16

Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 9 months ago to Government
271 comments | Share | Flag

Well there you have it folks. Another decision that has the effect of complicating and distorting our language.

I personally have no problems with what the LGBT people do. It is only a matter of definitions and giving new meaning to existing words that bothers me. I believe that a new word should have been created and that equal rights in every way should be granted. Unfortunately now the word marriage will be less descriptive and specific. This has been the case of several decisions lately that only confound our language. The court believes it can re-write Webster's dictionary.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Addendum: Some final thoughts
After contemplating the arguments presented, I wish it understood that since I have no strong religious convictions on this matter, I have no personal problems with this ruling other than a minor irritation with the effective changing of the definition of the word marriage. I will have little difficulty adjusting my language and accepting the outcome. However, others of a contrary nature and the undoubted turmoil that will ensue for our nation will not likely foster comity. After all there are a very large number of people of religious convictions that will not wish to have their rights to practice and live by their beliefs abrogated.

I accept the absolute right of free association that is involved, but free association as a right cannot exist without its corollary of disassociation. One cannot objectively avoid recognition that this ruling will lead to the violation of rights of those that hold a contrary view by forcing them into associations they would otherwise avoid.

The problem’s origin seems to stem from the fact that the government has bestowed upon holders of a “marriage” license, benefits that others were not granted. This is unequal treatment and thus unjust. This is the crux of the problem and should be rectified and could be done easily by eliminating those benefits or granting them to everyone regardless of possession of such a license. It would seem that it is largely the result of government getting into something it should not have in the first place and as usual producing unanticipated consequences.

Is acquisition of this license in and of itself a fundamental right? If this were so, would it not apply to a driver’s license also? It has been understood that such a license is a privilege, which by definition one must qualify for. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, would not this line of reasoning lead one to conclude that any license or even contract that someone else can acquire is equally a right for all regardless of criteria? For instance should one demand that since some have contracts with the NBA that it should be the right of all so desiring? This is of course reductio ad absurdum.

What precedent for our nation and the effects upon states rights and the tenth amendment will this have? The implications are incalculable. The more cases that redefine the meaning of words, the more cases of the past will be in jeopardy. Without unchanging meanings we become a nation not of written laws, but of the whims of men and the political winds of the time. The fact that some words already have ambiguity is not a persuasive argument for acceptance of more of the same done with purpose born of temporary convenience or political correctness.

Some say (as the majority opinion did) that this is necessary to grant dignity and respect for the pro gay marriage crowd. This argument is specious since no government issued paper can grant dignity. Dignity is a reflection/matter of approval and acceptance of one's peers and the community.

Ultimately our nation will likely suffer further division and struggle with this issue just as we still do with Roe v. Wade. This is unfortunate since there were other alternatives. I hope it is not more than our ever more fragile peace between factions can handle. Frankly I hope I am wrong in this matter and we can move past it, but it does seem inevitable that our courts will be needlessly filled with cases where some “rights” are pitted against others. The mark of a legitimate fundamental right is that it does not conflict with others.

In closing, I would like to thank all those that have participated in this conversation and invite the reader to comment further as they desire.
Respectfully,
O.A.

SOURCE URL: http://www.aol.com/article/2015/06/26/supreme-court-extends-same-sex-marriage-nationwide/21201726/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 12
    Posted by InfamousEric 8 years, 9 months ago
    We don't need more laws extending freedom, we need less laws limiting it.

    The question should never have been , why did it take so long to become legal. The question is, who gave them the authority to make it illegal in the first place.

    (I'm obviously speaking of much more than mere personal relationships)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Wonky 8 years, 9 months ago
      Well said, and I agree. However (and I don't know the specifics), I can't help but wonder whether slavery was implicitly legal until it became explicitly illegal. If the constitution left it implicitly legal, it gave the legislature a methodology by which to make it explicitly illegal, and the courts the guidelines for making the correct ruling based on their interpretation of the legislation.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by SaltyDog 8 years, 9 months ago
    I feel pretty certain that I'm not alone around here in saying that I can't imagine what the High Court is thinking. The Court has ruled in favor of gay marriage. Since marriage may no longer be defined as one woman and one man, does that now mean that it can be two women and one man? How about three women, two men and a German Shepherd? Is polygamy now legal for Mormons? If not, what happened to the First Amendment? Are those who have religious convictions now disenfranchised? I personally can't do a thing about these ridiculous laws. I can, however, "go Galt" as it were.

    Government can afford for be hated, reviled and despised. What it can't afford, however, is to be ignored and that is specifically what going Galt means to me. I chose to follow my own spiritual and moral convictions and government be damned. I mean no harm to any of 546 clowns running this particular circus, but I will offer no help. I think many more will eventually come to the same conclusion and will to a greater or lesser extent do the same.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 10
      Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
      I swear this will be my last post, unless someone replies to one of mine.
      The argument that this is an attack on the first amendment is misguided and backwards. The High Court did not dictate how churches must define marriage, nor did it determine what type of ceremonies it must perform. It stated that states may no longer restrict marriage licenses to opposite sex couples because that is inherently discriminatory. This is in no way an attack on religious freedom. The reality is that the religious wing of society was attempting to use the state to enforce their beliefs and promote their particular preferences. This is the first step in reversing that. If anything, it is improving the separation of church and state by disallowing one or several religions to obtain special benefits for those who follow them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ TomB666 8 years, 9 months ago
        Am I the only one that thinks the problem relates to special privileges granted to people who are married?

        Without being married you can not designate a significant other (of either sex) as your next of kin or point of emergency contact at a medical facility for example. State Farm would not let us jointly insure our vehicles before we were married. We are a heterosexual couple that lived together for 5 years before finally getting married and getting married makes a lot of things easier.

        I wonder if there were not these thousand little "inconveniences" for unmarried couples would this even be an issue???
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
        Uh, you must have missed Justice Alito's question to the soliticor general in oral arguments there. He specifically asked if "gay marriage" were to become legal would it not create problems for the free exercise of religion down the road. The Solicitor General had to admit that it was a "likely" outcome.

        Second, there is not such thing as "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. That phrase was coined by a 1960's activist judge. It is a well-known fact that well into the 1900's various congregations used Federal buildings including the halls of Congress for religious meetings. The earliest debates of the Continental Congress opened and closed with prayer. It is not to say that Congress adopted a specific religion (contrary to the First Amendment), only that it was not openly hostile to religion as it is today.

        What is more important is the slew of lawsuits that will now be leveled at religious organizations attempting to force them to recognize homosexual unions and even perform them. You know what their leverage is going to be? Their tax-exempt status. The government will use that to put religions out of business _literally_ since once they lose their status, they will be businesses.

        This was a sad fay for freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of the mind. You can be religious or not, but now you have the heavy hand of government overstepping its Constitutional bounds to author moral decrees.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 9 months ago
        To me, this is a non-issue and has no bearing on hardly anything relevant to running the government. Why it came to the attention of the SCOTUS is beyond me. Gays may have legal conjunction with or without a wedding ceremony. The need for the pronouncement that it is a wedding is merely a conceit. As to the opposition to gay marriage, and the legalities that go along with it, it is as silly as the sun revolving around the earth. John, if you think that a pronouncement by the Supremes was needed, I think you are just as wrong as those who wanted the opposite decision. Also, to be blunt, this Supreme Court is occupied by three real judges, three schmucks, an idiot a villain and a wimp. Whatever they rule carries all the weight of a bosun.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
          I don't see a decision by the court as anything other than what it is... A pronouncement to the government of what I can and cannot do. It does not change me or how I feel about myself at all. It just allows me to be treated equally under the law. That is the only reason I feel it is important, that it improves a basic tenant of Liberty.
          Also your assessment of the court is so spot on I could barely breathe from laughing. Thank you for that.

          Btw everyone take note of AL OK and MS. All three are in the process of ending the issuance of marriage licenses. I think that's a good thing. Everyone will simply have a civil union.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
            Hello JohnConner352,
            A civil union contract for everyone is a proper solution. Redefining the meaning of the word marriage is not, but that is what they have done, or what the result will be. That is my objection. In several cases this court seems hell bent on playing the Clinton game... "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Pure nonsense. Are we a nation of laws or of men? Marriage for thousands of years had a specific meaning. It was not necessary for the court to redefine the word when contract law and civil union contracts would guarantee equal rights.
            Respectfully,
            O.A.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
              ObjectiveAnalyst,
              We do agree on the proper final solution. However I must object to your analysis of this decision. The government has not, and cannot, redefine language. Language, like words, is an expression of concepts and the government cannot forcibly change our minds or make us think differently.
              What I believe you are failing to recognize is that the definition of marriage has already changed in the minds of the majority of people, and those who object to recognizing that officially seem to only have argument about tradition upon which to fall.
              And again, I must stress that the reason the definition of marriage has changed in the minds of people is due to government intervention. We must correct that intervention. But our system of government only works in certain ways, and this is merely one step towards correcting the problem. three states have already begun the process of ending the issuance of marriage licenses. All three are southern Bible belt states that believe they are doing this in protest of the decision. This is the best possible outcome. Eventually I foresee even more challenges to limitations placed on state to sanction marriage, which will anger even more traditionalists, and spark similar forms of protest among other states.
              This, to me, is The lifecycle of any government program. It is brought in with the best of intentions, bent on improving society at the expense of a minority, and eventually it's negative consequences become apparent. What happens after that depends entirely on how good the government is at explaining away those consequences. With marriage, it will likely no longer be a government program, like prohibition. With something like Social Security, we may need to see many more examples of the negative consequences before it too is left on the trash heap of history, if it doesn't drown us all first.
              In summary, while this decision may not have been something I would have supported in a vacuum, In context it is the best possible outcome because it is unfortunately how our government works. Think of this as how many treat medicinal marijuana legislation. What will happen is that after all of the doomsday predictions prove to be nothing more than hot air, people will grow to except the concept of recreational use and eventually full legalization. I do not support medicinal marijuana because I believe it is a valuable medication that should be used in the arsenal of FDA approved prescriptions, nor is it because I believe only those who have cancer or glaucoma should be allowed to use marijuana. It is just one step towards ending a damaging government institution… Namely the war on drugs.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
                I do not see this as something I cannot adjust to and I really have no serious personal concerns, but I do see it as unnecessary confusion. To me it is clear that the definition of the word will now likely be given a widespread acceptance of additional meanings. As with all changes to our language that will require more qualifiers, I object. I will say again, what is so difficult about coining a new word with specificity? Clear communication is difficult enough. The problem could have been solved so easily without the additional ambiguity and intolerance shown to a huge percentage of our populace that find it an affront to their first amendment rights and religious beliefs. Soon a large can of worms will probably continue to clog our courts as the baker and photographers etc. are sued for not wanting to participate due to their beliefs, right or wrong. Just unnecessary...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
                  Your arguments are a large part of why I believe the ideal solution is to remove The ability of states to issue marriage licenses and use the new term "Civil unions" for all state purposes. Then people can choose to be "married" or "partnered" or "Civil unions" for all state purposes. Then people can choose to be "married" or "partnered" or "Committed" or "friends with benefits" or whatever tickles their fancy, on their own and among their own community in circles of friends. However, I still believe this was a necessary step towards that end.
                  Also, if you were to pull Americans, I believe you may find a surprising number of people Also, if you were to pull Americans, I believe you may find a surprising number of people would already consider a same-sex union a marriage.
                  Also, as a sidenote, while this is not exactly a purely rational argument, more of a legal argument, we must consider the concept of "separate but equal." Also, as a sidenote, while this is not exactly a purely rational argument, more of a legal argument, we must consider the concept of "separate but equal." If something is kept separate is it truly equal to what it has been separated from? At some point does that create a second-class status? If that is how people view it on their own, then of course there can be no objection to it except on moral grounds. But if that is how the state defines it, then perhaps we have an issue.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
                    Constitutional Amendment required. The federeal government is barred by the first Amendment to establish anything religious but requried to protect religious freedom.

                    Beyond that powers NOT granted prohibits any action on their part. The States may have the right depending on the State Constitution and if the people granted them that power.

                    The federal government can only address secular issues thus the use of partnership or civil union is the end of their nose. Marriage is beyond the reach of their nose.

                    Separate but equal is a non-argument as it was struck down in a number of amendments and acts along with the rest of the Jim Crow laws. The main proponents were Democrats and I doubt they would consider it today in their new guise. In any case one is a legal contract by whatever name and the other is a religious concept More like apples and Zucchini

                    If a surprising number would accept it then the right thing to do is amend the Constitution. Failing that it's a power not granted and requires the surprising amount of people step forward state by state by state.

