We’ve been busy with all things sustainability, so it’s only now we can get to the Supreme Court’s oral arguments over whether to abandon marriage and give over to the State power concerning our most foundational human relationships.
Let’s not argue whether two men (or two women or three men, etc.) pretending to be married is right or wrong. Let’s only assume what is likely given the evidence we have: that the State will assume the right to dictate whatever relationships it wants and call them “marriages”. That the State has no moral right to do so is not what we’ll discuss. The State, we assume, right or wrong—and it’s wrong—will use its muscle and force citizens to submit.
We only want to argue over how the State will use its immense powers assuming gmarriages are law. Gmarriage was my brilliant but widely ignored compromise solution that would have called all government-mandated unions “gmarriages”—the “g”, standing for government, is silent. Gmarriages would have been identical to marriages except for the “g”. Would egalitarianism allow that? Alas, mine was a lone voice et cetera.
Suppose gmarriage is the law of the land. What will the State do? Let’s listen in on the orals. The SCOTUS bench you know. General Vermicelli is on the side of gmarriage.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What about Federal—it’s a Federal question if we make it a matter of constitutional law.
GENERAL VERMICELLI: But the question of what how States use their enforcement power is up to the States.
Vermicelli is lying or being disingenuous, or possibly both. He earlier says the Feds must enact gmarriage as the law of the entire land. Here he pretends to retreat from what he knows is a damning question by saying states will be allowed to do as they please about implementing this “law”. They do say if you’re going to lie, make it a big one. Roberts doesn’t let him go and says “Well, you have enforcement power, too.”
Then the big reveal:
GENERAL VERMICELLI: Right. And—and—well, that’s certainly true, but there is no Federal law now generally banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that’s where those issues are going to have to be worked out.
And I guess the third point I would make, Your Honor, is that these issues are going to arise no matter which way you decide this case, because these questions of accommodation are going to arise in situations in States where there is no same-sex marriage, where there are—and, in fact, they have arisen many times. There—there are these commitment ceremonies.
For example, in the New Mexico case in which this Court denied cert just a few months back, that did not arise out of a marriage. That arose out of a commitment ceremony, and the—and these, you know, commitment ceremonies are going to need florists and caterers.
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?
GENERAL VERMICELLI: You know, I—I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I—I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is—it is going to be an issue.
Was he embarrassed by this question, or what? I mean, he sure as anything didn’t want to answer it. Anyway, by “it’s going to be an issue” Vermicelli means “it’s going to happen.”
Incidentally, don’t forget that already the State controls all student loans—and can therefore dictate where that money is spent. That takeover was part of Obamacare. Remember that? And “sexual orientation” is a dangerous term: it never specifies who is oriented to what.
There are a still, believe it or not, faithful Christian colleges. They’re not going to accept gmarriages. Meaning, they’re not going to recognize students who claim to be gmarried. Somebody will sue (say) St Pallottiano University citing the Bob Jones precedent, forgetting freedom of association, which is anyway long dead. And they’ll surely win.
St Pallottiano loses its tax exempt status. So what? Accountants are devious and can probably find a way to run the school as a for-profit. They won’t be able to save all schools with paperwork tricks, but surely some.
Next step will be another lawsuit claiming that since St Pallottiano is a for-profit business they have no right to refuse to accommodate gmarried students. Just as pizzerias and bakeries are not now allowed to refuse to participate in gmarriages.
St Pallottiano, being faithful, won’t back down. Only two things can happen. (1) It will face punishing fines and other legal hazards and be forced to close; or (2) Somebody somewhere will regain sanity and discover a way to allow an exception.
A third solution could be some government-proposed “compromise” which is anything but. Something like “Recognize these gmarriages and we’ll give you money (or won’t bar you from receiving it)”. Many colleges calling themselves Christian will put the pinch of incense into the flames of this compromise. But St Pallottiano won’t. Buh-bye St Pallottiano.
That’s colleges. What about churches? I’d bet the farm (I don’t have one) that some sad couple will sue some church and demand that they be allowed to have a gmarriage ceremony inside the church. They probably won’t, in this round, sue the pastors for not performing his theatrical role. The suers (yes, suers) will say that other people have got married in this “public” space therefore they have the “right” to be gmarried there. They will say it is “public” because it is tax exempt, and therefore it is under a special duty to the public.
The suers could win, though it’s shaky. But think what it means if they do. The poor organist who wanted only to be left alone will now be made to participate in the gmarriage. After all, she isn’t the pastor, only an employee. Volunteer organists will presumably be allowed (what’s left of) their freedom.
And some Church, say, the Southwest Corner Baptist Congregation, will refuse to open its venue. Again, fines and legal hazards. Will that Church be the cornerstone of the new Bob Jones-like precedent that Churches which refuse public accommodation lose their tax status?
What is a Church without tax-exempt status? A for-profit business? Some lunatics will suggest this, but I’m guessing their voices carry little weight. And even if you remove the tax exemption and treat it as for-profit you’re right back to Bake The Cake Or Die. Plus somebody is bound to have at least a vague memory of religious freedom. My guess is that the Churches win this one.
But if they do not, then will come the big one, the law suit against a pastor himself for refusing to perform a gmarriage. If this man loses, which now seems highly unlikely, get ready for some old-timey martyrdom. Or perhaps open revolt.
When discussing, do not confuse the law for right and wrong. Written laws mean whatever the person interpreting them wants them to mean. Say what will happen and what won’t happen and why.
Update Great minds think alike.
Update States could force Catholic priests to perform same-sex ‘marriages’ or lose legal status: Justice Scalia. I put the following prediction at near certainty.
If the Supreme Court rules that same-sex “marriage” is a constitutional right, one justice has said that the government could force clergy of all denominations to perform gay “weddings” or lose the ability to officiate any state-sanctioned marriage…
A devout Roman Catholic, Scalia said that no religious exception can be allowed for a constitutional right. A minister “is not given the state’s power, unless he agrees to use that power in accordance with the Constitution. You can’t appoint people who will then go ahead and violate the Constitution.”
Update Green Party “open” to Three-Way “Marriages”. Nobody saw that coming.
It’s time for Atlas to shrug. Though at this point, I’m starting to think Atlas is dead, while the country is so apathetic and cowardly that they will do nothing. (Note the striking images of the police BACKING UP in Baltimore. We have lost.) Perhaps it’s time to teach your children and grandchildren how to bow to the dictator and explain to them you sold out their freedom for a quiet life of no conflict. Don’t worry—they will love you for letting the nice dictator run their lives. It’s what they have been taught is the correct way to live in their schools. Personally, I see no chance of revolt—it would have happened by now if enough people actually cared. They do not. Learn to love it.
