Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Robin Garr
241 followers -
Storyteller and seeker. Feeding the world and feeding the hungry.
Storyteller and seeker. Feeding the world and feeding the hungry.

241 followers
About
Posts

And Justice Scalia (Thomas concurring) opens up the real possibility that he is clinically insane:
"Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Meanwhile, Justice Thomas (Scalia concurring) said gays, and slaves, too, ought to shut up.
"[H]uman dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Justice Kennedy lays out the majority's opinion in four concise points:
Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U. S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.
A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at _. This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.
Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage. The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. Pp. 12–18.

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

Post has attachment
NPR puts the news in the lede: "States cannot keep same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their unions, the Supreme Court says."
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Here is The NY Times' analysis of the court's 5-4 decision on same-sex marriage. 
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
How did "thug" turn into the "New N-Word"? Good info here from NPR. 
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Simple test for OCD: does this bother you? How much?
Photo
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
O tempora, O mores. Nineteenth century-style clickbait was ... wordy.
Add a comment...

I used to wonder why some people are afraid of clowns. Then I saw Paul, Rubio and Cruz. ‪#‎GotIt‬
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Phlox! Now waiting to see if some shepherds will come watch them by night.
Photo
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded