Apple CEO Tim Cook celebrates gay marriage ruling: ‘Here’s to the crazy ones’

“A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that U.S. states cannot ban same-sex marriage, establishing a new civil right and handing gay rights advocates a victory,” Ariane de Vogue and Jeremy Diamond report for CNN. “In a 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.”

“‘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,'” de Vogue and Diamond report. “In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia blasted the Court’s ‘threat to American democracy.’ ‘The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me,’ he wrote. ‘But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.'”

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. — Justice Anthony Kennedy

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. — Justice Antonin Scalia

de Vogue and Diamond report, “Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, ‘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.'”

Apple CEO Tim Cook, a high-profile proponent for gay marriage in the U.S., tweeted the following in response to the ruling:


 

SEE ALSO:
Apple breaks ties with Alabama lobbyist who opposes same-sex marriage – February 17, 2015
Apple CEO Cook makes ‘substantial’ donation for gay rights activists in U.S. South – December 19, 2014
Alabama sexual orientation anti-discrimination bill to be named after Apple’s Tim Cook – December 4, 2014
Russian memorial to Apple co-founder Steve Jobs dismantled after CEO Tim Cook announces he’s gay – November 3, 2014
Apple investors don’t care that Tim Cook is gay – October 31, 2014\
Goldman Sachs CEO: Apple’s Tim Cook coming out as gay ‘will resonate powerfully’ – October 31, 2014
Human Rights Campaign: Tim Cook’s announcement that he is gay will save countless lives – October 30, 2014
Apple CEO Tim Cook: ‘I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me’ – October 30, 2014
Apple joins Gay Pride parade in Austin, Texas – September 21, 2014
Apple releases video highlighting employee participation in San Francisco’s LGBT Pride Parade – July 8, 2014
Tim Cook, Apple employees march in LGBT Pride Parade in San Francisco – June 30, 2014
Apple inviting employees to march in annual San Francisco LGBT Pride Parade – May 7, 2014
Apple lauds U.S. Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage – June 26, 2013
Apple among 60 companies to back gay marriage in U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief – February 27, 2013
National Organization for Marriage to Steve Jobs: You’ve become Big Brother (with video) – December 17, 2010
Christian Group asks Apple to reinstate pulled ‘Manhattan Declaration’ iPhone app – November 30, 2010
California’s ‘No on 8’ same-sex marriage campaign models ads on Apple’s ‘Get a Mac’ commercials – November 01, 2008
Apple donates $100,000 to fight same-sex marriage ban in California (Proposition 8) – October 24, 2008

147 Comments

    1. I know a lot of straight women that know how to make crap sausages. Actually if you want the best sausages go to a Gay BBQ that is comprised of lesbians, they make hot dogs taste great.

      1. You’re an idiot. It’s not a literal statement. The hot dogs taste like crap because the gay gentlemen insert the hot dogs in their buttholes. Get it???

          1. another fascinating addition to the discussion from silverdick,

            no apple content here today, just more Cook pride celebrations. if Cook continues to push minority politics instead of reliable products, then Apple’s market share may eventually return to be approximately equal to that of gays — less than 5% of the total population.

        1. There is this myth (mostly among the homophobic men) that gay men all practice anal sex (and heterosexual don’t). Well, recent studies have discovered that among heterosexual men, almost half had tried anal sex (perhaps not with other man, but using accessories); among gay men, that number isn’t any greater.

          There is no reason why gay men would find anal sex any more (or less) pleasurable than straight; after all, their anatomy is the same.

        2. Gay people insert hotdogs into their anuses? I thought it was just cocks. I suppose you’d need to cook them first otherwise they’d be too soft and disintegrate before you were able to BBQ them. So I guess they pre-cook them a few hours before the BBQ, wait for them to cool down to avoid the risk of scorching their arseholes, then reheat on them on the BBQ before serving?

        3. Of course it’s not a literal statement. I was just pointing out that straight women can allow straight gentlemen insert the hot dogs into their buttholes just as well as as gay gentlemen. I hope you get that now.

          I may be an idiot, but next to you I’m a genius, what are you an american or something?

          If so, you still odds are that you still won’t get it.

    2. I don’t have a problem with gay people or them getting married. But I’m so sick of it. Gay people can be extremely perverse and dramatic like no other. We hear about this over and over and over… we get it.

      Why does Tim Cook have to make these Twitter announcements? Why should Apple’s leader speak out about these issues on his own? I’m a consumer and an Apple customer and I don’t want to hear it. I’m not interested in Cook’s views on racism or gay rights. I’m interested in what he thinks about the future and what he’s doing at Apple to increase shareholder value, delight customers, and invent the future.

      The fact Cook is applying the Think Different mantra (those who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do…) is alarming. Cook is too all over the place and consumed by American bullshit.

      1. Cook is not tweeting from Apple’s official twitter channel. He is tweeting as Tim Cook, a private person. Being CEO of Apple doesn’t deprive him form sharing his private opinions on matters unrelated to Apple.

