Shasta
Well-known member
There are no clear limits on the Court's power anymore so I am not certain of what they could get away with. All they need is that swing vote and they can re-write the constitution.
SUPREME COURT EXTENDS GAY MARRIAGE NATIONWIDE
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
There are no clear limits on the Court's power anymore so I am not certain of what they could get away with. All they need is that swing vote and they can re-write the constitution.
They can only interpret the Constitution. Civics classes should have taught everyone that the Constitution can only be changed if it passes Congress and two thirds of the States sign on to that change.
Shasta
Well-known member
What concerns me is that it is not about simply allowing homosexuals to marry. This ruling will be taken to be a social mandate by fanatical activists who will work to make everyone not only comply with State View in practice but to agree that homosexuality is normal and healthy. Perhaps teachers will be required to sign papers to that affect or to swear an oath before a secular consistory. Any "hate speech" out of harmony with the State view will result in fine, tax levies or termination. This may sound far-fetched but I think it is a real possibility.
Shasta
Well-known member
That is the way it is supposed to be but only conservative justices think that way. To the liberal justices the constitution is a "living document" which can take any form their intuition imagines it to be. As an example, consider how the Court ignored more essential and obvious principles of a person's right to life and used the right to privacy as a basis to legalize abortion. The privacy clause had nothing to do with pregnancy or what the mother would do about it. This latest ruling was hung on full faith clause which means states honor each other's laws reciprocally but States laws differ greatly. The court's ruling if followed consistently would annul all State's rights to self government but we are in our origin a Federal system. That was the condition that was agreed to when the nation was first formed.
The thing the left either does not or will not see is that an activist court is not good for them either, for if a hard right wing Court ever comes to power they could throw off all the favorite precedents of their favorite rules and implement some stringent ones they would find very troubling.
Right now people like me are given the false comfort that the court would never do this or that but when any branch has too much power they will be tempted to use it
You still have the freedom of speech, and you still have your freedom of religion.
Nothing changed except that same sex marriage now has the same rights as opposite sex marriage has. You didn't lose any rights, homosexual and lesbians gained rights.
How does them getting rights and you not losing any cause any concerns?
Religious political influence has taken a major hit and as such, taken a loss in power to politically conflate the two.
I'd throw a tantrum too...if I was so inclined.
Well, it's a GREAT thing that religious political influence is declining. Think of Iran if you think it's a good thing.
Religion belongs in the home, in the churches, mosques, synagogues and temples, and not in the public sphere.
Aimiel
Well-known member
Because if a pastor is jailed for not performing a queer wedding, because he believes that to do so he would have to surrender his faith in Christ, it's a direct attack upon Christianity.
That's not happening in Canada, and we've had same sex marriage for 10 years now. It used to be of concern, but practice shows that it is no concern.
Nor will it be in the United States. It is fear mongering to think otherwise.
The irony in chrys' post is that he only named four justices, when there were five who voted in favor. And five of the nine were nominated or appointed by Republicans. Not to mention Bush I nominated Sotomayor for a position in a lower court during his presidency.
Since we know five of the nine were Republican choices that means at least one of the five in the majority of this ruling was. Lo and behold it was the one who wrote the opinion: Kennedy.
| Two years later, Kennedy authored the majority ruling in the decision of Obergefell v. Hodges, which holds that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry nationwide.[35][36] |
Cite
That Republican president was Reagan.
Not to mention six justices are Roman Catholics. Which means at least two of the majority in this ruling are RCC. Those are Sotomayor, and the aforementioned Republican appointee Kennedy.
Do you expect religious liberty to not be a target? At least that of Christians and possibly Jews who oppose homosexuality?
Of course. I said as much more than once. It isn't that some will attempt it, but that their efforts should fail, if not in a given jurisdiction (say, California) then before the S. Ct. for any number of reasons rooted in precedent and right. Pastor's aren't bakers and the logic of one won't translate readily into more.
So, does it make you feel better to say queers? Does get a load off your mind?
I'm not sure if it's really necessary to use derogatory terms however it says more about you then it says about the people you're trying to denigrate.
What if that bakery did not serve black people would that make it right? What was Asians? What about Haitians? Or perhaps Germans? Where do you draw the line as to when you think its ok to discriminate and when not?
When you open up a business that's open to the public, it's open to all the public and that's the law. You have no right to discriminate if you have a public business. You have all the right to hold your religious values at home, in your church, and among your church members.
It's always OK to discriminate. If your business suffers loss as a result so be it. Even if that loss is to the point of going out of business. And if you discriminate against those who do not deserve it then you deserve to go out of business.
Marriage pre-dates Christianity. It's not a Christian word or act. This is really about people getting back the word rather than ruining it for one particular goofy religion's interpretation of it.
Slavery, Abolished. A lot of Christians didn't like this.
Equal Rights for Blacks, Achieved. The Clan a firmly Christian outfit, certainly didn't like this.
Equal rights to marry for all, Achieved. Christians are ironically butthurt about this.
It strikes me that every good thing mankind achieves, every step forward in equality and human rights and every move towards a truly enlightened species... fly's directly in the face of Christianity.
But then again this is the religion that bought you a god which smites you for building a tower too high and co-operating too much.
Do you ever look at your religion and think... maybe you're the bad guys throughout history not the heroes.
Slavery, Abolished. A lot of Christians didn't like this.
Equal Rights for Blacks, Achieved. The Clan a firmly Christian outfit, certainly didn't like this.
Equal rights to marry for all, Achieved. Christians are ironically butthurt about this.
It strikes me that every good thing mankind achieves, every step forward in equality and human rights and every move towards a truly enlightened species... fly's directly in the face of Christianity.
But then again this is the religion that bought you a god which smites you for building a tower too high and co-operating too much.
Do you ever look at your religion and think... maybe you're the bad guys throughout history not the heroes.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh please, do you think there was some sort of "golden age" in Western history or something? Some of you harp on about gay marriage and 'the world going to hell in a hand basket' because of it or the acceptance of it but does it ever occur to you that things were actually worse for lots of people than they are today?
When women didn't have the vote they didn't have a voice either. What recourse did they have if they were abused and raped in the marital home never mind anywhere else? What about children who 'should be seen and not heard'? How many times do you suppose kids were on the receiving end of all sorts of abuse behind closed doors never mind in the "work place"?
Oh, not to mention slavery, segregation etc...
The fact of the matter is that society in the West has progressed beyond all that crap and the logical step forward was to stop treating homosexuals in the same backward manner. Don't like it? Well tough, but don't start griping as if the sky's going to fall inwards considering what society was like only a coupla hundred years ago...
:darwinsm:
Within a few months, a case will start in which a church will either have to spend a lot of money or eventually lose in court.
There is some truth in what you are saying but the values of all religions are what made man something more than an animal.
As to the errors in your claims:
* Its a complete lie to imply that a majority of Christians opposed the abolition of slavery. Northern state Christians fought and died for their freedom.
* The KKK is not the teachings of Jesus while it may be made up of Christian red necks.
* Human and civil rights in America progressed like they did anywhere else in he world fostered by Christians. See predominantly Atheist North Korea and get back to us with your superiority trip.
* As an evolutionist I notice that devoid of any ultimate purpose of a mind behind the evolution of mind, evolution would have been a far greater, longer and meaningless bloody grind of might making what is.
TracerBullet
New member
equality of everyone, even minorities you don't happen to like, is already written into the constitution.