Supreme Court rules gay couples nationwide have a right to marry

Jun 26, 2015

by Robert Barnes

The Supreme Court on Friday delivered a historic victory for gay rights, ruling 5 to 4 that the Constitution requires that same-sex couples be allowed to marry no matter where they live and that states may no longer reserve the right only for heterosexual couples.

The court’s action marks the culmination of an unprecedented upheaval in public opinion and the nation’s jurisprudence. Advocates called it the most pressing civil rights issue of modern times, while critics said the courts had sent the country into uncharted territory by changing the traditional definition of marriage.

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. He was joined in the ruling by the court’s liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

All four of the court’s most conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — dissented and each wrote a separate opinion, saying the court had usurped a power that belongs to the people.


Read the full article by clicking the name of the source located below.

61 comments on “Supreme Court rules gay couples nationwide have a right to marry

  • Every now and then, even from the USA comes great news.

    Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right

    Very, very well said. It’s a big step toward a fair and equitable society. I so hope the rest of the World will follow soon.

    ~~~

    I so want to hear what the pope has to say. We’ll burst laughing.



    Report abuse

  • http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/opinions/australia-same-sex-marriage/index.html

    For that bushy who is always knocking America!

    This is a blow to the religious nut bags who overtly and covertly opposed common sense for so long. The US is changing rapidly and the dinosaur contingent is losing influence just as rapidly. Congratulations gay people! Now all of you can enjoy the benefits of marriage. Take that from someone who has been married and divorced twice.



    Report abuse

  • Happy days for America!!!
    It’s funny that gas bag Justice Thomas would not have been able to marry his white wife just not that long ago until the law got changed, but here he is denying others marriage and crying about the change in the law. What a two headed snake he is.



    Report abuse

  • @OP – The Supreme Court on Friday delivered a historic victory for gay rights, ruling 5 to 4 that the Constitution requires that same-sex couples be allowed to marry no matter where they live and that states may no longer reserve the right only for heterosexual couples.

    The Supreme Court made a clear and obvious decision on the equal treatment of citizens, but characteristically, the linked articles then goes on at great length to quote numerous examples of emotive babble from the god-deluded, each making up their own contorted arguments and assertions!

    The BBC report seems to give a better balance of pro and con views.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33290341
    US Supreme Court rules gay marriage is legal nationwide

    It means the 14 states with bans on same-sex marriage will no longer be able to enforce them.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the plaintiffs asked “for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”



    Report abuse

  • Oh the shame. The back water of Australia is still navel gazing on this issue while the rest of the world abolishes the slavery of homophobia. As a critic of America, this is a gold medal performance.

    It’s a pity the Supreme Court wasn’t unanimous. But on my critic of America high horse, you’ve politicized your courts when they should be a fiercely independent third pillar in a democracy.



    Report abuse

  • At last! Unfortunately, my country is basically a soft theocracy and it will take an embarrassingly long time for Australia to catch up to this morality. It doesn’t help that we have a dribbling Catholic dingbat as Prime Minister.



    Report abuse

  • ” Oh the shame. The back water of Australia is still navel gazing on this issue while the rest of the world abolishes the slavery of homophobia. ”

    Indeed!

    As for your penance you must chant USA, USA, USA!! Five hours ought to do it.



    Report abuse

  • While I’m very happy for the many gay couples who can now enjoy the same rights and legal protections as the rest of us, I wish the decision had been made by popular referendum and not imposed by judicial fiat – would have given it more weight and denied the conservatives their opportunity to decry this as yet more meddling by activist jurists. (Coming on the heels of the ACA decision you can imagine what the conservative blogs are saying about SCOTUS at the moment).



    Report abuse

  • must chant USA, USA, USA!! Five hours ought to do it.

    I’m facing Washington DC. I’m draped in a pillow case I’ve coloured with texta’s as the US flag, and I am doing it five times a day. Oh the shame of being an backwater Australian.



