing case for the proposition that a Democrat in the White House is no different from a Republican in the White House.

#39 ::: Stefan Jones ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 02:36 AM:

#38: If Scalia doesn't keep his blood pressure under control Obama may be in a position to appoint another justice.

More if Scalia's head explodes in close proximity to other members of the court.

#40 ::: Serge Broom ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 02:52 AM:

Stefan Jones @ 39... It'd be a real shame if Antonin did a reenactement of the opening scene from Kronenberg's "Scanners".

#41 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 03:00 AM:

It's really OK if we don't go further down this line of conversation.

#42 ::: Gray Woodland ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 03:06 AM:

In this (straight-married, non-American) household, there was a great deal of bouncing last night, which hasn't yet entirely subsided.

It's such a fine thing, to see some good news in the news!

#43 ::: Alex R. ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 03:10 AM:

Yay! I got peeps who can get married now! Those five justices rock! The other four... who gives a fuck about those morons?

#44 ::: Serge Broom ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 03:34 AM:

As you wish.

#45 ::: xeger ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 09:27 AM:

Alex R. @ 43 ...
We do, and we should -- it's what makes us, different.

#46 ::: nerdycellist ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 11:19 AM:

Checked in with my dad last night to confirm that he and mom are still married, since the Right have been promising for some time that "gay marriage" would somehow destroy straight marriages. He said they appear to continue to be married, and so long as his fishing license is still valid, he was more than fine with the SCOTUS ruling.* Wonder if he and my brother will go down to Chicago's Pride parade again this year to see the Stanley Cup.

* (I feel this is a typical Midwestern Man Of A Certain Age response - more of a JEEZ LET THEM GET MARRIED ALREADY. WHO CARES AND I AM TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT IT WHEN WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THE CUBS than a "Woohoo, Equality!" but I also feel that sort of grudging embarrassment is part of what has helped turn the tide on social attitudes as well.)

#47 ::: Serge Broom ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 11:25 AM:

"Mr Sulu, launch photon rainbows!"

So I exclaimed yesterday upon hearing that a certain radio personality whose head reminds me of a Sontaran's is blaming George Takei for the Supreme Court's decision.

#48 ::: janetl ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 11:25 AM:

kate @ 33: I love that recording of the DC Gay Men's Chorus, too.

#49 ::: Dave Bell ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 12:19 PM:

Serge @13

Is it just me, or is there something a tad disturbing about the idea of George RR Martin planning a wedding?

#50 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 12:38 PM:

Dave Bell #49: I immediately wondered about the colour scheme of the weddings.

#51 ::: Jacque ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 01:20 PM:

Serge Broom @47: blaming George Takei for the Supreme Court's decision.

Heh. I can totally see Mr.T accepting credit: "Oh, myyyyyyy. Why yes, you're welcome!"

BTW, I find it amusing in the extreme that the gays have claimed as their symbol/mascot/logo an image that is also strongly associated with joy, happiness, and dreaming big. (BWe saw Inside Out yesterday, and I love the rainbow rocket exhaust.)

#52 ::: Serge Broom ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 02:15 PM:

Jacque @ 51... I once read that "Over The Rainbow" almost was cut out of the movie before its release.

#53 ::: Madeleine Robins ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 02:51 PM:

(I've posted this, more or less, elsewhere, but I'm gonna say it again.)

Growing up, my parents had a couple of friends, Ed and Gordon, spoken of always in one breath: EdandGordon. They were a couple long before I was born. Ed was an artist (he designed sets for CBS soap operas) and Gordon was an executive at a textile company. Ed was stocky and flamboyant, very East Coast; Gordon was a tall, handsome guy from Texas with a soft accent (he looked like a better-tempered Billy Graham). When they came to my wedding 27 years ago, Ed introduced himself to several of the other guests as "Madeleine's Fairy Godfather," with relish.

Ed and Gordon were together for 50 years, more or less (Gordon had had an early marriage that "didn't take," as he put it) and were separated only by Ed's death. They were one of my models for a good marriage--lacking only the paperwork and the blessings of the state.

