Good news: gays can have mothers-in-law now in the US

The US Supreme Court has handed down their ruling that same-sex couples can enjoy the same misery of heterosexual married couples…mothers-in-law.

Gay and lesbian Americans have the same right to marry as any other couples, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Friday in a historic ruling deciding one of America’s most contentious and emotional legal questions. Celebrations and joyful weddings quickly followed states where they had been forbidden.

The vote was narrow – 5-4 – but the ruling will put an end to same-sex marriage bans in the 14 states that still maintain them, and provide an exclamation point for breathtaking changes in America’s social norms in recent years. As recently as last October, just over one-third of the states permitted gay marriages.

Public acceptance has also shot up in recent years, in stark contrast to the widespread outcry against a 2004 ruling by the high court in Massachusetts legalizing same-sex marriage there, prompting several states to ban it and galvanizing conservative voter turnout during George W. Bush’s re-election campaign.

Such is the emotion of this verdict that Andrew Sullivan broke his silence at his now defunct blog, “It is Accomplished“:

I never believed this would happen in my lifetime when I wrote my first several TNR essays and then my book, Virtually Normal, and then the anthology and the hundreds and hundreds of talks and lectures and talk-shows and call-ins and blog-posts and articles in the 1990s and 2000s. I thought the book, at least, would be something I would have to leave behind me – secure in the knowledge that its arguments were, in fact, logically irrefutable, and would endure past my own death, at least somewhere. I never for a millisecond thought I would live to be married myself. Or that it would be possible for everyone, everyone in America.

But it has come to pass. All of it. In one fell, final swoop.

Know hope.

Now everyone has the same right to a mother-in-law as everyone else.


– A newspaper, The Dish


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • phronesis

    The dissenting opinions make for an interesting read. They may have got the result they wanted but they have undermined the legal foundations of their country to do it.

    • Cyberman01

      How have they undermined the legal foundations. If you read the constitution and Declaration of Independence the only interpretation possible is everyone one is equal. If everyone is equal, then everyone has equal rights. I would argue those who decented did so for their own personal reasons which are not based in American law.

      • It is not an equal right to be married, that’s ridiculous.
        It’s an equal right to have the law applied fairly and consistently to the confines and parameters of your permanent relationship and applied evenly to all types and forms of relationships within the bounds of the law and common decency (ie not a relationship with your sister or cat). Which has nothing to do with marriage.

        • Cyberman01

          So allowing same sex couples the right to marry the person they love, as heterosexual couples are allowed is ridiculous because….
          Marriage is a right afforded under the law. To deny it to one part of the population because of a disproven concept of what is normal is just wrong. Morally and legally.

          • And again, straight over the heads of the self absorbed raging righteous liberal.
            Read it again.

            TO BE MARRIED IS NOT A RIGHT! Got it!

          • Cyberman01

            Under western law marriage is a right. Even if people such as yourself do not grasp that concept.

          • I’m not married. Therefore my human rights are being trampled on. What are you going to do about it?

            I suspect it’s you that don’t grasp certain concepts.

          • Cyberman01

            Not quite. You have the right to marry if you choose. You can exercise your right if you want.

          • Andy

            I love my Mum. Can I marry her under fhe law?

          • Cyberman01


      • phronesis

        You can read the dissenting opinions. I will hazard a guess that those five Justice of the Supreme Court no more about constitutional law than you do. But it’s not really about the outcome it’s about the jurisdiction of the Court in this case.

        • Cyberman01

          Yes I’m sure the 5 who voted for marriage equality do know more. Which is why they voted as they did. There were 4 who voted against. And those 4 have a very dubious voting past, often falling back on their own “prejudices” as opposed to up holding the U.S. Constitution.

          What do u mean jurisdiction.

          • phronesis

            You obviously haven’t read what the Justices said so there is little point in attempting to debate it with you.

          • Cyberman01

            In other words, you have nothing.

  • Cyberman01

    Well done America.

