Excellent point. And all the more disturbing in that somehow these dissenting opinions manage to prevail somehow down the road.

That observation supports the long suspected theory that there is more going on in our behind the scenes culture pushing this type of agenda.

Why the hell there is so much absolutely contradictory contrary cognitive dissonance out there cannot be by mistake. Reality just does not support that.

I wonder when the supreme court started to move away from inalienable rights toward the idea of rights being bestowed by the government? Or if they were always that way? Somebody should do a post on that.

One more thing I wanted to mention about the Slaughterhouse decision that I noticed; It was the dissenting opinion that had the more lasting effects and caused the effect that you mentioned above. This is the second case that I've heard of to have that effect. (Admittedly limited knowledge of supreme court cases) I'm fuzzy on the details but the other was an early 1900's case where the dissenting opinion created the "living document" crap that has become common in reference to our constitution in justification of all the wild interpretations of it. Is that the norm, or just a fluke occurrence?

Two reasons you lost a point;
#1 - Placing individual rights below the "need for the social structure of society".
#2 - Backhanded attempt to support this unreasonable argument via another unreasonable, failed argument that was thoroughly defeated in another post.

Sorry it has taken so long for me to get back to make this clear.
I'm done here.

Clearly written. Point back, CBJ.

Again you and I reach a point where I cannot rationally grasp your point of view. That you "challenge" me on issues I've not contested are windmills of your own creation and mystifying. You've claimed positions and ideas for me that are not implied in my remarks and are presumptuous. So, I won't be ponying up in a discussion you can't keep on track.

What seems clear is that you're upset over the use of the term 'marriage' in the context of a "marriage license" as the means which our government, currently, recognizes the "civil union" of adults.

The issue, as stated many times before, is whether this county clerk has an obligation in the course of her governmental duties to uphold legal individual rights for all, or just those she deems worthy. Because, if she gets to discriminate against legal individual rights, while performing her governmental job, then none of us can expect protection of our rights. The next government bureaucrat that doesn't perform the duties of their position may not look or believe as Kim Davis, and their 'exception' might be akin to Lois Lerner's gang or worse.

I don’t deduct points from someone’s post simply because I disagree with them. You can do so if you choose.

Regarding “It is and always has been up to the petitioning body to propose new legislation”: Victims of discriminatory legislation also have the right to petition the courts to set aside such legislation, as they did earlier regarding racial segregation in public schools and laws against interracial marriage.

Regarding “the Constitution specifically reserved all powers not specifically ceded to the Federal Government to the States”: No it didn’t. The 10th Amendment says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution, via the 14th Amendment, clearly prohibits any state from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” So the Supreme Court decision is fully consistent with both the 14th Amendment and the 10th Amendment.

Gay couples did not create the laws that defined marriage and then extended special privileges to the subset of citizens who legally qualified for that status. The federal and state governments were responsible for passing and implementing these laws. The role of the courts is simply to insure that any “benefits” of marriage conferred by the federal government or the states are available to all couples equally. Since governments have mandated that these benefits are tied to the “institution of marriage”, the Supreme Court has logically ruled that the institution of marriage itself be made available to all couples equally. If the Court has “redefined” marriage to justify this ruling, it is because lawmakers chose to define it in the first place, and then sought to exclude certain people from its benefits.

"You stated some things that are obvious"

You mean like the reality that men and women are not the same? I challenge you to deny this truth. Before ANY other argument, I challenge you to deny this reality. It is fundamental to the entire argument, yet you seek to dance around and obfuscate without ever confronting the issue. Time to pony up. Either it is or it isn't. Which side do you choose?

"killed a few 'windmills' and ripped up a couple of 'straw men'"

Glad to be of service. Although which specific arguments you want to label as straw men I'd be interested to hear about. (If you're going to make accusations, you'd better be prepared to stand by them and back them up. Otherwise they're just ad hominem attacks and expose a sever lack of support in a logical debate.)

"but you didn't answer the question."

The answer I have been giving is the reality you don't want to hear or acknowledge because it defeats your arguments.

"You said what is "at issue is who has to recognize a given contract as being legal!" One implication of that is anyone working in government can selectively withhold government services based on whatever offends their sensibilities and demand to keep their position."