I thought of them today. Change moves with glacial slowness, but damn, it's good when it comes.

(And I have noticed that my own marriage, despite claims by the panicking forces of the right, did not shred immediately upon announcement of the judgment.)

#54 ::: Alex R. ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 05:14 PM:

We do, and we should -- it's what makes us, different.

A guy like Scalia should be lost to history. We should do like the ancient Egyptians and chisel his face off the statues... May he be reincarnated (after a suitable number of incarnations as syphilitic dogs) to parents who think just like he does!

I love my Kagan and my Ginsberg, and I want more justices like them, but Scalia? Scalia who? Didn't he write some great science fiction back in the day?

#55 ::: SamChevre ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 08:39 PM:

Madeleine Robins @ 53

My family had aunts who were similar. Margaret and Mabel - Margaret was my grandfather's sister. (I wish I could hear her thoughts on the decision, but her mind isn't clear any longer.) They cared for my great-grandfather in his old age; they cared for Mabel's retarded* sister until she was in her late 60's and they were too old to do so. They were amazing--and my daughter is named Margaret.

I'm still uneasy about the idea that something no one who voted on agreed with is the law. A tiny elite making the law up out of whole cloth doesn't seem to me likely to be a good idea.

*I think she had Down's. She was beloved and very supported, but that's how she was always referred to.

#56 ::: P J Evans ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 08:45 PM:

What 'making the law up out of whole cloth' are you talking about? I can see that applying to Citizens United, where corporations were given 'rights' as if they were actual people, but same-sex marriage clearly comes under equality: equal protection of the law, equal rights as citizens and residents.

#57 ::: Theophylact ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 08:47 PM:

But I don't want Supreme Court Justices to be elected. That's what Ted Cruz says he wants, but only because he doesn't like the latest result. If you like the idea of an elected judiciary, you only have to look at West Virginia to be disabused of the idea.

Scalia claims he rejects the idea that the will of the people should be overridden by a tiny unelected elite. Too bad he didn't take that position in Bush v. Gore.

#58 ::: Robert Glaub ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 09:18 PM:

I've been a supporter of gay marriage from when I was a Republican from way back because it isn't anybody's business but the people involved.

CNN conservative commentator S.E. Cupp broke down and sobbed in happiness: she's been a supporter of gay marriage from way back.

I there are two lesbian couples in the office I run. I took them out for Happy Hour on me...

#59 ::: dotless ı ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2015, 10:20 PM:

Stephen Colbert on the marriage decision, and especially Scalia's dissent.

Choice lines from Scalia's dissents in the ACA and marriage cases with guitars.

#60 ::: Vicki ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2015, 12:34 AM:

SamChevre: I'm not sure what you mean by "no one who voted on agreed with." If that's a reference to the people who drafted and adopted the U.S. Constitution and specifically the Fourteenth Amendment, I suspect that most of them never thought about the question, but if they had, some of them might have agreed with yesterday's ruling.

I also don't see how you can make that argument without applying it to Loving v. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut, and Brown v. Board of Education.

#61 ::: Xopher Halftongue ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2015, 12:35 AM:

All day, the song "Everybody Rejoice (Brand New Day)" from The Wiz kept running through my head. Still is, now. And the scene from the movie, especially the part where the Winkies lose their monster costumes and dance joyfully as their beautiful black selves.

There's some symbolism there I find appropriate.

As for Scalia: pfaugh, you old hypocrite, I bathe in your tears.

#62 ::: Xopher Halftongue ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2015, 01:02 AM:

Anyone who opposes this ruling can send me their tears too. I'll see that they're disposed of properly. (YUM! Delicious!)

Opposing this ruling pretty much requires supporting policies that lead to young people killing themselves, so I don't give a good god damn about the precious fee-fees of homophobes.

#63 ::: Lucy Kemnitzer ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2015, 03:16 AM:

I remember some years ago people saying that the fact that "everyone has a gay uncle" (or aunt) was going to be the thing that turned the tide.