        1. BS. He’s used Apple money to promote his perversion.
          It’s sick.
          America is screwed if AIDS carriers are calling the shots.
          The death toll is now at 6 million.
          Thanks Cook. Thank a lot. O_o

            1. America is screwed if tobacco drug addicts are called the shots.
              The death toll is now at 6 million PER YEAR. (world)
              Thanks Phillip Morris. Thanks a lot.

        2. Not entering the debate as to same sex marriage is right or wrong, but Tim Cook speaks for Apple no matter if its his personal Twitter or not, this article and the many like it would not even be written if he was not the CEO of Apple. If he was not the CEO of Apple no one would care what Tim Cook had to say and probably not even know who he is.

          1. Therefoooore…. what? He’s not allowed to speak?

            And no – he doesn’t speak for Apple if he speaks as Tim Cook. You may take it like that, but it’s not that. Let’s keep it real.

        3. Yeah? Tell that to the cop who posed in in Dixie-shorts on Facebook and was immediately fired.

          Hello, you still there? Say what – you’re so quiet all of a sudden.

          That’s okay, you being such a dumbass hypocrite speaks much louder than words…..

          1. You are truly an idiot.

            Let us try this one more time; hopefully, it might get through (although I doubt it…): On his own Twitter channel, Tim Cook speaks for himself. He does NOT speak for Apple. How do we know? Well, there are a few official Apple twitter channels, and we can tell by the fact that they have Apple in their name (@AppleMusic, @AppStore, etc), and they are verified by Twitter. Meanwhile, Tim Cook’s private channel is called — surprise!! — @TimCook. Who would have figured that!!??

            Now, if Tim Cook were to tweet something grossly inappropriate or offensive, he would have likely been fired by the Apple board. But whatever he tweets, he does it in his own name, and nearly two million of his followers know this very well. Obviously, as a CEO of the biggest company in the world, many people are interested in what he has to say privately, hence, millions of followers.

            So, hello…??? Still there…???? Didn’t think so…. (see, I can do the same).

            1. Such a weak facile response that does not counter mine. The officer did nothing offensive as a represent ice of his job, just expressed his personal belief on his on personal Facebook page. Many of us find Cook’s gloating offensive and regardless of your so-gay argument, Cook is much more a representative of Apple even in his ‘private’ life (which he has chosen to not be so private about).

              You’re a hypocrite and closer to idiocy than am I, a fool and tool of the nonsense brigade.

            2. I have no idea what you’re talking about (who is the cop and what are ‘dixie’ shorts), and that is really NOT relevant to what Cook does on his free time, and in his own name.

              Whatever that cop did, and whatever the consequences of what he did, likely merits its own debate, but has absolutely no relevance, other than to the extent that what we all post on social media may have consequences for us and others. Everyone with a bit of a brain (present company obviously not necessarily included…) knows that you need to think twice before you post on social media, even when it is in your own name.

              Once again (for the third time): if Cook were to post something offensive, racist or inappropriate, the executive board would take action. Since they hadn’t yet means that they didn’t find it offensive. Unlike the manager(s) (or commanding officers) of that cop, who, if I understand the case correctly, fund the cop’s posting(s) on FaceBook offensive or inappropriate.

              The bottom line: as long as Cook posts his personal beliefs, and they aren’t in conflict with Apple’s, he can go post as much as he wishes. The moment he posts something inappropriate / offensive, the board will be the fist to react.

              For all we know, it is quite possible that some member(s) of the board may have approached Cook about his public social media messaging; we won’t know this (unless somebody leaks). The point is, what you and I find offensive (different things, obviously) doesn’t matter; not in the case of Cook, not in the case of that cop you talk about. What matters is what their bosses find offensive.

              You call yourself “a fool and tool of nonsense brigade” and I agree with you.

      2. Dft. says: “I don’t have a problem with gay people or them getting married. But “… I’m now going to say narrow-minded hateful bigoted things about gay people.

    3. In the way Cook is quoting Apple’s ad, ‘crazy’ truly applies since since homosexuality is a deviant mental condition.

      Yup, I will not assimilate. Call your brown shirts with their batons, my name is NOT Winston Smith….

    1. Congratulations to all mature people who know how to express themselves with the English language without decorating it with childish emoticons.

    2. Congrats to pedophiles nationwide! They’re queueing up next for SCOTUS to perform backflips to confer affirmation unto them – if the beastiality backers don’t beat them to it. 🎉😃😍

      1. This has nothing to do with pedophiles, or bestiality. It is about gay marriage.

        America is not the only country in the world. There were legal unions elsewhere in the world since 1989 (26 years ago!), and full marriage since 2000. In these 26 years, no country has seen movement for marrying animals or children. Of course, America’s pedofiles may be different…

          1. I don’t know who told you that, but it is simply not true.

            35 million people live with HIV today. The percentage of the that are gay is just slightly larger than in non-infected population.