    Report abuse

  • 12
    mombird says:

    I heard Mike Huckabee had a melt down too. The news isn’t showing too much of their temper tantrums but I’m going to keep looking. I’m going to watch Rachel Maddow tonight and rejoice with her. Ok, here it is- a large part of me just can’t help gloating. I feel like Erick Cartman from South Park going, nanner, nanner, nanner, ha, ha, ha. You guys are losers!” Sometimes being childish can feel sooooo good! At any rate, down with those sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, self righteous fools and up with justice for all.



    Report abuse

  • Ted Cruz has sprinted out of the blocks with vintage bigotry.

    Ted Cruz is in full Ted Cruz mode following Supreme Court rulings late this week affirming Obamacare insurance subsidies and legalizing gay marriage nationwide.
    “Today, it’s some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history,” Cruz told Sean Hannity on his radio program.
    Slamming the rulings as “naked and shameless judicial activism,” the Texas senator and 2016 GOP presidential candidate promised to continue his crusade for repeal of the health care reform law signed by President Obama in 2010, and touted his proposed constitutional amendment to allow states to ban same-sex marriage.




    Report abuse

  • On 2015-06-26 the Supreme Court of the USA voted 5-4 to make same sex marriage legal is all states. I wondered what excuses the dissenting justices could give. The only argument I have ever heard against gay marriage are tradition and that the Christian beliefs about gays should be imposed on everyone. Neither of these arguments would fly in the Supreme Court. Justice John (appointed by W.) Roberts claimed the constitution had nothing to say about whether people should be treated equally vis a vis marriage, so the court could not rule either way. You have to give him credit for deviousness



    Report abuse

  • It is not just Justice Thomas. The whole black church is thoroughly homophobic. It does not make sense, but then little in religion does. A similar puzzle is why would Jews mistreat Palestinians fresh when they were fresh from Hitler’s death camps.



    Report abuse

  • Popular referendum?!?

    The Supreme Court is one of the branches of government that interprets the Constitution free of popular referendums. That’s kind of their job. The founders feared mob rule and tyranny of the majority above all, which is why they set up our representative government as they did.

    If we waited for popular referendums on many issues the Court has ruled on we would still be back in the 50’s!



    Report abuse

  • 18
    rocket888 says:

    Why are they still discriminating against triads, or quads? Why does marriage need to be just two subsidized individuals; what if I want to have multiple partners, say a man and a woman (plus me). Or 3 guys and a dog? What’s government got to do with any agreements between consenting adults (ok the dog can’t consent)?

    Why not just outlaw any tax differences between any individuals at all! But then we couldn’t steal from Peter to bribe Paul. And then anything that lowered taxes overall would be going too far into the freedom (libertarian) direction wouldn’t it. And the lefty’s couldn’t handle that.



    Report abuse

  • The main thing Christian churches agree on is scapegoating gays. They claim Jehovah will do terrible things if they do not. With gay marriage, Jehovah should at least blow the Colorado caldera supervolcano. If he does not, this will be a major blow to the credibility of Christianity.

    We should see reduction of Christianity and reduction of Christian homophobia. That reduction makes Christianity less cool, which leads to more reduction.

    Christians try to portray themselves as a cautious ant and gays the cavalier grasshopper. We need a new myth where gays are the sane ones and the Christians are the drooling sillies.

    There are homophobes who promised to kill themselves if gay marriage were ever made legal. They will be spluttering to disown their pledges.

    The next fight mirrors the lunch counter fight of the black civil rights activists. We gays want to be treated equally when we ask for service. Religion is no excuse. It was not an acceptable excuse for slavery or apartheid either.