That's simply not true and you know it. -1 The LEGISLATURE is responsible for passing the laws, the EXECUTIVE is responsible for enforcing the laws, and the JUDICIAL is responsible for adjudicating the laws, ie declaring applicability. But neither the judicial nor the executive branches have the power to create law. Only the Legislative has that power and authority under both State and Federal Constitution. But until such time as the Legislature passes a law to be executed, there is no responsibility of the Executive (of which a Clerk is a member) to act.

"Government shouldn't operate capriciously."

I completely agree. The Executive should carry out the laws duly passed by the Legislative - but no others. It can not assume powers it was not explicitly granted without engaging in tyranny and usurpation. Or do you disagree?

"Yes, the government should be out of the 'marriage business' or create groups with 'special' rights . However, it's part of their duty to record a marriage contract."

Now you're trying to argue both sides. If you want government out of marriage licensing - then stick to that argument. It's one I happen to support. If you are going to side with the government, however, you must also allow that in so doing the government has a responsibility to determine what types of contracts are legal and binding (ie which ones it must adjudicate and enforce when disputes arise) and which ones are not. And it can not conflate two inherently different things to be the same or it loses all justice, fairness, and equity. As you correctly identified: it cannot operate capriciously.

" It doesn't matter a blind rat's butt anyone else's opinion of a particular marriage between consenting adults."

Curious wording, but that aside... You are welcome to hold whatever ceremony you want. You can crown yourself Emperor of the Moon if you want. You can marry your dog, your turtle, the pond in your backyard, or anything or anyone else you desire. But what you have no power over is whether or not others - and most especially the government - recognize that ceremony. And that is where others' opinions absolutely DO matter.

What is most fascinating about this statement is that if it were true, homosexuals wouldn't have bothered taking their case to the courts at all! They would have just hooked up and gone about their business while totally ignoring the opinions of others. But the reality is that they need others to validate their unions - not just legally but socially.

"Selectively recognizing contracts between adults by the government was a problem in the first place."

No. The problem is people like you trying to deny the reality that a man is not a woman. The issue is not about adults. The issue is about the inherent differences between men and women. As I continue to say (and you continue to ignore), at its heart marriage was always the union of a man and a woman - not just two adults. You continue to attempt to reframe the issue by abstraction and it is fallacy.

"Legal equality is a different concept than physical equality—that should be obvious."

I'm not the one denying the obvious/reality here. I'm not the one trying to claim that gender is meaningless or that the definition of marriage was never the union of a man and a woman, but of two consenting adults.

" If they sign one it's null and void before the ink drys."

Correct, meaning that the contract is unenforceable. That's the definition of null and void.

You stated some things that are obvious, killed a few 'windmills' and ripped up a couple of 'straw men', but you didn't answer the question. If our law isn't the criteria, then which lords and nobles determine contract validity?

You said what is "at issue is who has to recognize a given contract as being legal!" One implication of that is anyone working in government can selectively withhold government services based on whatever offends their sensibilities and demand to keep their position. Government shouldn't operate capriciously.

Yes, the government should be out of the 'marriage business' or create groups with 'special' rights . However, it's part of their duty to record a marriage contract. It doesn't matter a blind rat's butt anyone else's opinion of a particular marriage between consenting adults. Selectively recognizing contracts between adults by the government was a problem in the first place. Conflating other issues to camouflage the simple principles in play isn't necessary. Legal equality is a different concept than physical equality—that should be obvious.

The permission to enter into a contract is never the issue. It is the legal enforcement of the contract which is the issue. PLEASE, go study some basic law definitions. Homosexuals have never been prevented from getting "married". They were denied application for marriage licenses which is a separate thing entirely because it is a contractual pre-recognition by the government. Homosexuals could always go out and do whatever they wanted, they just couldn't expect legal recognition of their unions on par with those of officially sanctioned heterosexual unions.

"If a government requires a "license" as a precondition of recognizing a contract..."

I agree that the governmental control of the licensing process for marriage is absurd. It has no authority in the matter. Similarly, a person should have the ability to designate heirs, etc., using power of attorney. That spouses were automatically granted that power has always been a result of the historical culture of the world. If you want to feel offended by that, it's your choice.