            Gays didn’t cause AIDS; they didn’t create the mess. It may have been first discovered among them in the US (and we don’t know if it appeared elsewhere before that), but very soon after the discovery in 1982, it spread across the segments of population. Today, sub-Saharan Africa has by far the most cases (and the are largely all heterosexual).

            1. Actually, homosexuality was the original cause of the aids epidemic. A male homosexual flight steward brought the disease to America with his promiscuous lifestyle. And since many homosexuals of the eighties also delved in drugs, and then drug addicts prostituting themselves for money for drugs brought the infection to the blood banks where they made extra money as well selling plasma and blood.

              That is how Ryan White contracted the disease, through blood transfusion and the sick media used the event, like you, to say see, it affects everybody.

              Yes, you Marxists won, but you can’t rewrite history until all the people who read the news back in the old days, you know, on paper called ‘newspaper,’ have did.

              Of course, there’s always the possibility of gulags….

            2. Actually, Ronald Reagan and his fellow bigots are what made the AIDS crisis so bad, based on blame-the-victim logic like yours. They decided they didn’t care about what was clearly a serious health concern because they thought “let gay people die.”
              If they had done their JOBS, many millions would have been saved.
              It’s bigots like you that cause death and devastation, because you’re more concerned about imposing your narrow views on people than on caring for your neighbor. Jesus would be repulsed by most of the right-wing “Christians” in the U.S.

        1. Just the prolonged beginning of the end; all other deviant behavior and lack of morals will follow. This is a fact that liberals can’t grasp, or simply don’t care about.

          1. Again, (for those who obviously didn’t understand it the first time); this same thing has been done many, many years ago in other countries in the world, and those societies did NOT collapse.

            The fact that homosexuals can now get married will not affect a single god-fearing, church-going Christian, nor his family, community or country.

            If there is to be an ‘end’, it will be brought on by the destruction of resources on Earth, or inter-religious conflicts. Not by the “moral decay brought about by deviant behaviour”. That idea is simply absurdly ridiculous.

            1. “The fact that homosexuals can now get married will not affect a single god-fearing, church-going Christian, nor his family, community or country.”

              I know some bakeries that would argue otherwise.

              I really don’t care so much if gays want to marry, but I don’t see why they should be able to force those that oppose this (and there are many as this is barely above 50% / 50% issue in favor), should not be compelled to participate.

            2. Not nearly close to 50-50 anymore. Recent poll shows that only about 37% Americans oppose gay marriage.

              As for Christian bakeries making wedding cakes for gays, that is an entirely different discussion and not quite related to this one on substance.

        2. Yeah, they all hate ‘Merica, that’s why their breaking down the doors to get in here….

          ‘America’ is about individual freedom from individual tyranny. You guys just – don’t – get – it.

          But you will once they run out of targets to vilify, they will come for you, too….

        3. Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

          It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? See Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000 polyamorous families in the United States); Li, Married Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr. 23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J. 1977 (2015).

          I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 6. But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.

          – John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

          1. GOD BLESS YOU Fist and MDN, for giving the podium on which to speak the truth. The ONLY truth.
            GOD you’re sexy when you’re right!
            Now give us a kiss… <3

  1. As far as Steve Jobs choosing Tim Cook to be CEO?
    Looks like Steve finally chose the right guy. 🙂

    A proud day for civil rights leaders and the American public in general.

    1. I have heard this argument before, and most surprisingly, from people who are otherwise intelligent and educated. It is the most absurd argument out there, and I can’t possibly imagine how can anyone even have a straight face when offering it.

      (clue: animals, like children, are NOT consenting adults; that is a legal dealbreaker in America and most other countries of the world).

      1. Absurd? How?
        The definition of marriage is now up for debate and whichever group of perverts has control of the media (and therefore the people) gets to decide what today’s definition is.
        Right now it’s homosexual perverts, next week it’ll be boy/man love proponents and then the ‘animals are people too’ fruitcakes.
        In 20 years you cretins will be asking why you can’t marry your siblings.
        It’s pure insanity.

        1. it is absurd because you’re arguing a slippery slope. A fallacy. Illogical and misleading. Marriage, in this country, is about consent. Children aren’t adults therefore they can not consent to marriage. Nor can a dog or a toaster so no matter what you say, no is marrying any child, dog, cow, sofa, or whatever. Even if there are some people out there who are interested in such a thing, it would need to be a MAJORITY to allow such a change is human status to take place. Obviously there is more to this discussion but seemingly many people don’t have the ability to correctly understand the absurdity of their “people will get to marry anything” claim.

          1. Excuse me… It would only take 5 UNELECTED judges to make a change in human status. Ahem… Roe v Wade? Ring a bell? This is why liberalism is a mental disorder. You’re ability to reason is just not there. So, yes, in 20 years you could have humans marrying multiple humans, underage humans, and pets. The states and the people representing them have no say if only 5 people can make law. Do you not get it?

      2. Yeah, welcome to the conservative world. Most of the arguments they make are very childish… Climate change denial, anti-evolution, gay marriage, etc.