    Report abuse

  • Very true. It doesn’t make sense.
    Blanket statements are sometimes true. Usually they are only partially true. The “whole” black church is not homophobic. And not all Jews support the Israeli Zionist agenda. Far from it. There are thousands of left-wing Israelis as well. (I am sure you know that.) The Zionists want people to equate Judaism with Zionism. That’s propaganda, is completely erroneous, false, a complete lie.
    But Zionist Jews ARE Jews, so your point is still valid, Roedy.—All too valid, I’m afraid.
    I am a “Jew” (technically, that is: I am completely irreligious) and will continue to repeat over and over again my disillusionment and contempt for the Zionist state of Israel.
    The Republicans in this country have reached an unprecedented level of degradation. I love it when they lose – the sons of bitches.



    Report abuse

  • The judges had to make the favorable ruling that legalizes this civil human right to gay marriage on a national scale because of a sea change in public opinion over a mere decade or two. (Over 70% of Americans between 18 and 49 now support gay marriage rights). As evidenced by the rapid rise in Nones over the last decade, perhaps the forces for secularization will soon reach a critical mass even here on the dark continent of the far western world.



    Report abuse

  • Rights are not something you vote on.

    Correct. They exist from the day you were born. They also exist for the rest of the animals and plants on Planet Earth. They can’t be taken away by a vote, plebiscite, referendum, constitution or dictator. They are inalienable. A long list but it includes… Your choice of partner is personal and nothing to do with the state. If a legal option is available to one human being, it can’t be denied to another on the basis of sexual orientation.

    And if we don’t respect the right of all living things to live, then it is likely we may not live, much longer.



    Report abuse

  • While I’m very happy for the many gay couples who can now enjoy the same rights and legal protections as the rest of us, I wish the decision had been made by popular referendum and not imposed by judicial fiat – would have given it more weight and denied the conservatives their opportunity to decry this as yet more meddling by activist jurists.

    I understand where your coming from. I was looking forward to the uncomfortable discussions at the republican presidential debates about how public sentiment, especially with people under forty, is rapidly labeling opposition to gay rights as transparently bigoted. But now, there going to pivot and deflect any legitimate complainants about their position to how horrible they think it is that states rights are being trampled upon by “judicial activism”, which they hate, unless it’s advantageous to them.

    But in the end, it doesn’t matter. The die is cast. Close to 75 percent of people 30 and under support gay marriage. The Santorum’s of the world are just dinosaurs living in their end times. They’re violent, lizard brained reactions will only stand to hasten their demise.



    Report abuse

  • 25
    Miserablegit says:

    Far once the U.S. Government gets it right with the added bonus that right wing religious wing nuts are going to be very angry.



    Report abuse

  • Wobbles.

    In my humble opinion, using a vote to decide rights can result in gas chambers. The tyranny of the masses can out vote minorities. So rights have to preexist. We can only call them rights, because we are sentient beings who can think. (Sheeple?) So over a long period of time, philosophers and the general hoi polloi have worked out a few things and come to a loose consensus on what it is to be civilized. You can’t kill people, unless it’s in America because they have so many freaking guns and get bored a lot.

    I like the secular Golden Rule. First, do no harm. If you do something, that has an adverse impact on another person, or for that matter, a future person, then you shouldn’t do it. In this thread, a christian who believes in a god on faith alone in the absence of evidence, has decided that what their particular god tells them, should be imposed, sometimes by force on every other person on the planet. “My god says gays are evil, therefore, gays can rot in hell and not get married, because that’s only for heterosexuals.” If you god tells you to do something, and it doesn’t breach the secular Golden Rule, go for it. Knock yourself out. Waste your time and money.

    I don’t mind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights



    Report abuse

  • Oh David R Allen,

    You know me well enough by now to know you I share your shame. I’ve often been a critic of the USA – particularly in regards to gun control, education policy (which we seem determined to duplicate for some unfathomable reason), health care and social security but when it comes to things like this, I can’t help thinking that this may be an over religious nation but one in which it is possible to make a change. We Australian’s like to think of ourselves as tough minded individualists, I think this ruling shows just how gutless we actually are. Frankly we have to invert our ridiculous Tall Poppy Syndrome begin embarrassing the hell out of the fearful, cave dwelling pond scum that keep this nation from reaching the heights it is capable of.

