On the one hand, I think marriage has existed in its “traditional form” – guy/s and gal/s raising the kids – for thousands of years for pretty significant reason.
On the other hand, in a secular society, sure – let same-sex couples get together, sign a contract, and call it whatever they want. (
On the other other hand, if I ever do get married again, I am not going to bother with a state license. Still – I am not the most violent opponent of gay marriage; I barely support straight marriage, to be honest.
Up ’til yesterday, the thing that bothered me most about the gay marriage “debate” was that it wasn’t a debate; it was a growing minority browbeating the rest of society into submission. If I had a buck for every time I heard “If you don’t support gay marriage for whatever reason, you’re a bigot”, I wouldn’t need to work for a living. (That, and the fallacy that marriage is “about love”).
But today is another day.
The SCOTUS decision is awful – and it would be awful even if it proclaimed a right to keep and bear machine guns, or something else I support without reservation.
Gary Miller put it better on his Facebook page – and since most of you can’t see that, I’m going to pull the money quote:
There is…no right to homosexual marriage in the 14th Amendment or hiding under any magical penumbra thereof. In fact, there is no right to heterosexual marriage enshrined in the Constitution. The document is entirely silent on the matter and, as such, it should have been left to the 13 remaining states to have been shamed into the truth or – alternatively – to govern themselves in a way contrary to the popular zeitgeist and suffer any societal consequences (or benefits as the case may be).
Democracy lost, judicial fiat won, and the culture wars shall continue unabated. Yay, Court.
It’s another step on the path from being a federalist representative republic to a philosopher-kingdom. At best.
The answer, of course, is electing a continuous series of legislatures and Presidents that have the wisdom and cohesion to push back on the Imperial Court. Which seems, today, about as likely as me pitching a called third strike on Torii Hunter.
PS: All you “progressives” who were whinging about the “legitimacy” of the SCOTUS after Citizens United – anything to add?
PPS: The decision says the right to marriage is “fundamental” – which, since it’s not reserved to anyone in the Constitution, is reserved to the states and/or people by the Tenth Amendment. OK, fine…
…but if marriage is an inalienable right, then why isn’t life itself an inalienable right?
This has no impact on us in the Canary community.
what, there are no “bent” canaries?
If I understand the ruling correctly, I have the right to reach out to Justice Kennedy if I feel lonely. Anyone got his number?
Pow….got in a debate today with a liberal. He said this is the right decision because the constitution says we have a right to be happy. Soooo 5 unelected Harvard/Yale lawyers make law for the nation based on making 2% of the population happy. Its amazing how stupid and uninformed so many people are. Don’t they teach basic constitutional law in schools?
OK, I’m reading that last line as we need to let homosexuals get married, but then we can abort them with no offense to the 14th Amendment? Did I get that right?
And if I have a right to be happy, then, I’m not going to be happy until Obamacare and the 16th Amendment are repealed……
(said in jest, but it makes no less sense than do some things the Supreme Court is publishing….)
Chuck wrote:
Soooo 5 unelected Harvard/Yale lawyers make law for the nation based on making 2% of the population happy.
That 2% can be leveraged to drive all traditional Christian believers from the public square.
We could always let voters decide who gets which right and when. Tyranny of the majority isn’t it?
This issue was argued successfully on libertarian grounds (it doesn’t hurt you so it’s none of your business) by raging fascists who would never accept that argument against 1000 other personal decisions that government interferes with every day.
eg. If I want to drink a gallon of pop it’s none of your business
Oh my, that is not good for you so we are going to limit you to 1 6 oz cup of pop/day. You’re welcome.
“We could always let voters decide who gets which right and when.”
You mean like the civil rights act of 1964? Yes.
Mitch:
I have a horrible thought. Okay what if smart aleck lawyer for the left files a law suit claiming that since the fourteenth amendment gives me protection why can’t the state for my safety ban guns since it is a violation of my due process and my rights.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Emery, there is a very serious issue with a republic that allows a minority of people to make laws against the wishes of majority. Much of what happened during reconstruction was forced on an unwilling populace — but it had the support of a majority of the people, overall. You can also rely on the authority of the constitution, if the interpretation is plain enough. But when the rulers of the country find things in the constitution that plainly aren’t there (abortion rights, gay marriage), the social contract frays. In what sense are we a republic, anyway? In what sense are we a self-ruling people?
It’s a ruling based on equal rights for everyone. If marriage is to achieve its aspirations, it should be defined by the dedication of one to another—not by the people it excludes. Equal protection under the law is such an important principle that upholding it is worth withstanding any anxiety about gay marriage.
Non-responsive, Emery.
The Supreme Court, remember, had no problem with given certain people “extra” rights in public college admission because this served a “legitimate government purpose.” And that’s the issue, isn’t it? The supreme court has not taken a stand on “equal rights for everyone.” It dispenses privileges and takes them away as though the judges were philosopher-kings.
