I’m having a heated debate right now on facebook on why someone wants the government to define their religion’s definition of marriage.
My last point was if Church and State are separate, then what does Caesar’s decision have to do with your worship?
Gay people have been getting religious marriages for decades, if not longer. Now, I’ll fight to the last tooth and nail against people trying to force churches to perform services they don’t want to. But how the hell does this “shake your faith”
I’m not that religious, but it doesn’t shake my faith in God you stupid shit.
Yeah, I have the same issue with clerks and judges claiming that being “forced” to violate their beliefs by issuing marriage licenses or performing a civil marriage service.
If you have that much of an issue of serving the citizens of your locality, you took the wrong oath of office. You issue licenses to divorced people remarrying, interracial couples, couples of differing faiths, and sterile couples. You did not take an oath to force people to sign up for your particular brand of intolerance, either. Knock it off.
Funnier than shit. Going hot and heavy on the other conversation, manage to keep it civil. And we ended on a positive note.
Get in a conversation with someone that tells me Republicans are the party of hate. Blocked in four comments. One by him, my initial response, his “hahahaha” post, my lengthy explanation of why I believe the Democrats are the party of hate, and blocked.
There are a lot of things people do which I might think are morally wrong or questionable, but I don’t think they should necessarily be against the law.
I shouldn’t be required to bake them a cake, however. =)
I love all the people saying that they’re going to move to Canada because of the decision…I guess they don’t know we’ve had same-sex marriage nation-wide for 10 years now???
I had to wonder at Kennedy’s language myself. It would have been very easy to just classify it as equal protection and due process. The “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” bit is mroe than strange. The preamble of the Constitution is more than sufficient to uphold equal protection, as I’ve highlighted here:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
As far as I can see, there really doesn’t need more than that.
I don’t have a horse in this race so the ruling doesn’t affect me.
However, it was bugging me that this topic wasn’t under any category on this forum so I re-categorized it under “general”. I believe this is the first time I have abused my powers as a “regular” member here.
Kind of like Roe v Wade. The spontaneous creation of a right to privacy, that is really only referred to in this case, to over ride something that a lot of people thought should be up to the states.
He mentions Brown v. Board of Education being based on questionable legal basis as well.
Are these because the court has decided to do what they think is right, and then try to make the reasoning fit? I can’t help but think that’s not the case, if so the argument would be air tight and better constructed.
It does make me nervous when SCOTUS creates things out of whole cloth, just like the ACA “We know what you meant to say” ruling.
Substantive due process, however, invites courts to invent new law out of nothing — to declare as constitutionally protected any conduct that they think is important. Opponents of the decision are already claiming that the Court was just making it up, on the basis of the judges’ personal preferences. This opinion supports that charge. Chief Justice John Roberts observed that Kennedy’s “driving themes are that marriage is desirable and [same-sex couples] desire it.” Scalia argues that the doctrine protects “those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes.”
. . .
The fundamental problem is that Kennedy’s opinion does not explain what business the Court has addressing the marriage question in the first place. The Court can step in because the protection of “liberty” means the Court can do anything it likes. If this is all the explanation they are going to get, then conservatives are right to feel bullied by judicial oligarchs. For a decision this important, the Court had an obligation to show that its intervention was rooted in preexisting law, law that demanded this result.
Author argues for a straight sex discrimination approach, which would have been a good deal narrower and consistent with precedent. I’m not spun up enough on discrimination case law (male privilege, yo), but it seems likely that could have worked.
