text:
The Innovators: Publishers focus on quality content to cut through the noise.
Magazine publishing is increasingly becoming an exercise in focus: where once publishers had the luxury of devoting most of their attention to a single, recognizable product, they are now grappling with the content swarm and diversified revenue streams endemic to the Digital Age. Magazine media is a term that gets thrown around in an attempt to better describe the variety and scope of what a "magazine publisher" does: publishing print and digital magazines, web content, and social media, hosting virtual and live events, or selling wares through ecommerce, to name a few.
Today's innovators are those who are adept at building clear communication channels-and brands and revenue streams-despite all the noise we are currently enduring. Publishers still have to be creative and serve their audiences-that's a given-but from the discussions we had with the five publishers featured in this special feature, fighting distraction and finding focus is the real challenge.
Read on for insight from Katachi, Modern Railroader, Rookie, Reader's Digest, and Meredith AgriMedia.
Ken Olling
Co-Founder, Katachi
Sticky Content
Ken Olling and Axel Haugan founded iPad-only magazine Katachi in 2010, right before the iPad's launch, with the modest goal of publishing the most interactive magazine in the world. And though the Norway-based publication has garnered adulation, winning "Magazine of the Year" at the 2013 Digital Magazine Awards for its innovative design, it took some time to get off the ground.
"We immediately ran into the barrier of technology," says Olling, who also acts as Katachi's editor-in-chief and creative director. The Katachi team quickly found that no publishing tool existed that could make use of the iPad's touch interface to their liking. Ultimately they decided to create their own, native platform-the Origami Engine, a Mac OS desktop application for producing iPad publications. Olling explains that developing Katachi and Origami simultaneously "became this sort of back-and-forth where we would come up with ideas editorially, work on tools to be able to do those things editorially, and we would learn from the mistakes."
Olling and his team spent a year-and-a-half developing their own native platform, which allows them to create interactive, sticky content optimized specifically for the iPad. "First we got a really fantastic, really engaging experience on the iPad as a magazine, and second we actually got a set of tools we could use to make all kinds of things: annual reports, documents, magazines, books, lightweight apps, and more."
Despite only publishing three issues so far, Katachi's success demonstrates that publishers can make a name for themselves with exclusive, digital-only content.
Where did the idea for Katachi initially come from?
We started seeing the publishers coming out with their take on tablets, and the majority of what we heard was that they were doing a channel play. They were going to treat the iPad in the same way they treated their web content: as a possible channel to take existing content and push it down a pipe. We saw that as a rather foolish way of going forward because there was a business model built directly into the iPad, one very different than the web.
The web has an inherent free component. We thought that if you just try to take web or print content as a PDF and push it down the iPad as a channel, people wouldn't be willing to pay anything more than a very, very marginal amount of money. We decided that because none of the publishing industry was exploiting the iPad's built-in business model, we would. We put it upon ourselves to come up with a next generation, tablet-based editorial experience.
What are your goals from a design perspective?
We publish Katachi as a study on what is possible in editorial design on the iPad. Each issue introduced a different set of communication solutions. So we use Katachi as a test bed or proving ground for Origami Engine and in the past year we have been focusing on commercializing the software and supporting other magazines that publish using OE. Katachi will continue to be published and its releases will continue to be sporadic.
What do publishers need to survive in the iPad magazine market?
They need to look at the iPad as a platform. Publications like News Corps' The Daily looked at a kind of web-based flow of content into templates, where you never really have to spend time thinking about or looking at what you're communicating. We took a very classic, almost old-fashioned approach to the way you develop editorial content: in the print world, you look at that content and decide, "How can I communicate it in an as effective way as possible?" This thinking, while it's the mainstay in the print world, never really made it over to the web.
The web is all about creating these standardized templates, and using a computer and a database to push it all forward. We went back to the traditions of print and we said, "This is a fantastic way of doing it. It's been very effective and readers like it." We wanted to take that approach and apply it to interactive, apply it to digital.
About six months before The Daily closed, we started to negotiate with them about them adopting Origami Engine as their main platform. They saw that you're not going to be able to engage readers by having the worst of mobile and the worst of the web. I can understand their process to get there, because the publishing industry by and large has understood that their defensibility of the market has to do with control of the distribution channel. They become more centered on the idea of the distribution channel, rather than going back and trying to think about how they're going to engage readers and what they're going to do with content.
What kind of innovations have you come up with?
One of the features we added was the ability to provide multiple languages in a single magazine issue. For example, say a small magazine publisher publishes in English, and after six months they see there's some degree of success and interest in a particular market. They can then add Russian, Chinese, or Spanish to it with no effort. And it provides that language directly into the same magazine and the same piece of content, so people that have their iPads set to Russian will automatically get the Russian version. This gives magazine publishers the ability to take advantage of being international, where typically the way that the magazine industry is broken up is very regional, and the magazine brands tend to license out their names to additional editorial organizations all over the world.
How are digital revenue strategies different from print?
Digital magazines are very different from print in many good ways because the revenue model is very different. In traditional print, your revenue model is cyclical. When you're in the physical newsstand you're making money, so you have these spikes in your revenue model. Whereas when you're dealing with digital magazines, your income becomes cumulative, because your products never leave the newsstand -- we actually sell more of issue one now than we did when we launched it. Katachi has sold about 90,000 copies and has about 1000 subscribers. We have had advertising in the magazine but the revenue primarily comes from single-issue sales.
I think we struggle with advertisers over the way they see interactive advertising. They value interactive advertising primarily along the lines of the web and clicks. We try to get our advertisers to understand that they have the opportunity to create a great experience that keeps the person in that experience for a very long period of time-kind of a strange mix between a promotional website and an advertisement. Most of the advertisers really don't understand this idea of getting someone to spend between five and seven minutes in a particular ad on the device, but I think they're starting to warm up to the idea.
Are there opportunities for real-time ad buying in digital magazines?
We're actually working on some ad network features in our system to allow for both advertising and direct purchasing. It's a hybrid between in-magazine purchasing, content-marketing, and a shopping cart experience. The technology is all there and ready to go; it's not a particularly difficult process. The challenge has to do with fulfilling those orders, because magazines typically are not fulfillment companies. It requires them to make a lot of technical effort to integrate and tie up to some of these organizations.
How does data play into engaging content production?
In Katachi, based on our analytics, people spend eleven-and-a-half minutes reading the magazine per session. Based on that period of time they read a little bit over five pages in the magazine. It's quite a considerable amount of time that people are spending, and the customer that buys an issue will then, on average, buy 2.3 issues. So almost everyone will buy a single issue, like it, and buy another issue. The way that we've dealt with our content is that we've approached the editorial process so that we create editorial content that is a bit more evergreen, that has a bit more appeal over a longer period of time. Then you do end up getting a lot more sales because people see that they can go back to it.
