Chief Justice Roberts says 5 judges stole this issue from the people. Next listmail from Mr. Myers..Justice Scalia calls it a Judicial Putsch (1) 5-4 vote for Gay Marriage welcomed by UN's Ban Ki-moon as step forward for human rights (2) Of the 5 judges who voted for Gay Marriage, 3 are Jewish (3) How the 9 Judges Voted - from The Atlantic (4) Excerpts From the Supreme Court Majority Opinion (5) Dissenting Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts refers to the universality of Man-Woman marriage in other cultures (6) Dissenting Opinion: Scalia calls it a "judicial Putsch" (7) Roberts "wrong about marriage practices of Kalahari Bushmen, Han Chinese, Carthaginians, Aztecs" (8) On Gay Marriage, John Roberts Invokes … the Aztecs? (9) NYT editorial: A Profound Ruling Delivers Justice on Gay Marriage (1) 5-4 vote for Gay Marriage welcomed by UN's Ban Ki-moon as step forward for human rights http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-27/us-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-gay-marriage-nationwide/6577294 US Supreme Court rules in favour of same-sex marriage nationwide in win for gay rights movement The Supreme Court has ruled the US Constitution provides same-sex couples the right to marry in a historic triumph for the American gay rights movement. The court ruled 5-4 that the Constitution's guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law mean that states cannot ban same-sex marriages. With the ruling, gay marriage will become legal in all 50 states. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing on behalf of the court, said the hope of gay people intending to marry "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 statement said. Justice Kennedy, a conservative who often casts the deciding vote in close cases, was joined in the majority by the court's four liberal justices. There are currently 13 state bans in place, while another state, Alabama, has contested a court ruling that lifted the ban there. President Barack Obama, in heartfelt remarks, praised the ruling as "a victory for America". "Today we can say, in no uncertain terms, that we've made our union a little more perfect," he said at the White House, which changed its Twitter avatar to the rainbow colours of the growing gay rights movement. "This decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free." The ruling is the Supreme Court's most important expansion of marriage rights in the US since its landmark 1967 ruling in the case Loving vs Virginia that struck down state laws barring interracial marriages. In a dissenting opinion, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said the court's decision was a "threat to American democracy". "[The ruling] 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," he said. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts also read a summary of his dissenting opinion from the bench. The decision follows rapid changes in attitudes and policies toward gay marriage in America. It was not until 2003 that the Supreme Court threw out state laws banning gay sex. In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to legalise same-sex marriage. [...] United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon welcomed the ruling as "a great step forward for human rights." Gay marriage gaining acceptance in Western countries Last month in Ireland, voters backed same-sex marriage by a landslide in a referendum that marked a dramatic social shift in the traditionally Roman Catholic country. Ireland followed several Western European countries, including Britain, France and Spain in allowing gay marriage, which is also legal in South Africa, Brazil and Canada. But homosexuality remains taboo and often illegal in many parts of Africa and Asia. The Supreme Court's ruling came in a consolidated case, pulling together challenges filed by same-sex couples to gay marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Same-sex marriage was legal in 36 states and Washington, DC. In a 37th, Alabama, a federal court struck down the gay-marriage ban, but the state supreme court has stopped local officials from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. But opponents say same-sex marriage legality should be decided by states, not judges. Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said: "This flawed, failed decision is an out-of-control act of unconstitutional judicial tyranny." Rick Santorum, also a Republican presidential candidate, lamented that five "unelected judges redefined the foundational unit of society". Some opponents argue it is an affront to traditional marriage between a man and a woman and the Bible condemns homosexuality. The emotions of the issue were apparent during the court's April 28 oral arguments in the case when a protester in the courtroom shouted at the justices that they would "burn in hell" if they backed gay marriage. Mr Obama is the first sitting president to back gay marriage and his administration argued on the side of the same-sex marriage advocates. The legal repercussions for same-sex couples are broad, affecting not just their right to marry but also their right to be recognised as a spouse or parent on birth and death certificates and other legal papers. Big business had urged the justices to support gay marriage, saying in a brief submitted in the case that inconsistent state laws impose burdens on companies and marriage bans can conflict with corporate anti-discrimination and diversity policies. The ruling is the latest milestone in the gay rights movement in recent years. In 2010, president Barack Obama signed a law allowing gays to serve openly in the US military. In 2013, the high court ruled unconstitutional a 1996 US law that declared for the purposes of federal benefits marriage was defined as between one man and one woman. Reuters (2) Of the 5 judges who voted for Gay Marriage, 3 are Jewish (non-Jewish) Anthony Kennedy, a Catholic Sonia Sotomayor (Jewish) Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer Stephen Breyer, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg ... Francisco, the son of Anne A. (née Roberts) and Irving Gerald Breyer, and raised in a middle-class Jewish family. Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Jewish Women's Archive https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/ginsburg-ruth-bader Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the first Jewish woman (and only the second woman) appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Elena Kagan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan Elena Kagan (pronounced /?ke???n/; born April 28, 1960) is an Associate Justice ..... the eighth Jewish justice, making three of the nine current justices Jewish. Dissenting Jusges: Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas (3) How the 9 Judges Voted - from The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/gay-marriage-legal-in-the-united-states-of-america/396947/ Gay Marriage Is Now a Constitutional Right in the United States of America On Friday, the Supreme Court issued a 5 to 4 decision in favor of same-sex unions. Emma Green Jun 26, 2015 The first line of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, on the legality of same-sex marriage in the United States, is as breathtaking as it is legalistic. 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. There it is, the ruling that gay-marriage advocates and opponents have been waiting for since April when the Court took up the case—but really, for years long before that. There is now a constitutional right for people of the same sex to get married in the United States. Related Story A New Right Grounded in the Long History of Marriage The Court’s opinion—authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Catholic who has long been seen as the possible swing vote on gay marriage, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, and with four separate dissents authored and joined by combinations of Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas—lists four major reasons for its decision. First, Kennedy writes that “decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make.” Allowing LGBT people to marry is a matter of personal choice and autonomy, just as it was in the Court’s 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia, which outlawed bans on interracial marriage. Second, Kennedy writes, marriage is a distinctive institution: “It supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.” Here, he points to the Court’s opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, which affirmed the right of married couples to use birth control. “Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association.” But then, the decision takes an interesting turn: The Court seems to flip the oft-used reasoning of same-sex marriage opponents, who claim that gay marriage is harmful to children and families, and disruptive to the longstanding order of American society. In the oral arguments for Obergefell, several justices raised this very question—even Breyer, who joined in the decision, said that marriage between a man and a woman “has been the law everywhere for thousands of years. Suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states to change [this configuration].” But on Friday, Breyer joined four of his colleagues to do exactly that. “Protecting the right to marry ... safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education,” Kennedy writes. Not all straight married couples have children, and they’re certainly not required to do so by law, he reasons; the same rule should apply to gay married couples. But more importantly, for those gay couples that do want to have kids—including the many couples who adopt or have children using the genetic material of one parent—that their unions are less than marriage under the law creates a “more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children.” “Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.” Finally, Kennedy affirms that marriage is “a keystone of the Nation’s social order.” It is the institution at the center of the United States’ legal and educational structures, and because of this, “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.” “Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations,” Kennedy writes. This is, perhaps, the most striking argument of all, for it is an argument about the nature, significance, and dignity of marriage itself. “The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law and society,” Kennedy writes, but the “institution—even as confined to opposite-sex relations—has evolved over time.” The dissents from Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia are scathing. The chief justice argues that the Court has stepped far beyond its bounds, stating simply, “this Court is not a legislature.” Like his colleagues in the majority, he delves into the history of marriage, even giving a nod to one of the favorite arguments of gay-marriage opponents: that legalizing gay marriage is essentially a slippery slope. In fact, he writes, the leap from heterosexual 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.” His conclusion: “The majority expressly disclaims judicial ‘caution’ and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own ‘new insight’ into the ‘nature of injustice.’ … Just who do we think we are?” Scalia’s dissent carries a much more mocking tone—indeed, he says he concurs with Roberts entirely, but is writing a separate dissent to “call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.” He diagrams several of Kennedy’s sentences and states his astonishment at “the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.” His main objection is that the Court has stepped beyond the boundaries of the law—not just in Obergefell, but over the course of several recent decisions. “With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the ‘reasoned judgment’ of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence,” he writes. “The majority and omits even a pretense of humility ... Just who do we think we are?” And there were hints of the battles ahead. In each of their dissents, Thomas and Alito address the question of religious liberty, arguing that this decision will make it much more difficult for those who oppose gay marriage on the basis of faith to exercise their beliefs. “It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” Alito writes. “In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.” Thomas predicts that the decision will present challenges for churches and other religious organizations that must now determine whether to recognize civil same-sex marriages, and Roberts warns of challenging questions about the tax status of religious non-profits, like colleges, that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Let those challenges come. Opponents of same-sex marriage have long argued that the institution of marriage is sacred, and that gay unions would change its very nature. They have contended that it has been historically defined as a union between one man and one woman, and that the Court does not have the authority to change that definition. With this decision, the Supreme Court of the United States dissents. (4) Excerpts From the Supreme Court Majority Opinion http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/excerpts-supreme-court-majority-opinion-dissents-32054771 Excerpts From the Supreme Court Majority Opinion, Dissents Jun 26, 2015, 1:31 PM ET By The Associated Press Excerpts from the majority opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy and dissents written by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling Friday that declared a constitutional right to same-sex marriage: ——— KENNEDY: "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." "Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect — and need — for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment." "The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation. There is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices." "Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability and predictability marriage offers, their 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 through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples." "The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era. Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the state itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. 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." [...] (5) Dissenting Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts refers to the universality of Man-Woman marriage in other cultures Excerpts From the Supreme Court Majority Opinion, Dissents Jun 26, 2015, 1:31 PM ET By The Associated Press ROBERTS: "Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens — through the democratic process — to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept." "The court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?" "If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it." [...] (6) Dissenting Opinion: Scalia calls it a "judicial Putsch" Excerpts From the Supreme Court Majority Opinion, Dissents Jun 26, 2015, 1:31 PM ET By The Associated Press SCALIA: "What really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today's majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every state violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification and Massachusetts' permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a 'fundamental right' overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since." "The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the court to do so. Of course the opinion's showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent." "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the court that began: "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity," I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie." "The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop-philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today's opinion has to diminish this court's reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis." ——— THOMAS: "The majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a 'liberty' that the framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect." ——— ALITO: "Most Americans —understandably — will cheer or lament today's decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority's claim of power portends." (7) Roberts "wrong about marriage practices of Kalahari Bushmen, Han Chinese, Carthaginians, Aztecs" http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/06/26/justice-roberts-cited-the-traditions-of-four-cultures-in-his-dissent-on-gay-marriage-heres-what-he-didnt-mention/ Justice Roberts cited the traditions of four cultures in his dissent on gay marriage. Here’s what he didn’t mention. By Ishaan Tharoor June 26 In his written dissent to the Supreme Court's decision to effectively legalize gay marriage in all 50 states in the United States, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. made a conspicuous gesture to the rest of the world. He referred to the "social institution" that the majority of the court was "transforming," and anchored its legitimacy in the currents of history. ...the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are? It's not quite clear to WorldViews why Roberts decided to implicate these four particular cultures in his opposition to the legalizing of gay marriage. But we can suggest reasons why they are hardly exemplars of "traditional" unions between men and women. The Kalahari Bushmen These hunter-gatherers in sub-Saharan Africa have long been the world's stock image of "primitive man," and presumably that's why Roberts referenced them -- as the stereotype of an atavistic people, whether it's fair or not. (It's not, but let's move on.) The Kalahari Bushmen don't have very strong wedding practices, and don't pay much attention to ceremonies around mating. Early European accounts of tribes and kingdoms encountered in southern Africa included details of warrior women styling themselves as kings (not "queens"), polygamous households where lesbianism was common, and even ancient Bushmen