#64 ::: JJ ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2015, 03:46 AM:

Lucy Kemnitzer, #63: I remember some years ago people saying that the fact that "everyone has a gay uncle" (or aunt) was going to be the thing that turned the tide.

I think that is what finally pushed public opinion over to the side of support. The problem was that a lot of people were blithely ignorant of the fact that they knew one or more gay people -- either because they were oblivious to what should have been obvious, or because their gay friend/relative/acquaintance didn't dare say anything because the person was so openly disapproving or condemning of it.

I think it took a hell of a lot of brave people coming out -- despite often being faced with that condemnation -- before the average American got to the point where they realized they did know someone who was gay.

#65 ::: Sandy B. ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2015, 11:00 AM:

There's no good way to say this. Thirty years ago, a lot of people discovered they knew a gay person when someone they knew and liked, someone they knew and loved, started dying of AIDS. I was a teenager, but my impression is that before that 99% of gay people split up their lives like Clark Kent.

#66 ::: Hob ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2015, 12:58 PM:

@63/65: Harvey Milk in 1978:

Gay brothers and sisters, you must come out. Come out to your parents. I know that it is hard and will hurt them, but think about how they will hurt you in the voting booth! Come out to your relatives. Come out to your friends, if indeed they are your friends. Come out to your neighbors, to your fellow workers, to the people who work where you eat and shop. Come out only to the people you know, and who know you, not to anyone else. But once and for all, break down the myths. Destroy the lies and distortions. For your sake. For their sake.

AIDS did speed up that process for some people— although it made it harder for others, because it added "they'll think I'm going to get AIDS and die" to the list of reasons to be afraid of coming out. But the principle was pretty well understood throughout the modern era of the movement; it was first articulated before the 20th century.

#67 ::: David Langford ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2015, 02:35 PM:

I am so pleased. Big smiles all around. My one small spark of grumpiness came when the Saturday edition of that reasonably civilized UK newspaper The Independent failed to squeeze in even a fleeting mention on the front page. Of course it was dominated by atrocity news, and of course there was substantial coverage inside (well inside) the paper, but on that day I could have done without the large front-page panel of namechecks for regular columnists who, against all the odds, had succeeded in delivering their regular columns.

#68 ::: Rob Hansen ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2015, 05:32 PM:

Xopher @ 62: Funny you should mention Scalia's tears:

Geek Bar

#69 ::: Stefan Jones ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2015, 06:20 PM:

Aunts and uncles . . . and TV shows.

* * *

I suspect that the half-life of resentment and opposition to marriage equality will be relatively short.

There will always been some lingering trace of angry, stupid, ideological opposition. But I'm going to guess that 2016 will see an extinction burst of sorts. Guys like Huckabee might run on a platform with a Protect Marriage plank, frex. And either never get far in the primaries, or win and watch in puzzlement and horror as their candidate loses to the Democrat again because most Americans don't care about the divisive crap as much as the base.

But ten years from now, the non-crazy vast majority may look back at the fuss and think: "What was that all about?"

#70 ::: Lizzy L ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2015, 08:35 PM:

Stefan at 69: Or it could follow the historical model after Brown vs. Bd of Education. Look it up. Not pretty. Today, in Texas, the Attorney General Ken Paxton told state clerks and judges that they may refuse to issue licenses to same sex couples on if they have a sincere religious objection to doing so.

#71 ::: P J Evans ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2015, 08:43 PM:

I hope he has a big budget to deal with the lawsuits he's going to be fighting. Marriage is covered by civil law, and 'religious preference' is not a legal out for officials.

#72 ::: Theophylact ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2015, 09:05 PM:

Just as a postal clerk can't use a religious exemption to refuse to accept a package from a gay person, a county clerk can't refuse to issue a marriage license to a gay couple. Even Rand Paul, who at one point said that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was wrong to deny property owners the right to discriminate, recognized that the Government had to offer its services to all.

#73 ::: Xopher Halftongue ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2015, 09:33 PM:

Rob 68: Love it!

