SUPREME COURT EXTENDS GAY MARRIAGE NATIONWIDE

[bybee]

One side of this thread is like all the worst people in America having a huge collective anxiety attack. I confess to enjoying watching the spectacle, as unhinged as it is.

Really?

 

[Jonahdog]

Your logic is appalling.

The word marriage has a meaning set by the authority of God. According to His "system of laws," your supreme court has perverted the law. Therefore, its ruling is no law.

Your court is subject to His standards.

The Bible makes it clear: Marriage can only be between a man and a woman. That does not mean I want a code of law that is strictly Biblical. The Bible does not comment upon plenty of things that might reasonably be laws.


In a discussion of the law, we need to agree on what the law is. I have given my definition. You think men who make rulings — whatever they might be — defines what is law.

Your court has perverted God's standards, therefore its ruling is no law.

Fortunately Stripe, the US Supreme Court is not subject to your particular deity's laws. Its job is to interpret the Constitution of the United States and the various and sundry laws and regulations passed by the Federal and state governments.

It is interesting that you state this:
"In a discussion of the law, we need to agree on what the law is. I have given my definition. You think men who make rulings — whatever they might be — defines what is law."
On one hand you want to agree with what the law is, you claim you provided a definition and then you complain that other people seem define the law. Are you therefore the sole arbiter of the law? Are you that learned?
The law in this country begins with the Constitution. Since parts of it are a bit vague---"due process" for example, it gets interpreted, eventually by the Supreme Court. Over time interpretations change, society changes (yes, we know that bothers Pope Antonin, but life is not fair)
Sorry if you don't like that, but I don't think you live here so it has little impact on you other than giving you the ability to pontificate from afar. You do provide some needed comic relief on occasion.

 

[Jonahdog]

God has standards. Anything that goes against those standards can never be law.

There oughta be a law:

"neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."
Lev 19:19 KJV.

I need to check my closet.

 

[Granite]

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said we should just do away with the Supreme Court altogether. So much for that Constitution they've been bandying about for the last decade or so.

When push comes to shove their hatred for this country is extremely difficult for them to hide.

Or maybe that's a little much. I mean they had no problem with Citizens United or the Hobby Lobby decision. Basically, when they get their way, they don't complain. When the Supreme Court decides against them, they have a conniption fit.

 

[Stripe]

Fortunately Stripe, the US Supreme Court is not subject to your particular deity's laws.

Only if your assertion that He does not exist is true.

If you want to enter a conversation, you are required to respect the at least the existence of the opposing view. :up:

Its job is to interpret the Constitution of the United States and the various and sundry laws and regulations passed by the Federal and state governments.

I know.

On one hand you want to agree with what the law is, you claim you provided a definition and then you complain that other people seem define the law. Are you therefore the sole arbiter of the law? Are you that learned?

You should read what I wrote instead of making things up.

The law in this country begins with the Constitution.

Nope.

For example, the "law" in your country permits homos to get "married" and the execution of unborn, sometimes born, children.

Clearly, those practices are wrong. Clearly, some higher authority exists.

Sorry if you don't like that.

I have no problem with laws changing.

That is a straw man you've copied from Townie.

There oughta be a law: "neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee." Lev 19:19 KJV. I need to check my closet.

:AMR:

Why on Earth would you want that law?

 

[DoogieTalons]

If you don't like Gay Marriage, don't get gay married... but I have found MOST rabid opponents of homosexuals are insecure about their own sexuality. Like that mega church dude, telling thousands of his congregation gays are bad, whilst at the weekend spending time in a hotel with male hookers smoking meth.

If Jesus said we are all sinners, then who are sinners to judge sinners.

Wear your mixed linens, eat your lobster and marry someone who loves you if you love them. Otherwise only the Westboro Baptist church are on your side.

If you can keep your nose out of other people's business then all the better.

 

[Town Heretic]

The law does not bow to beliefs.

That's your belief. The topic here isn't that.

What we believe is not relevant.

Then you're out of the conversation, because that's literally all you've offered, repeatedly insisting that it is the control here. It simply isn't and I've answered on that sufficiently to set out the why prior.

 

[rexlunae]

Really?