rock paintings depicting explicit homosexual sex. Han Chinese Again, it's unclear what exactly Roberts is invoking by mentioning the largest ethnic group in China. Gay marriage is not legal in China, but activists are working to change that. A whole set of other "traditional" wedding practices -- including the grisly custom of "corpse brides" -- are banned. During the Han dynasty, the ancient lineage of kings that gives the Han their name, homosexuality was rife. Almost all the emperors -- you know, the lawgivers of the land -- of the Western Han dynasty apparently had same-sex lovers. The Carthaginians For centuries, the Carthaginians were Rome's greatest rival, and sparred for preeminence in the ancient Mediterranean. The great Hannibal, general of Carthage's legions, famously crossed the Alps with war elephants in 218 B.C. and almost snuffed out the world-conquering empire before it bloomed. Sadly for him, things went the other way. Now, some right-wing Italian scholars of Roman history see in Carthage the seeds of Rome's eventual fall. Why? Well, according to Roberto De Mattei, formerly the deputy head of Italy's National Research Council, Carthage "was a paradise for homosexuals." After it was conquered by Rome, said De Mattei in 2011, "the abhorrent presence of a few [Carthaginian] gays infected a good part of the [Roman] people." De Mattei's remarks led to a heated backlash, but one imagines Roberts was not that aware of the debate. The Aztecs Here's an excerpt from a discussion of Aztec customary law on the Web site of the University of Texas at Austin. It hardly presents a picture-perfect snapshot of conservative family values: Marriage was conditional in that the parties could decide to separate or stay together after they had their first son. Marriages could also be unconditional and last for an indefinite period of time. Polygamy and concubines were permitted, though this was more common in noble households and marriage rites were only observed with the first, or principal, wife. Aztec families could live in single family homes, though many opted to live in joint family households for economic reasons. Then you have to factor in the whole human sacrifice thing. Children, meanwhile, needed to behave: "Parents were permitted to physically punish their children, and would beat them using maguey spines or force them to inhale chili smoke," notes UT-Austin's site. What you need to know about the same-sex marriage decision(0:59) The Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. Here's what you need to know. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post) Ishaan Tharoor writes about foreign affairs for The Washington Post. He previously was a senior editor at TIME, based first in Hong Kong and later in New York. (8) On Gay Marriage, John Roberts Invokes … the Aztecs? http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/on-same-sex-marriage-john-roberts-invokes-the-aztecs/ By Lawrence Downes June 26, 2015 1:06 pm June 26, 2015 1:06 pm John Roberts’s dissent in today’s same-sex marriage ruling includes an odd paragraph accusing the majority of blindness to truths as old as humanity. The misguided majority, he says, “orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?” I’m sure his clerks did their research. But it can be risky when you go around the world, and back through the ages, looking for societies and cultural norms to bolster your 21st-century conservative American point of view. Especially with the Aztecs. I’m no expert, but three minutes of online searching led me to this examination of Aztec law and culture by the Tarlton Law Library and the Benson Latin American Collection at the University of Texas at Austin. It looks pretty reliable to me. Money quotes: “Men got married between the ages of 20-22, and women generally got married at 15 to 18 years of age. Parents and relatives decided when and who their children would marry, and sometimes used marriage brokers. Nobles could only marry other nobles, and marriages were often used to form political alliances. “Marriage was conditional in that the parties could decide to separate or stay together after they had their first son. Marriages could also be unconditional and last for an indefinite period of time. Polygamy and concubines were permitted, though this was more common in noble households and marriage rites were only observed with the first, or principal, wife.” Why does this make me think of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich? But never mind. As Justice Roberts and his fellow dissenters keep insisting, we need to learn from the Aztecs, not gay couples, because this is all about protecting children. “Aztec families were very close knit. Children were considered gifts from the gods, but were expected to be obedient to their parents and elders. Parents were permitted to physically punish their children, and would beat them using maguey spines or force them to inhale chili smoke.” (9) NYT editorial: A Profound Ruling Delivers Justice on Gay Marriage http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/opinion/a-profound-ruling-delivers-justice-on-gay-marriage.html?_r=0 A Profound Ruling Delivers Justice on Gay Marriage By THE EDITORIAL BOARD JUNE 26, 2015 To the list of landmark Supreme Court decisions reaffirming the power and the scope of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law — from Brown v. Board of Education to Loving v. Virginia to United States v. Windsor — we can now add Obergefell v. Hodges. In a profound and inspiring opinion expanding human rights across America, and bridging the nation’s past to its present, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.” As news of the ruling came out on Friday morning, opponents of same-sex marriage struggled to fathom how the country they thought they understood could so rapidly pass them by. But, in fact, the court’s decision fits comfortably within the arc of American legal history. As Justice Kennedy explained, the Constitution’s power and endurance rest in the Constitution’s ability to evolve along with the nation’s