                    Maybe we should give the Government Party a nickname besides they one they held from 1840 or so up until their recent attempt at a change

                    Pinnochio Party comes to mind quite readily.

                    Not it's time to go look up what the Supreme Court actually said in the majority opinion. As the hubbub over Heller vs. Washington DC showed the headlines and the facts were far apart.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by RonJohnson 8 years, 9 months ago
                    I hadn't thought of changing the word "marriage" to "civil union" for all legal purposes. That would fix the most immediate problem which is how to apply the mountain of statute and case law pertaining to marriage benefits (and penalties!). However, longer-term, this does nothing to fix the problem of the State being involved in pre-writing interpersonal contracts, and the definition of such contracts would necessarily involve who may or may not unite. Another fight for another day.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 9 months ago
        I disagree. It is an attack on the first amendment. Even before this law, there have been numerous cases aimed to force Christians to participate in religious services that they disagreed with. Bakers, photographers, wedding coordinators, even pastors (at wedding chapels). Some of them have been sued and lost. Others just quit, or closed their business.

        As has been pointed out, homosexuals had rights already, and there were other ways to have gone about this. I believe their end game is to violate the rights of conservative Christians. Not all of them, but some. Enough. Because they are so tolerant.

        OA made an excellent point. In a free society, all social interaction is voluntary. That implies the corollary that disassociation must also be an option. But this has become unacceptable for many. And, as has been pointed out elsewhere here, this is not just because of this new ruling (businesses are not allowed to legally discriminate based on race, for example), though it is just one more avenue for this discrimination discrimination.

        I recently read Ayn Rand's article on Racism, and think it is worth quoting here.

        “That absurdly evil policy [racial quotas] is destroying the moral base of the Negroes’ fight. Their case rested on the principle of individual rights. If they demand the violation of the rights of others, they negate and forfeit their own. Then the same answer applies to them as to the Southern racists: there can be no such thing as the ‘right’ of some men to violate the rights of others.”

        “The ‘civil rights’ bill, now under consideration in Congress [written in September, 1963], is another example of a gross infringement of individual rights. It is proper to forbid all discrimination in government-owned facilities and establishments: the government has no right to discriminate against any citizens. And by the very same principle, the government has no right to discriminate for some citizens at the expense of others. It has no right to violate the right of private property by forbidding discrimination in privately owned establishments.
        “No man, neither Negro nor white, has any claim to the property of another man. A man’s rights are not violated by a private individual’s refusal to deal with him. Racism is an evil, irrational and morally contemptible doctrine – but doctrines cannot be forbidden or prescribed by law. Just as we have to protect a communist’s freedom of speech, even though his doctrines are evil, so we have to protect a racist’s right to use and disposal of his own property. Private racism is not a legal, but a moral issue – and can be fought only by private means, such as economic boycott or social ostracism.”


        When a natural right (like freedom to dispose of your private property; freedom of religion) comes into conflict with a civil right (like freedom to marry), which should win?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
          Sincere thanks for providing that quote by Rand. I had read it before and it was my position long before I ever read her. That statement is 100% compatible with libertarian principles (I've been one for nearly 20 years) which shouldn't surprise anyone because almost every libertarian position could have been taken from Objectivism (and was? Rand wasn't the first to promote many of the principles of Objectivism but she was the one who developed it into a complete philosophy and provided consistent, logical reasoning for every aspect. Probably the most important philosopher in history.)

          You already know the answer to the question you posed in your last paragraph. "When a natural right ... comes into conflict with a civil right" is the problem; it's like saying "when 2 + 3 = 6". True rights cannot be in conflict with each other. If a conflict does exist then one of them isn't a right. I think the term "civil rights" is unnecessary and it's improperly used to describe both real rights and imaginary ones. It's not needed to describe real rights because we already have a word for that - RIGHTS. And using it to describe imaginary rights is just fraud.

          [And by the very same principle, the government has no right to discriminate for some citizens at the expense of others. It has no right to violate the right of private property by forbidding discrimination in privately owned establishments.] So the "rights" created by the civil rights act aren't rights.

          [“No man, neither Negro nor white, has any claim to the property of another man. A man’s rights are not violated by a private individual’s refusal to deal with him. Racism is an evil, irrational and morally contemptible doctrine – but doctrines cannot be forbidden or prescribed by law. Just as we have to protect a communist’s freedom of speech, even though his doctrines are evil, so we have to protect a racist’s right to use and disposal of his own property. Private racism is not a legal, but a moral issue – and can be fought only by private means, such as economic boycott or social ostracism.”]

          This is exactly what I've written several times in this thread, but naturally Ayn Rand said it better. That description of private property rights and how the gov't has destroyed them (with the court's blessing and with society's blessing) is the real cause of the fear and loathing underlying this pro-same sex ruling by SCOTUS. The court recognized a right that already existed, as far as I'm concerned. The fallout is that this real right will become the basis for claims of anti-private property (and thus anti-individual rights) imaginary rights.

          Just like in the past, the gov't will use this real right and their legal monopoly on force to "discriminate for some citizens at the expense of others." Statutes will be passed where gov't will discriminate for some citizens at the expense of others - immoral statutes. Lawsuits will be filed and some of them will be won - based on incorrect law.

          But the incorrect law here is not the ruling that finally recognized all couples already had the right to marry. The incorrect law is the perversion (I love it!) that bases imaginary rights on real rights.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by WilliamCharlesCross 8 years, 9 months ago
        You put it well. As this issue has no immediate relevance to me, the one thing I will sit back and "wait and see" is if there is ever a case promoting the 2 of one kind marrying one (or more) of the other. The Mormons are always in the background on this issue. Can now be their time?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
          Their time for what? The Mormons I know aren't agitating for a return to polygamy. If you hear about some via HBO or some such, what they fail to mention is that these aren't Mormons at all, but part of their own little break-off sect.

          What concerns me is that once one redefines marriage in this manner, where does the logical boundary now lie? What is to proscribe a man from marrying a pig? Or their dead cousin? Or a five-year-old? If you erase the lines by redefining marriage to be anything but the union of a man and a woman, you have a hard time backing out. They haven't redefined marriage, they've utterly destroyed it.

          I'd be way more concerned with NAMBLA than the Mormons.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
      Since marriage is a contract (as the state has made it over decades of precedent), the answer to your question about a man marrying his dog is an obvious "no." This is because animals cannot enter into contracts.
      Also, one is not "disenfranchised" when your ability to dictate and to others how they must act is removed from you. That is exactly what he does with religious convictions were doing with marriage. They were giving special benefits and rights to those who followed their beliefs.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by SaltyDog 8 years, 9 months ago
        The comment about the dog was facetious. As to being disenfranchised, why can't a business owner refuse service to whomever he chooses, particularly on religious grounds? I'm not defending anyone's religious views, or lack of the same, over any other. I'm referring to the principle. If the framers didn't think it was important, why was it enshrined?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
        Not for much longer. Federal courts are trying the case of whether or not chimps have rights as we speak. While it used to be the case that people recognized the clear difference between homo sapiens and the rest, that line is just one more that activists are succeeding in blurring. And what is to stop things from escalating after that?

        And if marriages as you correctly identify are contracts, is not the whole point of this to determine whether or not those contracts are valid and enforceable? Is not that subject to what the people have to say and not a handful of robed vigilantes? Are you so bent on giving the Federal Government power to overstep their clearly delineated bounds that you are willing to give to them not only the ability to create laws and rewrite meanings, but to override the voted will of the people they are supposed to be representing?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by RobertFl 8 years, 9 months ago
      The courts set up the next law suit, the said marriage was between two consenting adults. That means the polygamist will have to fight the courts themselves, but, that is coming.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 9 months ago
    I noticed from watching TV last night that Obama had the White House lit up in rainbow colors.
    Me dino was thinking--"Why doesn't he paint the whole thing red and be done with it?"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LetsShrug 8 years, 9 months ago
      I was thinking they pulled that idea out of their butts pretty fast. And what was the cost of that stunt? It also occurred to me what a laughable spectacle we must be to the world....a rainbow white house. This gov is a Circus.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by slfisher 8 years, 9 months ago
        "The U.S. joins just 20 other countries worldwide to recognize gay marriage, while 78 countries still discriminate against and criminalize homosexuality itself with punishments of jail or even death. Broadly speaking, countries in North and South America, as well as Western Europe have led the charge toward equality, with much of Africa and the Middle East vehemently opposed to homosexuality. In East Africa, for example, religious organizations have pushed forward more restrictive laws on LGBTs. Russia flaunted new laws limiting freedom of expression for gay people ahead of and during the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics, while gay Egyptians have abandoned their Arab Spring dreams of free association following arrests and intimidation.

        Many citizens of the countries that legalized gay marriage long before the U.S. expressed congratulations but also pointed out that this was a long time coming, particularly from a nation that the world views as a leader in human rights."

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-ground...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 9 months ago
        Your reply sparked my imagination.
        I visualized a photo of the rainbow White House placed beside a portrait of a smiling Obama on a huge billboard.
        Then I imagined people in China pointing at it and laughing their heads off.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
        Reminds me of "Lord of the Rings" when Saruman changed his allegiance to side with Sauron. He went from being Saruman the White to being Saruman of the many colors. And anyone who has read the stories knows how that turned out.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by herk7769 8 years, 9 months ago
    So using the same "Equal Protection" logic, substitute "License to Marry in one state must be honored in all states" to "License to Carry" and see where THAT goes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
      Waller vs. Washington DC. It already went. Waller wanted the right fo a carry permit which in DC allows you to have a registered weapon fully put together and loaded. The case went to the Supremes.The issue was not Second Amendment but they decoupled the first and second halves anyway. Waller's and his lawyer dropped one of the complaints which allowed the Cort to side step the Rights Not Granted issue. Which in DC wouldn't apply anyway. But it would set a precedent. Court ordered DC to issue the permit. Now Waller can carry in his own home and no further. In this latest case 14th Amendment not challenged in 150 years and Article IV of the Constitution not challenged in 230 years but used a lot, ton of case law on this one as Ohio had said yes and Tennessee had said no.Full faith and Credit applied (see it doesn't have anything to do with the government s fiscal responsibility.) In both states rights were or were not granted but once any state passes a law it gets equal treatment everywhere. 250 years no move to change that. None. I'm quite sure the whole thing was a setup to get exactly the response it received. Now they have precedent. Thanks a lot Tennessee . You blew it big time this time. Supreme court didn't order the other states to do anything they didn't know about well in advance. That's what we get for ignoring the citizens handbook and letting lawyers run the circus for us.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NoMoreObama 8 years, 9 months ago
    I wonder how long it will be before a gay couple sues a church for not performing a wedding ceremony.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 9 months ago
      That is a different issue. The hypothetical church in question should also be free to not perform such a ceremony.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ number6 8 years, 9 months ago
        Just like a baker should be able to refuse to bake a cake?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 9 months ago
          Absolutely.

          I think it is crucial to distinguish between the lack of barrier to marriage and the actions of the 'liberal terrorists' who inflict themselves on the private lives of other people. Perhaps the point needs to be made to them that their right to have their personal life-style decisions indicates that other people require the right to their own decisions as well.

          Jan
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 9 months ago
            and "your" making my decisions for me makes me a slave. -- j
            .
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 9 months ago
              Down with slavery. All forms of it: Not a consensual relationship, should not happen.

              It really tightens my jaw to think of all the women all over the world who are sold into a marriage they despise, and which they cannot legally escape. The freedom to "not" is crucial.

              Jan
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 9 months ago
                and proving a negative is impossible, unless it's Your NO
                and he wants to violate it. . women should be armed, or trained in martial arts! -- j
                .
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 9 months ago
                  Agreed. Either is a great 'leveler' for the strength difference.

                  Jan
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 9 months ago
                    oh, I am trying to level the INTENT difference. . I was
                    raped by a woman, but it wasn't quite the same as
                    a man raping someone. . they should lose their penises. -- j
                    .
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 9 months ago
                      What it comes down to is Power. When you have a power-based advantage, it serves as a touchstone to your character: Do you use that power as a prerogative to protect others or to take advantage of them?

                      I apologize for my entire gender subset, that you were subject to that despicable behavior by a woman.

                      Jan
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 9 months ago
                        Yes. . using power for abuse. . sounds like government.