        It’s like dealing with a bunch of teenagers. I find it f*cking hilarious myself. Sometimes I wonder how it is that people can maintain themselves in everyday life with views like that.

        If they’re that ignorant/crazy/afraid/etc., how is it that they haven’t accidentally killed themselves or something?

        Or, should I really take financial advice from someone who talks to an invisible man living in space? Common sense would say “Hell No”.

        Speaking of Hell. Seriously? The God vs. The Devil? And you want to be considered an adult? Pardon the pun, but Jesus Christ people.

        Grow up.

        1. WOW the ranting of a lunatic or what?!
          Climate change… hell…
          You’re just a powder keg of hate.
          Homosexuality is abnormal. Any biologist can tell you that it’s unhealthy and detrimental.
          Put away your pitchfork you maniac.
          You can’t argue with biology.

            1. No kidding.
              These people bleat ‘science science science’ but science says homosexual behavior is an aberration.

            2. Being left-handed is an aberration. Would you advocate that left-handers be treated differently under the law? Or would you believe that to be utter nonsense?

          1. In fact, ignorant right wingers, “homosexual” behavior happens frequently in the animal kingdom.

            But anyway, what has that got to do with it? If you want to compare to animals:
            – having phones is abnormal
            – building skyscrapers is abnormal
            – riding around in complex tools is abnormal
            – eating lice out of others’ hair is normal
            – cooking food is abnormal

            And in the realm of relationships, we do much that is “abnormal” if you just compare to animals.

    2. I love my dog… and it’s ok.

      I just don’t ***love*** my dog. Had a date for the first time in 30 years the other night. Turns out she doesn’t like dogs, “especially pit bulls.”

      When I got home, I told him “Don’t worry dude, Bros before… ” Oh wait. I almost said something offensive online again.

  2. For those who were so forcefully against this development (and with emotional conviction, too), I way, calm down and don’t worry. There will be no meaningful consequences, neither to you personally, nor to your community, your children, or anyone else, as a result of this.

    There are several countries in the world where marriage between two consenting adults of ANY sort has been legal for quite some time. In such countries, gay couples have raised children, participated in communities as families and essentially been a part of the society for quite a while now. And apparently, studies show that the legalisation of gay marriage (and adoption) did NOT increase the incidence of homosexuality among children/adolescents/young adults, nor did it cause any other negative consequences for the society, children, young adults or anyone else, for that matter. In other words, fundamentally nothing changes when you let people marry whomever they love (except, of course, you extend the rights and privileges of the society to ALL members).

    1. You are of course right.

      I’m happy that this effectively removes the government from such decisions.

      Question: If I am a member of the clergy and a gay couple wants me to marry them, and I say no because it goes against my religion, should I be forced to comply? Do the Constitutional rights of the gay couple trump my Constitutional rights? I.e. are some people now more equal than others as Orwell put it.

      1. The marriage between consenting adults has nothing to do with the Constitution. Justice Roberts in dissent stated “But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.’” He’s right, this whole thing is because the bastards in Congress would not do their jobs and debate the issue, pass a law, and have the President either sign it or veto it. Congress does nothing for Americans.

        Will the separation of church and state do anything for your argument? Again, without Congress passing a law these questions will be left to the Courts. Too bad.

        1. Justice Roberts is completely wrong. This was exactly in defense of the constitution.

          The court didn’t decide to legalise gay marriage. The decision simply invalidated state laws that were violating 14th amendment. Those states that have passed laws that prohibit marriage (simply because the partners are gay) now no longer have those laws on the books.

      2. Freedom of Religion should supercede this ruling, but I don’t doubt there will be court cases challenging this. They would likely lose, but who knows. It’s not just the constituion, though. The U.N. Human Rights Committee’s article 18 of the ICCPR guarantees freedom of thought and conscience.

        The greater question is “why” would a gay couple want a try to force a member of the clergy to perform such a service? In the end, no one, not even the government, can force a member of the clergy to do something that goes against their religious conscience.

        During the draft, there were those that conscientious objectors who, for religious reasons, refused to go to war to maintain their neutrality or kill others. Many of them performed alternative civil service. Many throughout history were sent to concentration camps for refusing to pledge allegiance to Hitler and the Nazis for reasons of political neutrality being part of their faith.

        In South Korea, religious conscientious objectors who refuse mandatory military service are send to military prisons.

        This ruling makes the “civil act” of marriage between two adults legal. It shouldn’t change religion beliefs at all.

        In fact, the Christian religion shouldn’t be involved in politics anyhow. The early Christians stayed neutral regarding Roman politics. Jesus said “my Kingdom (government) is not part of this world” and encouraged his followers to “pay Caesar’s things to Caesar (taxes), but God’s things to God ( allegiance ).

        He also stated that political powers are given relative authority, so to “keep in subjection” of political powers, where it doesn’t conflict with scriptural principles.

        It shouldn’t matter what laws governments pass. Each person is free to keep to their faith. You don’t have to agree with a law and can choose not to follow it.