-Alex Hosenball
Kerrie Keegan
Managing Director of Content Operations, Reader's Digest
Everywhere, All of the Time
It's certainly a sign of the times that a legacy brand such as Reader's Digest, which is now nearly a century old and is well known for its middle-aged demographic, has been garnering industry attention lately for the rapid pace at which it's unveiling new digital products. In an effort to understand how Reader's Digest has managed to maintain the appeal of its flagship print product while simultaneously filling the online marketplace with content-heavy apps and digital magazine editions, Publishing Executive spoke with Kerrie Keegan, the managing director of content operations for Reader's Digest North America.
Keegan has spent more than 15 years in the publishing trenches, with experience across a range of creative, production, and management roles. Remarkably, she began her career at American Lawyer Media when the company was transitioning from manual paste-up methods to desktop publishing. "I've witnessed an extreme transition of technology over the years," says Keegan.
More recently Keegan played an instrumental role in the magazine's much-ballyhooed redesign, which made its public appearance with the January 2014 issue. Here she shares insight on Reader's Digest's mission to make its evergreen content available on literally any platform a consumer may hope to find it.
Reader's Digest has been garnering a lot of attention lately for its digital innovations. What do you think makes your digital division a leader in this space?
I think what sets us apart, and what I think a lot of people may not know about Reader's Digest, is that we've always been early adopters of digital technology-and in a lot of cases, first to the table. For instance, we were one of the first publishers to introduce an iPad app. We were the first users of the new publishing technology we used to create our new mobile phone app. And I think these technological innovations have been really successful in allowing our company to stay fluid in the marketplace.
What are some of the projects you've been working on recently?
Reader's Digest has just unveiled a new redesign of the brand, and along with that, our digital portfolio was revamped. Part of that relaunch was introducing a new mobile iPhone product. And what was groundbreaking was the technology we used to produce it.
We wanted to focus on the functionality of the app, but we needed to find more efficient ways of producing it. So we updated our workflow to introduce a new-to-market WordPress-to-DPS plugin. And we're actually pioneers in using this open-source platform to push our mobile editions through Adobe's digital publishing system. We worked in conjunction with Studio Mercury and the Mueller brothers, who've also done [digital applications and web-based projects for] The New Yorker and Vanity Fair.
I understand the recent print redesign was done in such a way that it would reference the redesigned digital edition. Is that right?
Right. When we were redesigning the brand, we actually looked across all platforms and let them influence each other. So our print product is a clean and classic redesign. We've actually harkened back to older versions of Reader's Digest that were more streamlined, and the design is really unique and user-friendly.
So we expanded that across our digital platforms, and we've made some great improvements there. We also have new columns, such as "Finish this Sentence," which has deep roots in social media: A question is posted on Facebook, readers respond, and then those answers are actually used in the magazine.
Would you say there's a philosophy of innovation within the company?
Yes, that's been baked into our DNA since the launch of Reader's Digest. And one of the things we've done, and that I don't think a lot of publishers do, is that we expose our entire team to all platforms -- our whole editorial and design teams contribute to all of our platforms. That's kind of a big thing, because editors can make decisions that are platform-specific with our content. A lot of other companies set their teams up to work in silos, so that their digital team, for example, will only be working on one product or platform. We also work very closely with vendors to enhance their technology and the software they're developing.
So you're saying that your editorial teams are working on digital and print products at the same time, and that everyone has their hands in both of those pots?
Yes, absolutely. Our editors will contribute to the magazine, and they'll also contribute to the website. They contribute bonus content to our tablet and mobile editions. And they're constantly kept current on the research and findings, to know how to distribute the content to the correct platforms. So yes, all of our editors and our design team work across platforms. Even our print designers, they'll work on the digital products. When we were concepting our mobile phone app and the tablet redesign, we included print designers, web designers, and digital designers, so that everyone could inform one another's products and platforms.
Can you talk a bit about how you're monetizing your digital content?
We still work with pretty traditional subscription revenue models. Our digital and print editions each have their own revenue models, and we've been testing some very successful programs since the Reader's Digest relaunch in January.
We're always looking at various subscription models across platforms. Our sister company, Taste of Home, has been really successful in leveraging a paywall on their website, and offering exclusive content for print subscribers. At Reader's Digest, we actually offer a six-month free trial to our print subscribers to try out our digital edition. And we've had really great success in converting them from print to digital through that incentive.
So, yes, we still have a lot of things in the works in terms of exploring new ways of bringing in revenue. We're constantly working on new ways to monetize, to bundle, and to offer different subscription models.
The editorial pages of your print edition have increased and your issue frequency has gone from 10 to 12 issues a year. Can you explain what led to that?
With our January 2014 issue, we focused on our most engaged subscription base, and we offered advertisers a new, first-to-market, premium print model and strategy. Our primary objective as a company was to eliminate all non-profitable circulation, and to focus on the three million most engaged consumers. So we wanted to enhance the quality of our core print product, and also the value of the proposition that we're delivering to both our readers and our advertisers.
We've actually eliminated the number of ads in the book, so that we have a higher editorial ratio; we went from a 50-50 to an 80-20 edit-ad ratio. We've also taken the initiative of increasing the user experience in both the print and the tablet editions, where we've actually spread out the advertising throughout the magazine so the pacing is better suited for our readers.
What are the biggest challenges you face in digital?
I think one of the biggest struggles is the competition for our consumers' time. So we're constantly looking for new and efficient products, like our iPhone app, to make sure that we reach them where they want to find us.
This idea of being able to reach readers wherever they are -- is that something you specifically focus on?
Absolutely. That's really my job: to take the content that this team is producing -- and we have very successful content that we've been producing since 1922 -- and make sure it's everywhere that people are looking for it. I think it's very important that publishers continue to do this. And I think the struggle is that with all of these expanding products and platforms, publishers need to remain efficient and agile enough to produce these products with whichever size teams they have.
-Dan Eldridge
Kevin Keefe
Vice President of Editorial & Publisher,
Kalmbach Publishing
Ready, Set...Action!
80-year-old Model Railroader, an enthusiast magazine for railroading hobbyists and the flagship title of Kalmbach Publishing, is anything but dated. The hobby magazine is embracing new content delivery channels with a strong focus on original video. Last year, that effort culminated in the launch of a video-only, paid website, Model Railroader Video Plus (MRVP).
The site is a natural progression for Model Railroader, says Kalmbach vice president of editorial and Model Railroader publisher Kevin Keefe. Video became an important part of Model Railroader's strategy about six years ago, when Keefe put editors in front of the camera to do the product reviews and tutorials that they were known for in print. Demand for video increased at Model Railroader and at Kalmbach's other titles, leading the company to launch it's own video division two years ago, which now employs a full-time staff of seven.
Based on the increasing popularity of video among magazine subscribers, Keefe thought a separate, paid video product would be a worthy investment. Model Railroader charges current subscribers $27 per year, in addition to the regular $42.95 per year. A standalone yearly MRVP subscription costs $44.95.