    Well done USA, thanks for showing us all how it’s done! Hopefully now that you’ve done it we’ll feel we have permission to follow suit, you gave us Mc Donalds, flooded our cinemas with your movies and television (some of it very good actually), now please export us a bit of your self confidence.



    Report abuse

  • rocket888
    Jun 26, 2015 at 9:56 pm

    Why does marriage need to be just two subsidized individuals; what if I want to have multiple partners, say a man and a woman (plus me).

    In countries where marriage is given tax breaks, it is to either stabilise long-term stable relationships – important for children, OR to give preferential treatment to those in theistic partnerships.

    Some countries do permit polygamous marriage, (Allah permits but 4 female wives).

    Or 3 guys and a dog?

    In modern democracies, there are usually no restrictions on what partners people may choose in private, but any tax-breaks for short term relationships are likely to be open to abuse and be unworkable.



    Report abuse

  • The supremely* unfortunate result of taking the issue of equal marriage to court was depriving the individual states the opportunity of discussion. In that respect, I see Roberts’ point of view. One of the comments from a local paper put it best:

    I think Roberts is correct and ideally, both the health care law and gay marriage should have been shaped legislatively. Unfortunately, the partisan environment in our current Congress means that we can’t agree that the sky is blue. Hence, those who wish to make changes in laws are driven to the court instead of Congress. By supporting that, we are abandoning checks and balances in favor of expediency. At some future date, should the Court become as dysfunctional as Congress, it may consistently begin overreaching, and overturning such decisions could prove difficult. We are warping the Constitution to reach certain political ends, but in truth, the Constitution itself is more important than the issues it is being sacrificed to fix. This is the price we pay for excessive partisanship.

    *pun intended



    Report abuse

  • Vicki
    Jun 27, 2015 at 5:33 am

    The supremely* unfortunate result of taking the issue of equal marriage to court was depriving the individual states the opportunity of discussion.

    Not really! It is the function of the courts to progress issues when dysfunctional legislators prove themselves too incompetent and obstructive to do so.

    In that respect, I see Roberts’ point of view. One of the comments from a local paper put it best:

    This comment while having some slight substance, is basically a special pleading against the courts taking responsibilities, where perverse legislators have failed to follow the constitution.

    “I think Roberts is correct and ideally, both the health care law and gay marriage should have been shaped legislatively. Unfortunately, the partisan environment in our current Congress means that we can’t agree that the sky is blue. Hence, those who wish to make changes in laws are driven to the court instead of Congress.

    That is correct so far.

    By supporting that, we are abandoning checks and balances in favor of expediency.

    Not at all! There were no checks or balances from the perverse obstructive legislators in the first place – even if this was the job they were employed to provide. That is where the problem lies.

    At some future date, should the Court become as dysfunctional as Congress, it may consistently begin overreaching, and overturning such decisions could prove difficult.

    So in this hypothetical speculated position, there will be greater dysfunction, if the primary system AND the back-up system fail!

    We are warping the Constitution to reach certain political ends, but in truth, the Constitution itself is more important than the issues it is being sacrificed to fix.

    This is purely a perverse pseudo-truth assertion. The judges’ interpretation of citizens’ equal rights in the constitution was quite straightforward!

    the Constitution requires that
    same-sex couples be allowed to marry
    no matter where they live
    and that states may no longer reserve the right
    only for heterosexual couples.

    This is the price we pay for excessive partisanship.”

    It would be, if the court back-up system had not competently done the job where the perverse legislature failed.



    Report abuse

  • I applaud the end; I question the means.

    My position is primarily based on Roe v Wade. To me, that is the classic comparison to this specific issue. Legislation was bypassed in favor of judiciary, and 42 years later we are still fighting nuances of the issue of abortion.