        The only argument that I can see happening is if a member of the clergy accepts gay couples ( or knowingly accepts money from gay couples on the premise of acceptance ) but refuses to perform the marriage itself. That would be hypocritical and an argument could be made that the clergy member does NOT have freeness of speech with regard to that belief.

        After all, most of the scriptural passages regarding homosexuality are related to homosexual acts and group them along with any extra-marital sex, rather than on the condition of being a homosexual or having homosexual tendencies.

          1. Wouldn’t it have made more sense if congress had established a law providing for equal rights for any two people in a “civil union”? Just leave the concept of “marriage” to be defined by the religious groups who think that only their textbook can define the word. Separate church and state as the founding fathers intended. Then all groups can be treated equally without all the rancor.

            I can’t figure out why the homosexual community wants to be associated with the relatively narrow-minded dogma that churches sell anyway. While most Christians are abandoning the ridiculous passages from their fairy tale book, and the old mainstream churches are splintering into many factions, and that even the venerable old Roman Catholic church is being led by a pope who actually understands that quality of life on earth is important too, still there just doesn’t seem to be any reason for LGB people to associate with any christian church, nor act out christian ceremonies, nor buy into the hyper-inflated costs that the wedding industry has convinced gullible young couples to spend.

            1. Marriage does not, and never has, belonged to religion. Religion has attempted to claim it, just as it has with birth and death. But in all three cases religion is entirely optional. There is no requirement for “Holy Matrimony before God” in order for people to get married, never has been.

              That’s why this nonsense about “civil union” for the state, and “marriage” for the Church is bunk. It’s handing ownership of a long-standing societal institution over to a bunch of myth peddlers, based on nothing more than their unprovable claims that it is theirs.

      1. No it’s not. This ruling does not force a clergy member to go against his beliefs. NO laws are broken by refusing to perform a religious service. This is merely making the civil act of marriage legal. It doesn’t infringe on a religion’s right not to recognize the union as scriptural.

        A priest’s identity doesn’t need to be compromised by this law. Ultimately, shouldn’t a priest hold God’s laws more important than man’s laws anyhow? Shouldn’t a priest be willing to make sacrifices to uphold those laws, no matter the personal consequences to him, his position, or his reputation?

        Civil marriage is merely a legalized contract between two individuals that is recognized by government.

        What if a religion only considered marriage after you turned 25? Are they forced to marry individuals younger than that?

  3. I’m gay and I’m also a law professor and I lament the damage done to the country by yet another “right” concocted out of thin air by the judiciary. The U.S. Supreme Court’s continual abuse of its authority is a travesty. Decisions such as these that are at odds with the actual U.S. Constitution area cancer on the Union.

    Today’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states completely undermines America’s democratic process.

    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?

    Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law.

    Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today,” Roberts wrote. “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. – John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

    Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall.Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court

    1. Libs don’t think. Feelings are all that matter to them. That will be the downfall of the U.S.A. And then, the Libs will be on their knees begging for the liberty they so foolishly squandered.

    2. Yup. If we went with your scheme, we’d still be allowing the south to “keep them darkies in their rightful, traditional and god-given place”.

      And while we’re at it, you’re apparently not too up on the Bible, e.g. Solomon.

      re “Just who do we think we are?”
      I hope who we are is a humanity evolving to ever-increasing justice and higher levels of civilization. How dare we try to make things better!!!!!!?
      (Really? You want to invoke the Aztecs? Sheesh!)

      1. Slavery was a production of the Democrat Party. The Republicans ended it. So then the Democrats came up with Jim Crow, “separate but equal” discrimination. Republicans ended that. Eisenhower and the rest of the party. These days Democrats keep blacks in the inner city, in public schools because Democrats veto school choice, and so blacks get no education. That is what the Democrat Party wants. Stupid people. Like you.

    3. Scalia does what he always does: he inserts, passionately, his personal feeling in what is a legal matter.

      I’m not an American, but my understanding of the role of the SCOTUS is to make sure the law of the land is in accordance with the constitution. In this case, it was simply applying that (14th amendment: …”No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.“…)

      The argument of the majority was very similar to the case from the 60s (Loving vs. Virginia), where the law that prohibited inter-racial marriage was unconstitutional (14th amendment).

      The land will learn to live with this. Much like it did in the 70s with the inter-racial marriages.

        1. No, he doesn’t. Since it was based on Common Law, you CAN’T write every one of society’s rules in the Constitution. The word ‘Marriage’ HAD to be redefined before it was considered a ‘right’.

          And another thing, once ‘Marriage’ has lost it’s common meaning, it will have none at all.

          Why should I not be able to ‘marry’ my Mother to save on inheritance tax? Isn’t that most of why marriage was redefined? I could then ‘marry’ my sister and give her half (and no, I wouldn’t have to divorce my Mother first….how DARE you define what my version of ‘marriage’ is….)

          Of course, after that I could turn around and marry my kids.
          Oh, joy!!!! Words mean *nothing* anymore.