When SSMarriage is the law of the land, will there be a mad rush to the altar? Timing could be a problem, as many churches have couples go thru some kind of pre-marital counseling that can take six or so months. Usually one cannot turn up at the church doorstep and demand the sacrament of marriage. “I want it now” usually doesn’t work so well in this context.
This leads to a larger question—will acquainting people through the tenets of the faith in a Pre-Cana or similar program be outlawed as well—especially if the “faith” is opposed to the “practice” of the would-be marrieds?
Is the sky falling?
Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon …
They’ll be rounding up the usual suspects … us
There’s still a part of me that hopes …
this is all an exercise by Chicken-Little
John B(),
Chicken Little, maybe, but not Chik-fil-A. Ban them! Ban them!
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/26/johns-hopkins-bans-chick-fil-a-from-campus-microaggression-against-lgbt-students/
Well, for starters, marriage has been a state concern ever since there have been states, from the archaic Greeks and beyond, so this whole notion of “gmarriage” is just made-up silliness.
There will be, of course, issues of church operations in the public sphere, in business and schools and so forth. Here, of course, they would have to follow the same rules as everyone else in the public sphere, and if the rules are no discrimination, than so be it. If you don’t want the government to tell you what to do, than take the business or school or hospital out of the public sphere and into the private. They would not get any of the perks of the public sphere, but they would be able to discriminate.
After all, we do still have the right to be a douchebag in America.
JMJ
JMJ
” If you don’t want the government to tell you what to do, than take the business or school or hospital out of the public sphere and into the private. They would not get any of the perks of the public sphere, but they would be able to discriminate.”
How IS it that you aren’t paying attention?!!!!
Just started singin’ this as is my wont- how appropos
Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don’t think that I can take it
‘Cause it took so long to bake it
And I’ll never have that recipe again,
and
There will be another song for me
For I will sing it
There would be another dream for me
John, I don’t care if church sponsored businesses loss their tax exempt status, so… If you don’t want to play nice in public, stay the #### away from it.
JMJ
“If you don’t want to play nice in public, stay the #### away from it.”
Please, please, please follow your own advice and stay away from the public. You have no idea how to play nice, you do nothing but impose your will on others.
Loss of tax exemption would mean churches can become political actors. This could have unpredictable effects in city elections and urban / suburban districts of state legislatures. In the past, some neighborhood churches were so large they basically owned a city council seat and a state house seat in major capitals. They served as a parallel talent pool to the university-trained progressives.
Reviving this parallel machine would cause problems for progs, which is why I suspect the tax exemption threat will not be acted upon fully.
I know this isn’t exactly on point, but I wonder if we wouldn’t all be better off without deductibility of charitable donations.
The atheist next door is indirectly supporting my church, and I’m indirectly supporting Planned Parenthood. Why can’t we all agree not to cross-support and get the government out of the business of deciding what’s a charity? (Also, I always feel a little embarrassed at tax time when I see a contribution-acknowledgement letter from a priest in some town where I’m not even sure I remember attending Mass. Why did he have to deal with that Mickey Mouse stuff?)
I can’t say I’ve really thought this one through, and I know this isn’t the whole issue, but I can’t help thinking that deductions for contribution to religious institutions may be a deal with the devil.
Joe Born
I can’t disagree –
but “it’s worse than you thought” (to coin a phrase). Federal and State governments provide Planned Parenthood over a third of its funding
JMJ, it’s clear you don’t agree that people have a right to religious beliefs.
There are those that have wanted a flat tax with no exceptions, but it’s not a popular idea. Taxation has been the government’s method of control for many years and they are not going to give it up easily.
As Super flumine Babylonis notes, removing the tax exempt status could result in churches becoming political entities. The government loses its hold over religion if the churches no longer have to stay out of politics. Same for many other tax loopholes (progressives hate the idea of closing loopholes—they might actually have to pay taxes…..). Taxation rules mean control.
> Loss of tax exemption would mean churches can become political actors.
I didn’t consider that part. That would rule. All kinds of ads could be run now, for or against candidates. No more “these are the core voting issues” with sideways hints as to whom it might be immoral to vote for!
Watch that bring in crazy new regulations about free and ‘hate’ speech.
“When discussing, do not confuse the law for right and wrong.”
Just remember the Nazis passed laws that allowed them to arrest Jews, send them to the concentration camps and confiscate their property. All perfectly legal.
Briggs, a better spelling of your new word would be “gmirage.”
Bob, you have no right to do business in the public sphere. You do so at the whim of the society around you. You can have whatever stupid, backwards, insane thing you want, but if the public deems a particular practice of your faith conflicts with the rules of doing business with the public, than you need to find something else to do. You and your fellow modern Confederates simply don’t understand why this is so vital to a civil society – or you just don’t care and simply want to go a segregated caste culture.
JMJ
JMJ :: “Bob, you have no right to do business in the public sphere.”
The problem is that the GOVERNMENT will NOT let us LEAVE the “public sphere”. PLEASE JMJ, tell us how to LEAVE the “public sphere” when the Government feels EVERYTHING and EVERYWHERE is IN its PURVIEW.
Gary – like gmirage
but maybe gmirraage “marries” mirage and marriage better
Jersey McJones is a harcore, rock-headed, hidebound, doctrinaire, othodoxy-determined leftwing proglodyte.
It is futile to argue with him. I have been trying for years. If you showed him a picture of President Obama murdering a child, Jersey would blame the rightwing photographer who took the picture with the obvious intent of smearing the president.
Jersey represents a (God help us) significant slice of the electorate that does not believe in natural rights, and that believes rights come from government, and therefor whatever government says, goes, so long as it’s a leftwing progressive government making the rules.
Briggs,
1) “And “sexual orientation” is a dangerous term: it never specifies who is oriented to what.”
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sexual-orientation
” Sexual orientation is a term used to refer to a person’s emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction to individuals of a particular gender (male or female).”
There is only to choices for sexual orientation. You are either attracted to a male or a female. Of these two choices there are four possibilities. You can either be heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual and asexual. These are all the sexual orientation there is.
Sexual attraction to things, animals, kids are not sexual orientation because there cannot be any reciprocity. Attraction to things and animals implies only one human. Attraction to kids implies two human but only one pedophile.