  • GalacticEye

    And, obviously, fathers-in law. Being humans too, they also have the capacity to be judgmental, controlling and interfering, vindictive and much else that’s negative and difficult to manage.

  • cows4me

    So much for the great democracy and the land of the free. Just more nonsense endorsed by hypocritical politicians and activist judges. More liberal cowardice dressed up as something progressive, just like our cowardly politicians. This isn’t about equal rights but the removal of others rights, religious freedoms, private freedoms, not anymore. Let me state I don’t mind if gays enjoy the full rights others enjoy but marriage isn’t and never has been about two people of the same sex uniting. Gay marriage is simply a Trojan horse and it’s main backers seek no equality but to force upon others a liberal progressive agenda and this agenda is evil.

    • Cyberman01

      ahhh yes. The agenda of evil. Lmao.

    • disqus_sAWxzl8tLY

      What rights did this decision remove?

  • Caprice

    The sky didn’t fall in when the homosexual law reform bill was passed in New Zealand, nor when same sex marriage was legalized.
    I did not start getting propositioned on the street by guys in leather trousers, or have to put a deadbolt on the front door.
    I feel the same about the euthanasia bill. If it goes through, people will not be forced to end their life prematurely. But it would be nice to have the option myself, and not deny it to someone else.

  • timemagazine

    Sooner or later all this cultural decay will bottom out. It always has. It is just a matter of time. Will it be still in our lifetime or not. Nobody knows.

  • Thersites

    In some countries, eg Ireland, this result has been achieved by popular referendum. In others, eg New Zealand, the decision was made by the elected representatives of the people. Both options are valid in a democracy.

    In the USA, nine unelected judges have imposed this result – a legal coup. The justices there are now making legislation and usurping the role of Congress. As Phronesis says, in their rush to demonstrate what right-on, liberal guys they are they have undermined the legal foundations of their country (and not just on this issue either).

    • Cyberman01

      Let’s not pretend American law making is anything but broken and requiring outside intervention. A massive majority of law makers and citizens want much stronger gun laws, but this is prevented by big big money and big big threats to yank this money and destroy law makers do not do as they are told.

      Also, to say the justices have made law is wrong. They have interpreted the Constitution, not written any new law. It’s a lot more complicated, and we cannot apply our thinking to how the USA system works.

      • onelaw4all

        Go read the Scalia dissent and then tell us about how they “interpreted the Constitution”

        • Cyberman01

          Scalia… Urgh, a nasty nasty man.

  • Wheninrome

    Won’t the lone wolves have an excuse now , more terror to come in the name of their religion.

  • idbkiwi

    In reply to cyberman01: You said earlier that marriage is a right. that is not correct, marriage is not a “right”, nobody has a “right” to be married, it is an opportunity. The opportunity exists providing the opportunists meet the pre-existing criteria, which henceforth has been, in western society for over a thousand years; one-only of opposite sexes of the same species, unrelated immediately by blood (consanguinity), of various, but minimally decreed ages of consent. What concerns traditionalists is that by this re-establishing of the criteria it means that all other criteria is called into question; and that’s what scares them. It is a reasonable argument that they offer; if the minimum criteria of opposites-of-sex can now be ignored and endorsed, then what validity do the other criteria hold which are not open to challenge?

    Your comment: “To deny it to one part of the population because of a disproven concept of what is normal is just wrong” could just as easily mean that a woman is free to marry her brother, in fact she can marry all her brothers, all good, marry all her sisters too; as long as she and they consider it fits their “concept of what is normal”?, and perhaps she can marry her son, or daughter too, who is only six years old?.

    What makes same-sex couples so special that they may deny the opportunity they now have to others who wish to express their own particular diverse normality?

    That is what scares traditionalists, and it is a reasonable concern. That and the fact that the United States of America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic, and these five people, from nine in total, have decreed to re-write the constitution “the belonging” to this allegiance without reference to the individual states democratic demand for change, it has simply been imposed, like the sharia law of ISIS which today celebrated the supreme court’s decision by throwing four same-sex lovers from a building to their death: this is the new law, like it or lump it, this is the way it is.