          Look! It’s ‘affordable’ ‘health’ ‘care’…and yet it is NONE of those things!!!

          1. Well, the Obamacare, despite massive obstacles put up by vindictive opponents, works, and works well.

            The premiums started much lower than predicted, and the first year increase was barely 2% — lower than previous trends before Obamacare. Even the second year increase looks to be below prior average. In states that actually accepted Obamacare, coverage is nearly universal, with barely 7% uncovered. And surveys confirm what some common sense already predicted, people are happy with it and services are better than what they had before.

            And most importantly, the overall cost that was by opponents predicted to bankrupt the country is actually manageable Andre budget deficit has actually been declining.

            Obamacare is an unqualified success and, thanks to the SCOTUS, it will remain the law of the land for at least two more years.

            I can’t imagine people really willing to give up their health insurance for political allegiance.

            1. Predrag, as with most things American, you are in way over your head.

              You can Google all the bs stats the government and Democrat Party puts out you want to argue the point but until you go out and actually talk to people in the insurance business, medical professionals and lower-middle to middle to upper-middle class folks who lost insurance and/or who ALL have had their rates go up you will just look like a silly talking head on a cable channel.

              “I can’t imagine people really willing to give up their health insurance for political allegiance.”
              That is the most laughable (albeit pathetic) comment you could make while supporting EXACTLY what the Democrats did, which was to put politics above actually fixing a problem and as a result made it worse!

              I know of NO ONE who has gained from Obamacare. The few lower income people I know with insurance were already covered under the previous version and yet now have trouble finding doctors who will see them or their kids because of reduced rates the feds re-imburse. My own rates more than tripled through the company subsidized plan I had used for over 15 years and I am barely a middle class income earner.

              Of the hundreds of people I know or run into from Texas to Florida, not one from the poorest unemployed to the working poor to the middle-class all the way up to well-off millionaires have had a positive experience. Not one. Not the insurance sellers. Not the medical administrators. Not the doctors. Not the elderly and definitely not the poorest who completely depend on the government to pay.

              Plenty will say you can’t depend on personal experience to judge anything, and I will reply that you can’t depend on this administration that lies on so much from the IRS to the State Dept. to employment figures. They simply can’t be trusted. So I challenge you to find people who personally have benefited from this monstrosity. NOT people who think it is sooo great and love it because of how wonderful Obama said it would be, but folks from the janitor to the CEO who actually gained a lower premium or better benefits while still being able to see a doctor that gives the same time and care as before, not to mention still being able to get the right prescriptions on demand.

            2. I currently live in New York City, and I’m surrounded by people of various classes (from blue-collar to senior management) who see positive change. I have a feeling everyone sees what they want to see. The numbers I had seen online didn’t come from government; they came form independent researchers, but as it is Saturday, I’ll stop here and go outside to enjoy the summer with my kids.

            3. Well I hope you grabbed you umbrella.

              And, no, I am afraid people DON’T see what they want, because they want their health care back. If this takeover of our economy was working, they would be tickled.

              Also, people in businesses dealing with this don’t make up the headaches. They are real.

              For your sake, I’m glad some people in America still can afford to live in areas where most people are afforded what is now becoming a luxury for the middle class.

    4. Roberts is disingenuous on this. Most of the state laws banning same-sex marriage came about through the state legislatures abdicating their responsibilities and putting it to a popular vote through a ballot referendum. Majority rule is the antithesis of a representative democracy. It’s just a high school popularity contest.

      Actually, on reflection, maybe that was his point. Although the majority of the country are OK with same sex marriage, the elected legislative bodies just can’t bring themselves to do their jobs. He doesn’t object to the outcome, just the process.

    5. 4989

      Gay AND a law professor? What a catch.

      Riiiiiiiiight.

      As detailed in Kennedy’s opinion, the court has rejected Chevron deference and gloriously invalidated Scalia’s rigid constitutional orthodoxy.

      As I big middle finger to the religious right, the decision prevents future GOP presidents from executive tampering.

      1. This ruling is irrelevant and these fools are running around celebrating nothing.
        It’s like watching people at Comic-Con with Starfleet uniforms on. They’re in fancy dress *because there is no such thing as Starfleet*.
        Gays can have their laughably farcical ceremonies until the cows come home, but they’re not married because – *shock* – marriage actually is between a man and a woman.

        It’s sad that they’re so deluded, but deluded they are.

        1. Your opinion is irrelevant. The law of the land sets what rights, privileges and responsibilities go hand in hand with marriage, and all three of those have now been extended to same-sex couples.

          And because it’s legally classed as marriage, it means US same-sex married couples also enjoy the same rights, privileges and responsibilities for each other when they visit any other of the countries that have also extended their marriage laws. It’s a fast growing list. You should check it.

  4. The decades (centuries) of efforts to make this right in America can probably be summed up in two words:

    Love wins!