2) Churches are not school. So a tax credit that applies to a Church, should in no way be transferred to a school operated by a church. A church operate by donation, a school operate like business by selling a product. If the school is none profit then it shouldn’t pay taxes since taxes are paid on profit.
3) How could a school have to accommodate a married person. The civil status of a student is of no regard to the school. There is no special accommodation required that I can see, other than having the spouse covered by the insurance of the student.
4) Gay marriage is a question of civil matters. A Church has the right to chose if they are doing gay ceremonies or not. The State shouldn’t have the same right, since the State is neutral in matter of religion. The State has to respect both those who believe that gay marriage is okay with their belief, and those who don’t believe gay marriage is okay.
If a gay couple would sue a Church they would lose, which is why there has never been such a lawsuit to begin with. The same goes for the Pastor unless he is acting for the State.
The only way a Church could be viewed as a public spaces would be if the same Church was used by different denomination and one of them would agree to perform the ceremony, like in military chapel for example.
marriage has been a state concern ever since there have been states
Right. Now ask two things:
1) Why was the State concerned? and
2) What did people do before there were States?
The answer to 2) was that they got married — performed the marital act — well before there were States.
The answer to 1) was that States had a compelling interest in the procreation of the next generation, which was a natural result of performing the marital act. And this for two further reasons:
a) “It mattered that your warriors were fierce and valiant in battle; it mattered more that there were lots of them.” That is, the State wished for procreation to produce many fierce warriors.
b) The second interest was to prevent the results of the marital act from becoming a burden on the king’s purse, and so required a commitment on the part of the procreational couple that they would remain together and raise the children on their own tick. (In line with which, note the tenor of the Laws of Khamurapi dealing with marriage.)
they would have to follow the same rules as everyone else in the public sphere, and if the rules are no discrimination, than so be it.
What if the rules are ‘turn in runaway slaves to the slave-catchers’ or ‘fire all your Jewish employees’?
If you don’t want the government to tell you what to do, than take the business or school or hospital out of the public sphere and into the private.
That’s not good enough. The State will not permit it in the long run.
“Everything within the state; nothing outside the state; nothing against the state.”
– Benito Mussolini
You people just don’t give up, do you?
In response to Ye Olde Statistician:
You’ve got it right. The ancient Athenian writers, Aristotle and Plato, may have been homosexuals, and accepted by the Athenians, but they realized the purpose of marriage and never came out in support of “gay marriage”.
As you stated, marriage was not created to fill the physical or emotional desires of those getting married, but to ensure that the next generation received the training and nurturing to become productive citizens. By ruling on “homosexual marrige”, the Supreme Court is wasting its time on a relatively meaningless side issue while ignoring the main problem – the rasing of children to become educated adults. As a result of the breakdown of marriage, large numbers of children are being born out
of wedlock and frequently winding up both morally and intellectually stunted.
The Ferguson and Baltimore riots were a natural result of this trend.
I suppose the only consolation to individuals like JMJ will be the look on his face when his beloved government declares him persona nongrata and punishes him for his sins against the government. It will happen—always does. Yet the fools go right on worshipping what will be their downfall.
Alan McIntire,
The thing about Baltimore is that it was mostly kids doing the rioting so, yeah. The adults were, well, more adult and not above meting out discipline.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/28/hero-baltimore-riots-mom/
Getting yelled at by your mom in front of the whole hood has got to be embarrassing.
The rioting likely could have been contained earlier if the police weren’t ordered to stand down.
All,
From an anonymous reader I was asked to post this comment:
Sylvain:
WebMd is behind the curve, but they will surely update their site when they they get the memo:
Man marries car
http://jalopnik.com/man-who-has-had-sex-with-999-cars-will-marry-vw-beetle-1445719610
Woman marries roller coaster
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/the-weirdest-cases-of-peo_n_540554.html
Woman marries dead partner
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/17/french-woman-marries-dead-partner
Woman marries Eiffel Tower
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2074301/Woman-with-objects-fetish-marries-Eiffel-Tower.html
Woman marries dog
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/woman-marries-dog-totally-b-h-article-1.1717772
If a pastor marries a same – sex couple such that government rights are granted,
but,
excludes the sacrament from the marriage,
have they violated their religious values/the exercise of their religious faith?
Theologians disagree.
Govt rights include property rights if the contract is dissolved, inheritance rights, employer health benefits to families, etc.
Giving legal marital rights is associated with ‘giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s” …
…and…
…withholding the sacrament is associated with ‘giving to God what is God’s’…
….to paraphrase a famous quip from some dude who seemed to know what He was talking about.
If a pastor marries a same – sex couple…
The pastor is only a witness for the community. The husband marries the wife. (And vice versa.)
LOL! You guys want to stifle the happiness of millions of people, keep them from doing something that does you no harm whatsoever, demand the right to publicly discriminate against classes (and I’m sure races) of your fellow citizens, and somehow I’m Mussolini. Nice try, ya’ bunch of closet fascists. Phonies.
JMJ
Perhaps JMJ could clarify where he thinks rights come from.
I follow the Declaration believe that our rights come from the creator, and that governments are instituted to protect those rights.
From his writing it appears to me that JMJ thinks rights come from society are granted through government action. If that’s not a fair statement, I’d welcome a correction.
The census bureau says there are 726,000 same sex couples. Not millions. Not even one million.
In reply to the anonymous reader,
The example provided demonstrate the state of confusion confusion between sexual attraction and sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation implies the possibility of reciprocity between two people.
Sexual attraction doesn’t require any reciprocity. You like it or you don’t. People can be attracted by prepubescent kids (pedophile), animals (bestiality), trees (Dendrophilia) or object, but the counterpart cannot reciprocate. A prepubescent kid has no sexual urges because the hormone didn’t start to act. An animal has no attraction to human other than dogs humping legs. An object doesn’t feel anything for anyone.
In a marriage ceremony both participant are required to consent to the union. How does an object, tree or animal give consent? It doesn’t. These are ceremony done humorously which have no legal impact on anyone including the one getting married.
John B(): “‘it’s worse than you thought'”
Well, it’s worse than just charitable deductions, but I was under no illusion about the extent of government support beyond charitable deductions.
“John, I don’t care if church sponsored businesses loss their tax exempt status, so… If you don’t want to play nice in public, stay the #### away from it.
JMJ”
always enjoy watching a true ignorant Fascist spouting. So we have already decided that it is OK for the Gubmint to tax us, or not, anyway and for any amount they please according to JMJ. We have already decided that `taxing or otherwise interfering in religious activities is NOT passing laws with respect to religion. True moron at work.