So far, MRVP has been a success, with its most popular videos snagging up to 9,000 views. As a result, Model Railroader is expanding its marketing efforts beyond Model Railroader subscribers, which currently make up the majority of MRVP's subscription base. Last month, the magazine launched MR Insider, a weekly video on the Model Railroader site that previews MRVP videos. This video feature is in front of the site's paywall, allowing anyone to watch.
Following Keefe describes how his magazine's latest revenue generator came about and why Model Railroader is ahead of the game in the enthusiast space.
What is Model Railroader's mission as a niche publication?
MR's mission is to be the complete resource for the hobbyist. It's just that simple. We review new products. We show them how to build layouts large and small. We show them how to do smaller things like how to make scenery. We teach them how to do the sophisticated wiring and digital control that helps the railroad operate realistically. We're everything. We're all those things to these readers every month.
What indications did you have that more video content would be embraced by your audience?
The demographic for MR very much hovers around the Baby Boomer generation and older. Even that group is gravitating to digital. Our readers showed over the past couple of years that they really liked the videos we were doing on our website. That gave us the idea that if we invested some money in a deeper, wider experience on the video side, we could set up a separate product, and some of our readers would migrate over there. That is happening, which is great.
One of the germs of the idea for MRVP came from the tremendous popularity of the original series called Cody's Workshop. These are videos columns by one of our staff members Cody Grivno. In his programs he'll talk about the latest model railroading equipment. We still offer Cody's Workshop videos, but we also have a new series on MRVP's website called Cody's Office.
It seems you're having no problem monetizing your video content...
That's probably where the news is in this story. There are not a lot of websites out there, particularly consumer websites, that are charging that kind of money for content. But what we tell people is, "Trust us. We've invested the resources into making that purchase worth it." It's a pretty full experience, and it grows every month. We're adding about 16 to 20 new videos every month. That's 16 to 20 utterly original videos, varying in length anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes. The videos cover all sorts of techniques. If you look at the site, we've got how-to stuff all over the map.
Have you noticed a change in the audience-editor dynamic?
It is very much about building relationships. Cody is a good example of that.
It's gotten to the point now that when our staff goes to MR shows throughout the country, when Cody is there, everyone wants to meet him. He's become quite a celebrity in the MR hobby world.
What is the biggest challenge to providing an in-depth video experience?
One is how do you take print journalists and turn them into video journalists? There has been a real learning curve. Now that we have established this new video department, the real task is to get other editors up to speed who don't have a lot of experience on camera. How do we get them to be comfortable? How do we help them think of ideas that translate well to video? Those are the kind of challenges we face.
Are you planning on expanding your video division?
Yes, we are. One thing the company has done-and MRVP has had a profound influence on this-is we've established an entirely new department called video services. We now have a full-time video staff of seven people. This is a department that didn't even exist two years ago. We're consolidating all the video efforts for our 14 other magazines. Certainly having that entity within the organization gives us the chance to think about other variations of the MRVP approach, which could range from any number of different pay sites.
-Ellen Harvey
Anaheed Alani, Editorial Director
Lauren Redding, Managing Editor
The Kids Are All Right
A quick look at Rookie, an online magazine for teenage girls, will reveal articles that may raise some eyebrows. The first article asks "Is non-monogamy right for you?" A second delves into the life of a 20th century surrealist artist. And the third is an interview with 80s punk rocker Thalia Zedek. None are familiar ground for the average reader of Elle Girl or Teen People, but Rookie editorial director Anaheed Alani is not concerned. She knows Rookie is covering what really matters to teenage girls.
Part of that certainty comes from the fact that Tavi Gevinson, founder of Rookie, is a teenager herself, who despite her age is well versed in creating popular web content. In 2008, a 12-year-old Gevinson launched Style Rookie, a fashion blog where she chronicled her personal style and the latest fashion trends. At its height, the site drew 30,000 readers a day. Soon, Gevinson was ready to talk about more than fashion and launched Rookie in 2012.
Rookie's content is largely created by teenage girls. "It gives us a big advantage in terms of knowing what teenagers are interested in," says Alani, "Rather than us adults kind of guessing."
The site's unique content reflects a decision the Rookie team made to speak to teens on equal footing and satisfy an audience of thinkers largely ignored by other teen magazines. The now defunct, 80s-era Sassy Magazine very much inspired Rookie's mission. "It was a magazine for teenage girls that wasn't dumb," says Alani, "It didn't talk down to girls. It never had dieting tips or exercise tips. It basically respected the intelligence of teenagers and talked to them liked peers."
This approach has propelled two-year-old Rookie to internet stardom. In the past year alone the site has doubled its readership, and celebrities like Paul Rudd, Jimmy Fallon, and Judd Apatow have been eager to collaborate with the site. All three have appeared in a viral video series called "Ask A Grown Man". The videos feature celebrities answering questions submitted by Rookie readers, and the most popular, featuring John Hamm, gained over 1 million views.
Pairing a unique viewpoint, savvy content strategy, and the right products and events, the publication is taking off.
A Daily Portal for Inspiration
Alani wants Rookie to be an important part of readers' lives-a place readers can visit daily for new ideas and motivation. With that in mind the Rookie team is very purposeful about how content is made available to readers. Each month, Rookie editors create an issue theme, much like a print magazine. Some recent themes include "Escape," "Vision," and "Consumption." Rather than publish the entire issue at once, Rookie releases select, theme-related articles throughout the month and at times that are most convenient for teens. "Our readership is in high school all day and doesn't have a chance to sit down and read something extracurricular until they are out, so there are three times [we release content] -- after school, around dinner time, and right before bed."
Scheduled content helps readers carve out time in their day to devote exclusively to Rookie. At 3 p.m., 7 p.m., and 11 p.m. readers know that it's time to check Rookie and fuel their creativity, says Alani. By timing content releases, Rookie is able to earn readers' attention during select times-a technique known as "dayparting" in the TV broadcasting world. Teenagers are busy during and after school, so convincing them to take a few minutes to watch a makeup tutorial or a half-hour to read a personal essay is crucial to the site's success.
Additionally, dayparting allows Rookie to accomplish another mission beyond return visits, which is to inspire teens to create their own music, poetry, and stories. "A lot of websites want engagement to be high because it brings them revenue and because those numbers are counted," says Alani, "And obviously we always want more readers and to make money, but honestly our goal is more to have our readers create their own Rookies."
Teens Want Print Too
The success of Rookie has spurred new revenue models, the most successful of which is perhaps the Rookie yearbooks. Rookie Yearbook One and Rookie Yearbook Two are collections of the best content from the site's first two years in printed form, proof teenagers want to engage with print content and own, in a sense, a part of Rookie.
"We decided to make a book because we wanted to, because our readers had been asking for it, and we thought it would be great to bring Rookie to life in a tangible way," says Lauren Redding, managing editor of Rookie. "We sell quite a few books on our site, but the book is also available in big and small retailers all over the world."