                        and the event with *her* was unfortunate. . I will never
                        know whether the abortion which she claimed she got
                        was for real. . I am closest to tears with this story. -- j
                        .
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 9 months ago
                          From the bleachers, it sounds like she was a power-junkie - and that she was the type of person who would have claimed that there was an abortion whether or not there was one. She seems to have been playing every card she could get her slimy hands on to gain dominance over you.

                          I hope that she is Long Ago and Far Away - preferably in another galaxy.

                          Jan
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 9 months ago
                            p.s. this very smart, sexy woman got me to drive to
                            atlanta on the weekends for months and months,
                            and we had some great times, but her adrenaline-
                            junkie nature was just too much. . it was evident
                            that this was our last weekend, I guess, and she
                            wanted more and more, and then we were in bed,
                            with me saying "let me sleep, please" ....... -- j
                            .
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 9 months ago
                            many thanks for your sentiments, Jan;;; about 8 years ago,
                            she (a computer systems trainer) sent me an e-mail at work.
                            from NH. . married, again. . haven't heard anything since.
                            I should never have had that "last drink" with her. -- j
                            .
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 9 months ago
        Should, yes.
        But not in the dictatorship of the mass media that stirs up the property defacers and destroyers against anyone who disagrees with their politically correct mantra.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 9 months ago
          I cannot make the world 'all better', Alas! But I can try to mentally keep the issues straight.

          'Gay marriage' now has universal permission to exist in the US. (This is not the end of the world.) 'Permission' does not equal 'requirement'.

          If a particular church/pastor refuses to perform gay marriages* then that is their right to do so. If the congregation of that church goes elsewhere over the years, then that is people 'voting with their feet'; likewise if the congregation doubles.

          Jan
          *or bakeries, gay wedding cakes
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 9 months ago
            What you state is true.
            But that will not restrain the protestors who block the entrance of the church and interfere with marriages that are performed there.
            How will local police respond? How wil the state governor respond when the gay and lesbian protestors show up at the capital to "encourage" his action?
            Central power decisions on these issues are just wrong, and we would be better off with no supreme court than this abortion pretending to be one.
            (I am just pissed off at those jerks pretending to be justices.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
              This is the purpose of a Supreme Court. To eliminate improper legislation.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 9 months ago
                So goes the propaganda.
                Read the constitution and you will have to redefine the language in order to extend the power of the SCROTUS to the degree they claim is theirs today.
                But that is true of all three branches of government.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
                  In this case you're wrong. The SCOTUS is specifically charged with resolving matters of law between states. Furthermore, to me this is an equal protection under the law issue and the Constitution specifically addresses that.

                  The lack of mention of marriage in the Constitution does (probably?) mean that the federal gov't has no business recognizing marriage other than as a contact matter.

                  I wonder if that means the IRS shouldn't have a special category for married couples?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
        I'm reading this on my phone so I haven't followed this train of thought from the start.

        Jan is correct, no church should be forced to perform our even recognize a same sex marriage. And this ruling doesn't affect churches or religion in any way. It only says that the several states of the United States must allow and recognize it.

        It will probably affect justices of the peace (which I am one). Because we're commissioned by a level of government that is forced to recognize same sex marriage we're probably required to perform them. I'm gay so I've never had an objection anyway.

        I haven't heard of any case in CT where a JP refused to perform a same sex marriage. But an easy way out would be to say you weren't available on that day. Every town here has plenty of JP's so the couple would likely just call another one.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
          "this ruling doesn't affect churches or religion in any way"

          You are incredibly naive to think so. Justice Alito in oral arguments specifically asked about the ramifications of a decision to force recognition of homosexual unions to the Solicitor General. The reply was to admit that there would be inevitably by problems down the road. We have already seen lawsuits against Catholic Charities for their hiring practices respective to their religious views. If you don't think the homosexual activists aren't absolutely salivating about a whole slew of lawsuits against every religious or non-religious organization that doesn't embrace their particular religion.

          And your arguments about a Justice of the Peace performing such ceremonies reminds me of the litigation against bakers and photographers - of which there are certainly a bounty - who were nonetheless forced out of business despite this! That there certainly existed other options for services does not matter to these ideologues - their goal is to force their opinion on everyone else. They have no interest in regard for others beliefs.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
            (We have already seen lawsuits against Catholic Charities for their hiring practices respective to their religious views.)

            Right, and that was caused by previous non-discrimination laws that I consider immoral and unjust, as I've said in countless posts. Those laws correctly apply to gov't, not the private sector.

            But why am I the only person who points out that ALL non-discrimination laws are anti-freedom? It's so easy for everyone to attack the radical LGBT activists and conveniently ignore that gov't has been doing this to us for decades. Nobody else has written that anti-discrimination laws are wrong and should be repealed. nobody else has written that it should be ok, from a legal standpoint, for any private business to deny service to anyone they please for any reason.

            I believe it's wrong morally, so it's an issue for the free market to address, not the legislature or the courts.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
              I agree with you that businesses should have the right of conscience on who they choose to provide services or sell their products to. Such is that individual's choice of values and values are a 24/7 thing - not an 8 to 5 thing.

              Are some such values based on bias or discretion? They are bound to be. We can not be called agents and individuals unless we are permitted to and capable of our own observations, conclusions, and actions. I further agree with you if you are saying that we should be permitted to live according to our biases as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

              "Those laws correctly apply to gov't, not the private sector. "

              That's a dual-edged sword, however, because it says that working for the government is different than working for a private institution. I'm not so sure I would go there because you would be condemning those who work for government to live by a different set of laws and you would be instituting a religious persuasion among the purveyors of government services contrary to the explicit text of the First Amendment. We already have a lot of problems with government treating itself differently than the common person, I don't think we want to encourage any more of that.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
                Hello blarman,
                Interesting. Some clergy are considered agents of the state since they often witness signing of marriage licenses and officiate over the filing of the papers. This may make them beholding to the state and this opens the possibility of the state forcing them to act against their conscience. The implications?
                Regards,
                O.A.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
            Then I guess I'll support the incredibly naive. I try to stick to the facts as much as possible and not 'down the road''discussions with a third party or other comments. the problem was the states inextricably married the concept of marriage to a slew of legal ramifications and in doing so redefined marriage.as a word. They didn't think it through for 'problems down the road.' thus handing any future litigation all the ammunition they needed.

            People tend to forget it''s a whole document and one part is affected by many others. It bit them and in doing so bit us right on the hind parts.

            It's incredibly naive to cherry pick and take things out of context.

            Who won? The lawyers. Who lost? The nation.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 9 months ago
          With a gay or bi JP, the new couple can find someone with a lot of empathy. I am happy you are present in that role to change, "I am required to do this." into "Glad to see y'all."

          Jan
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
            My first marriage was interracial, they stiffed me for my fee.

            My second and third were for people I knew and my fourth was my sister and her husband (I told my French mémère that I was giving my sister a 25% discount. She snapped that I'd better not charge my own sister - until I laughed and assured her I was joking. My poor mémère had a hard time with jokes.)

            I married a woman I work with and she said her husband might not have gotten through it if it weren't for my calming banter during our wait for the bride.

            I had planned to advertise in the local "alternative" newspaper for same sex ceremonies but I never spent the money to do it.

            My most recent was a special request for a new year's day ceremony, 3rd marriage for both. Just me and them in my dining room. There was at least 4' of snow on the ground but my walk was clear and it was sunny and beautiful with no coats required. I took some gorgeous photos of them and all you could see was pure white snow and snowy evergreens all around them.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 9 months ago
              Your mémère had a lot to put up with, Timelord. Take it easy on the lady.

              I would encourage you to post that advertisement. The 'right' solution to this mess is for people who personally support alternative forms of marriage to be the ones who delight in conducting them. The ministers who are only comfortable with traditional marriages should be able to continue to conduct those ceremonies and not be forced to conform to standards with which they do not agree.

              Jan
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LetsShrug 8 years, 9 months ago
      In about ... 8 weeks I'd say. Equality!! I see a long drawn out case involving a Mormon temple.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
        Long before this ruling I recognized that adherence to libertarianism and Objectvist principles requires me to support plural marriage, and I do, wholeheartedly.

        Equally as long before this ruling I was of the opinion that churches should NOT be tax exempt. Some commenters have predicted that this ruling would lead to lawsuits challenging churches' tax-exempt status. I don't think it should have any bearing on the matter, but the courts are so screwed up that they might accept it as an argument.

        My reasoning for disallowing tax-exemption for chuches is this: the separation of church and state. I can hear the howls already, "the Constitution never mentions any separation of church and state." Fair enough, but just as we do when defending the 2nd amendment, we go back to the source material, letters and other writings of the founding fathers who wrote it and wrote the first ten amendments. Thomas Jefferson himself, a major contributor to the Constitution and a primary architect of our republic, used the phrase "as like a wall of separation between church and state" in his writings. So we can easily see the true intent.

        The federal government should, in all things, ignore the existence of religion and churches. That is the only way to guarantee that our government remains perfectly neutral with regard to all religious matters and the only way to guarantee complete religious freedom.

        Consider some of the benefits:

        - gov't can't threaten a church's tax status on the grounds that it's using the pulpit for political influence. The left and the right have been up in arms about political proselytizing from the pulpit and would love to control what is said there through the threat of losing tax-exempt status.

        - no more people being offended over tax-exempt status for "fringe" churches (and how can gov't decide what is and isn't a church, anyway, without coming dangerously close to establishing a religion?) Raise your hand if you think the "Church" of Scientology doesn't resemble a church in any way except for the fact that the entire basis for its existence lacks rationality, that it's beliefs cannot be supported by a single piece of credible scientific evidence? How many other "churches" enjoy tax-exempt status that virtually nobody would recognize as a church?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LetsShrug 8 years, 9 months ago
          They all lack rationality...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
            That's right, they do, and people get very defensive when you say that. I explain that by it's very definition FAITH is irrational. It's a belief in something with no evidence of its veracity.

            There's no reason for a believer to be offended when someone calls [his/any] religion irrational. First, refer to the dictionary. Second, Jesus preached that faith is the entire basis for religion. To require proof, or even evidence, diminishes the believer. What kind of reputation does "doubting Thomas" have because he wanted proof? Not a good one!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by broskjold22 8 years, 9 months ago
    That the court ruled in such a landmark case to "give rights" is the most disturbing part of the reaction to this event. What rights? The individual's right to his own life is the primary right. It was once protected by the US Constitution. The illusion that it would still be protected should have vanished after the Court's previous ruling on ACA. Thus, we know we are dealing with a court that does not respect an individuals right to his own life. Should it come as a surprise that the court now claims to "give rights"? Sure, just as it gave "economic rights" to minimum wage workers or as Washington gives "humanitarian rights" to Syrian refuges. We do not owe our rights to the court, to Obama, to Kennedy, to Washington, to Jefferson, or even to Ayn Rand herself. What we owe her is a thank you for perceiving reality and then acting upon it to achieve the monumental novel she authored and the philosophic system that supports it and us as we seek to perceive the world that exists. Do not make the mistake of confusing the natural with the man-made, or the creative with the mooching, or the objective with the stolen concept. The fact that two males or two females feel legitimized by such a court-given "right" is a testament to the lack of individual pride. The worrisome aspect is what happens to cheating claims as grounds for divorce, or what happens when it becomes someone's "right" to be a different gender (i.e. to be subsidized by the tax payer). These are the next "given rights" you may soon see.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 9 months ago
    first, the government should have nothing to do with
    anything called marriage. . the Constitution says
    Nothing About It At All.

    second, people ARE free to live as they please, and
    to form partnerships as they please -- called by names
    which they choose.

    third, my current "marriage" was done in a church,
    by a dear friend, a family counselor.

    fourth, my first "marriage" was done by a justice
    of the peace, and was simply an interpersonal contract.
    it was legitimate, too. . this whole dust-up is stupid.

    IMHO. -- j
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
    While I do not disagree with the original post, per se, I think it misses the main point and the root of the problem here.
    This decision was essentially inevitable. The beginning of the redefinition of "marriage" was not when same-sex couples wished to also gain the same rights and benefits as opposite sex couples, it was when the state first became involved in the process of deciding who can and cannot be "married" by issuing marriage licenses. While this process may have been started hundreds of years ago, this was the first step and the origin of the problem. what exacerbated the problem and eventually brought this result was the enthusiasm of the religious right to promote what they thought was a beneficial institution by providing additional benefits and privileges to those who participated. However, since this is inherently discriminatory, eventually those oppressed or just simply left out would inevitably demand to be included.

