Gay Marriage At Scotus: One Wedding Ring Thread To Rule Them All...

[TheSkepticChristian]

  The question is  whether someone really has a right to disagree with SSM or whatever moral behavior they find contrary to their belief without being pursued by the LGBT movement

 

You don't have to agree with SSM, LGBT movement is simply asking you to allow it to be legal. 

Just because you allow something doesn't mean you support it.  

 

Allow something ≠ Promoting it 

 

LGBT movement is simply asking you to give them moral agency

 

I would have never dreamed 10 years ago that these conversations would be going on.

 

and they shouldn't be happening because it is a political topic. MDDB is not a place for politics.

Edited June 27, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Tacenda]

I'm not only frustrated, but cynical. Part of that is driven by my own personal experience in trying to deal with PA bureaucracies recently and not getting anywhere. Part of it is also that I find voting to be a farce, since there are too many times where there is no real choice, or when there is, I have to hold my nose and pick one. It's absurd regulations that absolutely no one thinks are right, but the government enforces them anyway. Lots of examples of that.

At one time the government was a representation of the people. I see precious little evidence that it is any longer that way. If you aren't connected with the right people, you can't run for office. You can't get on any of the party local committees. You can't get on school boards. You go to a public meeting, express your views, and the politicians make promises and then nothing gets done. And on and on. Most "citizens" have been gradually shut out of the process to the point that they are surprised to find that they have no real power or recourse most of the time.

For every public backlash on something - and you're correct in that it is fueled by propaganda more than anyone should be comfortable with - there are dozens of very valid issues where people either just don't care, or believe that they don't matter. And they're often right. Rebellion is manifesting itself in countless small acts of civil disobedience each day by many, many people who find the government totally out of touch with reality and who don't trust it anymore to do what's right by them.

You posted something about President Benson and Communism earlier in this thread. I'm finding a disturbing number of parallels between the Soviet / East German forms of government in the past and what we have today. Hand picked candidates that we are "allowed" to "vote" for. Increasing bureaucratic regulations and centralized planning that stifle innovation, the national infrastructure at all levels, and the economy. Emphasis on the military with a budget that is more than the budgets of the next 20 countries combined. Increased surveillance with a citizenry that is being told to report suspicious behavior. Demands for papers. The decline of the United States to the point of being a third world country in areas such as literacy, infant mortality rates, overall life expectancy, and a surprising number of other areas. The increasing divide between the haves and the have-nots. The list goes on and on.

And of course, the increasing power of the courts to override the express will of the people when someone is able to convince a judge that something is "unjust", as we've seen today.

I simply don't see much evidence that the People have much real power anymore.

Don't worry, Obama will be gone soon. That'll get me possibly kicked off this thread now, but I know and hear and see the hatred for him as a president. Edited June 27, 2015 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

You don't have to agree with SSM, LGBT movement is simply asking you to allow it to be legal.

Just because you allow something doesn't mean you support it.

Allow something ≠ Promoting it

LGBT movement is simply asking you to give them moral agency

and they shouldn't be happening because it is a political topic. MDDB is not a place for politics.

I think it's similar to how people think blacks are taking over the world, maybe because they were so oppressed. Now it's the SSM that are going to take over the world because of their being oppressed. This just dawned on me. Edited June 27, 2015 by Tacenda

[jwhitlock]

This is a tiresome argument. I honestly have no feelings on the matter. But I will say that religious morality has no place in government. It is my wish that all persons can vote according to secular logic and ethics where government and so is issues are concerned rather than revert to troglodyte idiosyncrasies and ideologies in this area. It would promote are more civil society.

 

Yep. The elimination of morality and religious influence in government has truly resulted the very civil society that we have today. </sarcasm>

[jwhitlock]

This is part of our system. The judges are to interpret the Constitution. If question is raised to the validity or constitutionality of a law. If a major IT vote is seen in violation of the Constitution then the judges must overrule and declare its unconstitutionality.

 

And of course, the courts have been so consistent in this function, haven't they. Fully unified in their "interpretations" of the constitution. Not influenced by agendas or special interest groups at all, ever. Only using that power when absolutely necessary and never engaging in social re-engineering.

[strappinglad]

Every time society bans some activity that someone likes, it creates a powerful incentive for resistance . The outright banning of alcohol during prohibition brought the rise of organized crime . The banning of drugs , particularly cannabis has given us the drug lords and gangs and prisons with the highest percentage of the population behind bars of any nation. The banning of SSM has given rise to a major activist group around the LGBT alphabet soup crowd and bestowed much more influence than they would have had if there had been a recognition of individual rights to the pursuit of life ,liberty and happiness.

Contrary to popular belief, prohibition did dampen the tendency of men to spend all their wages on booze and leave their families without , but it went too far with outright bans . Same with drugs. For some reason, society has a hard time finding that happy medium between respect for individual behavior and holding a person responsible for actions which impact negatively on society .