#74 ::: Naomi Parkhurst ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 01:53 AM:

I wish the NC's state legislature understood that about the religious exemption thing. Even our governor (who rarely does the right thing) gets it and vetoed the bill that passed a few weeks ago. Unfortunately the legislature overrode his veto

#75 ::: dcb ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 03:22 AM:

As a watcher from the other side of the big Pond, this was good news. I really like that paragraph quoted by Chaomancer @8.

#76 ::: Don Fitch ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 05:03 AM:

L. Lynn @ 70:

"in Texas, the Attorney General Ken Paxton told state clerks and judges that they may refuse to issue licenses to same sex couples on if they have a sincere religious objection to doing so."

Hooboy, yeah! (as per Evans @ 71). I suppose that must include religious objecttions to different-race marriages, and different-religion ones (I'm sure that, yes, there _are_ religions that consider these thing abhorrent.) Government Officials, on the other hand, really ought to be required to to perform all of their functions that are legal. (Pharmacists, as well.) And the Attorney-General of Texas ought to be fired. But hey... Texas, you know.

#77 ::: Carrie S. ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 08:13 AM:

And the Attorney-General of Texas ought to be fired tried for treason.

As I believe the expression goes, "FTFY".

In all seriousness, I'm sure the AG's action doesn't actually rise to the level of treason, but I'd love to know why not, since his rationale was explicitly "what the state thinks is more important". Fairly sure that one was settled, 160 or so years ago...

I've had to take a break from consuming news this weekend; every few hours there's another prominent Republican making pious mouthings about how this unelected set of nine--five!--people overturned the democratic process and blah blah blah and I just want to punch them. In addition to being completely useless, it's not good for me.

#78 ::: lorax ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 09:10 AM:

Sam Chevre @55:

Two things.

First, a large part of the reason why we have the Constitution is the recognition that there exist fundamental rights that should not be subject to a majority vote, that the majority should not be able to vote to deny those rights to a minority. What exactly those rights are, and what portion of the population can participate in those rights, has changed over time, but that notion is deeply fundamental. (And what do you mean "no one who voted on agreed with"? A portion of the population did everywhere it was voted on, of course, and a majority did in Maryland, Minnesota, Maine, and Washington in 2012.)

Second, I'm going to quote from what my wife said on Facebook:

While I lived in Arizona and in California, my fellow citizens voted on whether to bar gay couples from marrying. While I lived in California, the California Supreme Court first ruled that I had the right to marry, then ruled that my marriage should stand despite Prop. 8, but that same-sex marriages were banned going forward. While I lived in California, U.S. Federal courts heard arguments on Prop. 8 and found it violated the U.S. Constitution. While I lived in Maryland, the legislature recognized marriages like mine, and in a referendum the voters confirmed marriage equality. While I lived a Metro ride from the U.S. Supreme Court, the court ruled that the federal government couldn't pick and choose which marriages to recognize, and yesterday, that the states couldn't either.

Justice Roberts' dissent assures the LGBT community that the "wind at our backs is freshening", that we could win full equality state-by-state if we had just kept at it. Aside from the absurdity that that would work in Texas or North Dakota, I think the bigger picture that Justice Roberts missed was the profound injustice of submitting the fundamental rights and dignity of minority groups to popular vote. I've had the legitimacy of my relationship voted on while I lived in Arizona, then California, then Maryland. I had my right to marry, and then the validity of my marriage debated by the California Supreme Court. I had my employer, the federal government, deny the existence of my marriage. Yesterday's ruling means that we're DONE voting on whether my marriage, and marriages like mine, are valid, or only valid at home but not on vacation in New Orleans or Austin. Those rights should NEVER have been submitted to popular vote. Yesterday's ruling guarantees they never will be again.

#79 ::: Carrie S. ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 09:24 AM:

Justice Roberts' dissent assures the LGBT community that the "wind at our backs is freshening", that we could win full equality state-by-state if we had just kept at it.

I had not heard that one. One wonders why he's upset about it, then, if it was just a matter of time. This way the states will have more energy to spare on things that aren't a foregone conclusion!