    Well I believe the ultimate solution is to remove state sanction of any relationship agreement, this is a necessary first step to not only pointing out the obvious hypocrisy but also to right a wrong. As rational egoists and freedom lovers we must always celebrate improvements in our system, which includes elimination of state enforced discrimination.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by hattrup 8 years, 9 months ago
      Sounds exactly right to me. The State creates a priveledged group -so expect others to want to join in for the special benefits and/or protections.

      This will continue to get more complicated with the increasing number of catagories for "sex" , not just male or female, and of course, why just limit the benefit group to two? There seems to be no legitimate legal reason not to have the "marriage" State protections extend to a group of any size.

      Eliminating this State enforced relationship protection is the way out of this mess - most States got involved to control interracial marriage...The State should never have got involved in this in the first place.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ johnrobert2 8 years, 9 months ago
        RAH, in his classic book "Time Enough For Love", posited the only reason for family (of any description) was the care and nurture of children. So long as that moral obligation was met, families could change as the members thereof so decided, individually, to act. Also, in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", he posited what he termed a matrilineal "line marriage". Just a thought but he may have been far ahead of his time.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
          That is a distinctly a non-selfish viewpoint. The only rational justification for the union, marriage, family, etc. would be your own rational selfishness, not a sacrifice for the good of your children.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ johnrobert2 8 years, 9 months ago
            Soo.., by your rationale, you have no duty to have any responsibility for any progeny of your relationships. Rational self interest would indicate you provide a secure environment in which they could learn, hopefully your values (by your example) so as not to become drogues on society. Your take is to let someone else care for them because you existence is centered on yourself and how you may best prosper.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
              That is not at all what I intended. Please reread my comment with this clarification. The original post to which I was replying stated that the "purpose" family was to support children. This implies that the only reason families should exist is for the benefit of children. What I was rejecting was that and that alone. This implies that the only reason families should exist is for the benefit of children. What I was rejecting was that and that alone. this suggests that families without children are either not really families, or they are immoral bastardizations of what a family ought to be. I hope I don't have to support my contention that this is incorrect. Now, if you were to start a family and where to bring children into this world, that is something completely separate from what I was referring and had nothing to do with the post to which I was replying.
              The purpose of family is not the offspring that are produced from the intercourse of those in the family, but the love and companionship which is shared among those involved, including if involved, but not necessarily requiring the involvement of children.
              I hope this clarifies my prior comments.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
      "it was when the state first became involved in the process"

      Yup. And do you want to know WHY they started getting involved? It was to prevent interracial marriage, ie marriages between blacks and whites.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by TheRealBill 8 years, 9 months ago
        Actually it goes back further to the "protection" of lineage - to ensure the offspring are of the husband. The origin of marriage isn't religious but territorial. Religion came into it later.

        This is why I find arguments based in "traditional marriage" hollow. Traditions on marriage have changed in even the last 100-200 years, more than once.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
          You believe the secularists then rather than history. Religion has always been at the heart of marriage and civilization. Secularism and atheism are very new and recent developments in society and to suggest that such predate religion is contradicted by all archeological evidence.

          Have inroads made by the secularists affected traditions over the past 200 years? Indisputably. But it would be pure revisionist history to believe that secularism predates religion and the religious foundations of marriage.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
            Regardless, tradition is not a rational argument.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
              Sure it is. All traditions were formed based on some thought processes: observations leading to conclusions. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them either irrational or insensible. Is there the possibility that some traditions were formed based on conclusions from imperfect or incomplete information? Absolutely. Science always dictates that nothing is ever sure and is always subject to re-evaluation.

              In the realm of social science, however, there is far less surety to any result set because of the nature of those in the study - independent agents with their own (frequently changing) value sets. This makes any sociological observations - especially those conducted on their own, i.e. humans observing humans - to incorporate a significant amount of not only bias, but inherent ignorance as well. The only way to avoid these is to be a completely objective third party with extensive experience in observing the human race yet not being one of them.

              Your claim is your own and based on your own internal biases, knowledge, experience, etc. My claim is similarly my own and subject to all the same constraints. But to say that only your argument is rational is to allow your biases to predispose you to a given conclusion, i.e. confirmation bias.

              If you really want to get into the logic or rationale of the gay marriage argument, you'll have to PM me. I dislike hijacking someone else's thread for an extensive debate.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
        See, the government should have stayed out of it from the beginning. But just like now, it was the religious radicals who demanded action, and they got it. If the churchies would just stay out of other people's lives the world would be a better place.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
          Uh, it was the Ku Klux Klan and the segregationists who were in favor of marriage licensing. It wasn't the religionists agitating to relinquish control over a traditionally religious matter to the State.

          Here in America, you are free to choose your own philosophy - be it religious or otherwise. Or at least you used to be able to. This ruling isn't nearly as much about social approbation for homosexual marriage as it is establishing secularization and government as the new altar at which all must worship. If you want to go there, you advocate for government as origin of rights and of laws. Be careful what you wish for.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
    Marriage is a religious term. They are contracted partnerships. Under separation of church and state churches are private and protected entities. the answer to the sue the church comment is - form your own church. It's called freedom of religion. The ceremony would be just as valid and probably a lot more meaningful with the same people attending. The justice of the peace is a civil ceremony and now is an alternative. Legally that would be the place to go and concurrently registered the legal partnership for purposes of insurance, wills, and losing tax deductions. Just like now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
      The problem and danger is that now gay activists will be trying to get entire religions shut down by forcing them to acknowledge or perform homosexual unions. And what will their instrument of coercion be? Their federal tax-exempt status.

      There is no "separation of church and state". That term was coined by an activist Federal judge in the 1960's. The applicable standard according to the First Amendment is that the State shall not establish an institution of religion as the federal standard. It doesn't mean banning such expression at all. To do so is to violate the freedom of thought.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 8 years, 9 months ago
    I think that was the goal all along. Getting equal rights under the law wasn't good enough for the most strident activists. It had to be called marriage. This was a bad week for the Supreme Court. Any respect i had left for SCOTUS is gone.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
      Yes. Add to this ruling the ruling against Texas on public housing and the Obamacare ruling and the power of the Federal Government just took leaps and bounds towards an authoritarian state.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Itheliving 8 years, 9 months ago
    The court failed to bother with a definition but had no problem re defing that which they didnt define. The unintended consequences are mind boggling.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago
    the whole marriage thing was religious anyway. Why gay people are so insistent on getting into the legal marriage mess really baffles me. About the only significant reason I can see is to allow for transfer of wealth upon death to a spouse. It would have been ok with me if they called it something else when its between two people of the same sex if it would have meant transfer of wealth could have happened a long time ago. Also, what is the big deal about polygamy?? So what.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RobertFl 8 years, 9 months ago
    He courts had an out that would have satisfied both sides, Nd that was define a State marriage license as a civil union license, and the state could not deny two consenting adults the right to that contract.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
      Keep in mind that the court cannot invent solutions to a lawsuit. It must either side with The plaintiff or the defendant. I cannot say "screw both of you I am creating this law instead." The plaintiff wanted to be allowed to obtain a marriage license, and the defendant wanted to restrict it. The court could only decide to agree with one of those two options.
      Your solution is a good one, but it must be done through legislation.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by RobertFl 8 years, 9 months ago
        I don't think it required legislation. It is a civil contract. All the protection of marriage would have been provided by a simply Will and power of attorney. Survivor benefits, and tax deductions wouldn't have. That's why I've said, this wasn't about love, this was about money. Two people do not need the state to recognize their affections for one another. In the end, it doesn't impact me, so I don't care. It's just that the courts should have said, marriage means something to one group, which is not the same meaning to the state. The state mis-appropriated the term "marriage" when they should have adopted "civil union"
        Because I can see two senior citizens having a civil union contract, it doesn't have to about love. Just two people that look out for one another. Allowing "gay marriage" instead of civil union precludes those senior citizens from the same benefit
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
          By requiring legislation I mean at this point eliminating the state's role in marriage needs to be done by passing a new law. Or someone needs to sue based on the concept that the state has no right to regulate marriage. SCOTUS could not have gone that route without breaking major rules.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by RobertFl 8 years, 9 months ago
            The ruling was correct. How they got there was wrong.
            The "dignity" right will bite this country in the ass. Lawsuits will now fly anytime some thinks their dignity was violated. That's the conversation we need to have here. What is a dignity right, and what is the scope of it. Maybe better to start a new thread on that
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by RobertFl 8 years, 9 months ago
            I think that's what they said, the state can't regulate it. Until the early 20th century, the state didn't involve itself at all in that institution.
            "Eliminate" the states role - easy, remove the spouse tax deduction, and SS survivor benefits, truly, that's the only reason why govt injected themselves into it, other then collecting the marriage license fees.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
        Actually, it was that very legislation that was at the heart of the suit. The state had already declined to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals, most of them decided by public referendum defining marriage to be exclusively between a man and a woman. The Federal Courts took it upon themselves to override both legislation and public referendums and declare the will of the people void and unConstitutional despite having no authority to do so.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
          SCOTUS' job is to nullify unconstitutional law. It doesn't matter if the vote was 10 million to one in favor at the polls.

          Referring to the sanctity of "the will of the people" is to deny that we live in a republic where the rights of the minority are protected from the tyranny of the majority.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
            Yes, but only within the scope of the explicitly designated powers enumerated in the Constitution. The ninth and tenth amendments specifically designate EVERYTHING else to the States to decide.

            What the Federal Judges did was (1) unConstitutionally create a protected right and (2) designate that right to be under the purview of the Federal Government without any enumerated power to do so. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you were on, there was absolutely no legal authority at the Federal level to get involved.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
      There should also be a different name for interracial marriages AND interfaith marriages. Can you imagine the horror of a god-fearing Pentecostal marrying a Unitarian Universalist? Nobody should have to be forced to recognize that abomination!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ number6 8 years, 9 months ago
    If a person is bi-sexual, can they now marry a man AND a woman?

    This was NEVER about equal legal rights and protections. That will be shown in the next few months when the radical LGBT activists find something else to whine about so they are still important (if they ever were).

    Personally I don't care who they poke or lick or where they do it (in private) and I feel the should have been able to enter into legal "unions", The uproar caused by less than 5% of the population is total BS, especially when there are so many other IMPORTANT issues to be handled.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
      The percentage of the population is irrelevant. The smallest minority on the earth is the individual, and one of the biggest jobs of the government is to protect the minority from the majority.

      But why is it a negative thing if someone wishes to marry two people simultaneously? Can you give me an objective rational argument against it?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ number6 8 years, 9 months ago
        you miss the point John ... the largest minority is the individual and the majority is made up of individuals. Those individuals do NOT give up their rights just because they are part of a majority. They are individuals.
        The complaint is not whether the LGBT population deserves equal rights. The question is do they need "special rights" and was this actually about something other than what was stated by the LGBT sommunity.
        I really don't have the time to play your game about marrying two people at once. That was NEVER my main point.
        (Can you give me reason someone cant marry their dog etc?)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
          If you consider asking for a rational argument a "game" then perhaps I should take my discussion to someone else. No straight individual is harmed by this decision. A marriage between a man and a woman existing before this decision will be exactly the same as it always was afterwards. What it appears you are arguing for is the right of the majority to restrict a particular institution to those whom they deem worthy. Well this would be fine and dandy if it were a members only club, for example, Well this would be fine and dandy if it were a members only club, for example, it is not okay for it to be a government institution that is given special rights and tax privileges at the expense of others who are not allowed to participate.

          If, for example, the majority wished to only allow marriage between two individuals of the same religion, as the Christian Bible commands ("Do not be unequally yoked"), would that be acceptable? No. The whims of the majority are not a justification for injustice. That is the true tyranny, not the desire of same-sex couples to remove it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
            It is neither injustice nor tyranny to recognize the differences in the two circumstances and treat them differently as a result. The logical flaw in the entire argument is that the circumstances are equivalent and therefore fall under the Equal Treatment clause at all.

            Should government be involved in marriage? No. But it is a fallacy of reasoning to try to equate two things that are inherently different. To say that a heterosexual union is the same as a homosexual union is to argue that A = B.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
              Can you please tell me what is so different, then? And while you're at, how and why they ought To be treated differently?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
                If you can't tell the difference between a man and a woman, I'm sorry, but I really can't help you.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
                  You are being ludicrous. To suggest that I don't know the difference between men and women is somewhere between a straw man argument and a false dichotomy. Such fallacious reasoning, especially when done to intentionally and maliciously has no place in a rational forum. It is intentionally false and misleading. I will, however, answer your charge.

                  While there are very obvious differences between men and women both physically and psychologically, what I am failing to see is why you feel those differences necessarily mean that a union between those of the same sex and those of different sexes will be so different from each other that they require completely separate words to define them.