We still create a mess around the difference between an individual having a drink at home and one who drinks and drives . Sure, there are laws against DUI but the penalties and enforcement are such that there are still many who flaunt them ,oftimes with impunity . Drunk drivers kill , maim, and do damage to thousands every year but the penalties are insufficiently Singaporean . I have not seen the destruction caused by a married gay couple except in the imaginations of some. As for the sacredness of marriage, please, Hollywood has shown the secular world just how hollow that phrase is.

[bluebell]

why vote if some judge overturns it?

 

The US isn't a democracy, it's a republic.  Voters have limited power and the majority does not always win.

[JLHPROF]

The US isn't a democracy, it's a republic.  Voters have limited power and the majority does not always win.

 

The judges didn't uphold/shoot down a law.

They made one.

[Kenngo1969]

The US isn't a democracy, it's a republic.  Voters have limited power and the majority does not always win.

 

 

The judges didn't uphold/shoot down a law.

They made one.

I think I see your point, and I agree with it, but if the People can make law by passing referenda, and if the courts can invalidate laws so made, then they can, indeed "shoot down a law."  I haven't examined the dissents exhaustively, but the fact that the court apparently did so here is one of the things the minority sees as problematic.

[california boy]

The judges didn't uphold/shoot down a law.

They made one.

Well actually that is a falsehood. The Supreme Court struck down unconstitutional law that denied gays equal protection

[Duncan]

The US isn't a democracy, it's a republic.  Voters have limited power and the majority does not always win.

 

republic? that's a new word for me! I am trying to learn US government stuff but I am slow on the uptake here!

[jwhitlock]

Well actually that is a falsehood. The Supreme Court struck down unconstitutional law that denied gays equal protection

 

That's what SSM supporters would like us to believe. The general population, that doesn't think too deeply about such things and is susceptible to sound bites, agrees.

 

However, despite Kennedy's rhetoric, the reality of the situation is quite different than how you portray it.

 

From Roberts:

 

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.

 

[strappinglad]

Just one of the advantages of being schooled in the US. Every day - " We pledge allegiance to the flag and the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."

There are very few true democracies in the world. Switzerland maybe ? Well it used to be close. Now, I don't know. Ancient Greece ? For a while I guess. Now, well we can see where that went .

Edited June 27, 2015 by strappinglad

[Teancum]

If all you can do is tell us that someone who's pointing out the problems with the ruling is "whining", then you really don't have much to say that is credible.

 

You probably know as well as I do that given the amount of polarization in this nation, there is little likelihood that the Constitution will every be amended for any reason again. And if there's a slight chance that an amendment is passed, then the courts will feel free to abuse their "interpretive" power on it to twist what it says anyway, the same as they've done with the Fourteenth Amendment in this case.

 

Sigh.... if you read what I said I said more than you were whining and that came later when you continued to insist the process was not constitutional as well as questioned my intelligence by saying I was parroting what people said about the process being constitutional. 

 

But my main point all along is that yes the process was constitutional.  And it is exactly what has been going on since we have had our constitution. The people, through their representative make law.  At times those laws are challenged as unconstitutional.  A lower court may over turn a law as unconstitutional.   There is then an appeal process.  if it makes it to the SC the SC rules.  

 

I am not opining nor did I as to whether this was a good or bad decision.  There have been good and bad decisions from the start from the SC.  There have been more activist judges in the past as well as more strict interpretationists judges.  But this is the process.  There are ways to remedy a bad decision and the most difficult way is to amend  the constitution.  Your comment that we are too polarized a nation to pass an amendment is irrelevant to whether the process is constitutional.

 

You cheer Scalia's comments and guess what, I think he made some pretty good remarks.  I am actually more conservative than liberal.  But Scalia, like Roberts, who both complain that the will of the people was simply overturned by a majority of nne judges is a bit ironic since they both have overturned laws that seemed to reflect the will of the people in other decisions as well as construed the law to be constitutional when it seems to me at least it was not (The ACA issues IMO are clearly NOT constitutional but the Judges seemed to disagree with me in that one.)  Yes the ACA isssues and the process was still constitutional.   We don't like it?  Let's elect leaders that will over turn it. That is after all, constitutional.

 

So no, I have said much more than you are whining about it.  You just seem to ignore what I have been saying.  And what I said is credible because I am correct that the process with this and other decisions has been a constitutional process.

[california boy]

Excuse my ignorance, but does the LBTG community now have all the same rights as straight people? Or are we still going to hear the term "gay rights"?

Unfortunately the gay community still does not have all the same rights as most Americans. while you can not discriminate against someone because of their religion, race, sex, etc it is still legal to discriminate against gays in many states over such issues as housing and employment. These areas will be the next wrongs that will be addressed.