    I live in a state where same-sex marriage is (was) illegal–Ohio. And in just the last 10 years I’ve seen the sentiment shift dramatically. I believe it would have passed, given the opportunity at the ballot box. Admittedly, it is a much slower process. But I think it is a process that better breeds acceptance.



    Report abuse

  • Take that from someone who has been married and divorced twice.

    Ditto!
    Marriage in not what it’s cracked up to be.

    It will be entertaining to watch this play out in the upcoming election season.



    Report abuse

  • My little brother, a hard-core Southern Baptist, posted Huckabee’s reaction on Facebook. Poor little feller. Thus far, religion is the only ‘justification’ the anti-gays are able to provide.



    Report abuse

  • 40
    mombird says:

    Vicki, I think they are obsessed with sex and sin. Instead of just saying that the thought of two men makes them sick they have to find justification in the Bible. Well, the Bible is the most perverted porno book going!



    Report abuse

  • Vincent
    Jun 27, 2015 at 2:21 pm

    Check out Huckabee’s facebook page if you are interested in witnessing his melt down. It’s quite amusing.

    They will probably progress from meltdown to a nuclear vaporisation, when you add in this ruling!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33269991
    The US Supreme Court has upheld a key portion of President Barack Obama’s healthcare law, preserving health insurance for millions of Americans.

    In a 6-3 decision, the justices said that tax subsidies that make health insurance affordable for low-income individuals can continue.

    The ruling preserves the law known as Obamacare, which Mr Obama considers a major part of his presidential legacy.

    Republicans have vowed to continue fighting the law.



    Report abuse

  • I’m quite sure the divorce lawyers will be relishing the extra potential business. What’s marriage but an arrangement about property rights, – what’s divorce but an arrangement about property rights, – especially where offspring have to be looked after.

    Who sang that song “What’s Love got to do with it?

    First Ireland, and now the USA. Who’d a thunk it ?

    I hope the likes of William Lane Craig have many sleepless nights, and I’m not a mean hearted individual, – hopefully !



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion
    Jun 27, 2015 at 2:43 pm

    The ruling preserves the law known as Obamacare, which Mr Obama considers a major part of his presidential legacy.

    Republicans have vowed to continue fighting the law.

    It should be obvious WHY the republican vested interests are fighting the law which gives the public customer support services some market clout!

    http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2011/04/26/cost-of-health-care-by-country-national-geographic/



    Report abuse

  • Hi Roedy

    The case was decided by a margin of 5-4, that doesn’t give much weight to an issue so sweeping. (When Canada’s Supremes upheld the same right they did so unanimously).

    My problem with this is that the justices job is not to create laws, it’s to interpret them. For 150 years they have looked at marriage and decided it’s between a man and a women. Now the decision of just one man changes all that. Despite the fact that the outcome is a good one, the methodology is flawed. Apparently justice Scalia, with whom I disagree on just about everything else, is with me on this one. Let me be very clear – I believe that marriage is a right and should be a right for everyone, and I’ve believed this for as long as I can remember. But a significant minority (in some states a majority) do not believe this and that is also their right. The proper place to decide this would have been the ballot box. As it stands the supreme court decision robs the verdict of some legitimacy and opens the door to conservative charges of activist judges reshaping society. A nationwide referendum would have achieved the same result and would have given our opponents absolutely zero ground on which to stand. Conservatives are spitting mad about this; if you think they are going to quietly give up and drop it now I fear you are sadly mistaken. This is what rallies the base; it’s red meat to the bible and guns crowd. And what this country really does not need at the moment is even more partisanship.

    Anyway, water under the bridge, I still celebrate the decision and I’m very happy for all those couples who will finally enjoy the same rights and protections as the rest of us. Cheers!



    Report abuse

  • Neodarwinian
    Jun 26, 2015 at 9:39 pm

    Popular referendum?!?