                  Is not a chair made of wood, steel, or plastic still called a chair? Until you can provide actual reasons for the distinction, other than the gender of those involved, then you have provided no real reason. For example, while men's and women's soccer are kept separate because of the inherent physical differences between the sexes, the sports are still called "soccer." A new term is only used when the sports are so different as to require important distinctions in order to understand the different rules. Baseball vs softball is a good example of this. Distinctions in the size of the ball, method of pitching, distance between the bases, etc. are all indicated by the change in name. However, even though baseball has traditionally been A mail sport and softball the female equivalent, women play baseball and men play softball. This does not change the name of the sport.

                  So again I repeat, unless you can call provide me with examples of why a same-sex union call and an opposite-sex union are so caustically different that call they are entirely different concepts, because as we all know words represent concepts, then your charge is baseless. I am suggesting that the two are similar enough to be able to be referred to by the same term.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
                    It is neither a false dichotomy nor fallacious reasoning. If you want to somehow claim that a union between two same-sexed individuals is the same as a union between two opposite-sexed individuals, you deny the very fact of reality itself. You can not simply abstract male or female to "person". That is the whole point of this case. They are not synonymous in any reality.

                    You illustrate this beautifully with your own analogy to soccer. Why are mens' and womens' soccer treated as two different sports? Because they recognize the inherent differences of the sexes of those participating and the inherent capabilities. They play by the same rules, yes, but neither denies that they separated the two games for a very simple reason - gender.

                    If you want to deny that men and women are different - different in anatomy, different in temperament and inclination, different in DNA - then I truly can not help you. You refuse to admit the obvious reality of the matter. I do not have to prove that men and women are different. I do not have to prove that a union between a man and a woman is different than a "union" between two men or two women. It is as plain and obvious as it can be. I categorically deny your "suggestion" that A = B as having any basis in reality.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
                      Your argument is "it's self-evident."

                      I am not saying they are equivalent or even identical. But that they are similar enough to warrant the same conceptual identity. No two objects or people are exactly identical. But our minds are wired to find similarities and group like things into concepts.
                      Should an old couple's marriage and a young couple's marriage be given different names because there are differences between old people and young people? What about a second marriage? Or a second marriage with a divorcee versus a widow? Should arranged marriages have a different term from a marriage for love? Or marriages where the couple produces children versus those who do not? Should it still be allowed to be called a marriage after a woman goes through menopause? What if the couple no longer has sex? Is a Vegas eloping a marriage? Is a marriage where the husband or wife is away deployed still a marriage?

                      Your arguments are akin to those resisting the trend of removing gender specific terminology from professions. Stewards and stewardesses are now both flight attendants. Actresses are now actors. Waiters and waitresses are now servers. This is just a continuation of the trend of society no longer caring about the differences in the sexes and abandoning traditional gender roles as the irrelevant and arbitrary artificial constructs they are. There is no actual reason to refuse to call a same-sex Union anything different from an opposite-sex Union unless you have a problem with the Union itself or if you have a reason for willfully separating the two.

                      My guess is that you simply do not believe two men or two women really can unite. Hence your conspicuous use of quotes.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
                        "I am not saying they are equivalent or even identical."

                        Umm, that is the entire argument made by this Supreme Court decision when they cited the 14th Amendment, because once that distinction is acknowledged, all claims of disparate treatment disappear. The entire body of your argument is similarly based on trying to make the two equivalent so as to confer the status of the one upon the other. This statement is clearly an avoidance.

                        You seek to conveniently ignore that the basic and fundamental definition of marriage is not about age or love, but about gender - about the complimentary pairing of the sexes in order to form families. All else is a distraction.

                        "This is just a continuation of the trend of society no longer caring about the differences in the sexes..."

                        +1 for finally recognizing truth! Society's desire to spurn reality, however, does not mean that reality has changed!

                        "...and abandoning traditional gender roles as the irrelevant and arbitrary artificial constructs they are."

                        3 in 4 black men are born and raised without a father in the home. Blacks are also more highly represented in the populations of our prisons because growing up without a father is the single most defining factor in predicting future incarceration. See Thomas Sowell's work on this for more. We have also seen the explosion of STD's as the "free love" movement of the '60's has taken off. See the CDC for incidence rates. Society similarly rejects the basic principles of economics, and we find ourselves in debt as a nation with many enslaved by the Federal Government - all because they abandoned _traditional_ economics in favor of the Keynesian fad! I can go on and on, citing education of children, propensity for being on welfare, juvenile delinquency, etc. - all because of society's abandonment of traditional values. An objective viewpoint would be to compare what works and what doesn't - not to judge them based on age with a bias toward the fad of youth.

                        "There is no actual reason to refuse to call a same-sex Union anything different from an opposite-sex Union unless you have a problem with the Union itself or if you have a reason for willfully separating the two."

                        Actually, it is the converse which is true. One identifies A as being A - not merely similar to A. A cube is not a sphere though they are both shapes. A man is not a woman though they are both human beings. One may walk into a carnival's hall of mirrors to see all manner of distortions of reality. But has the thing changed? No.


                        Can homosexuality and heterosexuality receive similar treatment under the law? Easily. All that had to have been done was to use some other term such as "civil union" to describe a homosexual pairing. It would have recognized the real differences in the two and allowed for accommodations for both. But that wasn't ever what this debate was about. It was about transferring the moral legitimacy associated with the term marriage to cover homosexuality.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
                          And there is the crux of your argument. You are upset about homosexuality being given "moral ligitimacy." Keep in mind that legality does not equal condoning an act.
                          But I will not debate the morality of homosexuality on this thread. It's a dead-end.

                          I will finish with two points:
                          You make many claims that are unsubstantiated: "blacks are more highly represented in our prisons because..." Etc. correlation does not prove causation. I could claim that 90% of people who die in car accidents have eaten carrots within 30 days of the accident. But that correlation does not mean there is a link between carrots and auto accidents. Had you considered that maybe black fathers are out of the home because they are in jail, not in jail because they are out of the home? Abandoning traditional gender roles also does not mean abandoning you child. It means maybe the dad stays home while mom works, or that the women doesn't need to be subservient to her husband, etc. You can eschew tradition in gender while still being responsible for your offspring. That was a false dichotomy.
                          I place the war on drugs as a MUCH higher determining factor in black incarceration rates than bein raised in a single-parent household. Culturally, black Americans do not have the same negative attitude towards drugs as white Americans. This means more will be arrested if the drugs are prohibited. I am certainly not placing all the blame on the war on drugs, but simply pointing out that your analysis leaves much to be desired and proves nothing.

                          Finally, no two things are identical. Should we have a different word for every iteration of every single item in the world? No two grains of sand are the same composition, no two apples are the same color or exactly the same flavor. No two women are exactly alike in personality, body shape, DNA, etc. we draw connections and find similarities between things to create concepts. While reality defines things like chemical composition of sand, and the size of a woman's dress, it does not define our concepts. The limits of a concept are highly flexible and are not immutable. We constantly experience new precepts and incorporate them into our existing concepts, or if they do not fit then we build new ones.

                          I am positing that your concept of a marriage being gender specific is not based in reality, as if it were a law of nature, but arbitrary and based purely in tradition. You state that the purpose of marriage is to create a family. Why? Why is a union that is purely for love and companionship that does not produce children not a marriage?

                          In the end, all I have really heard from you is that this is the way it's always been done, and that is how it should be done. Then you blame societal ills on changes in the way things are down with not causal proof, only conjecture through correlation.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
                      They are not separated for gender, per se, but for the physical nature of the sport and the general impossibility of women to compete with men in the sport. It is not because boys and girls should be separated while playing sports for its own sake.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
                        "and the general impossibility of women to compete with men in the sport. It is not because boys and girls should be separated while playing sports for its own sake."

                        You can't even see the contradiction in these two sentences can you? You simultaneously recognize the inherent differences and then immediately attempt to dismiss that the difference exists! It is simple contradictions like this that completely undermine any argument you seek to make on the matter. Reality is not subject to equivocation.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
                          And yet you still provide no explanation. Just like the wannabe philosophers in Atlas Shrugged you simply claim your argument is self-evident.

                          Yes, men and women are different. So why does that mean unions of different gender compositions must be considered separate concepts? I go back to the chair example. Is not a chair made of wood, paper, plastic, metal, or ice still a chair? As long as it conforms to certain basic things like holding human weight, having legs and a back, meant for sitting upon, etc?

                          Tell me why a marriage MUST be a union between a man and a woman, rather than just a union between two people. Tell me what is so drastically different between them that requires completely separate consideration, like the difference between a coupe and a tractor trailer.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
              (But it is a fallacy of reasoning to try to equate two things that are inherently different. To say that a heterosexual union is the same as a homosexual union is to argue that A = B.)

              Really, why? If we look at the root of what a marriage is we can see that it's a union recognized by gov't that codified rights of inheritance, allows one party to make decisions for both, allows for medical decisions when one party is incapacitated, etc. The ruling only affects secular (gov't) institutions.

              Based on that, the union described is a marriage. I don't believe gender is any more relevant to the issue than race or religious affiliation.

              From the standpoint of most religions, you're right, gender is a fundamental issue.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
                Only if your view is that marriage is a creation of government. Most societies view marriage as the very fundamental form of government over a family.

                Here's what happens when you take the step of defining marriage to be government-defined:
                there is no longer any such thing as parental rights. Government becomes the owner of all children, and by extension everyone. If you want to go down that path, you are an advocate of big government tyranny.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by slfisher 8 years, 9 months ago
          Because dogs aren't human and can't enter into contracts.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ number6 8 years, 9 months ago
            I was being smart a$$ in response ... Mentally incapacitated, minors and people who are intoxicated normally can't enter into binding contracts either ..... interesting that in many states you can be married even though legally you cannot enter into a binding contract.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
      (can they now marry a man AND a woman?) Only if multiple marriages become legal. I believe there should be no limitation against two or more consenting adults getting married. That is still common in some countries.

      I'm a gay man and I agree that this issue is much less important than many. I supported it but not to the point of donating money or marching in the streets.

      (This was NEVER about equal legal rights and protections.) Of course it was! What do YOU claim it was about?

      (That will be shown in the next few months when the radical LGBT activists find something else to whine about) OMG, you're so right! Just like after the civil rights act passed those pesky blacks kept finding trivial shit to complain about for DECADES! Holy Zeus, they're still at it today! I so wish they'd sit down and shut up - in the back, of course.

      (Personally I don't care who they poke or lick or where they do it (in private)) Liar, liar, pants on fire! Wording it like that proves that you DO care. And as far as private goes, should I be restricted from holding my boyfriend's hand, or hugging, or kissing him in public? Please make up a list of things that straight couples can do in public that gay couples can't. I'll make sure the radical activists add it to our gay agenda. [Oh, and please tell us the juicy details; do you mostly poke or lick your wife? Does she swallow?] I hope 90% of you are ROFL right now...

      (The uproar caused by less than 5% of the population is total BS) I KNOW! This republic that the founding fathers created is such a pain in the ass! The fact that it was specifically formed to protect the rights of the minority proves that we should really have a democracy. That way the rest of us could just oppress and abuse any less powerful group that annoyed us.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ number6 8 years, 9 months ago
        So who protects the rights of the individual who happens to disagree? remember " The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

        Most people (myself included) NEVER had a problem with equal legal protection and civil unions (like Germany and Switzerland). That was never an option because this was about sticking this to the radical religious people by radical LGBT extremists.

        And your issue of blacks is totally minimizing the accomplishments of civil rights movement (that I participated in). Today its about woe is me and black entitlement. As even Lenin said "If you dont work, You dont eat"

        Actually I don't care, You went a little extreme there. PDA is fine to a point . I count among my friends many very well know gay people. (and don't pull your some of my best friends are gay BS)I I don't think its correct for you to blow you BF or my wife to blow me in public. If that offends you GFY.

        I also don't think its any of your business what my wife, BF or GF do and most civilized people don't go around bragging about their private sex habits (JMO) And I certainly don't care to hear what your sex life is.

        Abuse lol .. you mean like being blamed for the ills of the world, or paying taxes so those who can work but wont can enjoy their lives.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
          Pleas realize that the level to which you, or any other number of people, are "fine with" some concept is entirely irrelevant to a discussion of Liberty. Either something is a just or it is unjust. Either libertarian (the adjective, not the party) or tyrannical.
          Marriage licenses should not be up for a public vote. It's not a "will of the people" thing. It's about right and wrong, and on this page I know we all know that reason is our only absolute. If your reason and your religion (or traditions) are in conflict, you had better reconsider one of them.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
          (So who protects the rights of the individual who happens to disagree?)