Those rights should NEVER have been submitted to popular vote.

Hear, hear.

#80 ::: Chris ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 09:55 AM:

Carrie S. @77:

In all seriousness, I'm sure the AG's action doesn't actually rise to the level of treason, but I'd love to know why not

Because he is neither levying war against the United States, nor adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

#81 ::: Stephen Rochelle ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 09:55 AM:

Theophylact @57 wrote: But I don't want Supreme Court Justices to be elected.... If you like the idea of an elected judiciary, you only have to look at West Virginia to be disabused of the idea.

Better (worse) yet, look to Alabama, which was AFAIK the only instance of a post-Windsor federal decision being overturned -- by an elected state-level chief justice. Yes, Roy Moore, who was forcibly removed from that office once (over the Ten Commandments monument thing) got himself re-elected and got busy declaring that federal courts have no jurisdiction over state laws (in particular, the federal district decision that the AL constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage was federally unconstitutional), ordering local probate judges to ignore the ruling, and generally providing enough confusion and cover for lower-level weasels to stop issuing marriage licenses.

Obergefell hasn't changed his position -- he's still busy issuing demands that SCOTUS has no standing on the matter, and weasels keep using that as cover to avoid issuing licenses. Per Theophylact @72, he's also promulgating the theory that AL law says merely that probate judges "may" issue marriage licenses, and so they're free to say "may not", not do their jobs, and still technically be doing their jobs. Honorably resigning their posts because they can't carry out the job in good conscience doesn't enter into it, of course.

I figure Moore's re-removal can't come soon enough, but that sadly won't stop him from entering the next election with a funding edge. On the other hand, he only won something like 52/48 with said funding edge this last time; far and away the closest a Republican came to losing a state-wide office in that election (2012). Maybe things will shift enough to keep him out.

#82 ::: Carrie S. ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 10:02 AM:

Chris @#80: OK, so what's it actually called when a government official says he doesn't have to obey the government? There has to be a specific name for it.

His rationale appears to be that the Texas "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" is more important than the ruling of the Supreme Court. That seems like...the best I'm coming up with is lèse majesté. :)

#83 ::: Stephen Rochelle ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 10:05 AM:

Replying to myownself @81:

...Which is not to say that the whole of the state is hopeless. The Birmingham / Jefferson Co court offices asked people to wait until Monday (today) so that they could get their paperwork in order, which seems reasonable to me. Huntsville / Madison Co, where I live, immediately began issuing licenses -- so it looks like those judges, at least, intend to ignore Moore moving forward -- and we had a female Southern Baptist pastor performing SSMs in the adjacent park downtown. That last came from news coverage after the district decision in February, but I'd be surprised if she wasn't out there again on Friday. And "female Southern Baptist pastor peforming same-sex marriages" is too good a phrase not to use when given the opportunity.

#84 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 11:53 AM:

Carrie S #82: Either treason felony or sedition seems to fit the bill.

#85 ::: cajunfj40 ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 11:55 AM:

Very happy for this decision, and for all the people it removes an artificial barrier for, and that, as with most such cases, nobody lost any rights.

Found an unsurprisingly good take on the decision over on The Weekly Sift about the legal precedent - or potential lack thereof - that it gives for other cases in the future.

#86 ::: Cadbury Moose ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 12:36 PM:

Fragano @ #84

Misfeasance, Malfeasance or Nonfeasance?

Probably misfeasance, for which mandamus would be the remedy if still applicable under US law.

(This moose is not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.)

#87 ::: Lori Coulson ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 01:08 PM:

Stephen Rochelle @81: Obergefell was the plaintiff, the guy who wanted his name on his husband's death certificate.

#88 ::: Stephen Rochelle ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 01:45 PM:

Lori @ 87: Sorry, meant Obergefell as in the court decision, rather than as the individual, which has not changed Moore's position here in Alabama.

#89 ::: Theophylact ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 02:01 PM:

By the way, does anyone know how Obergefell pronounces his name? It looks simple, but there are many possibilities for where the stress falls.