    Referendums are a system for politicians who are abdicating responsibility, consulting the media manipulated ignorant, because they have no vision of moral issues, no vision of desirable future outcomes, and no backbone, to stand up for the interests of their electors.



    Report abuse

  • 48
    Lorenzo says:

    Yup, it’s true. But they, surprisingly enough, preceded a good part of the western world on this. My Country has yet to join the club, for example… but we have the Vatican stuck into our middle, so it’s not so easy. Sadly.



    Report abuse

  • Good. It will still take a long time for the religious to understand that just because they believe in an invisible, imaginary fairy in the sky, that does not mean it should dictate whether or not two consenting adults marry.

    If only I could live to be 500 years old, just to see how this all works out, and if Islamic countries eventually follow.



    Report abuse

  • Mr DArcy makes a keen observation about gay marriages and the inevitable divorces. Although I recognize marriage as a human and civil right for the LGBT community worthy of celebration, I’ve often wondered if it’s a comfortable institution especially for younger gay men. Traditionally the male gay community deplored “straight” marriage almost as an affront to a lifestyle which gave primacy to sexuality expressed robustly in multiple partnerships. Unless two gay men are planing to have a family through adoption or custody of pre-existing biological offspring there will tend to be a weaker bond between the wedded couple. Older couples over 50, for example, might be more inclined to marry and stay married out of contentment with a more companionship centered relationship. Women confused about their sexual orientation who enter into lesbian marriage in their younger years , say between 18 and 38, may frequently find they want out in order to have children and a straight family life. Older authentic lesbians may tend to embrace the companionship marriage model.



    Report abuse

  • Hmm…so you are saying a stronger bond between a couple is dependent on children?

    And younger women homosexuals are only “confused,” while younger male homosexuals are clear about their orientation, but promiscuous?

    Interesting…



    Report abuse

  • Mr DArcy
    Jun 27, 2015 at 2:47 pm

    I’m quite sure the divorce lawyers will be relishing the extra potential business. What’s marriage but an arrangement about property rights, – what’s divorce but an arrangement about property rights,

    Many of the younger generation who have dumped religion and the need for authorities to tell them what to do, simply set up home together in a trusting informal partnership, (possibly with legal agreements about property), and don’t bother about “marriage” at all!



    Report abuse

  • It is quite comical the way the deluded Xtian Right claim (using faith-thinking), that the Xtian “one man one woman marriage”, is “natural law”!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

    A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.

    Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt. The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.

    In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[7] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.

    At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.

    While the church father, Augustine of Hippo, presented marriage as an important sacrament of the Christian Church in the 5th century CE,[39] it wasn’t until the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, in the middle of the 12th century, that marriage became a part of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Christian Church.[40][41]

    A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.

    As usual, Xtian-Right heads, are full of “god-delusion”, and pig-ignorant of history!



    Report abuse

  • And younger women homosexuals are only “confused,” while younger male homosexuals are clear about their orientation, but promiscuous?

    Of course I didn’t “say” that. Pew research statistics show a tentative breakdown of homosexuals and bisexuals by gender, cautioning that polling-response methodologies for measurement are imprecise.
    36% are homosexual men (Gays)
    19% are homosexual women (Lesbians)
    11% are bisexual men
    39% are bisexual women

    (All figures are based on self-reporting and other tenuous factors. 5% are transgender that makes the total sample 100%. The transgender category is not pertinent to the discussion here.) The homosexual breakdown shows that a little over a third are women and a little under two thirds are men, implying that roughly 2 out of every three homosexuals is a man, a significant majority. Conversely, and contrary to expectation, the bisexual breakdown shows that only 27% are men while a large majority 73% are women.

    One strong implication from the homosexual numbers is that men are significantly more likely than women to have same-sex orientation. The related implication from the bisexual category numbers is that male homosexuals “know” their sexual orientation with far more certainty and less ambivalence than women. Some researchers believe that bisexual self-reporting probably registers a frequently false category. Male and female homosexuals participate in opposite sex activities for procreation and/or to comply with social norms while never losing their same-sex preference or developing a sex drive for opposite sex partners.

