Major Blow to Homophobes: SCOTUS Refuses to Block Gay Marriage in DC

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Which is why it is an ever changing document and new laws and amendments are made. Laws to make sure old and outdated laws are changed to afford everyone the same rights.

-Blu-

The Constitution is not an ever changing document. That is a liberal canard. What changes is the interpretation of it. Gay marriage as a right is not a done deal because most states recognize DOMA against gay marriage.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, in a 2003 Boston College commencement address, told this story of President Andrew Jackson and the Supreme Court:

In 1832 the Cherokee Indian tribe lived on land guaranteed them by treaty. They found gold on that land. Georgia tried to seize the land. The Cherokees sued. And eventually the Supreme Court, in Worcester v. Georgia, held in favor of the Cherokees.

Georgia then refused to obey the Court.

President Andrew Jackson reportedly said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." And Jackson sent troops to evict the Cherokees, who traveled the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma, thousands dying along the way.

That action remains undone.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

So, if someone believes homosexuality is wrong, they are a "homophobe"? I believe adultery is wrong, am I an adultery-phobe? I believe it's wrong for a man to sleep with his daughter, am I an incest-phobe? I believe gossip is wrong, am I a gossip-phobe? I believe theft is wrong, am I a theft-phobe?

1] Yes you have struck upon the definition of being a "homophobe"

2] No, your value system is centered on fidelity

3] No, your value system believes incest is wrong, as do most of our codified laws on the subject, although it may also depend on the age of the daughter at the time, and the State you live in

4] No, your value system says gossip is wrong, kudos if you live by that

5] No, again most laws indicate theft is illegal, and thus wrong.

2 & 3 are barely on point as examples due to their sexual content. 4 & 5 are not related at all to the issue of homosexual relations or marriages/unions.

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

so whatcha trying to say? that pic of lincoln sitting next to the washington "monument" has implications.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You do realize that that is nonsensical?

That's like my asking you to explain why you feel frightened of the dark and you replying, "why shouldn't I be frightened of the dark?" There is no given that the dark is frightening, therefore only by your providing an explanation for what there is about it that you find frightening can I understand why you have that fear, simply saying that in your opinion there is no reason not to be frightened of the dark is without merit. There is no given that granting homosexual couples the same rights as hetrosexual couples will have any effect on the social order, let alone a detrimental one. If you want me to believe that there is one, you'll have to explain it, or your fear that it will have a bad effect is simply a fear of the unknown.

I have posted dozens of explanations on this thread. Is it too much for me to ask someone to post a rational and non-emotional view of how a redefinition of marriage does not affect society? No, it isn't.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The Constitution is not an ever changing document. That is a liberal canard. What changes is the interpretation of it. Gay marriage as a right is not a done deal because most states recognize DOMA against gay marriage.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, in a 2003 Boston College commencement address, told this story of President Andrew Jackson and the Supreme Court:

In 1832 the Cherokee Indian tribe lived on land guaranteed them by treaty. They found gold on that land. Georgia tried to seize the land. The Cherokees sued. And eventually the Supreme Court, in Worcester v. Georgia, held in favor of the Cherokees.

Georgia then refused to obey the Court.

President Andrew Jackson reportedly said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." And Jackson sent troops to evict the Cherokees, who traveled the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma, thousands dying along the way.

That action remains undone.

What on earth does that have to do with anything? Other than saying as long as the dominant value system is pro-discrimination in a given area then we never need to evolve our thinking or try to right a past injustice?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The Constitution is not an ever changing document. That is a liberal canard. What changes is the interpretation of it. Gay marriage as a right is not a done deal because most states recognize DOMA against gay marriage.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, in a 2003 Boston College commencement address, told this story of President Andrew Jackson and the Supreme Court:

In 1832 the Cherokee Indian tribe lived on land guaranteed them by treaty. They found gold on that land. Georgia tried to seize the land. The Cherokees sued. And eventually the Supreme Court, in Worcester v. Georgia, held in favor of the Cherokees.

Georgia then refused to obey the Court.

President Andrew Jackson reportedly said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." And Jackson sent troops to evict the Cherokees, who traveled the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma, thousands dying along the way.

That action remains undone.

And what happened was wrong. What's your point?

The interpretation is never supposed to change. It's pretty clear in its wording as it stands and the only thing you can ever use as an accompaniment to the constitution are the Federalist Papers.... anything else, especially of modern times, is moot.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I have posted dozens of explanations on this thread. Is it too much for me to ask someone to post a rational and non-emotional view of how a redefinition of marriage does not affect society? No, it isn't.

A redefinition of marriage only affects those who currently wish to be married but would require changes to the definition. It may make your nose pinch in horror due to your own personal bias, but it affects you in reality not at all.

Argue with that.

[HeatDeath 431]

I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I also believe that the government has no business even having an opinion about marriage, or any other spiritual or religious institution. If the government attempted to regulate baptism like the it regulates marriage, you would have rioting in the streets, and quite rightly so. Both are fundamentally private religious institutions and should not be touched by the government.