Of course I will allow that the courts seem to have already made their decisions on the Facist side which is why I apply that suitable applique to JMJ.
Briggs,
“I put the following prediction at near certainty.”
Actually this prediction has no chance to come through, and Scalia knows it, but he wants to scare people into thinking that it could be true.
A pastor, rabi, priest, imam will never be forced to host a gay wedding in his church.
This is different if the guy acts as a civil servant for the state or the city, where has a representatives or the state he could be.
Doesn’t matter in the end. The Supreme Court cannot legislate, so any “striking” or “making” that comes out if it “mandating” anything is illegal and can be summarily ignored by US persons.
Sylvian,
Why not? They sure are quick to force PRIVATE BUSINESSES to cater (literally and figuratively used in this case) to people their PRIVATE OWNERS do not wish to. Government has already done what you so self-righteously claim they would never do.
somehow I’m Mussolini
Insofar as you insist on the State being in control of family formation. And insofar as blackshirt tactics of bullying, screaming mobs can swarm businesses and shut them down. By their tactics you shall know them.
You guys want to stifle the happiness of millions of people
For so long as marriage was marriage, no one else wanted to subject themselves to the strictures of lifetime faithfulness (let alone the higher tax bracket). Only after marriage was emptied out by people walking through it did anyone want to play dress-up in the ruins.
keep them from doing something that does you no harm
No one is keeping them from doing sodomy, but whether that becomes a public health threat is a separate matter. As far as cultural threat, recall the claims that the more “open” approach of homosexuals to sexual liaisons would “help” heterosexuals get over their hang-ups on single-partner faithfulness.
demand the right to publicly discriminate against classes
Such as against bakers or pizza parlor owners who don’t toe the line? Actually, it is still illegal to discriminate in that fashion. What is being defended here is the right not to be coerced into participating in someone else’s psychodrama.
(and I’m sure races)
Of course you’re sure. That’s your template, your paradigm. It doesn’t occur to you that most resistance to this sort of thing has come from the black community. (Hence, the racialist attacks by gays against blacks out in California after that amendment passed with overwhelming black support.)
A pastor, rabi, priest, imam will never be forced to host a gay wedding in his church.
Hoo-ah. Nice to remember the 60’s when there were plenty of other things that would “never” happen.
Pingback: This Week In Doom: A Riotously Good Time | William M. Briggs
Sylvain: You are using an antiquated definition of marriage which the very small portion of society that is other than heterosexual are demanding the Supreme Court throw out. If the Supreme Court decides a century old definition is wrong, they are free to remove ALL constraints from marriage. It is being argued marriage is NOT a commitment, but rather what one wants at the moment. The beloved government could easily define marriage as whatever one wants in the moment–no commitment, no consent, nothing. That’s the really cool thing about throwing out old definitions and putting in new ones. You’re free to redefine any way you want. It’s quite liberating, that throwing out centuries old definitions.
There are a huge number of people who can’t tell the difference between their pet duck and a kid. Look for marriages to animals to be on the rise since they are already mistaken for children, it can’t be far in the future that we can marry those children when they are adults. The duck will be said to consent, if that’s part of the definition, when he quacks joyfully in the ceremony. Who are you to argue?
It’s sad to see you are so far behind the times on these things. You need read up more and keep up with the latest from the glorious government that loves us all and protects all those opposed minorities.
YOS,
Can you name a few.
John,
Your position implies that only the business owner has religious beliefs. The reality is that everyone has religious beliefs even atheist.
Sylvain:
In a marriage ceremony both participant are required to consent to the union. How does an object, tree or animal give consent?
We don’t worry about consent when we kill and eat animals, or when we chop down trees and turn them into furniture. Why does consent suddenly become important when you’re talking about marrying them?
JMJ: “You guys want to stifle the happiness of millions of people, keep them from doing something that does you no harm whatsoever, ”
I would point out that the BATF keeps me from doing something that harms no one and makes me happy—explosives, belt-fed weapons and hand grenades. A few I can get if I pay for a tax stamp and get a permit, but mostly my happiness is really, really cut into by the BATF. Why is it that I have to be unhappy, but I am supposed to care if gays are happy. Sorry, not happening. When the BATF leaves me alone and lets me happily own whatever I want (which I would never use improperly), maybe then I’ll consider why two men should be allowed to marry. In the meantime, misery loves company so they can be unhappy too.
Sylvain:
We were told that allowing married couples to use birth control (per Griswold) would never lead to allowing their use by unmarried couples.
And it would certainly never lead, when birth control inevitably failed, to abortion.
Because Mr X without consent it’s not marriage.
Without consent it’s slavery, as with marriage In Islam.
Andyd,
It is more culturally related region of the globe than Islam. You would see the same thing in Boudhism and Hinduism in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and some other Asian culture.
Without consent it’s slavery, as with marriage In Islam.
Again, we keep animals and chop down trees without worrying about their consenting. Why does their consent suddenly become important when we marry them?
Because Mr X without consent it’s not marriage.
Since when did the pro-SSM side become so essentialist about marriage?
andyd: Remember, the Supremes are redefining marriage from it’s current archaic definition. That’s the cool thing about redefining–you can take out anything you want. Consent can be tossed out the window, along with that M/F idea. Don’t you just love new morality? (We can redefine slavery, too. This is just soooo nifty! Out with old, in with new! It’s exciting!!!)
The original Mr. X: The pro-SSM side became so essentialist about marriage when it became apparent their arguments about sexual orientation being genetic and not chosen would mean pedophiles and all other orientations would be too and they needed “consent” thrown in to avoid that unpleasant ramification of all sexual orientations getting to marry if one did.
All,
Green Party “open” to Three-Way “Marriages”
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/01/green-party-open-to-permitting-three-way-marriages/
Nobody saw that coming.
Gay marriage will win.
Churches will stay tax-exempt as long as they follow the IRS Code. However, it’d be OK with me to remove tax-exempt status from them.
They will survive, if God wants them to.
It’ll also be OK with me if churches don’t receive government grants for charity any more. Well, I guess it is still noble to do charity using taxpayers’ money (and then take all the credit).
I knew it! It’s time for the world to give up “marriage,” especially the traditional polygamous marriages.
“Loss of tax exemption would mean churches can become political actors.”