    Similarly the disproportionate share of women self-reporting bisexuality probably indicates a stronger tendency for straight women to experiment with same-sex partners less restrained by the male need for physical attraction to the opposite sex -to be blunt -the female body. I suspect that the disparities in statistics show that straight women are more likely to “experiment” with same sex encounters than men and then disingenuously report they are bisexual. Anecdotal evidence of women (some of them famous) getting out of nominally lesbian relationships, and switching back to straight sex relationships with men lends credence to the notion of “confusion.” ( To be discussed further as needed).



    Report abuse

  • Vicki
    Jun 27, 2015 at 6:35 am

    I applaud the end; I question the means.

    Given the present obstructive conditions in Congress, effect action from that sources looks doubtful. On matters of the constitution a competent national ruling is required.

    I believe it would have passed, given the opportunity at the ballot box. Admittedly, it is a much slower process. But I think it is a process that better breeds acceptance.

    I agree that a working primary system would have been better, the fact that individuals had to take the matter to the courts at a series of levels, clearly shows that the primary system was not working. – (Fairly obviously because of the perversity of obstructive, faith-addled, elected representatives and their appointees.)



    Report abuse

  • My problem with this is that the justices job is not to create laws, it’s to interpret them.

    Perhaps you do not know of the 14th Amendment which provided the basis for this decision. The Constitution outweighs the ballot box and this is not the first time this type of SCOTUS decision has come down the pike.

    A nationwide referendum would have achieved the same result

    What?!? What country are you talking about? Certainly not the USA.



    Report abuse

  • Apologies. I presented the Pew Research statistic for the bisexual category with a typo. 40% of the LGBT community is represented by bisexuals. Of that 40%, 11% are bisexual men and 29% (not 39%) are bisexual women. The 73% women majority cited is correct.



    Report abuse

  • 59
    Lorenzo says:

    I suspect you’re assuming an hypothesis which actually would need to be proven -and your own data aren’t in agreement with it, dealing out your own suspects, to which I’ll come in a minute. Said hypothesis is “sexual orientation is exclusive”, at least largely so.
    From which you may conclude that you have straight heterosexuals on one side, straight homosexuals on the other and a bunch of confused people in between (since bisexuality, at the practical act, sees one individual swithching back and forth to one of the two extremes).
    Such a picture needs data in support and there aren’t any, yet, because the cultural stigma on those topics is just beginning to fade.

    The male need for physical attraction to the opposite sex -to be blunt -the female body.

    Sorry, what? What are you basing this on?

    I suspect that the disparities in statistics show that straight women are more likely to “experiment” with same sex encounters than men and then disingenuously report they are bisexual. Anecdotal evidence of women (some of them famous) getting out of nominally lesbian relationships, and switching back to straight sex relationships with men lends credence to the notion of “confusion.”

    Melvin, you’re pushing hunches and personal observations of yours into the “data” and then using the whole mixture to support a conjecture of yours, which seems to be behind the hunches in the first place (some get confused so they report bisexuality and therfore are confused). This is not best practice… At the very least.

    Also, I wouldn’t use the term “confusion” at all in this context: it’s judgemental and deminishig.

    ~~~

    But, of course, none of this matters, does it? The fact that people can marry doesn’t mean they will but, if the do, the authenticity of that commitment and the subsequent legal recognition don’t have anything to do with the gender and sexual orientation of the partners -it’s a matter of social equality.



    Report abuse

  • In a classic case of PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION: –

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33314220
    Texas’ top law officer has called the US Supreme Court decision legalising gay marriage in all 50 states a “lawless ruling” and vowed to support state workers who refuse to marry couples on religious grounds.

    The court ruled on Friday that marriage for all is a constitutional right.