I, and many other religious Christians, contrary to the popular caricature of Christians, would be perfectly happy if the government replaced ALL reference to marriage and spouses in civil and criminal law to "civil unions", and allowed any two (or more, why not? ) consenting adults to form a "civil union." Members of civil unions would have all of the protections and privileges currently extended to spouses. That way the sacrament/ritual/institution of "marriage" could be left to those who think it actually means something (whatever that something happens to be for each individual). People who want to be married could be, if they could find someone willing to do the ceremony, all citizens of the secular state would have equal status under the law, and everyone would be happy

Edited March 3, 2010 by HeatDeath

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, in a 2003 Boston College commencement address, told this story of President Andrew Jackson and the Supreme Court:

In 1832 the Cherokee Indian tribe lived on land guaranteed them by treaty. They found gold on that land. Georgia tried to seize the land. The Cherokees sued. And eventually the Supreme Court, in Worcester v. Georgia, held in favor of the Cherokees.

Georgia then refused to obey the Court.

President Andrew Jackson reportedly said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." And Jackson sent troops to evict the Cherokees, who traveled the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma, thousands dying along the way.

That action remains undone.

So, if Olson and Boies persuade the Supreme Court to scrap Prop 8 on Constitutional grounds - which would necessarily kill any similar action taken in other states - then we'll just send them gays on a trail of tears? A little gay holocaust action to defy the Supreme Court? Good Luck with that.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

What on earth does that have to do with anything? Other than saying as long as the dominant value system is pro-discrimination in a given area then we never need to evolve our thinking or try to right a past injustice?

Do you believe that a legal judgment wipes out prejudice? Or, that perserving social norms that have served society well, as opposite sex marriage does, is bigotry? What do we gain by expanding marriage to gays except the idea that anyone can marry anyone?

Is the goal to eliminate all discrimination until anything goes because not having limits discriminates against someone somewhere? This is what arguments based on being open minded and thus, totally unbigoted gives us.

[MrsCat 6]

Do you believe that a legal judgment wipes out prejudice? Or, that perserving social norms that have served society well, as opposite sex marriage does, is bigotry? What do we gain by expanding marriage to gays except the idea that anyone can marry anyone?

Is the goal to eliminate all discrimination until anything goes because not having limits discriminates against someone somewhere? This is what arguments based on being open minded and thus, totally unbigoted gives us.

Well clearly by that logic the bigoted approach is much more sensible. Glad we cleared that nugget of logic up.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

So, if Olson and Boies persuade the Supreme Court to scrap Prop 8 on Constitutional grounds - which would necessarily kill any similar action taken in other states - then we'll just send them gays on a trail of tears? A little gay holocaust action to defy the Supreme Court? Good Luck with that.

Where is the will of the governed in that? Cali voted more than once against gay marriage, indicating clearly that they don't want it. Does your joy in the rise of activist courts end when they enact laws you object to; that violates your standards, if you have any? That is when your hypocrisy will be clear to even you. You call Ted a conservative, but a true conservative doesn't believe in circumventing the will of the people thru the tryanny of the government.

Not everyone is a sheep. There is already a resistance to government intrusion and overbearance formenting as we post.

Well clearly by that logic the bigoted approach is much more sensible. Glad we cleared that nugget of logic up.

I'm sure you are free of all prejudice.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Do you believe that a legal judgment wipes out prejudice?

Well, it happened before. My marriage would have been met with much prejudice a few decades ago. The prejudice dissipated after the Supreme Court ruled on the issue. Not immediately but it did eventually. Point is that the court ruled while the prejudice still existed and it was subsequently wiped out.

[Scott & Lai 12]

1] Yes you have struck upon the definition of being a "homophobe"

2] No, your value system is centered on fidelity

3] No, your value system believes incest is wrong, as do most of our codified laws on the subject, although it may also depend on the age of the daughter at the time, and the State you live in

4] No, your value system says gossip is wrong, kudos if you live by that

5] No, again most laws indicate theft is illegal, and thus wrong.

2 & 3 are barely on point as examples due to their sexual content. 4 & 5 are not related at all to the issue of homosexual relations or marriages/unions.

Actually, my point involves the use of "homophobe" as an attempt through ad hominem to shut up one's opponent. If one believes homosexuality is wrong, they are branded a "homophobe", and thus their views can be simply discounted. But we don't do that with other things, such as the examples I gave. And my value system does consider **-sexual relations to be wrong, as it holds that the essence of marriage (as created and instituted by God, btw) is not a "loving-relationship," but the one-flesh union of a man and a woman.

[Wyld Blu 35]

Do you believe that a legal judgment wipes out prejudice? Or, that perserving social norms that have served society well, PARTS OF SOCIETY, AND OTHERS NOT SO MUCH as opposite sex marriage does, is bigotry? What do we gain by expanding marriage to gays except the idea that anyone can marry anyone? How about allowing gays the same rights and privileges as a hetro married couple?

Is the goal to eliminate all discrimination until anything goes because not having limits discriminates against someone somewhere? Ending discrimination does not mean society as a whole will crumble into an "anything goes" mentality. It just means we don't segregate certain law abiding groups based on looks and/or lifestyles different than your own. This is what arguments based on being open minded and thus, totally unbigoted gives us.

-Blu-