This is very insightful. The same thing could happen as occurred in the mega lawsuits against Big Tobacco. People were foolish enough to think that the companies were being punished for their evil ways and that the money would compensate the ill. This is not what happened. Instead various state governments were now in the tobacco business since the astronomical fines have to be paid in perpetuity. Call it regulatory capture since the state governments began to pass regulations to benefit their business partners at the expense of tobacco companies that were not named in the law suit. Tobacco profits increased, price increases of tobacco products went into general tax funds, a few lawyers got rich, and the black market expanded.
Now the same thing could happened if churches were taxed. The mega-churches and mega-mosques would be able to afford it. Smaller operations would go out of business or underground (similar to the black market) and a type of regulatory capture would occur. Governments would now be in the religious business and pass laws to protect their source of income. The idea of no state established religion would be out of the window. No one could predict the end game.
YOS,
“We were told that allowing married couples to use birth control (per Griswold) would never lead to allowing their use by unmarried couples.”
I’ve looked into Griswold and it seems that people a the time, individual liberty was fairly recent in the 60s, misunderstood the case to be about marriage right while it was about individual right. If they had understood it as so, they would not have made the claim they did.
The abortion ruling of Roe v Wade is the application of individual right. Sadly the refusal to compromise by the “Pro-Life” crowd compose of a great majority of man prevent any action on late term abortion. The reality is that a fetus is not a person before it is born alive.
individual liberty was fairly recent in the 60s
Is that a fact? I was there, and what I notice today is that there is far less individual liberty now than there was at that time.
I’ve looked into Griswold and it seems that people a the time, misunderstood the case to be about marriage right while it was about individual right. If they had understood it as so, they would not have made the claim they did.
It was the advocates of birth control who made that claim. Are you saying they deliberately misrepresented the decision? Did the Justices lie? [See below for details.]
The reality is that a fetus is not a person before it is born alive.
Dude, you are way behind the times. Singer says parents can abort their child even up to two years after birth (though he later said he had no right to put a two-year limit on it.) Also, see Mr. Obama’s senatorial vote against a bill penalizing those who killed or allowed by inaction to die any baby born accidentally in the course of an abortion. So for the Besserwissers even being born alive does not protect you from the knife as the concept of the Un-person works out its ramifications.
(One is curious, if beside the point, as to how a biological process like breathing air confers a philosophical status like personhood. How does this affect premies of those on respirators?)
+++++++++
Appendix
+++++++++
Regarding Griswold, we hope other readers here will be patient; but here are some tidbits from the opinion and concurrences:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/381/479
Held:
The Connecticut statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. [Emph. in original]
(In what follows, Emph. added.)
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
They gave information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception.
We think that appellants have standing to raise the constitutional rights of the married people with whom they had a professional relationship.
Here, those doubts are removed by reason of a criminal conviction for serving married couples in violation of an aiding-and-abetting statute.
The rights of husband and wife, pressed here, are likely to be diluted or adversely affected unless those rights are considered in a suit involving those who have this kind of confidential relation to them.
Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives?
We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights — older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join, concurring.
I agree with the Court that Connecticut’s birth control law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy,
The Connecticut statutes here involved deal with a particularly important and sensitive area of privacy — that of the marital relation and the marital home. This Court recognized in Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, that the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” was an essential part of the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The entire fabric of the Constitution and the purposes that clearly underlie its specific guarantees demonstrate that the rights to marital privacy and to marry and raise a family are of similar order and magnitude as the fundamental rights specifically protected.
Although the Constitution does not speak in so many words of the right of privacy in marriage, I cannot believe that it offers these fundamental rights no protection. The fact that no particular provision of the Constitution explicitly forbids the State from disrupting the traditional relation of the family — a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization — surely does not show that the Government was meant to have the power to do so. Rather, as the Ninth Amendment expressly recognizes, there are fundamental personal rights such as this one, which are protected from abridgment by the Government, though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Surely the Government, absent a showing of a compelling subordinating state interest, could not decree that all husbands and wives must be sterilized after two children have been born to them. Yet, by their reasoning, such an invasion of marital privacy would not be subject to constitutional challenge, because, while it might be “silly,” no provision of the Constitution specifically prevents the Government from curtailing the marital right to bear children and raise a family. While it may shock some of my Brethren that the Court today holds that the Constitution protects the right of marital privacy, in my view, it is far more shocking to believe that the personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution does not include protection against such totalitarian limitation of family size, which is at complete variance with our constitutional concepts.
[Alas, he did not live to see the modern movement to shame “spawners” who dare to have more than two children.]
Adultery, homosexuality and the like are sexual intimacies which the State forbids . . . , but the intimacy of husband and wife is necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the institution of marriage, an institution which the State not only must allow, but which, always and in every age, it has fostered and protected. It is one thing when the State exerts its power either to forbid extramarital sexuality . . . or to say who may marry, but it is quite another when, having acknowledged a marriage and the intimacies inherent in it, it undertakes to regulate by means of the criminal law the details of that intimacy.
In sum, I believe that the right of privacy in the marital relation is fundamental and basic — a personal right “retained by the people” within the meaning of the Ninth Amendment.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concurring in the judgment.
In my view, this Connecticut law, as applied to married couples, deprives them of “liberty” without due process of law, as that concept is used in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Connecticut anti-contraceptive statute deals rather substantially with this relationship. For it forbids all married persons the right to use birth control devices, regardless of whether their use is dictated by considerations of family planning, health, or indeed even of life itself.
Without taking issue with the premise that the fear of conception operates as a deterrent to such relationships in addition to the criminal proscriptions Connecticut has against such conduct, I wholly fail to see how the ban on the use of contraceptives by married couples in any way reinforces the State’s ban on illicit sexual relationships.
The only way Connecticut seeks to limit or control the availability of such devices is through its general aiding and abetting statute, whose operation in this context has been quite obviously ineffective, and whose most serious use has been against birth control clinics rendering advice to married, rather than unmarried, persons.
In these circumstances, one is rather hard pressed to explain how the ban on use by married persons in any way prevents use of such devices by persons engaging in illicit sexual relations, and thereby contributes to the State’s policy against such relationships.
[And here he explicitly pooh-poohs the slippery slope argument…]
Perhaps the theory is that the flat ban on use prevents married people from possessing contraceptives and, without the ready availability of such devices for use in the marital relationship, there will be no or less temptation to use them in extramarital ones.
[There were two opinions rendered that did not emphasize marriage; but they were filed in dissent.]