consciousness. In that service, the court itself “has recognized that new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within our most fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged.” For gays and lesbians who have waited so long for the court to recognize their relationships as equal to opposite-sex relationships, it was a remember-where-you-were-when-it-happened moment. Addressing what he called “the transcendent importance of marriage,” Justice Kennedy wrote that “through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation. There is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices.” Justice Kennedy’s focus on dignity and equality has been central to his majority opinion in each of the court’s three earlier gay rights cases. In 1996, the court held that states cannot deny gays, lesbians and bisexual people legal protection from discrimination. In 2003, it held that states cannot ban consensual sexual relations between people of the same sex. And in 2013, it struck down the heart of a federal law defining marriage as between one man and one woman. In Friday’s ruling, Justice Kennedy emphasized the dignity and equality not only of same-sex couples, but of their families and children. “Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers,” he wrote, the children of these couples “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser.” President Obama, who opposed same-sex marriage in his first presidential campaign but announced in 2012 that he had changed his mind, said the decision “affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts: When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free.” And yet, in the midst of all the hard-earned jubilation surrounding the decision, it was difficult not to think of the people who did not live to see this day. People like John Arthur, who died in October 2013, only months after he married his partner of more than 20 years, Jim Obergefell, on the tarmac of Baltimore-Washington International Airport. They lived in Cincinnati, but Ohio would not let them marry; voters there had passed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2004. As Mr. Arthur lay on a stretcher, dying of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, he and Mr. Obergefell took a private medical jet to Maryland, where same-sex marriage is legal. They were married in a brief ceremony and then flew home. When Ohio officials refused to put Mr. Obergefell’s name on his husband’s death certificate, he sued. Last November, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against him and other couples challenging bans in Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. Same-sex marriage, the court said, is a “social issue” for voters, and not the courts, to decide. Friday’s decision reversed that ruling. The humane grandeur of the majority’s opinion stands out all the more starkly in contrast to the bitter, mocking small-mindedness of the dissents, one each by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito Jr. and Antonin Scalia. Faced with a simple statement of human equality, the dissenters groped and scratched for a way to reject it. The chief justice compared the ruling to some of the most notorious decisions in the court’s history, including Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 ruling holding that black people could not be American citizens and that Congress could not outlaw slavery in the territories; and Lochner v. New York, a 1905 case that is widely rejected today as an example of justices imposing their own preferences in place of the law. He invoked the traditional understanding of marriage, which he ascribed to, among others, Kalahari bushmen, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. But Justice Kennedy had a ready reply: “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.” Justice Scalia mocked the ruling as a “judicial Putsch” and a threat to American democracy. “This is a naked judicial claim to legislative — indeed, super-legislative — power,” he wrote. “A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.” But that rant is wholly wrong. In American democracy, the judicial branch is the great bulwark against a majority’s refusal to recognize a minority’s fundamental constitutional rights. As Justice Kennedy wrote, “An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act.” As gratifying as Friday’s ruling is, remember that equality won by a single vote. And within minutes of the ruling, there was resistance by some officials around the country. Louisiana’s attorney general, James Caldwell, said his state, one of 13 that still bans same-sex marriage, is not required to issue licenses to same-sex couples because the Supreme Court has not yet released an explicit order. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a Republican presidential candidate, called for a constitutional amendment allowing states to ban same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, the dwindling number of Americans who oppose same-sex marriage have shifted tactics to rely on so-called religious-freedom laws, which they say allow them to, among other things, decline to provide business services for same-sex weddings. Justice Kennedy said that Americans who disagree with same-sex marriage, for religious or other reasons, have the freedom to believe and to speak as they wish. “But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the state itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied.” Still, the court did not give sexual orientation a special status, like race or gender, which would provide stronger protection against discriminatory laws. More than four decades ago, a male couple in Hennepin County, Minn., applied for a marriage license and was denied. When their lawsuit reached the Supreme Court, the justices dismissed it “for want of a substantial federal question.” In the years since, Americans’ attitudes toward gays and lesbians and the right to marry have changed dramatically. Before Friday’s ruling, same-sex marriage was already legal in 36 states and the District of