#90 ::: Serge Broom ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 02:04 PM:

Tyne Daly on the Supreme Court:

“On the 26th of June, 1966 I got married. That’s 49 years ago. [To a man with] black hair and he had black skin, and our marriage was against the law in the United States of America in 17 states. The following year in a case wonderfully called Loving vs. Virginia, took down those miscegenation laws.”

Added Daly: “Hate is very strong, but love is stronger.”

#91 ::: Ginger ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 02:53 PM:

IIRC, it's Oh-ber-ge-fell, with a hard gee.

#92 ::: Lee ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 03:02 PM:

Catching up after having been on the road all weekend. I'm told that the Houston Pride parade was particularly jubilant this weekend. And my Facebook feed looks like a war broke out between the Confederates and a Skittles factory.

abi, #1: Yes, this. It's only one step on the path we need to take, and some are still left out. But how can I look at all this joy and not rejoice myself for those who are no longer second-class citizens? And perhaps more to the point, what kind of human monster can look at all this joy, all this love, and see only something to hate?

P J Evans, #17: That may be why they didn't wait until Monday.

Jacque, #51: I have a personal hypothesis that this, although infrequently stated, is in fact one of the things fueling Christian hate for gays. The rainbow is supposed to be their special and exclusive symbol, dammit, and Those People stole it!

SamChevre, #55: something no one who voted on agreed with

You seem to have forgotten the 2012 elections. Sadly, you're not alone; many other people have conveniently forgotten them as well.

JJ, #64: I agree. It's much harder to be a bigot when you realize that it affects someone you know and like. Not impossible, mind you -- just much harder.

Stefan, #69: More likely 20 years than 10, but I think you're right.

#93 ::: Stefan Jones ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 03:18 PM:

Looks like Donald Trump slurred his way out of his position at NBC.

I hope that sort of thing catches on.

#94 ::: Serge Broom ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 03:36 PM:

Lee @ 92... Those People stole it!

I blame Judy Garland.

#95 ::: Clifton ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 04:07 PM:

Sam @ 55:
I've felt fervently for a long time that marriage should include same-sex marriage. (It might have been as early as the late '70s, when I had a lot of gay friends; certainly by the late '80s when my college roommate, by then a lawyer and law professor, started publishing papers making the explicit comparison to anti-miscegenation laws and Loving.) However, I have sometimes tilted back towards feeling that it would be better if it got there via popular or legislative vote as a consequence of people becoming more enlightened, as you apparently are feeling.

This graph on xkcd finally settled for me why I was wrong to feel that way:

Note the mouse-over: "People often say that same-sex marriage now is like interracial marriage in the 60s. But in terms of public opinion, same-sex marriage now is like interracial marriage in the 90s, when it had already been legal nationwide for 30 years."

#96 ::: dotless ı ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 04:15 PM:

Carrie S.@79: One wonders why he's upset about it, then, if it was just a matter of time.

Roberts' dissent contains a fair dose of good old concern trolling. Just before the "wind at the backs" comment is: "however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause."

(Given the different characters of the four dissents one could probably map each to a different style of common troll. However, I'm not sure that going through the exercise myself would make me smarter, wiser, or more joyful.)

#97 ::: Jacque ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 04:24 PM:

Lee @92: my Facebook feed looks like a war broke out between the Confederates and a Skittles factory

*gZNORK!* ::guffaw!::

#98 ::: Dave Bell ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 07:02 PM:

Cadbury @86

Mandamus seems to be little used in the USA, but that may be a labelling issue. The label seems restricted to some quite narrow purposes.

Arguably, every SCOTUS case is a form of Mandamus. It would once have taken a long time to get the message down to the lower levels, a sort of mirror of the delays built into the Federal Election processes, and legislation often has a specific date when it comes into effect as part of the statute. There's a bit of wiggle room for getting the paperwork right.

But I reckon Contempt of Court would be something you could drop on the Texas AG, if the SCOTUS Justices were so minded.

In the end, it looks like the difference between what a lawyer can do to bring a case to court, and what the court can do to enforce its decision.