Yeah. I kinda do. There's been so much bile from the Right surrounding LGBT people that it's nice to see them freaking out. No one is going to lose their religious freedom, although there may be increasing social pressure to change the approach.

 

[Jose Fly]

One side of this thread is like all the worst people in America having a huge collective anxiety attack. I confess to enjoying watching the spectacle, as unhinged as it is.

I have to agree. We're watching the collective temper tantrum from conservative Christians upon being reminded that we don't live in a Christian theocracy.

 

[Jose Fly]

When push comes to shove their hatred for this country is extremely difficult for them to hide.

Or maybe that's a little much. I mean they had no problem with Citizens United or the Hobby Lobby decision. Basically, when they get their way, they don't complain. When the Supreme Court decides against them, they have a conniption fit.

The question is, do people like Cruz and Jindal really believe what they're saying (e.g., do away with the SCOTUS altogether), or are they just pandering to the most extreme reactionaries in their base?

 

[Shasta]

When push comes to shove their hatred for this country is extremely difficult for them to hide.

Or maybe that's a little much. I mean they had no problem with Citizens United or the Hobby Lobby decision. Basically, when they get their way, they don't complain. When the Supreme Court decides against them, they have a conniption fit.

Maybe we do not like to be forced into disobeying our conscience. Hobby Lobby was allowed to make policy according to the owners sincerely held beliefs. No one is being made to shop there. Evidently you would prefer that they were coerced into conformity to your agenda. This is a peculiar position for a libertarian. Knowing the propensity of liberals to legally enforce their views on others and accuse others of bigotry my state is already taking measures to allow Clerks and judges to opt not to marry homosexual couples. If the left had its way they would be forced to on threat of being fired.

 

[Granite]

Maybe we do not like to be forced into disobeying our conscience. Hobby Lobby was allowed to make policy according to the owners sincerely held beliefs.

People trot out "sincerely" as though it gives them a pass for being sincerely wrong.

No one is being made to shop there.

Quite true, but if Hobby Lobby's asinine ignoramus-endorsed policies continue it could be said that they are forcing people to make choices they wouldn't otherwise. Same thing with these idiot pharmacists who've decided they get to tell people what kind of birth control they can and can't get.

Evidently you would prefer that they were coerced into conformity to your agenda. This is a peculiar position for a libertarian.

I'm all ears: What's my "agenda"?

 

[Shasta]

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said we should just do away with the Supreme Court altogether. So much for that Constitution they've been bandying about for the last decade or so.

The Constitution does not give the court the power to exceed the limits of the constitution itself

 

[Stripe]

If you don't like Gay Marriage, don't get gay married.

Homo marriage does not exist.

I have found MOST rabid opponents of homosexuals are insecure about their own sexuality.

Oh? How have you "found" that?

If Jesus said we are all sinners, then who are sinners to judge sinners.

Who are you to teach on what Jesus said?

If you can keep your nose out of other people's business then all the better.

And you're going to hound everyone until they do, right?

Blithering hypocrite.

That's your belief.

Wait. I say the law does not bow to beliefs and then you claim I think the opposite?

You need to show some respect. The law does not bow to any man's beliefs. You may not pretend I think otherwise.

The topic here isn't that.

You speak in pronouns such that nobody has the foggiest clue what you are taking about.

Then you're out of the conversation, because that's literally all you've offered, repeatedly insisting that it is the control here. It simply isn't and I've answered on that sufficiently to set out the why prior.

Nope. God and His word are not dependent on our beliefs. He is independent reality.

 

[Jose Fly]

The Constitution does not give the court the power to exceed the limits of the constitution itself

Nope. Good thing they didn't.

 

[Shasta]

Granite;4368800]People trot out "sincerely" as though it gives them a pass for being sincerely wrong.

If a person's belief is sincere it means they really hold it and that they are not being deceitful. What are they supposed to do trot out a belief they don't agree with to keep the peace? By "wrong" you just mean that their view disagrees with yours. If you are really such a tolerant liberal why is that so hard for you to tolerate?

Quite true, but if Hobby Lobby's asinine ignoramus-endorsed policies continue it could be said that they are forcing people to make choices they wouldn't otherwise. Same thing with these idiot pharmacists who've decided they get to tell people what kind of birth control they can and can't get.