Columbia, representing more than 70 percent of all Americans. A solid and growing majority now believes in marriage equality; among those ages 18 to 29, support is at nearly 80 percent. Around the world the change has come even faster. Since 2000, 20 countries — from Argentina to Belgium to South Africa — have legalized same-sex marriage. In May, an Irish referendum on legalization won the support of nearly two-thirds of voters. Justice Kennedy’s opinion will affect the course of American history, and it will change lives starting now. A version of this editorial appears in print on June 27, 2015, on page A20 of the New York edition with the headline: Marriage Equality in America. Sonia Sotomayor is Jewish too - 4 of 5 Judges for Gay Marriage are Jewish (1) Sonia Sotomayor is Jewish too - Henry Makow (2) Sonia Sotomayor is "Hispanic" but Jewish too (3) Sonia Sotomayor's mother was born Celina Baez (4) Baez is a Sephardic Jewish surname - sephardim.com (5) Soto is a Sephardic Jewish Name - Sephardic Genealogy Resources (6) Mayer is a Sephardic Jewish Name - sephardim.com (7) Of the nine (9) U.S. Supreme Court justices, four(4) are Jews or partial Jews (8) Rockefellers are Jews of Sephardic descent (9) Rockefellers' Museum in Jerusalem (10) Malcolm H. Stern, "Americans of Jewish Descent", says Rockefellers are Sephardic (11) The Sephardic Jews: Birmingham Tells Story of Spain's Best Subjects (1) Sonia Sotomayor is Jewish too - Henry Makow Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 08:52:38 -0400 Subject: Re: Jewish Judges (3 of 5) bring Gay Marriage to America From: Henry Makow <hmakow@gmail.com> Peter Sonia S is Jewish http://www.savethemales.ca/_jay_rockefeller_left.html (2) Sonia Sotomayor is "Hispanic" but Jewish too http://www.savethemales.ca/_jay_rockefeller_left.html Identity Politics: Is Sotomayor a Latina or an Illuminati Jewess? --Reader asks It appears that Sonia Sotomayor will be placed on the Supreme Court; the girl who was brought up as a Catholic, but during her her days at University belonged to the Latino organization and all went to Sunday mass except her - Imao, sounds like an echo in the room with the likes of Nancy Pelosi who is another yenta; speaks Yiddish fluently, but this Italian gal can't speak Italian - the Pope knew and he gave her a 15 minute interview with a smile on his face. Sonia's family originated in Spain during the late 1400's and then fled to Portugal; then on the Chile, Puerto Rico, and US over hundreds of years. There is a very special website that gives the names of all Sephardic Jews in the world and one only has to research: Soto, Mayor, Sotomayor, and her mom's maiden name of Baez; not to mention a simple look at photos of her and the mother. This is a satanic movement who is stacking people in all the important positions of power. This all reminds me of the good Catholic boy called Hugh Hefner who finally came out of the closet a few years ago to admit he was really a [Sabbatean] Jew. See also "Sotomayor and the Crypto Jew" ----- Another reader: "Sottomayor are a powerful Banking Family in Portugal... All Sottomayor's are in some way connected to the Banking Empire." ------ Makow comment: She is divorced with no children. She was a member of the women's only (lesbian?) "Belizean Club" patterned on the Illuminati (homosexual) Bohemian Grove. [...] (3) Sonia Sotomayor's mother was born Celina Baez http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/08/us/sonia-sotomayor-fast-facts/ Sonia Sotomayor Fast Facts CNN Library Updated 0110 GMT (0810 HKT) June 23, 2015 Here's a look at the life of Sonia Sotomayor, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Personal: Birth date: June 25, 1954 Birth place: New York, New York Birth name: Sonia Maria Sotomayor Father: Juan Sotomayor, a factory worker Mother: Celina (Baez) Sotomayor, a retired nurse [...] Religion: Roman Catholic [...] First Hispanic U.S. Supreme Court justice. [...] (4) Baez is a Sephardic Jewish surname - sephardim.com http://www.sephardim.com/html/translated_names_b.html Baez (A) Expensive shop (5) Soto is a Sephardic Jewish Name - Sephardic Genealogy Resources http://www.jewishgen.org/Sephardic/nameorig.HTM Some Sephardic Names Origins and meanings by JeffMalka@SephardicGen.com Sephardic Genealogy Resources Name Variants Origin Meaning Notes De Soto Soto, Del Soto Spanish Swamp Soto De Soto, Del Soto Spanish Marshland (6) Mayer is a Sephardic Jewish Name - sephardim.com http://www.sephardim.com/ A Research Tool for Sephardic Genealogy / Jewish Genealogy by Harry Stein We changed the face of Sephardic genealogy research. SEPHARDIC NAMES TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH http://www.sephardim.com/html/translated_names_m.html Mayer (L) Mayor Mayo (S) Month of May Mayor (P) Big, larger http://www.sephardim.com/html/translated_names_s.html Soto (P) Substitute Soto (del) (S) From the woods Sotto (P) From the woods (7) Of the nine (9) U.S. Supreme Court justices, four(4) are Jews or partial Jews https://thezog.wordpress.com/who-controls-the-supreme-court/ Summary: Of the nine (9) U.S. Supreme Court justices, four(4) are Jews or partial Jews. This is a numerical representation of 44%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the U.S. Supreme Court justices by a factor of 22 times(2,200 percent). (1) Sonia Sotomayor’s mother’s maiden name is “Baez,” which is a Sephardic Jewish surname [...] (8) Rockefellers are Jews of Sephardic descent http://www.savethemales.ca/_jay_rockefeller_left.html Are Rockefellers & Sotomayor Illuminati Jews? (Jay Rockefeller, left) by Willie Martin A book overlooked by most people and published for sale mainly within the Jewish community states that the Rockefellers are Jews of Sephardic descent (meaning Spanish and Portuguese Jews). The work was published only for Jews some years ago. The work was compiled by the Jewish historian Malcolm H. Stern and entitled "Americans of Jewish Descent." That book weighed 10 pounds and gave the history of 25,000 Jewish individuals in America. It is extremely interesting to note that only 550 copies of the book