    Having been raised in a very traditional environment that stigmatised homosexuals (especially homosexual men), I also grew up to believe that it is a choice, or a mental disorder, and regardless of which of the two, wrong, and that while they are free to live the way they want, they can’t expect to be treated as the rest of us.

    I was in my 30s when I finally realised: nobody chooses to be gay (and discriminated against, and physically threatened, and ridiculed in school, and picked on, and bullied…). And even so, how is it my business? How does who someone else loves affect my own life? There are no valid reasons to deny the same rights and privileges to everyone in the society. Just let them love whomever they wish, and afford them rights and privileges that you are afforded.

    1. “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. – John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

      1. Justice Roberts is completely wrong.

        This case was very precisely and exclusively about the defense of the constitution. It simply invalidate some state laws that wre in violation of 14th amendment. The court isn’t required to worry about ‘dramatic social change’; this is for congress (and state legislatures) to fix, making sure they do it in accordance with the constitution next time.

    2. I don’t think this has been going on for centuries. I mean I know homosexuality has. I think the first gay rights organization in America was the Society for Human Rights. It was established in 1924. The effort in America is not centuries old, though the injustice is ancient, globally speaking.

      I maintain this country eventually corrects social issues faster than any other country in history. Barely 2 centuries old, and we’ve abolished slavery, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and now sexual preference discrimination.

      I know, it feels like such things shouldn’t take a week, let alone decades, but in the scheme of things, decades for a society to reverse itself is amazing, relatively speaking.

      1. Faster than any country in history? Gay marriage legislation across the world:
        Netherlands – 2001
        Belgium – 2003
        Spain – 2005
        Canada – 2005
        South Africa – 2006
        Norway – 2009
        Sweden – 2009
        Portugal – 2010
        Iceland – 2010
        Argentina – 2010
        Uruguay – 2013
        New Zealand – 2013
        France – 2013
        Brazil – 2013
        UK – 2013
        Luxembourg – 2014
        Ireland – 2015
        USA – 2015

        1. And we could make similar lists for women having equal rights and being able to vote, and citizens who happen to have more melanin in their skin, and probably a few other lists.

          1. How old the US is as a country is irrelevant. You were an offshoot of England. At the start of the US, you basically had the same level of “civilization” as England.

            1. Fuck off with the swearing. Putting it as an abbreviation doesn’t make it any better.

              What I’m talking about is that listing attainments of the US in terms of the “age” of the country is specious. The US was an offshoot of England, with the same intellectual, cultural and historical background. In terms of the age of the SOCIETY, it is much, much older than TMac says.

            2. My, a little touchy, aren’t you?

              I’m sure the people of 18th century England would have a different opinion of American’s ‘culture’ as compared to theirs.
              Also, if that is the case, wouldn’t the same hold true for Australia and New Zealand?

              I don’t really give two shits about this line of arguing, I was just clarifying something ‘TMac’ said.

              But, if you want to take it to the limit, England as well as most of southern Europe were a part of the Roman Empire.

            3. Argentina and Uruguay are some 40 years younger than the USA. Ireland is less than a century old. South Africa has technically only existed for 21 years.

          2. Seems a rather bizarre way to look at it in term of the age of a country, but then it depends on when you determine the country to have started. Would we use 1787 for the U.S Canada 1867, Brazil 1889…?

        2. It is funny that Roberts appears to against the countries you listed and for:

          Afghanistan
          Russia
          China
          Saudi Arabia
          Pakistan
          Syria
          Iraq

          Etc.

          Which Countries is the U.S. more in tune with…

        3. There was no “legislation” you idiot. Almost every state that had a voter initiative on this had an massive landslide supporting traditional marriage – including California. So, Federal Judges decided to use strong arm Fascist techniques and cram this very unpopular idea down America’s throat. It is a pure act of coercion. It is not legislation.

          1. Of course different countries have different legal systems, so I used the term “legislation” etymologically (law raised”. The U.S. has an English style common law system, so the ruling is law. On a day when we’ve seen religious extremists decapitate a man in Paris, shoot sunbathing tourists in Tunisia, and bomb a mosque in
            Kuwait, it’s nice to hear some good news from America. Next up: stop your police from shooting black people like they’re vermin.

    3. You’re a fool ‘predrag’, one of many on this page.
      “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
      The leftist media has waged a war on normal, rational people to convince them that this damaging perversion is ok. Like you, they fell for it.

      Did you know that AIDS was initially called GRID?
      Gay Related Immune Deficiency.
      GRID (AIDS) has now killed 6 *MILLION* people, and there are about 160,000 gays in the U.S. alone who have it but do not yet know.

      Celebrating these people as downtrodden heroes is simply bizarre.
      This is not “love wins” at all.
      This is a massive loss for America. You’re just too brainwashed to see it.

      1. I completely understand you, I truly do. I used to believe in the same things you do. It took a lot of reading, research, talking to people and studying to finally understand how this works and why.

        When AIDS was discovered, the first patients were gay men. Hence, GRID. Not long after (within a year), AIDS was diagnosed in heterosexuals (men as well as women). It could no longer be called GRID, as it was misleading.

