Friday, June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court Ruling Today

  1. Is a violation of the Constitution. It overrode the rights of the states.
  2. Some say the government should not be in the marriage business in the first place. The government is only involved in marriage for tax benefits that promote family and establish inheritance rights (which of course is watered down by the death tax).So please don't say government should stay out of marriage. Government is a reflection of society and marriage has always been a social contract because of family.
  3. Now my and your tax dollars will go to provide benefits to couples who by definition cannot procreate to produce families. That is a travesty.
  4. We've yet to see how this will impact religious rights
    Will churches be forced to celebrate this the way bakers are?
It's not marriage. It cannot be without twisting the definition which refers to the joining of complimentary bodies in a physical union that produces fruit.
Regardless of how you feel about gays, the court just stole your rights as a citizen of your state to pretend another right exists.
So when you get your way, by tyranny, it's OK. You got your way.

Remember, If rights come from the government, the government can take them away.

19 comments:

  1. If I am supposed to be fair and tolerant of the beliefs of those in the gay community, I have to wonder. Were are those who should be equally fair and tolerant of my beliefs. I must have missed that part. I think it was somewhere between ruining a couple's wedding business because they stood for what they believed in, and the bakers and the florist who wouldn't compromise their religious beliefs. That stream of tolerance seems to flow in only one direction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, there is that too.
      A simple fairness issue.
      They expect goodwill, but try to extort it.

      Delete
  2. It's not marriage.

    Sure it is. We are a nation of secular law and religious liberty. You are free to presume your definition.....and others are free to presume theirs.....but under the law, it's a legal contract between two consenting citizens. As the law stood until today, there existed unequal protection barring any burden placed upon society. In every case, and under multiple levels of legal current, there was no merit to any claim of burden.

    I would rather have had the States reach this conclusion 50 times over, but in cases of fundamental civil liberty, SCOTUS reached the only just conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Instead of "legal current".....that should have read "legal scrutiny".

      Delete
    2. This is Roe v Wade CI. Judicial Overreach.
      Just cuz you like the results, or it's a shortcut, doesn't make it right.
      I'm not gonna argue with you, I don't have the time, but I appreciate you taking the time to comment.

      Delete
  3. Gay marriage is now a civil right. A church can no more refuse a gay marriage than it can to refuse to let in people of color.

    This fight was never about marriage. It is about forcing approval.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boy, I can't wait for them to try that in our church.
      It's not always service with a smile.

      Delete
  4. If marriage is a right, than how can we deny marriage to siblings?
    Or to multiple partners?

    If marriage is a contract governed by states (divorce law?) then how do the Feds get involved? Extralegally.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Due process and equal protection are clearly delineated in the Constitution as Federal law.

    Trumps state law, Ed. You ain't getting very far with that one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Due process and equal protection refer to rights.
      This is a made up right.
      The SCOTUS once ruled in favor of a right to own other men.

      Delete
  6. The Catholic church does not recognize divorce even though Catholics are free to obtain a civil divorce.

    There is no governmental push to change Catholic doctrine on divorce.

    Why would marriage be different?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure where I commented what anymore, but I thought you were referring to a comment I made somewhere that since Catholics have historically been able to deny marriage on theological grounds, Christian churches could continue to do that.
      Wedding chapels could not.

      Delete
  7. It's going to get interesting now... sigh

    ReplyDelete
  8. Remember, If rights come from the government, the government can take them away.

    Important caveat!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ed,
    I am in awe.
    This is the best you've done IMO.
    Don't ruin it and post anything ever again.
    Unless it's better.
    :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just pulled that trick on someone on Facebook (Ajj) who reposted something I put up.
      :)

      Delete