were printed and each copy was consecutively numbered. The book was delivered to the top Jewish community leaders in America for their personal reference files in dealing with and contacting Jews who are "Marranos" (those Jews who "PRETEND" to be Christians in their community but secretly hold to their Jewish faith and race when among their own kind.) Stephen Birmingham in "The Grandees" reports: "Who would expect to find the Rockefellers in the book." Stern's work traces what he calls the "Nobility of Jewry - the Sephardim who lived in Spain and Portugal as princes of the land." Many centuries ago the Jews flooded into Spain in great numbers and through usury and stealth became vast land owners. The Jews controlled both Spain and Portugal through their monopoly over the finances of the country. It was in 1492 that King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain expelled the Jews from their country and confiscated their ill-gotten wealth. It was during this period that the Rockefeller family moved to the Turkish Empire which welcomed the Jews at that time, believing them to be a "poor persecuted people." The grandfather of our former Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller, admitted that his family once moved from Turkey to France. It was from France that they moved to America. John D. Rockefeller, Sr., was a wealthy man even before he took over Standard Oil Co., which made their family one of the richest in the world. No one has ever explained how this family came into such wealth as soon as they arrived in America from France. There is no known information on how the Rockefellers came into huge amounts of money in France. Some thing they got their money from the Rothschilds and were originally their agents in buying up Christian businesses in America. "Marranos" are Jews who "PRETEND" to convert to Christianity so as to deceive Christians in their business dealings, but secretly continued to practice Judaism in private rituals. For this reason, a Marrano family like the Rockefellers would make the perfect tool for the Rothschilds of France who have for centuries used secret agents to carry on their work. (Left, Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem) "The Thunderbolt" was the first publication to bring Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller's Jewish ancestry to public attention. This information finally explains why he has always been able to work so closely with Jewish interests and why his administration as Governor of New York was loaded down with Jews from top to bottom. His political campaigns of the past were always directed by Jews and he was always the support of the Jewish community in all of his political races. Normally the Jews would not support a Christian multi-millionaire for political office because they would be afraid they could not control him after the election. The fact that Jewish community leaders have long known that the Rockefellers were fellow Jews goes a long way in explaining why the organized Jewish community has always supported the Rockefeller's political ambitions. Now we can see why Nelson and David Rockefeller boosted his fellow Jew Henry Kissinger into the Nixon administration and Kissinger in turn has used his position to bring his fellow Jew, Rockefeller into power. {sourced from} http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/NEWS-11.htm [...] ---- Letter from a reader: My mother knew a retired opera singer who sang with Caruso and who also dined with the Rockefellers when she toured Europe - she played Prague, Vienna, Budapest and Milan among other venues. She got invited to their home, I guess, because this was the heyday of opera. She told my mother a lot of things and was on to the global elitist issue way back then. She stated that the Rockefellers were from Turkey and their original name was (and I can only sound this out, not spell it) Raw-gen-mute which apparently was the name they used in Turkey. She said the servants at the house told her that (and a few other things) [...] (9) Rockefellers' Museum in Jerusalem http://www.imj.org.il/rockefeller/eng/Establishment.html The Establishment of the Museum During a visit to Palestine in 1925, James Henry Breasted of the Oriental Institute in Chicago noted the lack of a proper archaeological museum in Jerusalem. Though the Department of Antiquities boasted a modest display, it did not include the majority of the important finds that had come to light in recent years. Upon his return to the United States, Breasted approached philanthropist John David Rockefeller, Jr. and persuaded him to donate two million dollars toward the construction and maintenance of an archaeological museum in Jerusalem. Shortly thereafter, the 32-dunam plot of Karm el-Sheikh was purchased from the al-Halili family. The chief architect of the Mandatory Department of Public Works, Austen St. Barbe Harrison, was entrusted with the design of the new museum. The Italian firm De Farro was put in charge of construction. The cornerstone of the Palestine Archaeological Museum, commonly called the Rockefeller Museum, was laid on June 19, 1930 in the presence of the British High Commissioner, Sir John Chancellor, but construction was delayed for another three years due to the discovery of ancient graves on the site and the search for a suitable type of building stone (ultimately quarried near Shechem and along the route to Jericho). Despite the fact that the building was completed in 1935, the Museum only opened its doors to the public on January 13, 1938. The official ceremony that had been scheduled to take place two days earlier was cancelled, owing to the murder of British archaeologist G. L. Starkey, who had been attacked by fellahin en route to the festivities. Around the Museum, olive trees from the vicinity of Bethlehem (between 50 and 100 years old), as well other indigenous flora, were planted. (10) Malcolm H. Stern, "Americans of Jewish Descent", says Rockefellers are Sephardic From: Paul Bustion<pbustion1333@gmail.com> Date: 11 September 2014 14:13 [...] You may have been correct that the Rockefellers are Jewish in origin. Dr. Malcom H. Stern, author of Americans of Jewish Descent, a genealogical list published in 1960 found the Rockefellers, among other families, to be of Jewish ancestry, according to this article, The Sephardic Jews: Birmingham Tells Story of Spain's Best Subjects in the Los Angeles Times reprinted by the Tuscaloosa News April 4, 1971. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&dat=19710404&id=TRYfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GpwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5956,590825 "The cornerstone of Birmingham's book [The Grandees: America's Sephardic Elite] is remarkable work by Malcolm H. Stern, "Americans of Jewish Descent", which appeared in 1960, and which traced genealogically, the ancestry of some 25,000 American Jews. He found that some of the oldest families in the social register had Sephardic ancestors, the Delanceys, the Rockefellers, the Stevensons, the Tiffanies, the van Rennsellaers." [...] (11) The Sephardic Jews: Birmingham Tells Story of Spain's Best Subjects http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&dat=19710404&id=TRYfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GpwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5956,590825 Los Angeles Times, reprinted by the Tuscaloosa News April 4, 1971 "The Grandees: America's Sephardic Elite," by Stephen Birmingham (Harper and Row, $10) {reviewed} by Robert Kirsch The Los Angeles Times On Dec. 17, 1968, a story datelined Madrid appeared in the New York Times: "Four hundred and seventy-six years after King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella ordered the Jews expelled from Spain, the Spanish Government declared tonight that the order was void." For the 100,000 Sephardic Jews in the United States, many of them descended from nobele families of Spain, and now the elite of American Jewry, the private response could be summed up: "It's about time." Stephen Birmingham, author of the study of German Jews in America, "Our Crowd,", has now addressed himself to "The Grandees: Jews have risen to social and cultural heights, the Sephardim still regard those who came to America after 1840 - Kuhbs {sic}, Loebs, Schiffs, Warburgs, Lehmans, Guggenheims - as upstarts. The names of the Sephardic Jews have a Spanish ring: De Sola, Gomez, Lopez, Cardozo, Hendirckls, and, sometimes, Nathan. They are descendants of the statesmen and poets, physicians and bankers, judges and philosophers who rose to great heights in the golden age of Spain. Some left Spain in 1492; others became Marranos, secret Jews. Spain's aristocracy became translated into the top social level of America. It was no easy task to bring this story through centuries of American history. "The old Sephardic families continue to comprise a tight-knit, proud and aristocratic elite who know who is 'one of us' and who is not. They lead lives of wealth, exclusivity, privacy, a privacy so deep that few people remember that they still exist - which is just what the Sephardim prefer, for the Sephardim have by nature been shy, reticient, the opposite of pushy." The cornerstone of Birmingham's book is a remarkable work by Malcolm H. Stern, "Americans of Jewish Descent,", which appeared in 1960, and which traced genealogically, the ancestry of some 25,000 American Jews. He found that some of the oldest families in the Social Register had Sephardic ancestors: Delanceys, the Rockefellers, the Stevensons, the Tiffanys, the Van Rensselaers. Not only wealth contributed to this sense of specialness. These interconnected families produced judges, philanthropists, army and navy officers, doctors, poets. [...] Birmingham relates the early history of the Sephardim in Spain, and after their dispersal in the Netherlands, Brazil, Turkey and England. [...] -- Peter Myers Australia website: http://mailstar.net/index.html Comment by Tony Ryan on shamireaders: Gidday Peter Some notes on Robert's assertions: I don't know why he cited Aztecs, but absolutely the traditional Aborigines of Australia are adamant they had no knowledge of male homosexuality prior to white settlement. I discovered this back in 1975 when a young Dhamarrandji man witnessed male/male sex in Darwin, in a unit next to ours. Nobody at Galiwinku believed him and I was later asked by the family to corroborate what was regarded by all as an outrageously preposterous story. That I did indeed corroborate the story floored everyone, so I spent a few days afterwards interviewing lots of old people about male homosexuality and all claimed no former knowledge of such a phenomenon. They clearly found the idea hilarious. As a then welfare officer, and also researcher for the Commonwealth, I checked other regions and found that anthropologists had been banned from the Kimberly region for trying to force Aborigines to admit to homosexual practices. These old men were furious at being disbelieved. Looking elsewhere, I eventually learned that the Kung (aka Kalahari bushmen, Hotentots) also had no homosexuality, and nor had the Inuit. There is some evidence that the Sami also had none. What all had in common is the same parenting culture... saturation love and affection for all children, breast-feeding for four years, combined with an average of 15 parents per child, and no discipline until after age 9. Cheers Tony Comment by the Editor: I never thought it possible that homosexuality was a biological phenomenon, let alone an inherited, genetic trait. The latter would defy simple logic - natural selection would have eliminated the aberration - not to mention the basic misunderstanding of genetics as coding for anything other than physical traits. Tony's suggestion that the phenomenon is cultural appears to be spot on. And the tribal Jewish endorsement of this behavior opens a whole Pandora's box of possibilities. What strikes me as odd is that gay men overwhelmingly assert that it is not a matter of choice, while lesbians equally overwhelmingly assert the opposite. What puzzles me further is that, as far as I know, this is never discussed. |
Archives >