Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 9:26:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 16:41:01 GMT -5
Back in 1954 the Supreme Court decided Brown vs Board of Education where they stated black People should be afforded the same rights as whites. Today, it seems a bit silly to think blacks should not be offered the same protection of laws. In 60 years I think that's where we will be with respect to gay rights. Can I copy and paste this? ... I never should have gone on facebook today.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 26, 2015 16:41:15 GMT -5
This is also an issue of states rights, and the ability of the citizens to decide what the definition of marriage is. Government issues marriage licenses. Government grants privileges and benefits based upon contraction into the institution. And folks who want to hide behind "States Rights" don't like the 14th Amendment put in front of them . . . just sayin' . . .
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2015 16:41:08 GMT -5
Well at least he is consistent. finally! someone to address this MARRIAGE problem we have!
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 26, 2015 16:41:55 GMT -5
My mum was approaching 70 when she finally embraced homosexuality and went to a gay wedding.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2015 16:43:26 GMT -5
Texas is quick to respond as well- claiming it would violate the religious liberty of the clerks issuing licenses.
As I once heard someone say: "Your rights stop where mine begin".
I'm really tired of so called Christians claiming they are persecuted. When you get thrown to lions, talk to me. Until then, shut up.
this is absolutely false, as i pointed out earlier. they will soon learn that, of course. this ruling doesn't require any institution to GRANT licenses. it requires the GOVERNMENT to HONOR those licenses, when granted. actually, this is a pure old fashioned Republican issue, if they could get their panties untwisted. which, clearly, they can't.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,496
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 26, 2015 16:44:24 GMT -5
If you're the last one here, make sure you turn off the lights. i wish i had thought of that. Low hanging fruit.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 26, 2015 17:17:52 GMT -5
I find it interesting that the same folks who want to redefine an institution that has stood for millennia as a man and a woman use the argument that "because religions have the right to refuse straight couples, they can refuse gay couples, because that's the way it's always been."
See the contradiction?
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 26, 2015 17:20:57 GMT -5
I find it interesting that the same folks who want to redefine an institution that has stood for millennia as a man and a woman use the argument that "because religions have the right to refuse straight couples, they can refuse gay couples, because that's the way it's always been."
See the contradiction? Um, that's not the argument. I am not saying that churches have the right to deny gay couples, because "that's the way its always been", but because the first amendment says they can.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 26, 2015 17:22:24 GMT -5
Chief Justice Roberts has summarized many of the points I'm trying to make far more eloquently than me.
I'd encourage you to read it, and not just read it, stop and consider it, and what this ruling really means for our country.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
"... 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.”
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. 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.
Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer."
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 26, 2015 17:34:20 GMT -5
Chief Justice Roberts has summarized many of the points I'm trying to make far more eloquently than me.
I'd encourage you to read it, and not just read it, stop and consider it, and what this ruling really means for our country.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
"... 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.”
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. 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.
Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer."
Sour grapes from a dissenting minority opinion.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 26, 2015 17:34:52 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 9:26:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 17:35:58 GMT -5
I find it interesting that the same folks who want to redefine an institution that has stood for millennia as a man and a woman use the argument that "because religions have the right to refuse straight couples, they can refuse gay couples, because that's the way it's always been."
See the contradiction? No. And sometimes I seriously question your working in safety. Logical train of thought and discrimination of elements in an issue should be essential in your line of work, I would think...
|
|
vonna
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 11, 2012 15:58:51 GMT -5
Posts: 1,249
|
Post by vonna on Jun 26, 2015 17:37:40 GMT -5
Chief Justice Roberts has summarized many of the points I'm trying to make far more eloquently than me.
I'd encourage you to read it, and not just read it, stop and consider it, and what this ruling really means for our country.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Yes, I read Chief Roberts opinion, as well as Chief Kennedy's.
I would expect nothing less from our Supreme Court Justices than a well-written and persuasive argument.
The thing is, you will either be persuaded by Roberts or Kennedy's opinion. Both well written, both well-thought out, and on opposite sides of the issue.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 26, 2015 17:38:15 GMT -5
I find it interesting that the same folks who want to redefine an institution that has stood for millennia as a man and a woman use the argument that "because religions have the right to refuse straight couples, they can refuse gay couples, because that's the way it's always been."
See the contradiction? Um, that's not the argument. I am not saying that churches have the right to deny gay couples, because "that's the way its always been", but because the first amendment says they can. EXACTLY.