MR. JUSTICE BLACK dissenting
While I completely subscribe to the holding of Marbury v. Madison and subsequent cases, that our Court has constitutional power to strike down statutes, state or federal, that violate commands of the Federal Constitution, I do not believe that we are granted power by the Due Process Clause or any other constitutional provision or provisions to measure constitutionality by our belief that legislation is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or accomplishes no justifiable purpose, or is offensive to our own notions of “civilized standards of conduct.”
[Here Mr. Black argues a slippery slope of another kind entirely!]
My point is that there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court’s belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose flexible uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts, and worse for the country.
[It’s like he had a window on the future, aina?]
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, dissenting.
[He wants to go further than the opinion, but is also feels constrained by the Constitution…]
As a philosophical matter, I believe the use of contraceptives in the relationship of marriage should be left to personal and private choice, based upon each individual’s moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. As a matter of social policy, I think professional counsel about methods of birth control should be available to all, so that each individual’s choice can be meaningfully made. But we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that I cannot do.
What provision of the Constitution, then, does make this state law invalid? The Court says it is the right of privacy “created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees.” With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court.
+++++++++++
The truly odd thing is that the opinion and concurrences relied heavily on the natural law tradition and the Ninth Amendment, both of which have been repudiated by the Besserwissers. This had the curious effect of subverting the basis for the decision while keeping the decision! Consistency is a jewel, seeing as how rare it is.
“One is curious, if beside the point, as to how a biological process like breathing air confers a philosophical status like personhood. How does this affect premies of those on respirators?”
The answer to that is: God breathed life into Adam according to the Bible. The belief is that Adam was not alive until God created life into him. (This completely ignores the difference between Adam’s creation and the birth of a child, of course. )
Jehovah Witness’s use a similar argument about Able’s blood crying up from the ground after Cain killed him to confer special status to blood. They seem unaware that a similar argument allows for abortion.
(As for the part about respirators, I have no answer. I asked the same question.)
YOS,
Repudiate might be the best word in re the Ninth Amendment. But I think perverted better. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” now no longer retains its plain English meaning and is instead almost the exact opposite. Something like this: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall be construed by the government and awarded to the people.”
YOS,
“I was there, and what I notice today is that there is far less individual liberty now than there was at that time.”
What many on this blog have shown is that they misunderstand what individual liberty really means. As I’ve shown on other treads, the concept of individual liberty really started with the declaration of human right voted at the UN in 1948. The Warren decision in Brown vs Board came in the early 50s. This case makes it one of the first major cases of individual right in the US.
The UN declaration of human rights included all the reasons that Nazi Germany used to justify killing people.
Article 2 states:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
The important difference is that individual right are universal, while collective right do not apply to everyone.
In individual right, there are no protected class, even if some people refer to it. There only are protected individual which are everyone.
Collective right apply to a certain class of society and example are rare. The only two I’ve ever found are first nation and union.
In your argument they mistook marriage has a matter of collective right when in reality it was a matter of individual right. Which advocate made the claim doesn’t change that they misunderstood what the case was about.
“The Connecticut statut…”
Marital privacy is equal to both individual in a couple. Married people are not a protected class. they are not a collective class either, because they don’t have more right than other individual. From there it becomes clear that individual right, which are universal, states that all individual wether married are not are protected by this ruling.
So all the emphasis that you added on married persons, people couples, husband and wife, marital bedroom, marriage, actually express the rights of all individual to do what they want in their bedroom; would it be taking birth control pill , sodomy, BDSM or watching tv.
Notice the use of the 14th Amendment which include the equal protection clause.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection
“Equal Protection: An Overview
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide “equality” among individuals or classes but only “equal application” of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.”
Notice that none of the word you highlighted are found in the 14th Amendment. Also notice that the 14Th Amendment applies to all individual citizen, it is a universal right guaranteed by the constitution.
When this is said,
“Adultery, homosexuality and the like are sexual intimacies which the State forbids….”
And followed by this,
“In sum, I believe that the right of privacy in the marital relation is fundamental and basic — a personal right “retained by the people” within the meaning of the Ninth Amendment.”
One cannot be surprised by the turn the future took. Notice how the judge bring it to personal right which is synonym of individual right.
“[It’s like he had a window on the future, aina?]”
When is the protection of individual liberty bad. Before that judgment a specific group of the society could invite themselves in your bedroom and tell you what to do and what not to do. How can you claim there were more liberty then? More liberty to impose your belief to others maybe, or more collective liberty to infringed on individual liberty.
The 9th Amendment made clear that the list of personal right in the constitution was not seen as exhaustive, but that they might not have thought to all the cases that could arise. The 14th Amendment clearly protect the individuals from the states infringing on their personal right.
Notice that you applaud Mr. Justice Stewart who says that there is no right of Privacy in the bedroom. This is the kind of reasoning found in dictatorship.
YOS,
BTW: if you mean me by this:
“The truly odd thing is that the opinion and concurrences relied heavily on the natural law tradition and the Ninth Amendment, both of which have been repudiated by the Besserwissers”
These 2 paragraphs are conform to what I wrote. But their understanding of individual right is still archaic, which is not surprising since individual rights were relatively new. But a step was in place for a better understanding.
“In sum, I believe that the right of privacy in the marital relation is fundamental and basic — a personal right “retained by the people” within the meaning of the Ninth Amendment.”
“Rather, as the Ninth Amendment expressly recognizes, there are fundamental personal rights such as this one, which are protected from abridgment by the Government, though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.”
The important difference is that individual right are universal, while collective right do not apply to everyone.
Are you a right-winger? Down here, it is only the right wingers who emphasize individual rights and the left wingers who claim rights are collective for entire groups or classes — such as women, minorities, etc.
The same with citing the 9th amendment, another cry oft heard from the right.
You cite everything except the actual ruling, Griswold v. Conn. You keep saying “they” misunderstood it; but the “they” you claim misunderstood were the justices who wrote and issued the opinion.
YOS,
“Are you a right-winger? Down here, it is only the right wingers who emphasize individual rights and the left wingers who claim rights are collective for entire groups or classes — such as women, minorities, etc.”
You must very naive. Nothing in what you defend give the same right to everyone. Doesn’t Briggs mention how bad it is for society to allow gay marriage? And this is not a collective argument.
Like it says in the here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection
“The equal protection clause is not intended to provide “equality” among individuals or classes but only “equal application” of the laws.”
For me it is not about equality of living status but about equality of rights. I admit that on the left there are some people wish for the first, but they also misunderstand the reality of individual law.
Your position defend only a group of people and it is selective. meaning that your position changes depending on if the person is in a position of authority or inferiority. But in the end it is always the same person that wins.
