Started By
Message
re: TOS: Where is all the love for the SCOTUS decision?
Posted on 6/30/15 at 11:31 am to Dawg in Beaumont
Posted on 6/30/15 at 11:31 am to Dawg in Beaumont
quote:
Not trying to speak for him, but it's possible to believe that being gay is fine, and even that you'd sign a bill as a state governor to allow same sex marriage and still think the court was wrong. His, and other critics of the ruling, argument is the jurisdiction question, not really the "gay" question. But for most media that is far too complicated. It's just easier to say "BIGOTS!!!!!!!!!!" and pat yourself on the back for being on the happy side of an issue.
Don't waste your time. It's apparently been decided via the court of popular opinion that if you want something...healthcare...right to vote without showing ID.....a definition of marriage that fits your needs....then it's a Civil Right so your best bet is to get it in front of the Supreme Court pronto.
This is much cleaner and faster than having laws debated and passed the old fashioned, Constitutional way. Get with the program.
This post was edited on 6/30/15 at 11:36 am
1
Posted on 6/30/15 at 12:19 pm to SquatchDawg
At the risk of wading into something that folks are not going to change their position on . . .
The problem that SCOTUS has to deal with is that marriage, for better or worse, is no longer a religious institution in the US. It hasn't been for some time. It is a status that has certain legal rights associated with it. Not just tax breaks, but preferences under inheritance law, ability to sign/represent that person when hospitalized, etc. These are the facts on the ground that SCOTUS is working with. Marriage is as much a civil institution as religious at this point in time. Atheists can get married. You can go to Vegas. You can pay $50 online and marry someone. You can go to the courthouse.
When this is the case, there ARE rights and privileges associated with marriage that are theoretically being denied from gays. Whether or not the government should have ever gotten into the marriage game is another issue. SCOTUS is not deciding that. The next question is whether there is at a minimum, a rational basis for denying this status.
The best arguments that proponents in the courts have been able to martial are religious, that the purpose of marriage is procreation, and that the traditional nuclear family is a much better situation to raise kids. Marriage is not currently a purely religious institution. It is what it is. Sterile people, old people, etc. (i.e. people that can't make babies) can get married. I would say it is fair to say that many traditional nuclear families are in no way fit to raise kids. The problem is that no single identifiable harm resultant from gay marriage has been convincingly identified. Incest won't be allowed because it can cause harm, i.e. retarded children. Polygamy won't be allowed because massive families that are incredibly more difficult to support would arguably not only put the family in a bad situation, but also but a large burden on the state to support them. It is difficult to find something like this to point to regarding gay marriage.
I like to think I am a proponent of states rights. But this isn't a states rights issue. SCOTUS has to take the legal environment, as created by the government, as is when they are looking at the issue. It is more fair to say that this is a culmination of the civic nature of marriage than it is "five lawyers" dictating the law to us.
IF civil unions conferred the exact same rights as the status of marriage does, I think there would be a much better argument that no rights are being denied to a particular class of citizens.
It comes down to whether marriage is a religious institution. It was in the past, but it is not any longer. That's the facts. In no way will or should pastors or religious objectors be compelled to officiate a ceremony if it is against their religious beliefs.
Oh, and the "unelected officials" thing...that was exactly what was contemplated in the Constitution. It is spelled out pretty clearly there. The whole idea was that they could look at the law, make a decision, and not get yanked for it if people didn't like the decision was the entire point. It protected the south in Plessy v. Ferguson, and bit them in the arse in Brown v. BOE. Then again, if enough people are that upset about it after 200+ years, amend the Constitution.
The problem that SCOTUS has to deal with is that marriage, for better or worse, is no longer a religious institution in the US. It hasn't been for some time. It is a status that has certain legal rights associated with it. Not just tax breaks, but preferences under inheritance law, ability to sign/represent that person when hospitalized, etc. These are the facts on the ground that SCOTUS is working with. Marriage is as much a civil institution as religious at this point in time. Atheists can get married. You can go to Vegas. You can pay $50 online and marry someone. You can go to the courthouse.
When this is the case, there ARE rights and privileges associated with marriage that are theoretically being denied from gays. Whether or not the government should have ever gotten into the marriage game is another issue. SCOTUS is not deciding that. The next question is whether there is at a minimum, a rational basis for denying this status.
The best arguments that proponents in the courts have been able to martial are religious, that the purpose of marriage is procreation, and that the traditional nuclear family is a much better situation to raise kids. Marriage is not currently a purely religious institution. It is what it is. Sterile people, old people, etc. (i.e. people that can't make babies) can get married. I would say it is fair to say that many traditional nuclear families are in no way fit to raise kids. The problem is that no single identifiable harm resultant from gay marriage has been convincingly identified. Incest won't be allowed because it can cause harm, i.e. retarded children. Polygamy won't be allowed because massive families that are incredibly more difficult to support would arguably not only put the family in a bad situation, but also but a large burden on the state to support them. It is difficult to find something like this to point to regarding gay marriage.
I like to think I am a proponent of states rights. But this isn't a states rights issue. SCOTUS has to take the legal environment, as created by the government, as is when they are looking at the issue. It is more fair to say that this is a culmination of the civic nature of marriage than it is "five lawyers" dictating the law to us.
IF civil unions conferred the exact same rights as the status of marriage does, I think there would be a much better argument that no rights are being denied to a particular class of citizens.
It comes down to whether marriage is a religious institution. It was in the past, but it is not any longer. That's the facts. In no way will or should pastors or religious objectors be compelled to officiate a ceremony if it is against their religious beliefs.
Oh, and the "unelected officials" thing...that was exactly what was contemplated in the Constitution. It is spelled out pretty clearly there. The whole idea was that they could look at the law, make a decision, and not get yanked for it if people didn't like the decision was the entire point. It protected the south in Plessy v. Ferguson, and bit them in the arse in Brown v. BOE. Then again, if enough people are that upset about it after 200+ years, amend the Constitution.
Page 1 of 1
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News