I did answer the question. I pointed out that your assertion that the sexes involved in the contract called marriage does not matter is wholly fallacious by pointing out that that difference is the prime consideration of that contract! "Should" is irrelevant because it is merely a desire. Reality is what we are dealing with - like it or not. When you can overwrite a person's DNA to interchangeably convert men to women and so forth you might be able to make a case that they are essentially equivalent. Until that time, it isn't me you're contending with, but the basic facts of the universe.

"As for changing the law, it is up to your side to change the law"

Why? It is and always has been up to the petitioning body to propose new legislation. Your statement is simply false and you know it. -1 for that statement alone

"Such changes would have the added advantages of being fair and constitutional."

And have I once said that it could not be done? NO. In fact, that is precisely what I have been arguing should have been the route taken from the beginning! Could changes granting similar legal standing to homosexual unions as heterosexual unions have been actuated by Legislative action? Assuredly. So why didn't they do that? Ask yourself that question.

That being said, however, the notion of fairness again relies on the comparable nature of the two situations, which are not materially equal in reality. And the Constitution specifically reserved all powers not specifically ceded to the Federal Government to the States. The States overwhelmingly passed referendums, Constitutional Amendments, and propositions by the established, legislative process that marriage was between a man and a woman in recognition of reality. That Federal Courts took upon themselves powers to rule on this matter despite zero Constitutional authority to do so is self-evident - unless you can point me to the specific part of the Constitution which gives the Federal Government the power to define marriage - or the terms of any contract for that matter.

Beliefs? It has nothing to do with beliefs. It has everything to do with the recognition of reality: that a man is different than a woman. Deny this at your own logical peril. Admit it and the entire argument for "equality" falls apart at the seams.

Marriage has always been the recognized union of a man and a woman. It recognizes that the two sexes are inherently different. The marriage contract as recognized by government also recognized that that difference was key to the formation of a valid and recognizable marriage contract under which both religious organizations and government could adhere. The Supreme Court in its ruling has now created an environment where the religious are necessarily put at odds with the government. As a result, the First Amendment will be the next casualty as we will now see lawsuits - just like the ones where the Federal Government is mandating contraception coverage under the ACA in violation of religious beliefs - only now you will see these same homosexual activists attacking the rights of religions to recognize or not homosexual unions.

There is nothing precluding you or anyone else from pursuing happiness. Obtaining is another matter entirely and that is not guaranteed. There is also the small matter that one can not demand that another change the way they do things just to conform to the first's notions of happiness. This is coercion of will and a violation of natural law. It is also the basis for every entitlement program invented.

Plusaf, I admit I had not thought of a person in an
elected position not being "fireable". I do think the
law can recognize some things as being "natural"
or not, even if not declaring them "moral" or "im-
moral". It recognizes that servicemen on active
duty will, according to the laws of nature, die
if they do not have some kind of food, so there
are chow (or mess) halls established. It recog-
nizes that fear of death is natural, so a police
officer can use a gun to intimidate a suspect to
get into the prisoners' wagon.
I know that heterosexual families can be a-
busive. But my point there was that a homosex-
ual union will not bring any children into exis-
tence at all, so there was no need for the law
to establish marriage for such a union in the
first place; whereas, it is better for children not
to be brought into existence without parents to
care for them.--As I said, I think there should be
some provision for designating someone, (even
of the same sex), as next of kin, for such issues
as hospital visits and insurance policies; per-
haps come kind of "civil unions".

Nice non-answer to my question. The fact is that gender should not matter in regard to eligibility for most government “benefits”. As for changing the law, it is up to your side to change the law (as Vermont did) so that governments don’t selectively grant “benefits” to married couples. Such changes would have the added advantages of being fair and constitutional. If this were to occur, it would not matter how (or even if) the government defined marriage because government would play no role in it.

You're welcome to support the "rule of law". I support individual rights. The "rule of law" is useful only to the extent that it protects these rights. Regarding tradition and "social mores", Ayn Rand said "I am challenging the cultural tradition of 2,500 years." I think I'm in good company.

You mean because governments all throughout time recognized marriage as something that society has supported as its founding institution for thousands upon thousands of years? That somehow this is "discriminatory"? Your claim is nonsense. The gay "rights" movement is a product of the last twenty-odd years. You would have this "inequality" be a product of age-old discrimination when the reality is that until very recently, social mores severely frowned on permissive sexual behavior of all kinds - not just homosexuality. So your claim could be equally applicable to all those who disapproved of sex before marriage, infidelity, and a whole host of other behaviors - and have done for thousands of years.

