Supreme Court’s landmark ruling legalizes gay marriage nationwide
In the 5-4 ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent.
The Court’s five liberal justices
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Justice Elena Kagan
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Justice Stephen G. Breyer
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion
“No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the historic decision.
“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.”
Marriage is a “keystone of our social order,” Justice Kennedy said, adding that the plaintiffs in the case were seeking “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”
All my adult life, I’ve wondered if I would ever see this in my lifetime. I wasn’t too hopeful. It won’t happen. The country isn’t ready for it. Yet, it did.
I am so very thankful for these enlightened human beings who found in their hearts that equality is something that applies to all.
Equality isn’t reserved for a specific race, group or country.
Equality is for ALL since we are created equal.
We belong to the world, we belong to the human race and as such should be treated.
The words “thank you” don’t begin to express the feelings in my heart and soul. Yet, they will have to do because, in my mind, they embody the meaning of this decision.
Supreme Court’s landmark ruling legalizes gay marriage nationwide
How each Supreme Court justice came down on same-sex marriage
In the 5-4 ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent.
Nearly 46 years to the day after a riot at New York’s Stonewall Inn ushered in the modern gay rights movement, the decision could settle one of the major civil rights fights of this era. The language of Kennedy’s opinion spoke eloquently of the most fundamental values of family, love and liberty.
“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family,” Kennedy wrote. “In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were.”
“IOTD” is image of the day, a concept I came up with. I teach visual meditative therapy – or in easy terms – a mini mental holiday. For some people it is very difficult for them to get their image right. I post an image a day for people to use in their mini mental vacay. Some are serious, some are silly, and some are just beautiful!”’
Those of us in America are very much aware of the stir this “store” has created and the decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Some of our readers and followers in other countries and the other side of the world have no idea what this is all about.
David Green opened the first Hobby Lobby store, in a 600-square-foot (56 m2) in northwest Oklahoma City, in 1972. Netting sales of $3,200 by the end of the year, he moved to a larger 1,000 square foot space in January 1973. A second store in Oklahoma City opened in 1975, and a store opened in Tulsa the next year. It grew to seven stores by mid 1982, and the first store outside Oklahoma opened in 1984.
By the start of 1989, the chain had slowly grown to about 15 stores. By late 1992, it had grown to 50 locations in seven states, and its growth continued to accelerate. Its 100th store opened in August 1995, and its 200th in August 1999. By March 2002, that number had grown to 281 stores in 24 states, and 310 by October 2003.
As of June 2014, the chain has 561 stores nationwide. Hobby Lobby headquarters are now located in a 3,400,000-square-foot (320,000 m2) manufacturing, distribution, and office complex.
~~Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc~~
Holding: As applied to closely held corporations, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 30, 2014. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined, and which Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan joined to all but Part III-C-1. Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby on Monday that for-profit employers with religious objections can opt out of providing contraception coverage under Obamacare.
The ruling deals directly with only a small provision of Obamacare and will not take down the entire law but it amounts to a huge black eye for Obamacare, the administration and its backers. The justices have given Obamacare opponents their most significant political victory against the health care law, reinforcing their argument that the law and President Barack Obama are encroaching on Americans’ freedoms.
The court’s four liberal justices called it a decision of “startling breadth” and said that it allows companies to “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
The court’s majority also rejected the Obama administration’s argument that for-profit companies cannot assert religious rights under RFRA. However, only Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the portion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent that argues companies do not have such rights.
Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan did not join that section of Gingsburg’s opinion and said in a one-paragraph dissent of their own that they would have left for another day the issue of the rights of for-profit companies and their owners.
The majority decision could open the door to other closely held corporations seeking to withhold coverage for other medical procedures at odds with firm religious beliefs. It marks the first time that the Supreme Court has allowed companies the ability to declare a religious belief — a decision that could reverberate far past the Affordable Care Act to other laws and issues.
In the short term, the ruling appears to allow the owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties to opt out of the health care law’s requirement that they provide all Food and Drug Administration-approved forms of birth control in their health plans.
The court’s latest decision promises to reignite a national debate over women’s health and access to contraception ahead of this fall’s midterm elections. It is likely to force House and Senate candidates to answer for whether they supported the contraception coverage, a provision that’s more politically popular than the law itself. Advocates have promised to make it an election issue.
It Is What It Is 