    “Support STATE WORKERS who wish to impose their religion on other citizens, from their position in public office”! ???

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said clerks could be fined if they refuse to issue marriage licences.

    However, he said that his office would defend them in court free of charge.

    . . . . . And presumably, then explain in court, his fraudulent misuse of public funds, while those who can’t or won’t do the jobs they are paid to do, can have their “bigotry dilemma” solved for them, by being sacked and replaced by someone who can provide the unbiased public service!

    “I think it is wrong for the federal government to force Christian individuals, businesses, pastors, churches to participate in wedding ceremonies that violate our sincerely held religious beliefs,” Mr Jindal said.

    “We have to stand up and fight for religious liberty. That’s where this fight is going,” he added.

    Gay marriages in the US only apply to secular unions so churches and clergy are not legally required participate.

    So presumably, anyone with religious objections, can get a job selling “Big Macs” rather than conducting marriages! – Unless of course they have religious views on the protection of sacred cows!!



    Report abuse

  • Lorenzo strikes a reasonable chord by calling for precise comprehensive data instead of anecdotal evidence. Currently most data is statistical based on polling which breaks out subset identity shares and opinions in the LGBT community. (Extensive interviews with larger samples of LGBT individuals amend understanding with quality information.)

    We can only infer trends by examining identified pools of people in comparison with other pools.

    For example, the same Pew Research study also cites: “Despite nearly universal support for same-sex marriage among LGBT adults [93%], a significant minority of that population 39% say that the issue has drawn too much attention away from other issues that are important to people who are LGBT. However, 58% say it should be the top priority even if it takes attention away from other issues.” In previous decades a large block of gays derided marriage as a straight bourgeois institution incompatible with the gay “party-lifestyle” where sexual variety was the order of the day. The almost 40% who currently express ambivalence about gay marriage, may reflect the latent homosexual antipathy to the institution.

    The criticism of the term ‘confusion” is well taken while the underlying evidence points to differential attitudes toward sexual orientation between men and women. Men by a factor of a little under two to one, compared to women, are disposed to self-identify with same-sex orientation. Only 34.55% of self-identified homosexuals are women.

    The self-identified bisexual category registers ambiguous and counter-intuitive numbers. Today surely straight young men and women are likely to have experienced same-sex between 15 and 25 (roughly) on one or several occasions. Recalled from memory these rare experiences seem adequately pleasurable in the moment. Feeling qualified by such same-sex dalliance, many people may be inclined to report that they are bona-fide bisexuals without considering their underlying heterosexual (or homosexual) orientation. There is doubtlessly a small class of individuals who go through their lives under the category “no sexual preference” indicating a significant capacity to become sexually aroused by men or women. However, the disparity between men and women who self-identify as bisexual implies a significant range of false reporting. Women are less inclined to homosexual orientation than men, yet almost 3 to 1 more likely to engage in bisexual behavior with other women. The inference I make is drawn from these disparities. Male heterosexual behavior becomes more exclusive than female heterosexual behavior with maturation because sexual orientation is more solidified (whether homosexual or heterosexual) in men than women exerted by stronger, more decisive physical attraction or repulsion. A gay or straight man usually “knows” whether he strongly prefers the male or female body in erotic sexual interactions. The straight woman statistically is more likely to give more slack to the physical anatomy of her partner and be more receptive to same-sex encounters in spite of her underlying sexual orientation. A straight man would likely be more repulsed by french kissing another man no matter how well his experimental “partner” kissed. A larger, subset of straight women would likely be more receptive to being french kissed by a another woman because of attenuated erotic focus on the body of her partner. The disparate numbers suggest that women may be biologically, physiologically, neurologically, and psychologically more disposed to self-identify as bisexual by a margin of 3 to 1 over men for the reasons given above. (Other inferences from the statistics or other variables are just as worthy of consideration. Further research is indisputably required.)



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.