(I'm not a lawyer, and the law often has unexpected distinctions that we ordinary people don't use.)

#99 ::: Xopher Halftongue ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 08:02 PM:

Lee 92: And my Facebook feed looks like a war broke out between the Confederates and a Skittles factory.

My comment the first time I saw that was "Taste the rainbow, M--F--ers!" (The M-Fs in question being the Confederates.)

#100 ::: Jillian ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2015, 11:37 PM:

Next the T in LGBT needs to have their needs and rights recognized. My wife agonized over whether our marriage would still be valid after I transitioned. She is much more at peace now. We both wept when we heard of the decision.

#101 ::: Craig R. ::: (view all by) ::: June 30, 2015, 03:44 PM:

Two things:

(1) - I'm from Massachusetts, and you are all welcome 😍

(2) - I was sure that this would be ruled on using the Full Faith and Credit clause, as the States' Rights yahoos would have to admit either an individual state's authority to decide the origination of the contract or somehow try to reconcile the federal primacy (of not recognizing) against the ability of an individual state (such as MA) to originate a valid contract

I'm happy that it went Equal Protection instead - this makes it instantly applicable, without any further state-state waiting.

#102 ::: Xopher Halftongue ::: (view all by) ::: June 30, 2015, 09:02 PM:

Jillian 100: I used to know someone who was forced to get a divorce as a condition of being ALLOWED to transition. That was more than 20 years ago, but I'm not sure it was over until Friday.

#103 ::: Serge Broom ::: (view all by) ::: June 30, 2015, 10:20 PM:

Lily Tomlin just married the woman she'd been with for over 40 years.

#104 ::: Annie Y ::: (view all by) ::: June 30, 2015, 10:45 PM:

Serge Broom @103

Didn't they marry some time last year? I seem to remember the news

#105 ::: Jillian ::: (view all by) ::: June 30, 2015, 11:16 PM:

Xopher at 102: I had a friend who transitioned in the late 90s. That was an entirely different era. She was not forced into divorce since she was already single, but she faced some incredible barriers and plenty of harassment. Compared to that my transition has been a piece of cake (mmm, chocolate!). Additionally we are fortunate to live in Massachusetts where people are much more accepting. We can retire without fear of having our benefits and the like disallowed or discontinued.

That said, we should be able to live anywhere we like without fearing for our livelihood, not to mention our lives. We aren't there yet, not even close, but things are slowly getting better. Slowly.

#106 ::: Stefan Jones ::: (view all by) ::: June 30, 2015, 11:25 PM:

#103: Tomlin's new series (with Jane Fonda) on Netflix is splendid. An odd couple like situation.

#107 ::: Elliott Mason ::: (view all by) ::: June 30, 2015, 11:40 PM:

Xopher @102: that was true in the UK until relatively recently (a few years ago). In Western Australia (Texas South with fewer guns) you have to provide proof that your gonads have been surgically removed to be permitted to change your legal gender marker.

That change went in when Thomas Beattie's second pregnancy got all over the airwaves and their reactionaries went nuts at the thought of a pregnant man.

#108 ::: Serge Broom ::: (view all by) ::: June 30, 2015, 11:53 PM:

Stefan Jones @ q 107... i should watch that, for Tomlin if for no other reason.

#109 ::: Lee ::: (view all by) ::: July 01, 2015, 12:26 AM:

Elliott, #107: OMG MPREG!!! :-)

#110 ::: David Harmon ::: (view all by) ::: July 01, 2015, 06:21 AM:

Serge Broom #103: Yowsa. It occurs to me that we're going to be seeing a lot more celebrities doing this over the next few years (q.v. Barry Manilow), which seems all to the good.

#111 ::: Serge Broom ::: (view all by) ::: July 01, 2015, 10:23 AM:

David Harmon @ 110... It turns out that Tomlin got married early last year. That'll teach me not to check the date on those articles. That being said, now she's legally married everywhere in the Union.