Individuals just should not have so much freedom, should they.

I notice again that instead of debating substance you call names. This demonstrates your contempt for the conscience of other people. I suppose what you would like to do is to force all the ignoramuses to follow your views even if it means violating their own consciences. Sincerity is, after all, just a pretext to be "trotted out" to hide a person's real motives. Should such unenlightened individuals refuse to follow Left Wing policies they should quit or else be fired. No allowances should be made for dissent. If people do not agree it is because they are stupid. If institutions should resist the implementation of the Liberal Agenda they should be shut down and their assets confiscated. Only the view of the State, as legislated by five out of four members of the Supreme Court will be tolerated.

 

[Granite]

If a person's belief is sincere it means they really hold it and that they are not being deceitful.

Thanks but I'm aware of what the word means. What it does not mean is "correct" or even "justified" or "humane" or "decent" or "true."

What are they supposed to do trot out a belief they don't agree with to keep the peace? By "wrong" you just mean that their view disagrees with yours. If you are really such a tolerant liberal why is that so hard for you to tolerate?

Maybe you should actually pay attention to what I say and stop trying to label me. Just a thought.

Individuals just should not have so much freedom, should they.

See above. You're not in danger of putting the corner psychic out of business anytime soon.

What you would like I imagine is to force all the ignoramuses to follow your views and violate their own conscience.

We've done this before. It's called "making strides" or "doing the right thing."

 

[DoogieTalons]

As an Atheist poster on a Christian Website I often get asked why I am so bothered by Christians... perhaps they say I am secretly religious.

So I ask, why are Straight Christians so bothered by Gay Marriage... perhaps they are secretly Gay.

The big difference here is gay's don't try to turn me gay... but boy do Christians try to turn me christian. So I comment on these sites because you can't stop recruiting people to your crazy cult.

Perhaps now it's legal to marry into your own sex, the temptation for you is all the more great. Especially you Stipe, always thought there was something a bit odd your rabid anti-homosexuality.

As for Stipe asking me "Who are you to teach on what Jesus said?" are you saying it's wrong ? Can't you see I am simply putting it in words you simpletons understand.

Fact is, gays can legally marry in the United States, this is as important as Blacks being able to Vote, which Christians were also dead against once.

Get with the times your religion's 2000 year sell by date is past.

 

[Shasta]

Now Ted Cruz is proposing we look at electing members of the Supreme Court and mused about impeaching five members because he didn't get his way.

Is there anything about America these people actually like?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420409/ted-cruz-supreme-court-constitutional-amendment

The court exceeded its authority by a long shot and conjured "law" out of thin air. It is drunk with power and you want to hide this from criticism under an American flag, as if to question them is to rebel against the country. To think logically we have to think reversibly so let's consider how it would be in some hypothetical future if, by some political movement we should one day end up with an activist conservative Court. Assuming that the court has broad sweeping powers and can overthrow all pre-existing law without precedent let us imagine it overthrowing the current statute establishing gay marriage. Would this not be equally an expression of their rightful authority? Would you be waving the flag and asking people to accept their ruling in that case?

 

[Granite]

The court exceeded its authority by a long shot and conjured "law" out of thin air.

Depends on what side of the issue you're on, obviously.

It is drunk with power and you want to hide this from criticism under an American flag, as if to question them is to rebel against the country.

No, not at all. I strongly disagree with the Citizens United and Hobby Lobby decisions but I'm not throwing a tantrum about it or whining about how we should just impeach the justices whenever we disagree with them.

To think logically we have to think reversibly so let's consider how it would be in some hypothetical future if, by some political movement we should one day end up with an activist conservative Court.

:chuckle:

Lot of folks we say we're already pretty close.

Assuming that the court has broad sweeping powers and can overthrow all pre-existing law without precedent let us imagine it overthrowing the current statute establishing gay marriage.

Anything's possible but I wouldn't say this is especially likely.

Would this not be equally an expression of their rightful authority?

Yes, it would, much as I'd disagree with their position.

Would you be waving the flag and asking people to accept their ruling in that case?

I'm doing neither now, so I really don't know what your problem is.