Emery, you really need to read the majority opinion and then read Justice Thomas’ dissent. One is meticulously researched and carefully follows the history and development of civil liberties throughout the ages. The other is touchy-feely fluff that would be laughed out of a sophomore bull session. It really is that bad.
PM/JD
Nice of you both to share ‘your opinions’ with us.
Snappy comeback there Emery. Surely JD & PM are happy you approve – did you consider their points or ignore them because they are correct??
I agree that the Supreme Court just corrected a huge problem we didn’t need to debate anymore. This case was about two individuals who were being forbidden by law to marry. Odd that you can’t see that….
“This case was about two individuals who were being forbidden by law to marry.”
Uh. No. It was about a man who had been married to another man in a state where ssm was legal. His partner died, and the state of Ohio, which did not recognize gay marriage, refused to list the survivor as spouse on the death certificate.
Odd that you didn’t know that . . .
Did the SCOTUS strike down laws prohibiting gay marriage or did they in fact do something else?
“The very reason that we have a Constitution, Kennedy stresses, is that some rights are too important to leave up to the democratic process. Moreover, same-sex couples should not have to wait to have their rights recognized: the husband of lead plaintiff Jim Obergefell, for example, has already died, and the children of same-sex couples are growing up without their parents being married.”
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/in-historic-decision-court-strikes-down-state-bans-on-same-sex-marriage-in-plain-english/
Obergefell was married to his partner, but not in Ohio. Obergefell seems to exhibit the narcissism all too typical of homosexuals. He said his marriage to his partner didn’t feel “real” because the state of Ohio refused to recognize him as the spouse of the deceased. It’s all about you, Obergefell.
Maybe there is some other reason why your marriage doesn’t feel real to you? Maybe because you are married to another man? Exporting mental disorders into the general population does not cure them.
I’d rather fully explore all of these questions than make exceptions to the principle of equal protection.
“I’d rather fully explore all of these questions than make exceptions to the principle of equal protection.”
Voting residency requirements — gone!
Veterans’ advantage in the civil service — gone!
Affirmative action — gone!
Indian reservations — gone!
Laws against polygamy — gone!
Mitch:
I saw on another blog an interesting argument being made. If the US Supreme Court said that a constitutional right such as marriage is granted another state had to accept it. Thus their argument was that if I had gotten a conceal carry permit in a state then if I moved to a new state that new state had to automatically grant me my permit. What do you think?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Walter Hanson, one of the reasons the Kennedy SSM decision was so incoherent is that it couldn’t really apply a “strict scrutiny” rational to SSM based on the 14th amendment. “Strict scrutiny” is applied when a constitutional right is considered fundamental. A right given in the first ten amendments is usually considered fundamental. Civil rights based on race are usually considered fundamental when applied to Blacks for complicated historical reasons.
So Kennedy had to somehow build up the right to marry as a fundamental right (although its not mentioned in the constitution), and then say that laws against SSM needed to meet the strict scrutiny standard.
The other two standards are intermediate scrutiny and rational basis. The Supreme Court has never ruled on which standard the 2nd amendment should be judged.
The poor wretches that have given over to their mental defects have an excuse, but the leftist dirtbags that encourage and enable them have to be willfully lying to themselves and everyone else when they deny the damage being layed upon children that are drawn into dysfunctional homosexual shack ups.
Of course we’d have to ignore the destruction they wreaked in the public schools to claim to be surprised.
You’re whining that fascist discrimination isn’t being upheld? Cry me a river.
Emery, the law is discrimination. The entire purpose of the law is to discriminate, to draw lines and tell you what is one side and what is on the other. Disabled veterans get a 10 point boost on the civil service exam. If you’re a pacifist, you are explicitly being discriminated against.
Religious organizations that do not support SSM are going to get sued, with the backing of the ACLU and the JD. Don’t support gay marriage? You’re sued. Support gay marriage? You’re not going to get sued.
So please don’t peddle this “I’m against discrimination!” line. It doesn’t work, and it doesn’t work because you are in favor of discrimination.
I was tweaking Swift not you.
Finish reading those opinions yet, Emery?
Walter – NO, don’t do it! I read that article, too. It’s nonsense.
The gay marriage opinion is founded on the legal theory of Substantive Due Process but nobody accepts that anywhere outside Justice Kennedy’s fever swamp.
Think of it this way: Progressives believe the Ends justify the Means. The End (gay marriage) is good, so it’s okay to use a discredited legal theory as the Means to get there. But Progressives believe guns are bad, so they won’t let you use their own discredited theory against them.
Finish reading those opinions yet, Emery?
Reading is for saps. For EmeryTheAntisemiticSoci@list, it is all about the feeeelings… nothing more than feeeelings…
JD, they are opinions and the majority “opinion” won. Tough nuts (no pun intended).
Opinions are just like ‘elbows’ almost everyone has one.