This ruling today was not about forcing churches to do anything. It was about extending CIVIL (not RELIGIOUS) rights to all American adults. The churches have, can and will continue to deny their rituals to whomever they please. The GOVERNMENT cannot now deny to LGBT persons the benefits and protections that a CIVIL marriage license affords to citizens of this country.
But lo, I repeat myself
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 26, 2015 17:44:02 GMT -5
I find it interesting that the same folks who want to redefine an institution that has stood for millennia as a man and a woman use the argument that "because religions have the right to refuse straight couples, they can refuse gay couples, because that's the way it's always been."
See the contradiction? Women were considered property for a millennia, as well. I guess that means we shouldn't have changed it?
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 26, 2015 17:44:24 GMT -5
I think it means the US is finally crawling out of the dark ages.
It seems that we only felt the need to start defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" when gays started fighting for full protection under the law. Curious.
Are you as deeply troubled by the Loving v. Virginia decision? Do you view that as a blow to religious liberty?
In both cases SCOTUS ruled that these new laws that were cropping up were unconstitutional. If a state has the right to define marriage as between a man and a woman, why then can't it have the right to define it as between only people of the same race?
I will actually say, I am surprised that SCOTS ordered all states to issue licenses, rather than just acknowledging the marriages performed in other states.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 26, 2015 17:46:43 GMT -5
Chief Justice Roberts has summarized many of the points I'm trying to make far more eloquently than me.
I'd encourage you to read it, and not just read it, stop and consider it, and what this ruling really means for our country.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
"... 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.”
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. 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.
Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer."
Sour grapes from a dissenting minority opinion. I could see him making the same arguments if he was one of the justices deciding the civil rights of minorities at that time... When those decisions were left to the people of and the States them selves ..we saw how that worked out...Some times folks with certain powers just have to step up to the plate after a while ..and...niceities be damned...
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 26, 2015 17:48:34 GMT -5
I think it means the US is finally crawling out of the dark ages. It seems that we only felt the need to start defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" when gays started fighting for full protection under the law. Curious. Are you as deeply troubled by the Loving v. Virginia decision? Do you view that as a blow to religious liberty? In both cases SCOTUS ruled that these new laws that were cropping up were unconstitutional. If a state has the right to define marriage as between a man and a woman, why then can't it have the right to define it as between only people of the same race? I will actually say, I am surprised that SCOTS ordered all states to issue licenses, rather than just acknowledging the marriages performed in other states. Technically, SCOTUS did not order the States to issue licenses. "All" it said was that States who pass laws denying civil marriage licenses to gay couples are in violation of the Constitution (the 14th Amendment) which forbids States from abridging the rights and freedoms of individuals.
But the net effect is clearly the same.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 26, 2015 17:50:21 GMT -5
I think it means the US is finally crawling out of the dark ages. It seems that we only felt the need to start defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" when gays started fighting for full protection under the law. Curious. Are you as deeply troubled by the Loving v. Virginia decision? Do you view that as a blow to religious liberty? In both cases SCOTUS ruled that these new laws that were cropping up were unconstitutional. If a state has the right to define marriage as between a man and a woman, why then can't it have the right to define it as between only people of the same race? I will actually say, I am surprised that SCOTS ordered all states to issue licenses, rather than just acknowledging the marriages performed in other states. Technically, SCOTUS did not order the States to issue licenses. "All" it said was that States who pass laws denying civil marriage licenses to gay couples are in violation of the Constitution (the 14th Amendment) which forbids States from abridging the rights and freedoms of individuals.
But the net effect is clearly the same.
Ah, thanks. I have honestly read so many different articles today....but it is an important distinction.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2015 17:51:11 GMT -5
Chief Justice Roberts has summarized many of the points I'm trying to make far more eloquently than me.
I'd encourage you to read it, and not just read it, stop and consider it, and what this ruling really means for our country.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Yes, I read Chief Roberts opinion, as well as Chief Kennedy's.
I would expect nothing less from our Supreme Court Justices than a well-written and persuasive argument.
The thing is, you will either be persuaded by Roberts or Kennedy's opinion. Both well written, both well-thought out, and on opposite sides of the issue.
i find the central premise of Roberts argument utterly unconvincing. the court is INDEED an agent for social change. it always has been. whether Roberts WANTS it to be that way (or anyone else for that matter) is utterly immaterial. it has been and, God willing, will always be.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2015 17:53:48 GMT -5
Um, that's not the argument. I am not saying that churches have the right to deny gay couples, because "that's the way its always been", but because the first amendment says they can. EXACTLY.