Redding says publisher Drawn and Quarterly ran its largest print run to date for Rookie Yearbook One, at 40,000 copies, and that print run has nearly been sold through. The print run of Rookie Yearbook Two, 24,000 copies, will also sell out in a couple of months, says Redding.
Plans for future yearbook distribution are even more ambitious. Rookie will work with a larger publisher -- Penguin imprint Razorbill -- for yearbooks three and four in order to expand its reach.
Taking it Live
Live events are quickly becoming the embodiment of all things Rookie. Alani and Redding dove in with the Rookie Road Trip two years ago, which had the modest goal of getting Rookie staff to interact with readers. Urban Outfitters sponsored the event series, which brought together Rookie staffers and readers in 16 cities across the country. After hosting concerts, art shows, and dance parties with the Road Trip, Redding and Alani realized that live events had the opportunity to be the lifeblood of their community and their brand.
Not only were readers excited to meet Rookie staff, says Alani, but they were also eager to meet one another. This enthusiasm for a more tangible community motivated Alani and Redding to pursue more events.
Since the Road Trip, Rookie has launched book tours, full-day events, and even hosted bands at more prominent gatherings like SXSW. Rookie readers have been ecstatic, says Redding, and the big takeaway is that these events need to expand. "We have really big dreams. We really want to do a lot more events, and I think there is a definite market there. They end up being the most heart-warming, beautiful parties. We've talked about the possibility of doing a Rookie camp and a Rookie festival. We've experimented on a small scale doing a mini-festival, and we're hoping we can grow that."
-Ellen Harvey
Scott Mortimer
Vice President & Group Publisher, Meredith Agrimedia
Fresh to Market
After 22 years at Meredith Corporation, Scott Mortimer has a sober perspective on the magazine industry, particularly the balance of print and digital media that modern publishers must pursue. As vice president and group publisher of Meredith Agrimedia, Mortimer serves as caretaker to the magazine that started it all for Meredith, Successful Farming, founded in 1902. And though the magazine has a rich tradition, it has managed to keep pace with new technologies as well.
In fact, Meredith Agrimedia, which serves as the umbrella brand for multiple properties including Successful Farming and Living the Country Life, introduced the first Meredith website with Agriculture.com in 1995. Launched with a focus on the farming community, Agriculture.com was homing in on the social aspect of audience development well before "social" was a buzzword. Its extremely active discussion boards remain an important piece of the site's traffic and the brand's online presence, says Mortimer.
While digital is growing and as Mortimer puts it, "The farm is a very connected place today," print remains an extremely sturdy foothold for the company. With this in mind, the Agrimedia group continues to be innovative in print, offering clients the opportunity to slice and dice its 420,000 subscriber base, publishing thousands of targeted versions of each issue.
How has the publishing industry changed over the past two decades?
When I first started with a sales territory, I'd go out and we'd talk magazine. We did have a couple other titles but it was all print-focused, and the metric was how many pages do we have running for the month or the year? Today that's kind of one of the last things we look at. It's the whole suite of offerings that we're able to sit down and talk to customers about.
Quite honestly it's made it a whole lot more challenging and a whole lot more exciting-we get to talk about how we want our content to be where our customers are and in the form they want to consume it. Whether that's print, whether it's digital, whether it's a tablet, whether it's an event, whether it's a TV show or radio program -- whatever it is our content is going to be there for them.
How has business been for your group recently?
Business has been very robust. We'll have a record year this year, and that's on top of a record year last year. In fact, the last five have been record years for us. There's lots of enthusiasm in our sector right now and the fact that we've continued to create a product that is well-positioned with our readers and in demand from our marketing partners has been a good thing for us. Certainly agriculture has had a boom in the last five to six years.
There's also a real desire from consumers to know where their food comes from: Is it grown in a sustainable way? Am I consuming healthful products? We're in a unique position to help tell that story. We have our farmer-facing product with Successful Farming, but also all of our consumer-facing brands as well. This whole farm-to-table movement that's alive out there-nobody is better positioned than us to tell the story of the American farmer to the public.
We recently did a project with Midwest Living on behalf of one of our advertisers, Elanco. They make animal health products, vaccines and that sort of thing. But they're very concerned about making sure to tell the story of safety and healthy products to the consumer. So we partnered with Midwest Living and ran two different inserts: one profiling a dairy farmer and one profiling an egg farmer just telling the story about how they make their products, how they treat their animals, how they run their business, and told not only the Successful Farming audience but also the Midwest Living audience. And the metrics for that were off the charts in terms of moving the awareness needle.
Can you tell us a little about the history of Agriculture.com?
We were Meredith's first website launched in 1995. We've been around and at this for a very long time. News, weather, and markets are the central focus on Agriculture.com. About a third of our traffic comes from discussion groups and community interaction was a central theme for when we launched the website back in '95. It had different words from what it does today -- social wasn't really a term we used much back then.
Community and conversation is such a big part of our society today, but it's in the roots of what Agriculture.com is. We have 23 different discussion groups with themes like machinery and crop scouting. Farmers get in there and they interact with each other on issues facing their farm. It's a great opportunity for us to really keep our finger on the pulse of what's going on out on the farm.
How do you continue to be innovative with your print offering?
We're selectronically bound and we've been using that technology for many, many, many years and many in agriculture have as well. It is all based off of our database. So if we have an advertiser that wants to reach only the 1000-plus acre corn farmers in Iowa we can deliver their message just to those people. And we can narrow down to the individual grower level if we want to and we do that occasionally with inkjet messaging.
We'll get advertisers that come to us and say, "I only want to reach this profile of grower," and we're able to deliver their ad message to specifically those folks that we have identified in our database. So our August issue of 2013 had 7,194 different versions to it. That was kind of a high-water mark for us, but our typical issues will have 2,000 to 3,000 different versions. It's by far the most complicated magazine that Meredith does.
Inkjet messaging is another way to personalize the magazine at the reader level. We use everything at our disposal to help our marketing partners better integrate their messaging across all of our platforms. For example, a print ad can be personalized and tie into an email campaign and a targeted online ad or direct mail program.
Though print remains strong, how are you innovating in digital?
The farm is a very connected place today. Smartphone ownership and tablet ownership has really exploded in the last five to six years and that's certainly something we're paying very close attention to.
Our digital business has turned into part of the business that advertising demand outstrips our inventory. Nine to ten months of the year we just don't have enough inventory to go out and sell to our customers. That's certainly an area we'll continue to focus on.
I would say the tablet strategy is a bit of a work in progress. Being part of Meredith the magazines are in Next Issue and in the Zinio store. We get about 1,300 people a month that get the magazine on the tablet, which isn't a big number at this point but it's certainly a number that we're paying very close attention to. As tablets become much more integrated into daily farm life -- tablets in the tractor cab -- we think there's certainly some opportunity to expand in that area.