Two examples:
1-Azucar baker refuse to write a message that goes against his/her belief, but do offer to bake a cake in the shape of a bible. The result was no discrimination which made Briggs laugh out loud in claiming that there were two different standard.
2- A religious baker refuse to bake any cake because it will be used in a gay wedding. The result is discrimination because there is no offer of any service.
Now, I want to thank you because our conversation caused me to find that gem in the US laws at Cornell. I have in the past mentioned that a place of business has an obligation to sell. Actually, it is all citizen that have a right to purchase.
“All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.”
The problem when dealing with religious right is that every one has religious beliefs, and in public these two beliefs can conflict. Then who wins? It is the one that is the most directly affected.
A baker refusing to bake a cake for religious beliefs that being gay is a sin impedes in the religious beliefs of the customer that being gay is not a sin. A baker chose to bake cake for a living. In forcing to bake a cake for a wedding the arm is less to the baker which does nothing different than what he usually, while the customer religious liberty is deprived in not being able to purchase want he has the right to do.
When the question becomes about the message than the baker has the right to refused to write the message. Then the customer has to choice to buy the cake without any message, or to not buy it.
The reason that minorities and women are brought to the front is that there is discrimination against them. It is not about giving them more rights but about giving them the same right than anyone else has.
In the Griswold ruling they mention marriage often as if it was the reason for their decision, but they also hinted toward the individual with the two quotes I provided.
The 9th Amendment and the 14Th Amendment provides all that is required to recognize individual rights mentioned in the UN declaration of human rights, and even more. Sexuality is an individual right and two peoples can agree into getting in a couple (something a pedophile cannot do).
Since marriage offer some legal advantages for couples then it is only normal that gay couple would request those advantages. The State is secular. It cannot give more right to a religion than to another. When the State claim that marriage is between a man and a woman based on religion, it discriminates against those that are either non-religious, or those that claim that their religion is not against gay marriage.
All Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are catholics. So the State cannot force a Catholic church to perform a gay wedding, but the State cannot also prevent a church to celebrate a gay wedding if they believe it is.
YOS,
If you were to claim as a point in your argument that the sun rose in the east, you would not get your opponent here to admit it.
Sylvain:
“Refusing to cater for same-sex weddings” is refusing to perform a certain class of service, not refusing to serve a certain class of customer. Shopkeepers refuse to perform certain classes of service all the time. If you don’t believe me, just try going to your local baker and asking him to polish your shoes.
Briggs,
If you and YOS were arguing that the sun rise in the East I would agree with you. Instead you are arguing the the sun is rising because the moon is pulling it by gods will.
Meanwhile a judge in Kentucky ruled in favor of a t-shirt company who refused to print a pro-gay message. Which is exactly what I argued:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/27/printing-business-has-first-amendment-and-rfra-right-to-refuse-to-print-gay-pride-festival-t-shirts/
From the judgment:
“HOO and its owners have a Constitutional right of freedom of expression from
government coercion.”
“HOO did not decline to print the t-shirts in question or work with GLSO
representatives because of the sexual orientation of the representatives that
communicated with HOO.”
“In short, HOO’s declination to print the shirts was based
upon the message of GLSO and the Pride Festival and not on the sexual orientation of its representatives or members.”
“The Commission Order held and adopted the Hearing Commissioner Opinion that ” … the application of the Fairness Ordinance does not violate the Respondent’s (HOO) right to free speech, does not compel it to speak, and does not burden the Respondent’s (HOO) right to be to the free exercise of religion”. This statement is not supported by the facts in the record before the Commission and is contrary to well established precedent from the United States Supreme Court and the Constitutions of the United States and Kentucky. That statement is also clearly erroneous as a matter of law and as a conclusion of law. The exact opposite is, in fact and law, true.”
(If it was only about selling blank t-shirt the judgment would have been the opposite.)
“Rather, it is clear beyond dispute that HOO and its
owners declined to print the t-shirts in question because of the MESSAGE advocating sexual activity outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. The well established Constitutional rights of HOO and its owners on this issue is well settled and requires action by this Court.”
“The statute protects the religious freedom of all “persons” in Kentucky.”
The religious conflict in this case is that the owner would be force to to say a message he disagree with in printing a t-shirt. While the customer was still free to by the t-shirt and print the message himself on them.
Mr X,
A baker bakes cake. When it refuses to bake a cake that is found in its catalog does not refuse a class of service, but he is refusing to serve a customer.
Briggs,
You never answered me. If you are right why are the court never agreeing with your position.
Sylvain, your argument is really flawed, to say “if you are right why are (sic) the court never agreeing with you?”
In the first place a court decision is not necessarily morally or legally right. Have you heard of the Dred Scott decision? If so, do you think that was a correct decision? If you haven’t heard of it, look it up.
Your arguments are not convincing.
A baker bakes cake. When it refuses to bake a cake that is found in its catalog does not refuse a class of service, but he is refusing to serve a customer.
No one seems to have done so. What is wanted, and what has been ruled is that he cannot be compelled to bake a cake whose message he finds repugnant. Thus, a Jewish baker cannot be compelled to bake a cake in honor of Hitler’s birthday; an African-American baker cannot be compelled to bake a cake for a Klan celebration. This very sensible discrimination is being fought against because there are those who want to be able to troll bakers [and others] in search of those who would refuse specifically in order to make a big deal out of their refusal.
I’m thinking that asking a baker to make a cake that violates their religion is micro aggression and cannot be tolerated. It could even be triggering, since the baker may have had a traumatic experience involving someone of another sexual orientation. We cannot tolerate triggering or micro aggression in colleges and the workplace, so how can we tolerate it in the marketplace?
(I’m not arguing that triggering or microaggression is valid, but rather if we’re going to use this as an excuse to ban books and require sensitivity training, then we cannot be insensitive to those who are traumatized by the thought of baking a cake for a gay couple. It’s not fair. And fairness is what we’re all about, right?)
Bob,
Although the decision in Dredd Scott is in today’s world can be judged has disgusting, it exemplifies what a collective system of justice represent.
Before world War 2 laws were applied through a collective vision. In the US, blacks were not considered a person under the law. So has disgusting the ruling really was, it did respect the intent of the constitution, at that time. The 14th amendment was not enough to change that fact.
It took the UN declaration of human right and the Warren decision and the civil rights act to change the tide. There was no individual right in the US before then. The freedom was not universal but reserved to white male, woman and blacks had to fight for more than a century to acquire equal rights under the law.