This ruling today was not about forcing churches to do anything. It was about extending CIVIL (not RELIGIOUS) rights to all American adults. The churches have, can and will continue to deny their rituals to whomever they please. The GOVERNMENT cannot now deny to LGBT persons the benefits and protections that a CIVIL marriage license affords to citizens of this country.
But lo, I repeat myself
precisely, the ruling today said that the government has no ability, no constitutional wherewithal, to DEPRIVE rights from the people. again, this seems utterly Republican to me, this ruling. it is absolutely a vote FOR individual freedom, and AGAINST state power.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2015 17:55:59 GMT -5
I find it interesting that the same folks who want to redefine an institution that has stood for millennia as a man and a woman use the argument that "because religions have the right to refuse straight couples, they can refuse gay couples, because that's the way it's always been."
See the contradiction? Women were considered property for a millennia, as well. I guess that means we shouldn't have changed it? again, the utterly flawed logic in the dissent. there is nothing glorious or perfect in "tradition".
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 26, 2015 18:17:31 GMT -5
Ack! Sqweeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! jarma! So damned good to see you posting! How the heck are ya, girl? As to the SCOTUS ruling, I'm beyond thrilled. I was doing the happy dance around the kitchen this morning. So many I know will finally be free to love, and live as married couples! Puts a smile on my face and a spring in my step. Just plain happy!
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 26, 2015 18:18:26 GMT -5
In anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, some Michigan lawmakers have proposed a set of bills that could road-block same-sex couples seeking to marry.
This week, state Rep. Todd Courser, R-Lapeer, introduced three House bills that would end government involvement in performing weddings and require that all marriage certificates be signed by a religious leader. www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/michigan/2015/06/19/gay-marriage-legislation-religion-michian/29018125/
Wow! just....wow! Talk about sour grapes. "It may legal for them to get married, but we're going to make it very, very difficult for them because....uh...um....God."
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,326
|
Post by swamp on Jun 26, 2015 18:20:10 GMT -5
Back in 1954 the Supreme Court decided Brown vs Board of Education where they stated black People should be afforded the same rights as whites. Today, it seems a bit silly to think blacks should not be offered the same protection of laws. In 60 years I think that's where we will be with respect to gay rights. Can I copy and paste this? ... I never should have gone on facebook today. Yes
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 26, 2015 18:23:43 GMT -5
Not even remotely shocked. For all their cries of fear about the evil left trying to strip them of their rights, the right is always the ones leading the charge. And how is FORCING people to get a religious officiant to sign off not a direct violation of the persons first amendment right? I mean seriously.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 26, 2015 18:32:27 GMT -5
Not even remotely shocked. For all their cries of fear about the evil left trying to strip them of their rights, the right is always the ones leading the charge. And how is FORCING people to get a religious officiant to sign off not a direct violation of the persons first amendment right? I mean seriously. OF COURSE this will never "fly." Marriage licenses are issued by government entities, not religious ones. No government entity will stand for having its ability to regulate its licenses stripped away from it. This is no different than saying: "Our government issues medical licenses, but only clergy may regulate them by signing off on them."
More sour grapes nonsense.
What is DOES show is that the fight for equality is FAR from over. Heck, we are 150 years past the abolition of slavery and there are STILL covert and not-so-covert systems in place to try and deny rights to minorities in this country.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 26, 2015 18:34:57 GMT -5
Chief Justice Roberts has summarized many of the points I'm trying to make far more eloquently than me.
I'd encourage you to read it, and not just read it, stop and consider it, and what this ruling really means for our country.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
"... 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.”
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. 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.
Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer."
Precisely, and this also just further proves what people have said in that the left uses the courts to force change onto people when they can't get their way with proper procedure. You know, because that whole constitution thing just keeps getting in their way
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 26, 2015 18:37:09 GMT -5
I can assure those who are concerned about this ruling because they feel religious institutions will be forced to perform gay marriages that I will bellow just as loudly against that as I have bellowed in favor of gay marriage. As long as said religious institution doesn't have its hand out for government funds, they should not be required to perform marriages that are contrary to their teachings. Anyone I know who has supported gay marriage feels the same way I do.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,326
|
Post by swamp on Jun 26, 2015 18:37:42 GMT -5
Yeah, brown vs board of education was a really stupid decision.
|
|