We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, June 26. 2015
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
The crying out of the lonely is morality by feelings in a narrative and law by feelings in a narrative. It feels very sad to think of someone calling out in the night and finding no one there. But that argument could then be used to permit many types of marriage partners: relatives, other humans and non-humans, even non-living. Hell, it could be used to permit a hundred other types of laws about property, assault, contracts. Sad feelings are not a basis for law or morality. They're just...sad feelings.
Similarly, engaging in amateur sociology/anthropology/philosophy to speculate on what the cosmic purposes of marriage are is not the business of law.
Gay marriage is not a big issue for me. I am sometimes mildly in favor, sometimes mildly opposed. But stupid reasoning by people with power over me concerns me greatly.
Looks like the ruling will be used as a weapon to attack churches' tax exempt status
the panic mongers are out in force. while I understand the psychological need to assume the worst (because, you know, its THEM against US), the government will never be able to rewrite orthodox Jewish or Christian doctrine to require gay marriage here. that's sooo core first amendment that its just not ever going to happen. many protestant churches will be swept up in this problem, but that's a trap they laid for themselves.
orthodox Judaism, Orthodox Catholics, Roman Catholics, probably conservative outfits like the Anglican Church in North America, and others have little worry about now that there's absolute no bar to gheysters marrying each other.
In what ways will protestant churches be affected that will not also affect Orthodox Jews and Roman Catholics?
a protestant church without a well defined doctrine/dogma in place defining marriage as one man and one woman or that absolutely bars gay unions or marriages; nondenominational wedding chapels with just a gloss of religion. they'll roll over anyway.
the anglicans, or some flavor of them, and there are probably dozens of others, gods know how many.
"the government will never be able to rewrite orthodox Jewish or Christian doctrine to require gay marriage here"--I don't oppose gay marriage, but I very much doubt the truth of this statement. Actually I don't have any idea where that confidence comes from; it seems wholly inconsistent with the actual trend of the law and the culture.
can you name any instance where the feds have rewritten orthodox theology?
that would be, "no."
all I'm seeing here is the conservative version of the victmization game snowflake libtards play.
if you think that the government can coerce an Orthodox rabbi, Roman / Orthodox Catholic priest into performing a same sex marriage over the threat of withholding tax exempt status, you don't know your Jews or Catholics or how the government works.
I understand the need to be afraid, or are unsure of the formal requirements of your own faith, just telling you that the fear is groundless.
if you actually believe you have the constitutional right to marry in the Orthodox Church, please, explain why you think so.
This is how my thought process goes:
1) A pastor at a church meets with a man and woman who are not members but would like to get married at his church.
2) Pastor agrees to marry the couple even if they aren't members and he doesn't even have an idea if they are Christians.
3) A gay couple shows up the following week and asks if they can marry at this church.
4) The pastor refuses because he says his church and faith do not condone gay marriage.
5) Gay couple easily sues because the church already opened the door to marrying any couple who walked in their door...not just members and not just Christians.
This happens at a LOT of churches across this country. All the time. A couple see a 'pretty church' and wants to get married in it. The church obliges. Usually for financial reasons, but maybe for others...possibly hoping new couple will join their church, etc.
why would a pastor of a church marry a couple, neither of whom is a member of the church or known to be Christian?
is this something that protestants do?
in that case, yes, there'd be a problem with next week's gheysters.
I would love to now be the first lawyer to file the suit demanding recognition of polygamy. You should be able to win that suit on summary judgment.
The real question is how bad it will now get for traditional Christians and Jews as this becomes a weapon against Biblical beliefs.
Polygamy might be good. Have a few wives with jobs, you go fishing and play video games.
Polygamy now would include having multiple wives and husbands so while the wives are doing the laundry and going to work, you can play those video games with your bud (husband)!
Does it get any better than that?
After you win your case, I would love to be the first lawyer to file suit demanding recognition of bestiality. By then we should have three or four Millennial justices, and it will be a slam dunk.
Religious and associative freedoms are next, but tax benefits of marriage are not since they would benefit.
I have no problem with gays or gays living together, but marriage is an ancient and nearly (nearly only because someone might be able to point to some obscure society without marriage) universal institution that was set up to protect women and children. Gay "marriages" do not serve that function and for that reason, I'm against gay "marriage". If they want to have a ceremony to celebrate their union and tell the community (and thus enlist the community to help them with their commitment), fine, but to me, that's not a marriage.
But I don't for a minute think that is the reason for taking this issue to the SCOTUS, but instead I think this is about beating people who disagree with them over the head and making them bend to your will. If you are a baker who does not support gay marriage, you now have to suck it up and bake a cake for such a marriage. The Constitution is silent on marriage so the power to regulate it resides in the states, but then the definition of "state" was redefined yesterday.
I don't really care much about "gay marriage". But this is and always has been about so much more. I read a quote that kind of expressed that view. Sorry I don't know who the author is:
"I find myself at odds now with a lot of proponents of same sex marriage who appear to be walking the charred battlefield of the cultural war and shooting the wounded. I apologize for thinking this was about only equal treatment under the law. I apologize for dismissing conservatives' fears that this slippery slope would lead to de facto banishment from various sectors of the public square. I thought people just wanted to be left alone. I was wrong. For many, they wanted forced conversions. As such, it's only fair we ask where it ends."
Another one: "The Left started the culture war, won it, and now roams the countryside shooting the wounded."
The problem is this isn't about love and marriage it is about "payback" and revenge. Some pretty angry activists will use this to put more innocent people out of business simply because they fail to bow down to the alter of gay marriage. Not too different than ISIS crucifying two boys for eating during ramadan. If you have a job where public opinion can get you fired and disagree with gay marriage than you have effectively lost your 1st amendment rights.
That first quote is exactly how I changed my position on gay marriage.
I have no problem with gay marriage in theory, but have no desire to give power to those that support gay marriage.
About how I feel on the marijuana issue too, actually.
Take away all the emotional BS and Kennedy's argument still has some compelling points I think. This absolutely opens the door to polygamy, but I don't have a real problem with that either.
It does bother me that we are continuing down a slippery slope that is leading to infringement of religious freedom. That is going to get ugly soon I fear.
I don't have a problem with polygamy either. Returning women to their traditional role as chattel property and trade goods is not something that will affect me.
I was pretty resigned that this was going to go this way. I'm sure those enraptured with the decision feel like they are expressing overflowing joy, I find it a bit more like looking at a mob gathering.
I don't think I'm the only person for whom Kennedy's words ring pretty hollow. Joining in marriage is such a fundamental and necessary thing that we must overturn a structure recognized across history and the globe (even polygamists and others who bastardized marriage previously didn't overturn the connection of male and female) ... while at the same time we allow someone to exit the very same institution with about as much effort as it takes to discard a used piece of tissue paper.
After the Confederate Batle flag, crosses and crucifixes will be the next "hate symbols" " banned" by popular sentiment.