Maggie's Farm

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

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Friday, June 26. 2015

Redefining "marriage" in federal law


The US federal government has the power to redefine words.


Justice Kennedy made the libertarian argument. Also, solved the national problem of loneliness.

Posted by The News Junkie in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 13:42 | Comments (21) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
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.
#1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2015-06-26 14:13 (Reply)
Looks like the ruling will be used as a weapon to attack churches' tax exempt status

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/26/top-clinton-advisor-dodges-question-on-protecting-tax-status-for-churches-opposed-to-gay-marriage/
#2 feeblemind on 2015-06-26 14:19 (Reply)
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.
#2.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-26 16:24 (Reply)
In what ways will protestant churches be affected that will not also affect Orthodox Jews and Roman Catholics?
#2.1.1 Gordon on 2015-06-26 17:14 (Reply)
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.
#2.1.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-26 20:46 (Reply)
"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.
#2.1.2 Texan99 on 2015-06-26 17:24 (Reply)
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.
#2.1.2.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-26 20:59 (Reply)
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.
#2.1.3 MissT on 2015-06-28 02:11 (Reply)
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.
#2.1.3.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-28 11:20 (Reply)
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.
#3 Jim on 2015-06-26 14:54 (Reply)
Polygamy might be good. Have a few wives with jobs, you go fishing and play video games.
#3.1 Bird Dog on 2015-06-26 15:04 (Reply)
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?
#3.1.1 mudbug on 2015-06-26 15:18 (Reply)
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.
#3.2 BillH on 2015-06-27 09:51 (Reply)
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.
#4 mudbug on 2015-06-26 15:10 (Reply)
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.
#5 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-06-26 18:38 (Reply)
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.
#5.1 egd on 2015-06-27 09:33 (Reply)
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.
#6 B Moe on 2015-06-26 18:44 (Reply)
It's ugly now.
#6.1 Sam L. on 2015-06-26 21:01 (Reply)
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.
#6.2 chuck on 2015-06-26 21:04 (Reply)
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.
#7 Christopher B on 2015-06-26 21:25 (Reply)
After the Confederate Batle flag, crosses and crucifixes will be the next "hate symbols" " banned" by popular sentiment.
#8 mark on 2015-06-26 21:42 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.