        AIDS kills significantly more heterosexuals than gays. Total number of people living with HIV is around 35 million. The percentage of them who are gay is just slightly higher than in non-infected population. About 39 million people had died from it (and not just 6 million, as you claim), and again, vast majority were heterosexual.

        This is a significant milestone for America, much the same as Loving vs. Virginia (i.e. allowing inter-racial marriages). America is joining civilised society.

        Love wins. You are just too brainwashed to see it.

        1. Bloody ‘ell, Predrag. What do you think you’re doing!!!? Confusing the discussion with FACTS!!! Sheesh!!!

          Accepting it’s actually a heterosexual disease will make their brains blow out their ears!

  5. The CDC estimates that 1,201,100 persons aged 13 years and older are living with HIV infection, including 168,300 (14%) who are unaware of their infection.
    (CDC HIV Surveillance Reports 2014)

    Gay and bisexual men represent approximately 2% of the U.S. population, yet accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24.
    (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/)

    There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity.
    (Sources: Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality)

    Yeah. Some “victory”.

    1. You are free to pass moral judgement on homosexuals and their promiscuity, but, most ironically, what this ruling may end up doing is, reducing gay promiscuity (by giving them a legal bond, and an additional reason to stay faithful). Make no mistake: while we may all want to believe that people are faithful because of their moral and social values (that gay men purportedly don’t have), traditional marriage plays an important role in fidelity of heterosexual couples. If you revoked the institution of marriage form heterosexual couples, it is virtually certain that the promiscuity numbers would be significantly higher.

      So, yes, it is a clear victory for the whole society; those promiscuous gay men will now have something that might make them much less promiscuous.

      1. You cannot possibly be that ignorant.
        “promiscuous gay men will now have something that might make them much less promiscuous”
        ***So *AIDS* was not already a sufficient deterrent????***

        You talk of “traditional marriage” and “heterosexual couples” as if these are things that just showed up in our culture a few months ago.
        This is the sheer unadulterated lunacy that those who have not fallen for the gay lie face day in and day out.
        Homosexual radicalism is impossible to defend sociologically, biologically, ethically and morally, that is, unless your intellectually bankruptcy is equal to it…

        1. “…***So *AIDS* was not already a sufficient deterrent????***…”

          It was a significant deterrent; studies show that the promiscuity among gay men was noticeably affected by AIDS. While they are still more promiscuous than women (but not than heater men), they are certainly less promiscuous than they used to be.

          There is really nothing to defend here. It would be like defending the right to be born with red hair; or black skin; or green eyes.

          Men are equally promiscuous, whether gay or not. The reason heterosexuals don’t have nearly as many partners as gays is because it is extremely difficult for most but the most desirable of the species to find willing women to copulate. This is easily confirmed by observing promiscuous sexual behaviour of men with whom most women actually want to have sex. Such examples are popular attractive actors, athletes or musicians. Most of them have had more sexual partners than an average gay man.

          The sociological, biological, ethical and especially moral argument from heterosexual males against homosexuality is simply duplicitous, disingenuous and most importantly simply hypocritical. Every single one of those ‘morally superior’ men would happily fuck hundreds of women if they only would agree to it. They don’t, so he can pretend to stand on moral high ground.

  6. Tim Cook represents Tim Cooks opinion, not necessarily Apple’s. Tim needs to speak for himself, not as if Apple said it. He should be smarter and wiser and neutral in the position of CEO of Apple.
    No one considered God’s opinion here or checked his word.

  7. Homosexuality is an uncorrected maladjustment of the normal healthy sex drive.
    No normal male is repulsed by the female body. Every part of the male reproductive system is designed to work in harmony with a female counterpart to make sex pleasurable and thus to propagate the race. The female is imbued with a natural attraction to healthy males for the same reason.
    It’s called NATURE.

    Is it NOT natural for a man to be sexually attracted to a cat, or another man, or his sister, nor is it natural or healthy for a brother and sister to fall in love with each other. So why demand that we consider homosexuality to be ‘normal??

    Families produce children, as well as aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews and even grandchildren and great grandchildren but homosexuals do not produce any of those things. They produce disease and death. Just look at the CDC data.

    These people are mentally ill and I pity them as much as any cancer sufferer.

    1. In some places of the world, having red hair is also considered abnormal; after all, redhead’s share of the global population is even smaller (2%) than gay.

      Personal opinion by random people about whether homosexuality is a disorder, mental disease, abomination, unnatural or abnormal has no relevance to the issue of human rights. If redheads want to marry each other, they should be allowed. Replace redheads with any other label for a minority group of humans and you got it.

      1. None of what he is saying is actually correct. Homosexual attraction exists among very many species, not just humans. Nothing abnormal or unnatural there.

    2. Haha. Do you really think gay men are repulsed by the female form? We just aren’t sexually attracted to it, that’s all.

      Yes, I’m pointing and laughing at you.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.