As connected and as wired as it's gotten on the farms, print is still the number one source that farmers turn to for information. At least in the first couple of stages of the buying process when they're collecting information and starting to make those purchase decisions, print's still by far and away the number one source that farmers turn to. Even with the younger growers -- and I'm talking under 39 years old -- print still spikes to the top. While things have changed a lot, we're still going to have to create best in class print products because it's primarily where farmers turn first.
-Denis Wilson
Related story: Will Emerging Standards And Specifications Help Us Normalize Digital Magazine Publishing?


text:
The revolutionary GoCasa by Gopower will quickly become your loyal partner on the go. With a high-capacity battery, the Kickscooter moves at a speed of up to 15.5 mph so you'll always arrive on time when traveling to school or work. The safe ride is guaranteed by the highly durable combination of electronic and locking mechanical brakes for immediate and easy stopping. When you arrive at your destination, simply release the safeguard and, due to the kickscooter's low weight, carry it anywhere.
- Perfect Use for: Quick navigation through town and ideal for storage
- Durable Foldable Frame: 6061 Aluminum Alloy folding frame
- Safety Features: LED headlight, Front and rear brake
- Comfort: Hidden front shock Suspension, Kickstand,8.5 air fill tire
- Safety Features: LED headlight,Disk braking and E-ABS for stopping immediately and improving safety
Tech Specs
- Motor: 350W
- Battery: 36V7.5ah Lithium Battery
- Charge Time: 3.5 Hours
- Top Speed: 15.5MPH
- Distance Range: 18 miles
- Display: LCD
- Way of folding: Double
- Weight of scooter: 28lbs
- Weight Capacity: 220lbs
- Tires: Air filled 8.5'' tire
Free Shipping to Lower 48 States!
What is Included with Bike:
- Battery Charger
- Owner's Manual
- Warranty Card

subset: commoncrawl


text:
In the quest to be well-educated on issues, to speak with an informed mind, to engage with a humble spirit, it is important to go to the original sources. Here is my original source work.
Below are excerpts from my highlights, with reflections interwoven, and concluding commentary.
These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.
It must be conceded that dissenters are correct in their critique that this decision "changes the definition" of marriage. However, that does not seem to be the crux of the argument as changes in definition are assumed as positive aspects of a nation governed by freedom. Thus, critics must be more precise when they say the definition has "never" changed as the argument of this court, and others, is that definitions have changed over millennia and those changes have been, historically, beneficial.
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. … When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution's central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.
The plea to the 14th Amendment is a stretch, as we will see in the dissent. But as we can already see, this argument is fundamentally about the Constitutionality of same-sex marriage, not its religious merits.
The first premise of this Court's relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. … A second principle in this Court's jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.
It could be potentially argued here that this statement also "restricts" marriage to two people, thus nullifying the "slippery slope" argument towards polygamy. Though it could also be said that the plea to "individual autonomy," nullifies whatever strictures are being instituted.
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. … The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.
This is a hard line of argumentation as the protection of the family, namely safeguarding the children, some would argue is a consequence of such judgments but not a rationale for such judgments. In other words, in accordance with definitions, there are no "children of same-sex couples," recognized by some states under current laws, thus nullifying the need to "protect."
Finally, this Court's cases and the Nation's traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation's social order. … 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.
The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.
Thusly argued.
While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right.
And here is the rub. The fundamental argument here is that there is "harm" involved in waiting for the democratic process. The "harm" is the inability for someone to exercise their fundamental rights.
The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed out of State. Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
A bit redundant, but necessary legalese, I suppose.
Opinion of the Court – Justice Kennedy
This Court granted review, limited to two questions. … The first, …is whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. The second… is whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to recognize a same-sex marriage licensed and performed in a State which does grant that right.
The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.
Some have commented on this phrase as being quite beautiful and moving. Perhaps. But what does "beautiful and moving" have to do with Constitutional rights? In addition, the conflation of state and religion here has not been met with the kind of concern that may perhaps be warranted.
One question not discussed much is why a secular institution (the "state") has authority over a religious institution ("marriage")? No doubt there is much history behind this coupling. However, it may be a bit of religious and political ironic tragedy that as religious institutions attempted to block marriage at the state level, they have unknowingly permitted the state to therefore make declarations upon the institution of marriage that may not be warranted, given the "separation of church and state," philosophies in our country. This is not even mentioned in the dissenting opinions.
The petitioners acknowledge this history but contend that these cases cannot end there. Were their intent to demean the revered idea and reality of marriage, the petitioners' claims would be of a different order. But that is neither their purpose nor their submission. To the contrary, it is the enduring importance of marriage that underlies the petitioners' contentions. This, they say, is their whole point. 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.
As we will see from the dissent, the word "need" is going to be subject to much scrutiny.
The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law and society. The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. That institution—even as confined to opposite-sex relations—has evolved over time.
These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution of marriage.
So argued. Such is the case of coverture laws and anti-miscegenation laws in recent American history.
Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.
The DSM removed "homosexuality" from its list of mental illnesses in 1973. In 2013, the APA published this statement on homosexuality.
With the exception of the opinion here under review and one other, see Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F. 3d 859, 864–868 (CA8 2006), the Courts of Appeals have held that excluding same-sex couples from marriage violates the Constitution.
So argued.
The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution's central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.
So argued, as above.
A first premise of the Court's relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.
So argued.
Choices about marriage shape an individual's destiny. As the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has explained, because "it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition." Goodridge, 440 Mass., at 322, 798 N. E. 2d, at 955.
So argued.
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.
As Scalia will take this to task later, since when was "expression, intimacy, and spirituality" considered "freedoms" under our constitution?
A second principle in this Court's jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.
Again, is this a recognized "secular" or "religious" institution?
Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other.
This is perhaps quite inappropriate in a paper that is deciding and contemplating constitutional jurisprudence. It is weak, argumentatively, and sloppy sentimentality. Does this really belong in this kind of legal opinion?
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child rearing, procreation, and education.
So argued.
By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents' relationship, marriage allows children "to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives." Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23).
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. See Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23).
"Stigma" and "humiliation," are difficult Constitutional rights to substantiate. The dissenter's opinion is hereby duly noted on elements such as this.
These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decision making authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers' compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules.
Unlike the other sentiments, this list is an appropriate depiction of the "harms" done to married couples who are not recognized across state boundaries. It is here that the strength of the argument lies, and here that the opinion of the court should have placed its strongest rhetoric…(IMHO).
There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle. Yet by virtue of their exclusion from that institution, same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage. This harm results in more than just material burdens. Same-sex couples are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives.
So argued.
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.
So argued.
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.
This is an argument that should be contended with. "Not from ancient sources alone," is a plea to the progressive state of understanding and, in religious circles, "revelation." This is fundamentally an expression of the brilliance of our Constitution, its flexibility into the future as we reach "better informed understanding[s]."