Since the church was instrumental in correcting some of these issues in Utah hopefully Mormons will support such issues

[bluebell]

The judges didn't uphold/shoot down a law.

They made one.

I realize that.

I was just explaining to Duncan why we bother voting, knowing that the results might be overturned.

[california boy]

That's what SSM supporters would like us to believe. The general population, that doesn't think too deeply about such things and is susceptible to sound bites, agrees.

However, despite Kennedy's rhetoric, the reality of the situation is quite different than how you portray it.

From Roberts:

Wrong again. The courts have no means or authority to create laws in America. Maybe NZ is different. The Supreme Court only ruled against a law that contradicted the guarantees contained in the 14th amendment. Those laws did not originate in the court. If the states had not passed those laws then there would not have been a court case to bring before the court

For example New Mexico never instituted any laws to deny gay couples the right to marry. When the first gay couple applied for a marriage license it was granted. That same senerio would have happened in every state of they had not passed unconstitutional laws banning gay marriage

[bluebell]

republic? that's a new word for me! I am trying to learn US government stuff but I am slow on the uptake here!

The founding fathers of the U.S. Constitution modeled the government after the roman republic. It's not a copy but it utilizes the same concepts.

Parts of our government are democratic in nature but not a ton. True Democratic governments are dangerous and not very stable. It was a downfall of Ancient Greek and they didn't want a repeat of that.

[bluebell]

Well actually that is a falsehood. The Supreme Court struck down unconstitutional law that denied gays equal protection

And in the process they made SSM legal when it wasn't before. Isn't that the definition of creating a new law?

[california boy]

And in the process they made SSM legal when it wasn't before. Isn't that the definition of creating a new law?

SSM was not illegal until states passed laws against it. The court past no laws. They struck down unconstitutional laws against SSM

[Stone holm]

There seems to be a general misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary during Constitutional review of State Constituions and Federal and State statutes especially with regards to Constitutional protections of individual rights. Democracy or rule of the majority has very little play in that realm, because you are protecting the rights of the individual against the claims and demands of the majority of society. Religion had no place in these debates since the majority was banned by the Constitution from establishing a religion, and I do not believe that any of the gay/lesbian couples invoked the free exercise clause. The free exercise clause will, however, be at the center of the various State RFRA debates. However, bigotry doesn't sell well commercially as Indiana quickly found out, so I suspect that party which has been the principle purveyor of the product will find itself divided sharply into its fiscal and social conservative wings. The other party slowly figured this out which explains why Clinton and Obama were late to the party. Even Gov. Dean was late to the party having discouraged SSM during his administration in favor of CUs.

[Stone holm]

Heck, I was late to the party having sought to fire gays in the school system back 30 years ago because of my religious and social beliefs and not changing my mind until my daughter in laws uniformly classified me as a bigot. Then I realized you don't persuade peoplee to your religious beliefs by adopting legislation and taking discriminatory action. To each his own when it comes to religious beliefs. I do not believe homosexual behavior can ever be squared with our religious beliefs, and feel that homosexuals who wish to remain fully active in the Church should stay firmly in the closet, however, I no longer think we should try to stop them from pursuing their view of happiness and it is long overdue that we recognize the contributions they have made to urban improvement, the arts, and design.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Stone holm

[Bobbieaware]

Don't worry, Obama will be gone soon. That'll get me possibly kicked off this thread now, but I know and hear and see the hatred for him as a president.

The multitude of problems now facing this nation and the ever growing avelanche of wickedness sweeping over the land will not end with the presidency of Barak Obama. The adversary has found fertile ground in latter-day America, and there will be no shortage of ambitious individuals who will be more than happy to do his bidding.

[Tacenda]

I'm not sure it's been brought up, but does anyone wonder if our church and other Christians had not raised a fuss and started Prop 8, that legalizing SSM would have shot forward so fast?  I read someone say this somewhere on the web, made me wonder. 

 

Also, Duncan if you're reading, do you think SSM being legal in Canada has hurt heterosexual marriage there?  Or done harm that you can see?  How are the children in these SS marriages?  I think I read that Canada has had SSM since 2005.     

Edited June 27, 2015 by Tacenda

[carbon dioxide]

The multitude of problems now facing this nation and the ever growing avelanche of wickedness sweeping over the land will not end with the presidency of Barak Obama. The adversary has found fertile ground in latter-day America, and there will be no shortage of ambitious individuals who will be more than happy to do his bidding.

America is a divided nation and this division will only widen in the future.  Whomever wins in 2016 will find that there will be as much division as there was in the Obama years.  If Hillary wins people will say that the division is because we have a woman president instead of a black president.  They will see the superficial things like gender and race and ignore the actual issue that divides the country.