#112 ::: Matt McIrvin ::: (view all by) ::: July 01, 2015, 11:54 AM:

Roberts' dissent has an implied assumption that court-based remedies lead to countermobilization that slows true acceptance. But there's no actual evidence for that. Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage 11 years ago because of court action, and there was not majority popular support for it at the time. Majority support came fairly rapidly anyway.

#113 ::: Lee ::: (view all by) ::: July 01, 2015, 01:19 PM:

Matt, #112: In fact, there's fairly strong evidence in the opposite direction, if you look back at the black Civil Rights movement. Social acceptance and legal acceptance have sort of a pushmi-pullyu relationship; either one can influence the other, and sometimes the "push" of legal action to give something legitimacy results in a stronger "pull" of shifting social opinion.

#114 ::: Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little ::: (view all by) ::: July 01, 2015, 07:48 PM:

#110 ::: David Harmon It occurs to me that we're going to be seeing a lot more celebrities doing this over the next few years (q.v. Barry Manilow), which seems all to the good.

...wait, what?

*Googles things*

OMG BARRY & GARRY SQUEEE! *ahem* I did not know that and I am just that delighted for them!

As you say, we may well be in for a lot of heart-happy squeeful news of this sort in coming weeks.

#115 ::: Joshua Kronengold ::: (view all by) ::: July 09, 2015, 05:03 PM:

I apparently missed this thread. Also, OMG--sqeee!

"There are girls who grow up strong and bold
There are boys quiet and kind,
Some rush on ahead, some follow behind,
Some go in their own way and time,

Some women love women, some men love men,
Some raise children, some never do.
You can live all your days never reaching the end
Of everything possible for you"
(Everything Possible, Fred Small)

The world has changed -- and very much for the better -- since Fred Small sang Everything Possible and, most importantly, Scott and Jamie.

#116 ::: James Harvey ::: (view all by) ::: July 13, 2015, 10:17 AM:

Just seen this as I have been away on holiday. It made us all very happy to see the outpouring of joy at the SCOTUS decision: truly a great day.

#117 ::: albatross ::: (view all by) ::: July 13, 2015, 01:11 PM:

Matt #112:

My guess is that things worked out that way in the case of same-sex marriage because:

a. As it gets more familiar, it gets less threatening / upsetting for most people.

b. There's very little negative impact on people who don't want to be involved.

I think you can get a backlash when one or both of those aren't true, and especially when (b) isn't true. The example I saw (I think from Ken at Popehat) is criminal justice reform. The backlash (caused by the spike in crime rates from the late 70s through early 90s) drove our current massive prison population, mandatory minimum sentences, sex offender mark-of-Cain, and supermax prison trends.

But the backlash potential for gay marriage is pretty small as long as people who object can simply decide not to take part. That nice couple of guys who live in the house next to you call themselves a married couple instead of roommates or partners, but it's hard to see how this really hurts you.

Welcome to Making Light's comment section. The moderators are Avram Grumer, Teresa & Patrick Nielsen Hayden, and Abi Sutherland. Abi is the moderator most frequently onsite. She's also the kindest. Teresa is the theoretician. Are you feeling lucky?

Comments containing more than seven URLs will be held for approval. If you want to comment on a thread that's been closed, please post to the most recent "Open Thread" discussion.

You can subscribe (via RSS) to this particular comment thread. (If this option is baffling, here's a quick introduction.)

Post a comment.
(Real e-mail addresses and URLs only, please.)

HTML Tags:
<strong>Strong</strong> = Strong
<em>Emphasized</em> = Emphasized
<a href="">Linked text</a> = Linked text

Spelling reference:
Tolkien. Minuscule. Gandhi. Millennium. Delany. Embarrassment. Publishers Weekly. Occurrence. Asimov. Weird. Connoisseur. Accommodate. Hierarchy. Deity. Etiquette. Pharaoh. Teresa. Its. Macdonald. Nielsen Hayden. It's. Fluorosphere. Barack. More here.

(You must preview before posting.)

Dire legal notice
Making Light copyright 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 by Patrick & Teresa Nielsen Hayden. All rights reserved.