Your emphasis is on equating two things that are not equivalent! It is a denial of reality! Could homosexual couples be treated the same under the law as heterosexual couples? Yes, they could and I have never said otherwise. All that would be needed is for appropriate laws to be passed. But the activists weren't satisfied with that. They instead decided to invent their own little world where there is no male and female, no distinctions between the sexes. And they persuaded several District Court judges and five Supreme Court Justices to join them.

You can choose to live in that world if you choose. I choose to acknowledge reality: that there most definitely are differences between a man and a woman and they are not interchangeable. I support the rule of law: where laws must be passed by Legislatures - not judges. Law instigated either by judicial fiat OR executive fiat is tyranny under the Constitution. Those branches were not given law-making powers. At least in the reality of the Founding Fathers.

So, which of your beliefs is the criteria for recognizing a legal contract?

I always figured that pesky little Right to "the pursuit of happiness" included my relationships with others.

"What you are saying, even though you are trying not to, is that two people who have different body parts have different rights and therefore are to be treated differently."

You have your legal terminology confused. Rights are individual and apply to either gender individually and equally. But there is no "right" to marriage. Marriage is a contract - just like ANY action requiring two parties of free will. What is at issue is who has to recognize a given contract as being legal! And governments "discriminate" all the time on what kinds of contracts are deemed enforceable and by whom.

Read Justice Scalia's dissent on Obergefell. It is scathing and spot on.

But the situation is at it's base the composition of marriage! You can not honestly abstract the situation to being about two people when the entire debate has been about the composition: the individual natures of the two people involved! The situations are entirely relevant to the circumstances when evaluating equality! To argue that the genders of the two people involved in the marriage are unimportant is to say that it is the right of a dog and a cat to get married because they are both animals! It is entirely disingenuous to argue that the genders of the people in the proposed marriage do not matter. It absolutely does and is the framing of the entire debate.

"What does sexual orientation (or gender, for that matter) have to do with whether one should or should not be eligible for this particular government "benefit"?"

So change the laws about who is entitled to receive the benefits. There is nothing preventing that from happening but some effort! Could the gay rights movement have petitioned to have gays and lesbians given equal status under the law while recognizing that they were a different composition of couple? Absolutely. So ask yourself why they didn't? Note that Vermont passed laws recognizing homosexual couples and giving them equivalent privileges - without redefining marriage. Why not merely do the same in the other states?

Answer: because this was never about equal "rights". That's a side-show at best and many gay "rights" activists willingly admitted it as such. The goal was to destroy marriage and religious institutions.

Also an interesting observation. I know that for many objectivists the concept that human individual rights come from a higher power than government causes many to give pause because it appears to be getting too close to the god concept and the religion/faith/force side of the picture. I view the matter as essentially important in establishing that these inalienable rights do not come from government and are inherent in the reality of us as individuals.

Therefore I think Jefferson's use of the term "creator" is very well chosen and goes as far as he could of avoiding too much out and out religion, and then perhaps the establishment of an official religion, while maintaining the essential concept that it is not government granting rights that can therefore be also taken away. Good call.

I don't think so, but if you check with Obama or your Senator(s) maybe you can work something out.
Hey, how did you get in here in the first place?! :))))))

Belle, I think most of those issues you brought up have been covered...
Nobody can "fire" a person in an Elected Position.
Impeached, yes; Recalled, maybe; but firing is not part of the laws. Jailed for disobeying a court's order... certainly.

And "unnatural practices" is a moral/ethical judgment on your part or anyone else who uses the term. As such, in an enlightened society or culture, the term should never appear in any law or government regulation. But we're nowhere near there, yet.

And hetero- as well as homosexual families, kids can be mistreated. To generalize that it occurs more often in either one begs for some statistical proof; otherwise it's a label or an opinion or even agreement or consensus, but is not Data or Fact.

Once I asked a lawyer (painful process) about a local referendum that passed. He replied as quoted above. It was probably the most disheartening answer I could have received. Apparently we are, as a people, just that stupid.