          If the gov't is doing its job then it will protect the individual. But I have to ask, how have your rights been violated by this ruling?

          (this was about sticking this to the radical religious people by radical LGBT extremists.) No, that was just icing on the cake. I also notice that you endorse branding all gays and lesbians who supported same sex marriage as radical extremists. You'll have to take my word for it but I'm only extreme in being a hardcore libertarian and an enthusiastic Objectivist.

          (And your issue of blacks is totally minimizing the accomplishments of civil rights movement) Balderdash. The analogy was perfectly appropriate, as was my sarcasm.

          I'm so glad you have gay friends. I agree that getting a BJ in public is unacceptable and I'm not aware of the radical gay agenda advocating for it. I went overboard in asking about your poking and licking because you earned it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
            On definitions the best thing is get a pre PC dictionary and stick to it regardless.

            Who protects your rights as an individual. Since the Court left it up to the states other than invoking Article Fours full faith and credit clause and rights granted are not involved so far as I can find out.

            1. Find a state where the right wasn't granted to the State and they have not made such a ruling.

            2. Move there.

            3. Barring the addition of a new state fifty choices is all we have available.

            4. Being offended by something is not the same as having a right to something. I am offended by the PC crowd. They do not have the right to take gender specific word and replace it with one , person for example that is even more sexist. but then Forrest Gump Rule. Stupid is as Stupid does.

            Just last week I was told by a shift manager in a local cafe not to wake him up he was sleeping
            (about 11AM) I explained in Spanish and politely it was his job to keep me happy not the other way around. Then departed and haven''t been back repairing to one of the other 49 Choices. I would be offended if someone demanded I move to LA or NYC or say you have to understand that.... No I don't have to understand. Nor do I ''need'' to . If however whoever wrote that trash wishes to pay me to recite the lines... make an offer. Who knows? Overaged I would make a much more believable Jack Reacher than whats his face who only acts like someone trying to be an actor.

            Now if the comment had been whatever whatever left wing fascist I''d help with the branding irons and bring the burdizos.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ number6 8 years, 9 months ago
            MY rights are not affected by this ... but to offend the rights of the religious people who believe marriage is only M-F (even if there stance is bigoted) is not protecting THEIR rights. The rights of the individual (even if we disagree with their opinion) is most important.

            Nope just as I don't brand all blacks BGI members ...there is a group of LGBT extremists whose goal was not ever to get legal parity for gay unions. It was only to make sure the term marriage would be used.

            The analogy was way off base. LGBT people already had equal rights and equal protection (even as a protected class ... http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotect...). This was about highjacking the term "marriage" .......
            As is shown by YOUR statement "No, that was just icing on the cake. "
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 9 months ago
              How does one "offend a right"?? I wasn't aware that rights were conscious.

              Regarding equal protection, it's my understanding that unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns, participate in each other's social security benefits (despite paying the same amount into the system as married couples), can be compelled to testify against each other in court, are not recognized as "family members" by many states if one of them becomes incapacitated and needs a guardian. The list goes on.

              If the government were to cease deciding who is entitled to marry whom, and begin treating all individuals equally before the law, the whole issue would go away.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ number6 8 years, 9 months ago
                again I personally have no problems about equal protection and treatment under the law .... violate the rights if you prefer instead of offending someone rightS...
                this was a radical elements attempt to stick it to the religious radicals. (and not all LGBT are radicals)

                I agree with your last point .... this issue will expand because there has to be some "grievance" for activists to whine about and say "see us"
                http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/sco...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 9 months ago
                  How does the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision violate anyone’s rights? According to Objectivist ethics, rights can only be violated by initiating force. Please show how this decision has deprived any members of the religious right of their property, forced any members of the religious right to change their beliefs, or forced them to behave in any way contrary to those beliefs. And I’m not talking about “anti-discrimination” laws in general, I’m talking about this specific Supreme Court decision making gay marriage legal.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
                    Hello CBJ,
                    I think it is reasonable to assume that more litigation will be encouraged by this decision. Yes, they will undoubtedly be considered discrimination cases, but they are also cases that involve force being applied to people contrary to their rights of free association and practicing their religious beliefs. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi...

                    You may be interested in my above addendum and commenting further.
                    Respectfully,
                    O.A.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ number6 8 years, 9 months ago
                    currently this has not happened because of the Supreme court decision ...this is NOT over yet.

                    Next step being forced to legally not discriminate against LGBT in housing etc. just as has happened in other anti-discrimination issues (I personally believe it is wrong to discriminate against anyone.)

                    You are asking questions best answered by anti- LGBT people. I am NOT one of those. I am just stating they have the right to their beliefs as well.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 9 months ago
                      No, I am asking questions regarding the proper application of the Objectivist ethics. This is a proper forum for such questions . . . and answers.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ number6 8 years, 9 months ago
                        again ts very difficult to put myself in the mind set of the many people who are upset by this .... THEY would have to continue this debate and provide their opinions (as opposed to answers).

                        Try to debate the issue with yourself and try to present the other sides arguments.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
              (LGBT people already had equal rights and equal protection)

              No, we didn't. Many states didn't allow same sex unions by any name, and in those that did it was not always equal to marriage.

              (This was about highjacking the term "marriage" .......
              As is shown by YOUR statement "No, that was just icing on the cake. ")

              First of all, it was my own private delight that radical Christian activists were pissed off by the ruling. I'm so tired of them forcing their beliefs on me...

              Second, this is the first time you mentioned that our super-secret goal wasn't to be allowed to be married but rather to insist that it be called "marriage" instead of some other word that meant the same thing. (Sensible people will recognize the absurdity of that right away.) You're only half right, which for you is an improvement. It wasn't secret at all that it should be called marriage - since that's what it is.

              (but to offend the rights of the religious people who believe marriage is only M-F (even if there stance is bigoted) is not protecting THEIR rights.)

              Here you go again complaining about an imaginary issue. Religious people can believe whatever they want, now as before. There has been absolutely NO infringement on their rights. What right do they imagine they have that is now being violated? Is it their right to ensure that English never evolves? There's no such right. Is it their right to "believe marriage is only M-F?" They are still free to believe that. They're free to believe in unicorns if they want to. As had been said over and over, this ruling ONLY AFFECTS GOVERNMENT! Individuals are free to follow their conscience and believe as they please. And if they, as private individuals, refuse to use the word marriage for same sex unions, who cares? They can call it an avocado if they want to.

              Stop imagining that any person's rights were violated because it's NOT TRUE!

              You can reply if you want but this discussion has played out as far as I'm concerned. If you want to explain clearly and precisely what right has been infringed and explain why, I'll read it. But if you're going to rehash unsupported claims that I have already addressed, clearly and rationally, then I won't waste my time.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
                Hello Timelord,
                I have no problem with the majority of what you have written and appreciate your contributions generally. On one point though, I think you are underestimating the implications, and the intentions and efforts of some that have already interfered with the rights of some to adhere to their religious beliefs in the private sector. There have been private business owners that have been forced out of business ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi... ) or threatened with discrimination suits for not wanting to provide services for gay weddings because they felt it was a violation of their religion. It is only natural considering history that this is not the end of such litigation. So to date it has not only affected government.

                Additionally you may be interested in commenting on my addendum above. Please feel free.
                I wish only to understand all arguments and perspectives.
                Respectfully,
                O.A.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ number6 8 years, 9 months ago
                So the issue should have been to grant equal legal rights (as in Germany and Switzerland) but there was no demands it be called marriage? ... never said it was super secret, it was VERY obvious ..... lol ..

                got a better idea .... GFYAS ....
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ minniepuck 8 years, 9 months ago
    Webster's dictionary says that the definition of the word literally could also mean virtually. They're all in cahoots. What's the point of language anymore?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
      Language is very plastic, not rigid. Words change their meaning as people use them differently. And to adopt a new meaning of a term is not a bastardization of language. To insist that a language never change is not only to deny history and therefore reality, but the true bastardization of language.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ minniepuck 8 years, 9 months ago
        The easiest illustration of the importance of fixed definitions is the law (I am specifically addressing law because it is the topic of this post). Without fixed, defined language, no contracts can be created because no one would know how they would be "interpreted" down the line.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
          While this may be true, few contracts will last the requisite time to see essential language within change to the extent that it would harm the understanding of the contract.
          This change in language would not harm any contract, for example. I cannot fathom a contract that would now be useless or could be misinterpreted because marriage, by law, can now be two men instead of previously it could only be a man and a woman.
          Changing language is part of life. That is why we do not have the same dictionary year after year. New words come into existence... Old ones develop new meanings (take gay, fag, or dike for example [like how I kept with the theme?]), and general understanding of concepts changes over time. Marriage used to be a very religious matter, it also was once used primarily to exchange dowries, or seal treaties. Today's understanding is a very personal one, about the desires of two individuals to be together, the state has created benefits, and private institutions have developed certain assumptions and manners of behavior that make marriage very much a part of our lives. Who is to say this is the "best" or optimal way to look at marriage? A change is only bad if the result is worse than what existed previously. But you cannot consider and argument against a change rational if your only argument is that it's different from what existed before.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ minniepuck 8 years, 9 months ago
            My original annoyance was with Webster's definition of the word "literally". My frustration was, perhaps, similar to that of others talking about the definition of marriage although that is a much larger issue. I was surprised when this turned into a talk about the bastardization of language and people denying reality and history. Outside of a strict, legal environment, I am willing to accept more fluidity because we are in an informal setting. If someone says, "I literally died of laughter," I would know they did not die and their definition of "literally" was "figuratively". No big deal. Before 2013, when the definition of "literal" was changed to also include its antonym, I could write a contract that said, "I literally want a cow on my doorstep" and because there was one definition of literal, we would all understand what needed to be done. However, the word literal became so confused that now its very antonym can also be its definition. Now, in that same contract, it would be disputed if someone dropped off steaks on my doorstep.

            In my household, we speak three languages at any given point. My profession has me working with multiple languages and all their beautiful intricacies every single day. I understand the need to change and adapt. I also understand the need to choose words carefully to be understood--especially in law. Being confused when there is potential to be sued just freaking sucks, John. Also, yes, I do like how you kept with the theme. I showed it to my gay (happy and bisexual) sister, and she also appreciates your wit. Thank you for your responses.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
              Is bet that in the early days of claims like "I literally died of laughter," the speaker was using hyperbole rather than getting the word wrong.

              Today it would depend on the speaker. If I were to "misuse" the word literally it would be intentional, for exaggeration. For some others, maybe not so much.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
            The problem will be the ambiguity and the needless embarrassment naturally occurring when people speak of marriage and they or the listeners assume a traditional interpretation. Further clarification and discourse will be needed when a new word would have been superior and succinct. Regardless of the plasticity of some words and the changing definitions it is not a good thing relative to understanding one another. One does not call an apple an orange and expect to be clear. I object generally to the breakdown and increasing ambiguity of our language in all of its forms. How will we communicate with specificity in a world where our language is continually being unnecessarily complicated?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
              People will adapt. The exact same problem already exists, socially, when an event of some kind invites people and their spouse (or sig. other or even guest) and someone shows up with a guest of the same gender. Imagine the whirlwind of confusion with everyone wondering if this is a sexual or a platonic situation!

