Amerika, zemlja velika

[Musky]

Američki Vrhovni sud doneo je danas presudu prema kojoj parovi imaju pravo na istopolne brakove u svih 50 američkih država.

Znači po difoltu ...bez Texasa.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Musky

[Marcus Wulffings]

pa dobro, taman su iskoristili tajming kada je pažnja usmerena na evropu i sredozemlje

[Кристофер Лумумбо]

Američki Vrhovni sud doneo je danas presudu prema kojoj parovi imaju pravo na istopolne brakove u svih 50 američkih država.

Rispekt

[Prospero]

Tekst presude

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

trenutno čitam dissenting opinions

[Prospero]

Well, zašto da ne?  ^_^ 
 

One immediate question invited by the majority’s position
is whether States may retain the definition of marriage
as a union of two people. Cf. Brown v. Buhman, 947
F. Supp. 2d 1170 (Utah 2013), appeal pending, No. 14-
4117 (CA10). Although the majority randomly inserts the
adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all
why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage
may be preserved while the man-woman element
may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition,
a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage
is much greater than one from a two-person union to
plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures
around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big
leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.
It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning
would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental
right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond
between two men or two women who seek to marry and in
their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at
13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between
three people who, in exercising their autonomy,
seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex
couple has the constitutional right to marry because their
children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing
their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why
wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or
more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity
to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay
and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of
this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate
people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?
See Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual
Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000
polyamorous families in the United States); Li, Married
Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr.
23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for
a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J.
1977 (2015).
 
I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex
couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may
well be relevant differences that compel different legal
analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to
any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral
argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have
such an institution.” Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 6.
But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do
not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.

[hazard]

+1

[Dagmar]

Pa zakon je očigledno fluidna stvar, ako dovoljno ljudi bude dovoljno dugo i dovoljno uporno tražilo poligamne brakove, možda i budu legalizovani.

[Musky]

znači +1K

[Marcus Wulffings]

Istorijska odluka u SAD: "Ljubav je pobedila"

Edited June 26, 2015 by Marcus Wulffings

[Ariel]

carski iskop, prospero, i stvarno, što da ne. roberts je stvarno odličan konzervativni sudija,

[Prospero]

Bolje da vam ne kvotujem Skaliju :D

[Prospero]

Pa zakon je očigledno fluidna stvar, ako dovoljno ljudi bude dovoljno dugo i dovoljno uporno tražilo poligamne brakove, možda i budu legalizovani.

 

Pa nije, pozivaju se na svoje tumačenje 14. amandmana koji je donet 1868. Tj. zakoni (ustav) je isti, fluidno je tumačenje; cela zemlja je živela u kršenju ustavnog amandmana 150 godina a da to nije ni znala :D

Edited June 26, 2015 by Prospero

[Weenie Pooh]

Bolje da vam ne kvotujem Skaliju :D

Pride goeth before the fall?

[Prospero]

Grešan si prema čestitom sudiji:

 

 

 

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

 

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

 

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate oversame-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.

...

 

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected intoday’s judicial Putsch.

[Weenie Pooh]

Anarhista u duši kad se desi da je na gubitničkoj strani u tom "unelected committee of nine"

 

Orvelovski definiše diskriminaciju kao "the people's freedom to govern themselves".