Conversely, though they write "decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises" are not "disparaged here," it is clear that there is a strong populace to whom this directly communicates a deprecating, or trivialization of a very sacred institution. It will be a daunting challenge for both the religious and the secular to come to some sort of understanding of each others' respect and regard for one another, especially as that esteem is tied up in decisions and opinions which are not easily divorced from personal feelings. There is hope, as there are many religious leaders who recognize the secular nature of our government and believe it should be kept sacred as a divine blessing for both entities. But that peace will come at the cost of deeply held convictions.
One State's law, for example, provided in 1971 that "the husband is the head of the family and the wife is subject to him; her legal civil existence is merged in the husband, except so far as the law recognizes her separately, either for her own protection, or for her benefit." Ga. Code Ann. §53–501 (1935). Responding to a new awareness, the Court invoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex-based inequality on marriage.
This dynamic also applies to same-sex marriage. It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality. Here the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry.
So argued.
Of course, the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does not abridge fundamental rights. … "[t]he freedom secured by the Constitution consists, in one of its essential dimensions, of the right of the individual not to be injured by the unlawful exercise of governmental power." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 15). Thus, when the rights of persons are violated, "the Constitution requires redress by the courts," notwithstanding the more general value of democratic decision making.
This, as mentioned, is the crux of the argument. The Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that democracy is not the appropriate process for change because the continued evaluation of same-sex relationships as illicit violates Constitutional rights. The dissenters, of course, disagree.
The Nation's courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. 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. The idea of the Constitution "was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts." West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638 (1943). This is why "fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." Ibid. It is of no moment whether advocates of same-sex marriage now enjoy or lack momentum in the democratic process. The issue before the Court here is the legal question whether the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Perhaps this should have been more clearly summarized and expounded upon at the front of the opinions. Nevertheless, it is so stated here.
The respondents also argue allowing same-sex couples to wed will harm marriage as an institution by leading to fewer opposite-sex marriages. This may occur, the respondents contend, because licensing same-sex marriage severs the connection between natural procreation and marriage. That argument, however, rests on a counter intuitive view of opposite-sex couple's decision making processes regarding marriage and parenthood. Decisions about whether to marry and raise children are based on many personal, romantic, and practical considerations; and it is unrealistic to conclude that an opposite-sex couple would choose not to marry simply because same-sex couples may do so. See Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F. 3d 1193, 1223 (CA10 2014) ("[I]t is wholly illogical to believe that state recognition of the love and commitment between same-sex couples will alter the most intimate and personal decisions of opposite-sex couples").
Not only is this so argued, it addresses the weakest aspects of the defense.
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
So the question that the dissenters are going to ask is that while this paragraph seeks to protect the "teachings," does this decision violate their Constitutional right to "free exercise thereof?" Pizza shops, photographers, and cake makers are testing this proposition.
The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
* * *
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.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Dissent – Justice Roberts
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment."
It is important to note that Justice Roberts is not arguing the issue of "same-sex marriage," per se, but is rather opinionated on the Court's permissions, as he will expound upon below.
The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State's decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.
And the driving argument, leave it to the States.
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law.
This should be an appreciated line by everyone who cares about our legal system.
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. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
So argued.
The real question in these cases is what constitutes "marriage," or—more precisely—who decides what constitutes "marriage"?
"Who," not "what."
The majority largely ignores these questions, relegating ages of human experience with marriage to a paragraph or two.
It seems as if the "who" of the definition of marriage was not addressed in the depth that Justice Roberts wants, because, as he mentions, that is not the sole driving question. It is "where," does the rights of marriage fall? Constitution, or the Republic?
For all those millennia, across all those civilizations, "marriage" referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a woman.
Not true. In addition, Justice Roberts laid out his main argument that is more about the courts than it is about marriage, and then continues to discuss the history of marriage. Perplexing.
The premises supporting this concept of marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman. When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child's prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways.
But this has been addressed several times. In addition, this argument is more against divorce than it is against same-sex marriage.
1 An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). An influential 19th-century treatise defined marriage as "a civil status, existing in one man and one woman legally united for life for those civil and social purposes which are based in the distinction of sex."
It seems a bit weak to quote a dictionary from the 1820s as an argument for the 21st century. Especially given the "coverture" definitions that have existed.
The majority may be right that the "history of marriage is one of both continuity and change," but the core meaning of marriage has endured. Ante, at 6.
But this feels like splitting hairs.
If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority's position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.
This feels a bit snarky, and seems to misrepresent the majority's actual opinion.
They argue instead that the laws violate a right implied by the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement that "liberty" may not be deprived without "due process of law."
Allowing unelected federal judges to select which unenumerated rights rank as "fundamental"—and to strike down state laws on the basis of that determination—raises obvious concerns about the judicial role.
So argued.
In a dissent that has outlasted the majority opinion, Justice Curtis explained that when the "fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws [are] abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control" the Constitution's meaning, "we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean." Id., at 621.
Absolutely fascinating, for this is the exact same argument found in the fundamentalists defense of the Bible.
The majority's driving themes are that marriage is desirable and petitioners desire it. The opinion describes the "transcendent importance" of marriage and repeatedly insists that petitioners do not seek to "demean," "devalue,""denigrate," or "disrespect" the institution. Ante, at 3, 4, 6, 28. Nobody disputes those points. Indeed, the compelling personal accounts of petitioners and others like them are likely a primary reason why many Americans have changed their minds about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. As a matter of constitutional law, however, the sincerity of petitioners' wishes is not relevant.
When the majority turns to the law, it relies primarily on precedents discussing the fundamental "right to marry." Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987); Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 383; see Loving, 388 U. S., at 12. These cases do not hold, of course, that anyone who wants to get married has a constitutional right to do so. They instead require a State to justify barriers to marriage as that institution has always been understood.
None of the laws at issue in those cases purported to change the core definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
If that is an agreed upon definition, and second, if a State justifies barriers that are unconstitutional, is that not reason for the Supreme Court to step in?
Removing racial barriers to marriage therefore did not change what a marriage was any more than integrating schools changed what a school was. As the majority admits, the institution of "marriage" discussed in every one of these cases "presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners."
In short, the "right to marry" cases stand for the important but limited proposition that particular restrictions on access to marriage as traditionally defined violate due process. These precedents say nothing at all about a right to make a State change its definition of marriage, which is the right petitioners actually seek here.
But, neither is removing gender barriers changing what "marriage," is.
Unlike criminal laws banning contraceptives and sodomy, the marriage laws at issue here involve no government intrusion. They create no crime and impose no punishment. Same-sex couples remain free to live together, to engage in intimate conduct, and to raise their families as they see fit. No one is "condemned to live in loneliness" by the laws challenged in these cases—no one. Ante, at 28. At the same time, the laws in no way interfere with the "right to be let alone."