The good thing about the law today is that it protects the invidual from the state, not just the white religious male. Although saying this does make it clearer has to why it is hard for you guys to understand a simple concept. You are simply not accustomed to equality of rights under the law. It is only recently that your own right have become equals to minorities. You are simply used to do whatever you want.
This is very instructive. And yes it is hard to lose the right to dictate others what to do with there own life.
YOS,
It is quite disgusting to compare homosexual to Hitler, Nazi or the KKK, who all committed horrible crime against humanity.
A more reasonable comparison would be an atheist baker, or a gay baker, refusing to bake a cake for a religious conference that would decry gay marriage or atheism.
They would both have to bake a cake, but could refuse the message. A cake in itself is not a message. A sheet cake is not a message but a cake in the form of two guy having sex or in the form of a penis is a message. The court arued so many times.
Shiri,
““All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.””
See the link above.
Everyone has the right to purchase. Where is the right to refuse to sell.
Sylvain, it is very frustrating trying to bring a point of logic to you, viz:
A court made a wrong discussion, the Dred Scott decision (unless you think that was a correct decision morally and ethically). It follows therefore, that not every decision a court will make is a correct decision morally and ethically. (I can name some others, although you might not agree with my opinion.) So if one does not agree with a court decision, that does not necessarily invalidate the moral and ethical correctness of one’s position.
Giving a long discussion of the UN, human rights, etc. is irrelevant to the above argument. And now I’m out of here. As Briggs said, if you thought that the sun rising in the West was a liberal position, you would maintain that,. so there’s no real point in a discussion with you.
Bob,
At the time the decision was taken it was not immoral or unethical. The vast majority of Americans of that time would have agreed, yet there were people that were appalled. It took a constitutional amendment to set the blacks free, but yet they then became separate and anything but equal.
The reason more people are in favor of gay marriage is that now a majority of people don’t care about what people do in there bedroom leaving mainly the white religious male over 55 as being against it. Happily your kind is the closest to the tomb. The majority that was against it is dying off of age.
I know that you guy see the world in black and white, good or evil. The reality is that there are many shades of grey in between.
The only reason to be happier to be closer to the tomb (very kind celebrating that your opponents will be DEAD—yeah, that’s caring and compassionate and an admission your argument is anything but valid if you have to wish the opponent dead to win) is these people will avoid the anarchy and dictatorship brought on by those who worshipped government. Who wants to live in a North Korea? Seems you do and you’d love to have us all join you, while lying that you don’t want to control who we are and what we do. You are the bad person here—you want to control everyone’s life or wish them DEAD. Interesting to note that none of the countries Obama loves and wants us to be (Islamic) do anything but execute homosexuals, yet youth stupidly believe that is not where the US is being lead, as well as the rest of the world. Your new utopia will not have a problem with homosexuals—they will either be executed or go underground. Tolerance is a lie meant to reel in the foolish and uneducated till they are no longer needed. You’re hooked.
Shiri,
Change comes from people dying off. It doesn’t mean that you wish them dead. The reality is that the anti-tolerance in the USA is overwhelmingly represented by the 65+ year old and they are also closest to the tomb.
Catholic are now the largest Christian community in the USA because the old wasp died. Before those guys died Catholics were amongst the discriminated upon class.
“As American Catholicism spread during the 19th century, anti-Catholic violence saw churches burned, Catholics massacred, property destroyed, and the growth of anti-foreigner and anti-Catholic organizations like the “Know Nothings.” Beyond violence, Catholics routinely became victims of discrimination in employment and housing.”
http://www.lifeintheusa.com/religion/discrimination.htm
The anti-tolerance group is alive and well and calls itself “progressives”. These individuals are determined to shut down any opposition, even if it means jailing those who disagree, shutting down their businesses, etc. The young are the most intolerant of any group and the consequences of this intolerance will result in a life of fear and loathing of their own making. There are none so intolerant as those who preach tolerance.
The solution to unfairness: Make everyone equally disadvantaged. Yeah…..
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/reading-to-children-at-bedtime-abc-questions-value-of-time-honoured-practice/story-fni0cx12-1227335151442
This is the world you are advocating for.
It is quite disgusting to compare homosexual to Hitler, Nazi or the KKK, who all committed horrible crime against humanity.
No one today understands the nature of analogy; esp. what is being compared to what.
leaving mainly the white religious male over 55 as being against it.
Actually, black Americans seem to oppose the matter in even greater proportion. But then you have your paradigm.
“This is the world you are advocating for.”
This is not the world I’m advocating for. The world I’m advocating for is one where those who to read to children do, and does who don’t, don’t.
from article 42:
““All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.””
This is what I want.
YOS,
Is 51% of blacks, which represent 17% of USA pop. (About 56m) or (28 million opposed) greater than 47% of white, which represent 70%+ of USA pop (About 230m) or (108m opposed).
So the old white male wins in large
See # here: but 2012
http://www.christianpost.com/news/poll-only-blacks-have-majority-opposition-to-gay-marriage-84979/
Later in 2012 a majority of blacks 53% supported gay marriage.
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/resources/entry/marriage-polling
YOS,
“No one today understands the nature of analogy; esp. what is being compared to what.”
Your analogy means that the relation of a gay couple to a Christian baker is the same as a Jewish to a Nazi or a Blacks to a KKK member and this is disgusting, since gays haven’t killed in mass Christians.
Sylvain: They just spread AIDS and destroy people’s businesses. They don’t have to burn businesses—the government is happy to shut down people’s livelihoods in the name of “fairness”.
You believe you are advocating for one thing while following those who advocate something very, very different. Not uncommon. When it’s too late, people realize they have been duped. Just not in time to escape the bad outcomes.
Shiri,
The spreading of aids amongst gay is of no matters to you and should even be welcomed since it harms them.
Aids affect 0.4 of 100 American and 0.006 of 100 American die of aids.
Meanwhile 1.03 of 100 American dies of gun shot. Seems the epidemic of guns is much worst than the Aids epidemic. Yet you are fiercely anti-gun control.
Some people smoke, other takes drugs, alcohol do extreme sport so there are many ways that one can hurt himself and increase cost on societies. I do none of that but everyone is free to do what they want with their own life.
This is a late comment, but I heartily recommend an article in First Things by Patricia Snow on the vocational state of marriage and religious life in The Church, “Dismantling the Cross–A Call for Renewed Emphasis on the Celibate Vocation”:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/04/dismantling-the-cross
Bake the cake or die, that’ll be the battle cry of these little Nazis by the time I’m middle aged.