              It gets resolved and these days it doesn't involve much embarrassment.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
              Language has never, and will never, be easy or uncomplicated. Think of how much our language is change since the time of our founders. That is only 200 years ago. Change in enough itself is not a negative thing. Without change, we could not adapt to new words. The only people for whom a changing language would pose a problem would be those who do not interact with others. Changes in language are very gradual for a reason, because generally they are organic and natural.
              Speaking of, the term "organic" has changed drastically over the past 10 to 20 years. We're before it was used to describe the design of furniture or decor as having smooth curves, or purely in chemistry as a chemical containing carbon, it now has a different meaning. There is very little confusion when one describes a particular variety of Greek yogurt as "organic" as to which one of the three definitions the speaker is referring.
              Perhaps this is how many homonyms were developed. We do not lament that Fluke can mean:
              A fish, and a flatworm.
              The end parts of an anchor.
              The fins on a whale's tail.
              A stroke of luck.
              And through the use of context people rarely think you're referring to a flatworm when you really meant a stroke of luck.
              So why do we lament that marriage now means a union of two people, rather than simply of man and a woman? Over time words gradually become more inclusive of their meanings, as well, and this is a natural process. words that may have originally been very specific eventually refer to all entities within that group or category. "Band-Aid" now means bandage. "Kleenex" now means tissue. I do not hear the makers of these brand-name products complaining about such a development. While this is not exactly the same, I think you understand my point that language has never been static, and wishing it to be so not only will not make it so, but is a rejection of reality. Therefore, opposing this decision upon that sole basis is also a rejection of reality.
              I have found in general that people are better at adapting to a changing language and you may think.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
                I understand, but here the context of a conversation will not be so easy to easily dictate necessary specificity... Oh well. I am confident that I will adapt and learn to choose my words carefully, but for others it may not be so easy. Time will tell.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by slfisher 8 years, 9 months ago
              I'm trying to imagine the sort of situation you're talking about, where embarrassment will occur because of the use of the term "marriage." Can you help me out?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
                Sure. Suppose Bill tells me he just got married and I do not know Bill well. I then ask him what his wife's name is and if they plan to have children? Then Bill tells me he is "married" to Chuck. I will want to crawl under a rock, though I have no problem with their relationship. However if he told me he was ****** and that word was more descriptive, I would be clear and not say something ignorant. The possibilities are unlimited...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
                  Perhaps the solution is not to insist same sex couples use a different word which would necessarily lack all of the intended positive and universally understood connotations that "marriage" already portrays very well ... But instead to change our way of speaking tI employ I existing vocabulary that does not imply gender. Well the term "found" may sound sterile, it is only because it is not in common usage. It is usually only employed in official or legal contexts. That connotation can easily be lost in over time.

                  Also, coming from someone within the community, I really don't think you have to feel embarrassed or ignorant about making such an assumption. If you and I were to have had that exact conversation, I would look at it as an opportunity to get to know each other better, rather than If you and I were to have had that exact conversation, I would look at it as an opportunity to get to know each other better, rather than A reason to be upset or offended. Well not everyone will react this way, perhaps changing someone's reaction to such a small misunderstanding is a good way to judge their character.
                  I would also be cognizant of such possible misunderstanding, and I would likely be into the conversation with "my husband and I just finished our honeymoon in Maui." I would also be cognizant of such possible misunderstanding, and I would likely be into the conversation with "my husband and I just finished our honeymoon in Maui." That would not only clear up any questions about the gender of my beloved, but also subtly advise you on my preferred spousal pronoun.

                  Perhaps, organically a new term will arrive at Salz all of our problems. But is it really less activist of a court to create new words for all of us to use?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
                    Hello again, JohnConnor352,
                    I am pleased to find you are reasonable and measured. You are not alone in this regard. I know from personal experience. However, as is often the case, there are a few that are not as forgiving and take offense when none is intended. We must always keep in mind that the loudest militant voices are not the rule, though the media is fond of giving them undeserved prominence.
                    I have enjoyed your contributions and the exchange. You may be interested in my addendum above.
                    Respectfully,
                    O.A.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by slfisher 8 years, 9 months ago
                    We also need to remember that in more than 30 states, people can be fired or evicted due to their perceived orientation, and some people may want to elide their orientation anyway.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
            That's right, and furthermore when statutes are written the important terms are specifically defined so without regard to how the language is evolving one can refer to the definition that accompanies the statute.

            That wouldn't be true of contracts, I suppose, because they don't include definitions of most of their terms (except for usual "I/we will refer to A, etc"). However, as when statutes fail to define a term (which happens often enough) we can refer to Black's Law Dictionary which leaves pretty much no stone unturned. And even if a contract doesn't define a term the statutory or case law that applies to the contract probably does, so you can refer to that.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
        True but it is not my job to learn 300 million definitions of a word (number of people in the US give or take) nor even one and a half million Approximate number of worlds in the English Language). It is my job to learn the word, how it is used, and the few definitions listed such as list. Then when someone uses that word I act accordingly. I don't have the time to waste explaining decimate means kill one tenth and one stands on a podium and behind a lectern or the difference between a clip and a magazine. Spanish you get to learn more definitions but they only have something over 300,000. So yes words change - I'll leave it to the next generation although having only two words is not bad - Huuh?l uhhh like wow Duuh Really? Make that six.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lnxjenn 8 years, 9 months ago
    Love was not what this case and argument was about. This was an attack on First amendment Religious freedoms and the Government dictating and controlling religion. I am with SaltyDog on this one... what's next? Marry your sister/brother/father/mother.. your dog, your truck, your cat?

    I have never been against gay marriage or polygamy... at least in the sense of your relationships. It's the fact that the government wants to control this. I was always taught that Marriage was an institution of the church (at least in Catholic Church). And from what i've learned, Churches used to control marriage certificates; up until inter racial marriage was an issue, then the "State" took over!

    Say good bye to your Religions and churches. The Pope is already killing the Catholic Church...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by slfisher 8 years, 9 months ago
      I thought Objectivism was incompatible with religion and church anyway. Ayn Rand certainly spoke against it enough.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
        Ayn Rand didn't like religion because she saw only two examples of religion and this jaded her. One was the socialist government. The other was the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. Both of these were to her tyrannies of one sort or the other. So she chose instead to just write off the concept of God altogether.

        It is pretty easy to take the atheistic view of things and live for one's self if one believes that this life is all there is. It does take a leap of faith to believe that death is not the end and that this life is merely a gateway to something else. The question of the existence of God is not so much about God but about whether or not the choices we make here have effects after the grave. That is the true origin of all religion - and I include atheism under that heading. Those who believe in God believe that this life does not end consciousness and that there will be some kind of afterlife (or reincarnation) where the opportunities there are directly determined by our actions in the here and now. Most atheists are more accurately nihilists - those who advocate that consciousness is temporary.

        At its heart, however, Objectivism purports to be seeking truth - an understanding of reality. And that choice to believe or not to believe in the termination of existence at death has a profound effect on every other tenet of philosophy - not excepting Objectivism. Why they chose the atheistic persuasion rather than an agnostic persuasion remains a mystery to me.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
          Perhaps your confusion over why Rand concluded reality cannot support the existence of a supernatural entity is because you haven't actually read her position on it. Try that. She is very clear.

          In short, if I may be so bold, it's that anything supernatural must mean that it exists outside of existential reality, by definition, or we could observe and measure it. If it exists outside of reality, it is not real. The end.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
            If you want to point me to the article you are referring to in which she accepts even the possibility of God, it would be a first-time read for me. In the interviews I have watched, she was most emphatic in denying all religions as anti-logical.

            Your definition of supernatural leaves much to be desired because it is a straw man. You choose to define supernatural to be anything outside of reality when that is not the general use of the word, which is in fact something not readily explained by the five senses. Your immediate leap in the discussion is to attempt to classify what is unknown to you as unknowable instead of attempting to postulate what could be and search for evidence of its existence. That's why I believe agnosticism would have been a more scientific route to choose. It leaves open the possibility of discovery instead of attempting to close off an important debate that is going to happen whether one thinks the matter is solved anyway.

            With all that science has uncovered including the postulation of alternate universes, alternate dimensions, and quantum physics, we still have a long way to go. We still can not interact with or study dark matter, though we are pretty sure it exists. If you want to decide that the case for God is closed in spite of all the things we still do not understand, that is certainly your decision. I am an advocate of open discussion, however.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
              You must have misunderstood what JohnConnor wrote. To my knowledge Any Rand never accepted the possibility of the existence of god, and her philosophy describes exactly why, as paraphrased by JohnConnor. No disrespect, but in this case it wasn't a good representation of her reasoning - which is entirely understandable because she wrote paragraphs on the subject and those paragraphs built upon other concepts that were introduced earlier.

              Many of us here have read her novels and at least some of her philosophical writing. We know and understand the most basic underpinnings of the philosophy and how it was extended, rationally and logically, to address more complicated concepts. If you need or want a more thorough explanation then please ask. I do not claim to be an expert and when I'm having a serious conversation I always claim to be an Objectivist according to my current understanding of the philosophy. There's much more reading for me to do and I didn't even understand everything I've read so far.

              Your accusation that "Your immediate leap in the discussion is to attempt to classify what is unknown to you as unknowable" is a vicious and blatant untruth. Reread what he wrote.

              Everything you wrote following that was accurate but was related to science, not philosophy. Scientists, which I consider myself one of, continually seek to prove theories wrong. It's the only way to increase the level of confidence that a theory is right. In fact, it is a requirement for something to be called a theory that there could be a method to prove that it's wrong. We may not know the method, but we must know that one is possible. (I'm not sure I'm happy with the clarity of that I just wrote but it's my best effort right now.)

              In science, and in logic, proving a negative is impossible. But as we study an issue using the scientific method we will either discover the thing we thought didn't exist (and be very happy to have increased our knowledge) or we will increase our confidence level that the "negative" is correct.

              When Ayn Rand discusses why god can't exist she carefully defines her terms and logically explains why a supernatural creator of the universe is impossible. (The word supernatural figures into in, as I recall.)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
              http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/atheis...

              Her argument is not against religion, as you suggest, but against the existence of something outside of existence. Read it. You don't have to agree, but at least understand her reasoning and position a little better.

              And specifically on the concept of the judeo Christian God, we must either accept that His omnipotence is either a contradiction or it means we cannot use reason as our absolute. If He can do anything, then he can defy the laws of nature and of reason... He can make a contradiction actually exist. If he cannot do such a thing, then he is not actually omnipotent. He is bound by the same rules and laws as the universe and thus a part of it. He would not be supernatural... But natural. Just something to chew on.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
                I would just break in to mention that in the Nicean Creed which both the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox hold as authoritative, this nonsense that God is unknowable, infinite, etc. is asserted. That is why I mentioned those two sects previously. I completely agree with Rand and Piekoff in stating that the assertions in this document fall contrary to logic and are therefore false. All this does, however, is tell us that this specific notion of God is false. The trap of false dichotomy Piekoff and Rand fall into is in assuming that this document is actually authoritative and that no other option exists. Having denied the veracity of the first, they conclude the second. I assert instead that the Nicean Creed is _not_ an accurate description of God. I would offer an alternative which is both logical and plausible if you are interested, but I would take that question to a private thread.

                "He is bound by the same rules and laws as the universe and thus a part of it. He would not be supernatural... But natural."

                Precisely, and I completely agree.

                "And specifically on the concept of the judeo Christian God, we must either accept that His omnipotence is either a contradiction or it means we cannot use reason as our absolute."

                The first is false because human beings contain only limited reasoning capabilities. We do not have the capabilities to mentally manipulate all of the variables involved in charting ocean currents or weather patterns, but to deny that something else _could_ have that capacity or capability which we do not? It is nothing short of hubris to think that man is the be-all and end-all of capability, don't you think? Our science fiction is full of uber-powerful entities: from Star Trek: the Next Generation's Q to a whole host of others, all postulate forces beyond human comprehension and yet not an eyelash is batted. It seems arrogant to me that simply pulling one of these entities into the realm of "religion" automatically ignites a host of immediate denials!

                I think you hit upon something crucial in your second point. Neither intuition nor inspiration are deduction-based. Both spawn from pure creativity from which the source is unknown. If one accepts only deductive reasoning, one cuts themselves off from these other entirely real methods of inquiry. If we postulate that God holds characteristics far beyond that of a normal human being, should we also not recognize that it may take more than our human logic to comprehend it: that perhaps our own limitations in deduction are our greatest stumbling block to a more thorough investigation of the matter?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 9 months ago
      This alarmism about marrying dogs, trucks and cats is getting tiresome. Dogs, trucks and cats cannot enter into valid contracts. Marriage is a form of contract. Is that so hard to understand? As to family members and multiple partners the laws prohibiting such unions were implemented as a result of purported medical concerns, societal taboos and religious prohibitions. Whether those will change remains to be seen. Some such prohibitions, like forbidding miscegenation, have already fallen and others have not. As to plural marriage, the mainstream Mormon church forbids it and will probably oppose any move in that direction. What the courts will do is a tossup. But none of this is a valid excuse for handwringing over the allowance of gay marriage. There is simply no reason for the state to forbid two people from entering into a marriage contract or any other kind of contract assuming competency and adulthood. Oh, and because it seems necessary on this forum to add this comment: This doesn't affect me at all.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
      (This was an attack on First amendment Religious freedoms and the Government dictating and controlling religion.)

      Please describe for us exactly how this ruling affects any church or religion. It only applies to government, specifically state government.