But they do interfere with the aforementioned marital benefits of taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decision making authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers' compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules. (p.22)
Our cases have consistently refused to allow litigants to convert the shield provided by constitutional liberties into a sword to demand positive entitlements from the State. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189, 196 (1989); San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 35–37 (1973); post, at 9–13 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Thus, although the right to privacy recognized by our precedents certainly plays a role in protecting the intimate conduct of same-sex couples, it provides no affirmative right to redefine marriage and no basis for striking down the laws at issue here.
Point, the right to privacy does not seem to be a driving thrust of the majority's opinion. It is slightly perplexing that Roberts includes the assumption that the majority's opinion is a "redefinition" of marriage.
The truth is that today's decision rests on nothing more than the majority's own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that "it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right." Ante, at 19. Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner.
This seems to be a gross misrepresentation of the majority's opinion.
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.
The slippery slope argument has made its way into the Supreme Court dissent. Roberts offers no substantive rational for the differential of this "leap."
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?
This section is double-edged. First, it illuminates the weaknesses or "slippery" implications of the majority's rationale. However, it is also somewhat false arguing, for the "definition," can still be maintained at "two people," should the government wish to do so. After all, is not this the whole point of the enterprise?
Then and now, this assertion of the "harm principle" sounds more in philosophy than law. The elevation of the fullest individual self-realization over the constraints that society has expressed in law may or may not be attractive moral philosophy. But a Justice's commission does not confer any special moral, philosophical, or social insight sufficient to justify imposing those perceptions on fellow citizens under the pretense of "due process." There is indeed a process due the people on issues of this sort—the democratic process.
First, philosophy plays a significant part in jurisprudence, so relegating an argument to philosophy is both inaccurate and hypocritical. Is not Roberts engaging in similar philosophy? Second, we see again the strength and thrust of the argument, that this decision should not be decided by the courts, but rather by the democratic process. So argued.
If an unvarying social institution enduring over all of recorded history cannot inhibit judicial policy making, what can? But this approach is dangerous for the rule of law. The purpose of insisting that implied fundamental rights have roots in the history and tradition of our people is to ensure that when unelected judges strike down democratically enacted laws, they do so based on something more than their own beliefs. The Court today not only overlooks our country's entire history and tradition but actively repudiates it, preferring to live only in the heady days of the here and now.
But the whole point of our constitutional process, including the judicial branch, is that social institutions are flexible, malleable to the changes of society? I also don't believe the statement, "preferring to live only in the heady days of the here and now," are accurate the full scope of the argument.
It is important to note with precision which laws petitioners have challenged. Although they discuss some of the ancillary legal benefits that accompany marriage, such as hospital visitation rights and recognition of spousal status on official documents, petitioners' lawsuits target the laws defining marriage generally rather than those allocating benefits specifically.
But what is the difference? How can those be separated?
Over and over, the majority exalts the role of the judiciary in delivering social change.
"Delivering," may not be as accurate as "sanctioning." In other words, the judiciary is not a catalyst of social change, but an arbiter of what social change is constitutional or not.
Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority's conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. … In our democracy, debate about the content of the law is not an exhaustion requirement to be checked off before courts can impose their will. "Surely the Constitution does not put either the legislative branch or the executive branch in the position of a television quiz show contestant so that when a given period of time has elapsed and a problem remains unresolved by them, the federal judiciary may press a buzzer and take its turn at fashioning a solution." Rehnquist, The Notion of a Living Constitution, 54 Texas L. Rev. 693,700 (1976).
Would be humorous if the stakes weren't significantly personal.
The Court's accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it. Here and abroad, people are in the midst of a serious and thoughtful public debate on the issue of same-sex marriage. They see voters carefully considering same-sex marriage, casting ballots in favor or opposed, and sometimes changing their minds. They see political leaders similarly reexamining their positions, and either reversing course or explaining adherence to old convictions confirmed anew. They see governments and businesses modifying policies and practices with respect to same-sex couples, and participating actively in the civic discourse. They see countries overseas democratically accepting profound social change, or declining to do so. This deliberative process is making people take seriously questions that they may not have even regarded as questions before.
When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate. In addition, they can gear up to raise the issue later, hoping to persuade enough on the winning side to think again. "That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work." Post, at 2–3 (SCALIA, J., dissenting).
But today the Court puts a stop to all that. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide. As a thoughtful commentator observed about another issue, "The political process was moving . . . , not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict." Ginsburg, Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade, 63 N. C. L. Rev. 375, 385–386 (1985) (footnote omitted). Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.
This whole paragraph is ironic, because the line of reasoning would perhaps be argued by the other side, especially with phrases like "shutting down the political process," and "closing debate." In addition, the last line, bolded, is quite the mixed bag of sentiments. Roberts seems to be lamenting the loss of "opportunity," which is nice, but seems to be unfounded (as the "winds of change" continue to blow). Second, "true acceptance" will come regardless of legal strictures or permissions. That, of course, is how we got here in the first place.
The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to "exercise" religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.
This is, in my opinion, one of the most difficult, challenging, and important matters of this debate. What does "the free exercise thereof," entail?
Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.
Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of today's decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate. The majority offers a cursory assurance that it does not intend to disparage people who, as a matter of conscience, cannot accept same-sex marriage. … The majority reiterates such characterizations over and over. By the majority's account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States' enduring definition of marriage—have acted to "lock . . . out," "disparage,""disrespect and subordinate," and inflict "[d]ignitary wounds" upon their gay and lesbian neighbors. Ante, at 17, 19, 22, 25. These apparent assaults on the character of fair minded people will have an effect, in society and in court. … Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous. It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority's "better informed understanding" as bigoted.
While this sentiment is deeply felt, I'm not sure it accurately describes the majority's statements. In fact, the word "bigot" is only used by the dissenters, not by the majority.
* * *
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. I respectfully dissent.
The irony of this statement is telling. "Celebrate the availability of new benefits." Concurrent with the majority's opinion, isn't that the point of the Constitution, and the fourteenth 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."
Dissent – Justice Scalia
I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE's opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy.
So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today's decree 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. … This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
While I understand the point, the converse point is, What if the freedom to govern themselves results in the oppression of others? Isn't that the point of a Supreme Court?
Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best.
This is a bit hyperbolic. There are thousands of other real issues, economic, educational, commerce, international relationships, taxes, etc., that perhaps display the very "best" of American democracy. The same-sex debate, some would argue, displayed American bigotry, bias, and religion at its worst.
"[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States."
"[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to [United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 16) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices' "reasoned judgment." A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.
This seems patently untrue. The whole point of having a judicial system is precisely that the States are not free "to adopt whatever laws they like." Laws that violate the Constitutional rights of others are not permitted, and when a democracy overreaches, then the it is the Supreme Court's responsibility, nay, obligation, to overturn such laws.
Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans19), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today's social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today's majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.
Double-edged sword. Yes, the backgrounds of the judges ought to be irrelevant, as those appointed to said benches are supposed to be "blind," as justice is supposed to go. However, yes, the reality is that backgrounds do matter, and all people, including judges are susceptible to bias.
Of course the opinion's showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. "The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality." (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.)
This is poignant, as well as humorous. Scalia's quip should actually be taken seriously, as he does point out a weakness in the majority's position.
* * *
Hubris is sometimes defined as o'er weening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the"least dangerous" of the federal branches because it has"neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm" and the States, "even for the efficacy of its judgments." 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.
A different kind of "slippery slope," interestingly. I don't know how you separate "based on law" and "reasoned judgment." That feels like a contradiction. The whole point of justices is that one is making reasoned judgment based on law.
Dissent – Justice Thomas
Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits.
I have elsewhere explained the dangerous fiction of treating the Due Process Clause as a font of substantive rights. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 811–812 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). It distorts the constitutional text, which guarantees only whatever "process" is "due" before a person is deprived of life, liberty, and property. U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, §1. Worse, it invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—"'roa[m] at large in the constitutional field' guided only by their personal views" as to the "'fundamental rights'" protected by that document. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 953, 965 (1992) (Rehnquist, C. J., concurring injudgment in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 502 (1965) (Harlan, J.,concurring in judgment)).
By straying from the text of the Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority.
Even assuming that the "liberty" in those Clauses encompasses something more than freedom from physical restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed by the majority. In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.
I find this an intriguing philosophical foundation. Would DOMA be considered a "governmental action" or a "governmental entitlement?"
Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of "liberty," that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships. To the contrary, they have been able to cohabitate and raise their children in peace. They have been able to hold civil marriage ceremonies in States that recognize same-sex marriages and private religious ceremonies in all States. They have been able to travel freely around the country, making their homes where they please. Far from being incarcerated or physically restrained, petitioners have been left alone to order their lives as they see fit.
But the petitioners, and others, have been denied access to other "benefits," including financial benefits, health care visitations, adoption rights, etc., because of the marriage laws. This paragraph seems to completely miss the swath of reality that are faced by same-sex couples.
Nor, under the broader definition, can they claim that the States have restricted their ability to go about their daily lives as they would be able to absent governmental restrictions. Petitioners do not ask this Court to order the States to stop restricting their ability to enter same-sex relationships, to engage in intimate behavior, to make vows to their partners in public ceremonies, to engage in religious wedding ceremonies, to hold themselves out as married, or to raise children. The States have imposed no such restrictions. Nor have the States prevented petitioners from approximating a number of incidents of marriage through private legal means, such as wills, trusts, and powers of attorney.
But when those marriages are not recognized by other States…?
But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of "liberty" that the Framers would have recognized.
[footnote 5] The suggestion of petitioners and their amici that antimiscegenation laws are akin to laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman is both offensive and inaccurate.
But "liberty" is not lost, nor can it be found in the way petitioners seek. As a philosophical matter, liberty is only freedom from governmental action, not an entitlement to governmental benefits. And as a constitutional matter, it is likely even narrower than that, encompassing only freedom from physical restraint and imprisonment.
This is persuasive, and a conservative philosophy that many would do well to consider. The "slippery slope" is no longer about "who is allowed to marry who," but "what government is allowed to permit or restrict." This is a good question, and one that should characterize our national debate.
The majority's inversion of the original meaning of liberty will likely cause collateral damage to other aspects of our constitutional order that protect liberty.
"Likely" is speculative. The argument, of course, is that this is no infringement upon other people's rights.
The definition of marriage has been the subject of heated debate in the States. Legislatures have repeatedly taken up the matter on behalf of the People, and 35 States have put the question to the People themselves. In 32 of those 35 States, the People have opted to retain the traditional definition of marriage. Brief for Respondents in No. 14–571, pp. 1a– 7a. That petitioners disagree with the result of that process does not make it any less legitimate. Their civil liberty has been vindicated.
Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority's decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.
But the problem is that religious liberty is a national issue, Constitutionally.
Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.
Yes. Amen! (?)
The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.
I actually love this line from Thomas. It's quite deep, actually, and should be considered in the kinds of arguments we make around what is or is not permissible, Constitutionally. However, the argument/inquiry emerges, What is the responsibility of a citizenry, when the people want to take dignity away? Does government have the responsibility to protect it?
Dissent – Justice Alito
The Members of this Court have the authority and the responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution. Thus, if the Constitution contained a provision guaranteeing the right to marry a person of the same sex, it would be our duty to enforce that right. But the Constitution simply does not speak to the issue of same-sex marriage. In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny. Any change on a question so fundamental should be made by the people through their elected officials." 570 U. S., at ___ (dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 8–10)(citations and footnotes omitted).
We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.
Well, according to the dissenting arguments, this is fully permissible by the Constitution.
Today's decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today's majority claims.
Yes, as so argued before.
I do not doubt that my colleagues in the majority sincerely see in the Constitution a vision of liberty that happens to coincide with their own. But this sincerity is cause for concern, not comfort. What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture's conception of constitutional interpretation.
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.
And so it is concluded, on a 5-4 vote, that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 States of our Union, with all the rights and privileges thereof. Arguably the most significant Supreme Court decision from a religious standpoint since Roe v. Wade. Whether we celebrate or lament, this decision, as with all others, raises more dilemmas rather than satisfies inquiries. What about the "free exercise thereof" regarding religion? Is there a "judicial slippery slope" regarding what our government can or cannot permit? If our founding fathers could not have envisioned today's modern debate, what other issues are starting to stretch the reach of our Constitution?
I have been wrestling with a question for a while on this that I believe is quite apropos. From Joel Barker's book, Paradigms, he asks, "What is impossible to do, but if it could be done, would fundamentally change [everything]?" Regarding this issue and the fragmentation that is happening in the Christian Church, I ask, "Could we, with our deeply held convictions, no matter how radically disparate and conflicting they may be, be both committed to those beliefs, and still be One Church? Could we still love, even in this?" If that could be done, that would, perhaps, fundamentally change everything.


text:
In contract with the United States Tank‐ Automotive and Armaments Command, Kaeper produces recoil buffer assemblies for the M240 and M249 machine guns. Kaeper also designs and produces innovative measuring equipment, several of which are DoD approved measuring equipment for use exclusively with the M249 buffer recoil system.
Key Product
Kaeper Machine, Inc. is an Ohio manufacturing firm specializing in precision CNC machining. Currently, the company works exclusively with the Department of Defense on low tolerance, high complexity machined assembly projects and is also a registered ISO 9001:2008 firm with both design and engineering in its scope. Kaeper Machine, Inc. is currently in the process of diversifying its product line from exclusive small arms parts manufacturing to aviation parts manufacturing and aviation parts repair and replacement.