[Michael F]

I'm proud to read the headlines in the paper. I'm referring, of course, to the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage. I've thought for many years that marriage equality was inevitable, but I didn't expect it this fast.

I must say, it's a nice feeling.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Now what the nation needs is an equally modern ruling on gun control and abortion rights and fair wages.

Congratulations all, for the Supreme Court announcement today. (But keep in mind that many are still out to overturn Roe vs Wade which is riddled with loopholes so take nothing for granted.)

[Michael Cantor]

I'm proud also - and delighted with yesterday's Obamacare and Fair Housing decisions as well - but, as Janice points out, there is so much more to be done - and we have to fight continually to keep what we just established. We're making a bit of progress recently on increasing minimum salaries, but income inequity is still massive, abortion rights are being chiseled away, and our gun control policies are utterly out of line with every other nation. And so on. We're living off our assets and past glories and wisdoms, the rest of the world has caught up, and in many areas they've left us in the dust - unless pointing to a massively armed citizenry and the world's highest incarceration rate makes you proud to be an American.

[Jayne Osborn]

I'm a Brit, but I'm happy about this common sense legislation too, Michael. It's a topic I feel strongly about. I've never understood why anyone should object to two people making a commitment to each other, regardless of their gender.

And in the news today, we have the sickening atrocities in Tunisia and Lyon, which came about because of people's intolerance of others' views. For pity's sake, why can't people just be nice to each other? "Live and let live", and all that.

Love between two people is a wonderful thing. If they wish to publicly declare that love by getting married, that's a good thing, right?

On today's Desert Island Discs, one of my favourite Radio 4 programmes, the subject was Stephen Fry - enormously popular TV personality and author extraordinaire - who recently married his gay partner. He's bi-polar and has had his demons in the past (attempted suicide etc). That he's now very happy is all that matters.

Yes, in this world full of wickedness and evil let's celebrate love, marriage and happiness!

[Michael F]

Yes, Jayne and Janice and Michael. It feels right to celebrate love -- we’re poets, after all...

On the subject of work still to be done, the legacy of slavery is particularly noxious and intractable in the US. I must say I’m awestruck by the dignity and grace with which members of ‘Mother Emanuel’ church in Charleston have faced a senseless atrocity. Proud isn’t a strong enough word.

[John Whitworth]

We are not celebrating love, Michael, but marriage. Not the same thing at all.

America was well ahead of us in the UK in celebrating gay love, as Auden, among others, found. Did you know that he was a major in the American army? That put some noses right out of joint. Ho-ho. He wore slippers too.

[Roger Slater]

Yes, but Obama didn't do this. (I say in response to a comment of John's that has apparently been edited out). The Supreme Court did it. And the key here is Justice Kennedy. It's worth remembering that we only have Justice Kennedy on the Court because Reagan's first choice, Robert Bork, was rejected by a very wise Senate. Reagan's next nominee was forced to withdraw after people learned he had smoked dope, and then Reagan was forced to come up with a "safe" nominee because he couldn't afford a third failed nomination in a row. If Bork hadn't been such a total right-wingnut out of step with mainstream jurisprudence, the result might have been different. (Though Bork died in 2012, so perhaps Obama would have appointed his successor on the Court and all would have been well).

[James Brancheau]

Original comment too tangential, even for me... So instead of my meanderings:
crooksandliars.com/2015/06/open-thread-lowered-and-raised

[Bill Dyes]

If two people are willing to make the hard honest exchanges
they can come to promise
and treat each other with love and trust
but this society and this country,
regardless of Presidents, Congresses or Supreme Courts,
has always shown an endless need and accompanying cleverness
to discriminate and can never be fully trusted.

[Michael F]

John,

Why did you change your initial response, which was generous of spirit and becoming to you?

Yes, I did know that Auden wore slippers around NYC. He had horrible bunions or corns or some such. I also recall something about his going to Spain to drive an ambulance in the Spanish Civil War.

Of course you're right: there can be marriage without love. But where there is love, what interest has the state in proscribing marriage? Cui malo? That is the question, as I'm sure you know.