  • BR

    This US supreme court decision represents a further usurpation of states rights to the federal government.


  • Kiwikea

    Not everyone can have a mother in law – if two men have a child that gets married who is the mother in law?
    Or is it an admission that natural human recreation requires one man and one woman…

    • LesleyNZ

      Very good – what a dilemma.

      • Cyberman01

        No dilemma. You have 2 father in laws. No hard to understand.

  • LesleyNZ

    They may rejoice but gay marriage is not true marriage – it never can be.

    • Cyberman01

      Think again. Marriage is for all, and hatful bigotry is being put in its place.

      • timemagazine

        You just couldn’t resist to label those who dare to have a different opinion and voice it.

        • Cyberman01

          See above.

          • timemagazine

            Well, why don’t you tell us how people should express their options? What is acceptable and what is not in your opinion. What words are allowed to be used etc.

      • Nige.

        I do t think its fair to assume that people with a different opinion to you are hateful. A lot of people have trouble changing the way they think when that is the way there were brought up and have been living for their whole lives.

        • Cyberman01

          It’s all in the way they express their opinions.

  • spanishbride

    Marriage was created for a legal purpose and was all about land and property. People didn’t marry for love they married to unite two families land holdings. Love marriages were a modern idea and religion made marriage their own by adding ceremony to it.

    Let’s not forget its origins as a legal contract, a contract about land and property not about love or commitment. Gays have not hijacked marriage in my view, Religion has hijacked marriage. Yes the ceremony is lovely as are the traditions and the addition of love and fidelity but religion did not create marriage, it simply added its own ideas to it.

    Yes it has always been about a man and a woman but it used to give the woman no rights at all, she was property that her husband owned under the marriage contract. That is no longer the case so why can’t it be changed to include gay people?

    • LesleyNZ

      After the Fall mankind hijacked the original purpose and meaning of marriage (in Genesis). Of course I know many will not believe this. Gay people were supposed to be happy with civil union – but they had to have marriage and call each other wife and wife and husband and husband. When you think about it – how ridiculous to have a wife and wife and husband and husband. No matter how much gays want to be equal and the same as those in a traditional heterosexual marriage – they really never can be. I know what you mean about the legal purpose. With all the multiple divorces and multiple remarriages that happen these days – marriage for many has lost its true meaning.
      Genesis 2:22-24 (NIV)
      22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
      23 The man said,
      “This is now bone of my bones
      and flesh of my flesh;
      she shall be called ‘woman,’
      for she was taken out of man.”
      24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

      • Cyberman01

        Matthew 7:1-29 ESV / 266 helpful votes

        “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. …

        • Nige.

          You could quote Bible passages to eaxhothet for hours and no one would get anywhere. Yours does not refer to marriage so its somewhat pointless.

          “Judge not lest….” So we shouldn’t judge murderers or thrives?

          • Cyberman01

            It refers to the person doing the judging. But thank you for making my point. We can quote bible passages all day long and get nowhere.

        • LesleyNZ

          These Bible verses are usually quoted to those who have a world view as I do. The above is my opinion based upon what I believe. You think differently to me Cyberman based what is your worldview and what you believe to be right and wrong – yet because my worldview and opinion is not the same as yours you call me a bigot. Bigot means: ” a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.’. Hmmm – perhaps you need to have a chat with yourself. I agree with Chris Christie in what he had to say. The law must be obeyed – doesn’t mean to say the law is right or that you agree with it.
          As for all the rainbows being posted in cyberspace right now. In my worldview this is reminder of God’s covenant and grace to us to never completely flood the world again.
          #reclaimthe rainbow

    • acha648

      she also in return got a home
      and protection to the point where men would die for their wives…

      the fact that women were fine with that system for thousands of years shows that it was not really such a bad deal for women…

  • Rick H

    Why do they ALWAYS put “Gays and Lesbians”?
    Isn’t that the same as putting “Heterosexuals and Straight Women”?