      As for the Catholic church, they've been killing themselves for years. (I was raised one, until I was old enough to tell my mom I'd been an atheist since I was 12 and I would never attend another mass as long as I lived.)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 9 months ago
    ObjectiveAnalyst, re Addendum:

    The “turmoil” generated by this ruling is not necessarily a bad thing, if it encourages people to think about basic issues such as the nature of rights and the proper role of government. After all, Ayn Rand’s introduction of her philosophy generated decades of controversy, but over the long run the spread of her ideas has been beneficial.

    I don’t agree that “this ruling will lead to the violation of rights of those that hold a contrary view by forcing them into associations they would otherwise avoid.” Could you please cite a hypothetical example of such an occurrence? I don’t think the Supreme Court can base its rulings on the possibility of undesirable unintended consequences down the road. To do so, the Court would always have to vote to uphold the status quo, regardless of the merits of the case before it.

    As to licensing, I don’t think governments should grant licenses for any purpose. Marriage should be a private contract recognized and enforceable by an appropriate court. The owners of privately owned roads should have the right to make and enforce rules for drivers. And so on. In a fully free-market economy, no government license would be necessary.

    I agree with you that “the mark of a legitimate fundamental right is that it does not conflict with others.”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
      Hello CBJ,
      This ruling will undoubtedly encourage more litigation. People of faith will be forced into positions of offering services contrary to their religious beliefs and practices. This will force associations they would otherwise avoid. There have been churches, bakers, photographers and others already put in this position. So far many have been able to resist, but not all. The cost of defense is often enough to force some to fold. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi...

      How the cases eventually play out is yet to be seen but this is analogous to the problem with The Little Sisters (Nuns) who temporarily do not have to comply with the O'care mandate to provide contraception. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/s... There is an element of people in this nation that will use these rulings to take down religious rights simply because they do not like opposing views or the piety.

      What we are likely to have is cases that pit one's rights against another. Most LGBTS will not be a problem but there is a militant element that will litigate. Because our laws now are in accord with those of the U.K. we are likely to see cases like this one presently in the U.K. http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millio...

      Objectivism dismisses mysticism so it is not a problem for the philosophy. Our nation, however, is not based on objectivist principles. We must live with tolerance for the beliefs of others. So says the first amendment.

      Respectfully,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 9 months ago
        Hi O.A.,

        As far as I can see, all the cases you cited will not be decided one way or the other on the basis of the Court’s gay marriage ruling. Most of these legal actions were launched before the ruling occurred, and would have proceeded regardless of how the Supreme Court ruled. These cases are generally based on “anti-discrimination” laws and government mandates that have been on the books for some time, and are really a separate issue. The gay marriage ruling concerned only the relationship between citizens and their local/state governments, not citizens’ dealings with other citizens.

        The one possible exception to what I said above is the issue you brought up regarding forcing a church to perform a gay wedding. I think such an attempt would be quickly shot down in the U.S. However, in Great Britain the issue is more complicated because the Church of England is a long-established state church, making the issue one of citizens vs. government rather than citizens vs. voluntary religious organization.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 8 years, 9 months ago
    For the life of me I don't understand how this minority group got as far as they did. To me SCOTUS should thrown it back to the states. This whole deal with such a group makes SCOTUS look like a farse (my actual thought was to put a "t" after the "r".) I would like to say "the lawyers will be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes" an app statement from "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
      Part of the problem lies in the Constitutional responsibility of the various states to recognize contracts formed in other states. The real tragedy and problem arose when the individual states co-opted the control over the institution of marriage in the first place rather than leaving it to the people. Once the government was allowed to seize control and usurp authority over what was traditionally a private/religious matter, it began a cascading effect.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 9 months ago
    It's been an ongoing disempowerment from the fall of Babylon. It was the rulers {any sort of creator would have never intervened} that said out of fear, "We shall go down and confound their language...lest nothing be impossible unto them".
    Ever sense it's been the progressive way and liberals hate acknowledging the authority
    of an author in regards to the definition of words in context...they prefer their own connotation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by walkabout 8 years, 9 months ago
    Why does the government have any role in "marriage?" If two people want to create a contract to share certain aspects of their lives they should go to a lawyer and draw up such a document. If the parameters of the contract are violated and resolution cannot be attained civil courts exist to referee contractual law (one of the two legitimate reasons government SHOULD exist -- to provide for the common defense (protect me from outsiders) and to protect me from my neighbor (and vice versa) by having criminal and civil courts.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 9 months ago
    The Court has made three major decisions in the last few days -- and this is the only one they got right. The other two are both disasters.

    At least it's unlikely to be extended to discrimination, though, because they got Hobby Lobby right.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ EloiseH 8 years, 9 months ago
    I disagree - marriage means a lifelong commitment to another person whom you love. If you want to create a new word, focus on these serial celebrity unions. How can anyone who has ever loved - or who has any hope of love - believe that government has the right to deny this sort of joy to another human being?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
      Hello EloiseH,
      A piece of paper is incapable of denying the free association and expression of love and joy. The last thing I want is to do so, or to support laws that do so. I am only concerned with the breakdown of the language and legal implications of a continuing trend in this direction. As the courts have demonstrated they are more interested in loosening and ascribing new interpretations rather than creating true solutions through proper legitimate, constitutional methods.
      My interest in this matter is academic and related to a breakdown of our system and our language. Prior to 2003 and for thousands of years the word marriage in dictionaries was a union between one man and one woman. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/563728.aspx
      We will adapt, but for legal clarity and communication generally, since we have not coined a new word, elaboration will now be required. I like succinct specificity. It would have been nice to have "one' new specific descriptive word. Alternatively, the government should get out of it altogether and simply provide equal treatment regardless of status or possession of such a license.
      Respectfully,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ EloiseH 8 years, 9 months ago
        The major issue is that "married" couples receive some preferential treatment under the law, specifically when it comes to taxation, filing joint income tax returns and unlimited spousal exclusion for estate taxes. Also Social Security survivors benefits, etc. To deny these federal benefits to same sex couples based on their state of residence is a clear violation of the equal protection clause. You ability to provide for the person you love cannot be subject to whether or not the gov't approves of your choice of partner.

        Also I will point out that marriage has in various times included plural wives and, more rarely, plural husbands. The "one-man/one-woman" model is the most common we see, but not the only form of union that has been termed "marriage."

        Now as for religious institutions, I am relatively certain that the court will respect their right to bless or not bless same sex marriages. I am sure there will be some litigation here, but ultimately religious freedom must trump.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
          "but ultimately religious freedom must trump"

          I do not share your optimism. If there was any respect for religion by the LGTBXYZPDQ crowd, they would have left "marriage" alone and used the term "civil union". But it was never about respect at all. It is about forcing others to acknowledge and celebrate your own personal philosophy - nothing more and nothing less. All of the other arguments about love and equality are a whitewash. If tolerance was anywhere in play, you would not have gays suing cake makers, photographers, and wedding chapels - they would go find or build their own. That they are not satisfied to do so should indicate that this ruling is a gateway decision - not a final ruling. Next we will see lawsuits attempting to force anyone of religious temperament who feels homosexuality is wrong to discard their beliefs or face punishment from the State - either the loss of their business due to fines or more likely the loss of their status as a tax-exempt entity.

          No. This is a long way from being over.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
          I agree the denial to some of these benefits is unequal treatment. I know the Constitution well. From the very first SCOTUS ruling regarding marriage, and there have been over dozen now, they have made it a federal matter though the Constitution never granted them the powers not enumerated, but explicitly denied them. It was up to the states, but the tenth amendment has been rendered meaningless. These benefits should not exist in the first place, but since they do, we should all be treated equally as individuals and if necessary by contract law. I am treated unequally in that I have no children, but must subsidize those that wish to raise their own baseball team. Any benefits you speak of could be handled easily by a simple state issued civil contract (civil union or otherwise, anyone can enter into any contractual agreement), or something drawn up by any lawyer. It should be no more complicated than having to sign one before a notary and filing it away like any basic will. The courts would then protect your "rights" just like a will does. A "marriage" certificate is a religious document. It was only out of convenience and a different time that it took on a legal status. Well, it matters not now... It is water under the bridge except for the probable litigation and problems of comity that are likely to go on now for years to come just as the Roe v. Wade decision.

          I am not as confident as you are regarding the upholding of religious freedom. This case will only embolden the lawyers and the malcontents. We are likely to see more of the following examples which are just a small sample of what has already occurred.
          http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi...
          A photographer forced to associate and participate?
          http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ap...
          This is somewhat analogous:
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/s...
          And this is likely in our future too now that the SCOTUS has decided to adopt the same stance.
          http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millio...

          These things will not affect me personally, but I do believe they will be a problem for our courts and the expense will be born by all taxpayers.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 8 years, 9 months ago
    The First Amendment is out the window. Just wait for all the lawsuits against religious organizations that do not care for performing 'gay' weddings. Some in the Big Government that rules over us has already said that churches could lose their tax status if they refuse. Believe me, we will see more of the LGBT terrorism against religions. Personally, I believe you are free to associate with whoever you want. I also believe the government needs to get out of the marriage business and they need to do away with marriage tax breaks. Treat everyone as an individual with their own individual liberties and no one above anybody else.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
      Churches shouldn't be tax exempt in the first place!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LetsShrug 8 years, 9 months ago
        What do you mean?? We ALL should be tax exempt!!!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Timelord 8 years, 9 months ago
          Even hardcore libertarians believe in basic functions of government. At the federal level there's the military and the courts, and at the state and local levels there are courts and police (I can't believe I just promoted police, a group I detest).

          Note that ALL of these are instruments to protect our rights, not infringe on them. But the courts have gone insane and the military and the police look upon us with derision and have become corrupt.

          But assuming that weren't true and we had even the government that the Constitution tried to create, that correctly-sized and powered gov't needs money to perform its duties.

          Do we provide that money through taxes or some other means? I'm open, I have no preference for being taxed!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LetsShrug 8 years, 9 months ago
            How was that done prior to income tax?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
              This section enumerates the methods used prior to income tax.

              Section 8 - The Text
              The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

              To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

              To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;

              To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

              To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

              To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 9 months ago
      While there is a good chance of such lawsuits they will not succeed in forcing the religious organizations to perform marriages. As to the Church's tax exempt status, that may indeed be challenged but I strongly doubt it will succeed. We live in a country with firmly entrenched religious interests supported by a sizable number of adherents. The Churches view their special status as vested and the Courts will be loathe to strip it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ root1657 8 years, 9 months ago
        As a local Pastor here recently said, changing the tax status only changes which form he fills out. Everything they have gets paid out to services for the community, so there really isn't any profit to tax. I suspect the same would be true at -most- churches, with exception of course for a few of the profitable mega-churches, but I bet they could spend themselves right back into a tax free status as well.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 9 months ago
          As you point out, the mileage of the various churches would vary considerably. However there is no doubt that certain churches (I'm looking at you, Rome) have enormous amounts of income. And don't forget state and local property taxes. Many impecunious churches sit on very expensive real estate. In any event, I suspect virtually all churches would rise as one to oppose any change in their tax exempt status. Their parishioners would support them and their elected representatives would be cowed. And I think the Courts would cave to that pressure. Just my opinion, of course. I haven't seen any recent polling on the issue.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 9 months ago
    (Part 2)
    Your concern over misunderstanding of law based on changing language is a valid concern, but a concern for which I feel we already have a workable answer. The court system. While legislatures and written law are rigid and inflexible to changing context and The realities we face due to an ever increasing rate in change in technology, the courts can adapt to this change fluidly and almost effortlessly. It is but one job of our court system to recognize and interpret how and when the letter of the law applies to specific examples and in context with society and reality. Some may feel that the courts were premature in their decision, and that not enough of society has come around to understand or except gay marriage, but this does not change that it was still the right thing to do.

    Your question about drivers licenses versus marriage licenses is a good one, and a question that arises with all government licensing. When is a government's decision to restrict issuance of a license arbitrary, and when is it reasonable? What kind of checks and balances are there within a bureaucratic system for ensuring that such restrictions are more often reasonable than arbitrary? The answer is, unfortunately, very few. That is why, as an objectivist, I am in favor of private entities, such as guilds and trade associations, providing trademarked licenses over governments having the monopoly. The Association of Realtors is a good example of how this can work. As you have recognized and I have already argued, government getting involved in the issuance and regulation of marriage licenses caused a great deal of this mess, and would have largely been avoided if such an intrusion had never been attempted. Perhaps even the issue of language when it comes to marriage would have been avoided if absent the government monopoly on marriage licenses I've never existed, churches could have trademarked "marriage" and those who wished to be "married" would be required to fit their definition.

    Anyway, I think that is all I have to say on the issue for now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo