The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) made two major rulings this week: (1) re-affirmed the Affordable Care Act, and (2) made gay marriage legal nationwide. What are your thoughts?
[poll id = 504]
Christian, Church Policy, LGBT, Mormon, Mormon Belief, Mormon Culture, Politics, weekend poll
Big Week for SCOTUS (Weekend Poll)
I agree enthusiastically with both decisions. I believe that the principles of the US Constitution have been protected and proclaimed. And I am especially gratified that it’s been done by the most conservative Supreme Court in my 68 year life.
As a straight woman and a woman who has always been fortunate enough to have access to good health care, I feel better about the present condition and future of America and Americans.
Big surprise, right? ; >
I’m okay with the ACA decision.
I agree with the Chief Justice on the gay marriage decision: “If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.” And I agree with Justice Alito in wondering how the victors will attack the losers: “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”
As a gay man in a mixed orientation marriage, I celebrate with my LGBT friends the court’s same-sex marriage decision. However I believe Chief Justice Roberts got it right (on ACA as well). I wished the court would not have short circuited the legislative process. As a nation I believe we would have ended up in the same place, but the result would be more settled.
I quite pleased with both decisions. I hope to have time to read the actual decisions and dissents written by the court, but haven’t been able to yet.
ACA actually seemed like the more questionable case to me, as it hinged on wording in one part of the law that seemed to contradict the overarching purpose of the law. I think the nature of the conflict left the court more free to decide on the politics of the matter.
On the question of marriage, after having read the prior decisions of the court on similar questions I would have been surprised to see any other outcome. The nexus of decisions by the court that have interpreted the equal protection clause of the Constitution has been heading this way for some time. Roberts contention that the decision is not constitutionally based could be said by one side or the other of most any constitutional question that makes it to SCOTUS. I plan to read his dissent to see his explanation of that comment.
Strongly support Scalia’s dissent in both cases
And Alito
Didn’t read the ACA decision, but I did read the SSM decision, including the dissents. I figured there would be a majority ruling in favor of SSM, but thought it would be a simple equal rights approach. (If a state allows two persons to marry, then it should allow any two persons to marry.) The extraneous language used by the majority to justify its decision was a huge disappointment.
Both cases really show we only have three real justices (Scalia, Alito and Thomas); two that have their moments (Roberts and Kennedy) and the final four are just political pundits.
Neither of these decisions were rooted in law. The poor decisions show the destructive path this nation is on — it was a victory for ruin.
The ACA ruling was not that big of a deal. The future of ACA is still in doubt through the next election. Justice Roberts was clear that this is a legislative decision in the first ACA decision and this was no different. If you do not like the ACA, vote for Cruz, Carson, or another conservative likely to get rid of it. If you like the ACA, vote for Sanders or Clinton.
The SSM decision was a very big deal. I am quite surprised that Justice Kennedy made such a broad ruling with only a 5-4 majority. This is on very shaky constitutional ground and with Ginsberg or Kennedy likely to retire under the next president, the majority could swing the other way in just a couple of years. This would probably lead to a half and half country with many states hardened against any SSM in the legislature.
I also see that federalism will become a big issue in the republican primary. Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Paul and others will probably propose some major changes to send power back to the states or people.
Oh, please, Ken. The only “real” justices are the ones who agree with your position? Yeah, ok buddy. Give it a rest.
“, Ken. The only “real” justices are the ones who agree with your position?”
No, real justices are the ones that follow the law, not a political agenda
Ok, Ken. And you are the god of what is and what isn’t law. I repeat: OH PLEASE.
Actually, God is god of what is and isn’t law.
I believe that as mortals, we should try to approximate God’s will as far as it is possible. And I further believe that SCOTUS got the SSM decision wrong.
Declaring the Law of Gravity unconstitutional isn’t going to change the fact that it still exists, and it still operates the same way. Similarly, declaring SSM legal doesn’t change the fact that homosexuality is a serious, serious violation of God’s law, and the consequences will inevitably follow, both as individuals and as a nation.
Only issue there, The Other Clark, is that we all know gravity exists and is real, but whether or not homosexuality is a violation of god’s law is up for debate. If it’s such a violation of god’s law, why does homosexuality exist in animals as well as humans? And if you believe that god didn’t create it, but animals and humans choose to be gay, well, I disagree completely.
I’ve often pondered n prayed about marriage a proclaimed between Adam and Eve. It seems that scripture tells of that kind of love needing to be bonded by authority in marriage. Adultery causes immense erosion to that kind of love and relationship. Scripture stresses the importance of love in all its various forms.
Homosexuals have been few in number and rejected by societies since mortals began. In my pondering thoughts often come to mind that because they have been rejected, they have never been included in the scriptures regarding love and relationships. When keeping records of mortal people in times of great difficulty to make records, and because gay people are few in number and easily rejected by the quote “normal” people, why would Moses try to record how homosexual relationships should be recorded? As a prophet of an ancient time, he, like all our dear prophets was influenced by the social culture and mores of his day. Would he even have a desire to seek the Lord’s will regarding gay marriage?
What if the Lord has a lot to say regarding the sanctity of gay families? What if He understands gay relationships and knows how to guide and direct such families to help them avoid pitfalls unique to them, and to embrace moral standards that give them fulfillment in life? What if gay couples loved one another level nag before birth here and will love one another through the eternities? What if humankind’s treatment of gays as perverts and reprobates is a very, very gross misjudgment on its part?
Promiscuity is wrong whether strait or gay. But is not true love, commitment, and dedication to spouse and family noble by any and all such people of any persuasion? Will gay families have some troubled and wayward kids? Yes, just as strait families do. Will some be dysfunctional? Again, yes, just as many heterosexual families are. But will some be wonderful, healthy, loving families with kids who grow up to take their places in society with strength, grace, and commitment to improving their little part of the world? Yes! Most will. Most will triumph over any difficult odds if they having grounding principles of truth and righteousness to anchor them.
I just can’t seem to get beyond the most important aspect of the gospel—that of love. Who are we to condemn true and pure love in any form? God did not utter a single word regarding homosexual relationships to the prophet Joseph. In this, the dispensation of the fullness of the gospel, He said nothing excluding gays from loving relationships and marriage. I hope we might consider that Heaven may look very different than we presume. It may be far, far more inclusive than mortals can imagine.
Maybe not. But I have come to know that for me…..I’d rather err on the side of love and inclusion than saying God rejects a small number of people from sanctifying their love by living a moral, married life. Their families can enrich ours, and ours theirs. We can all grow and overcome together as we strive to be good and faithful people. These are a bit of my pondering sand prayers over a great many years.
Thank you for letting me share…
I agree, Rockies GMA. I very much appreciate that you err on the side of love and inclusion in the face of uncertainty on this issue. Truly commendable. I wish I could say the same for Boyd K. Packer and others.
I forgot to put up the poll, but it is there now!
Rockies…
If the eternal laws of progression and increase (which God too has to obey) allowed us to choose our mate (again this term is now obsolete in America) regardless of gender, then there would only be one gender.
This is why the Book of Mormon teaches “I give unto men Weakness”. It is not weaknesses, it is weakness. It is not singular versus plural, it is tied to the human condition, or to biology. Just because we are born with a predisposition, it does not mean we can act on that predisposition. A person that is born with the predisposition for same gender attraction has no more right to act on that “weakness” than a person that is predisposed for violence has the right to act on their “weakness”
He answers why he gives us “weakness” in the very next section of this same verse “so that we might be humble”
When society accepts same gender attraction as an alternative lifestyle, there is no need to humble yourself before the almighty to receive his grace to turn weakness into strength.
I also agree with both decisions. The right thing to do in both cases!
Akin to 1/22/1973 (when the Supreme Court at the time also legislated from the bench), in the judicial sense, another day that shall live in Infamy. At least the late FDR had SOMETHING useful to leave as a legacy, if only that phrase.
Let those that chortle over this latest act of legal malfeasance and yet STILL profess to be faithful LDS consider the word of hymn #260, sung to an old sea chant.
If that’s how God works, Ken, how do you know he didn’t orchestrate the social acceptance of homosexuality to humble the arrogant members of his church? Surely we are in need of humility just as much, if not more, than any other sinners.
For that matter, why would God tell us to love one another at all? By your logic we are all hampering each other’s salvation. How can the naked and hungry learn to turn to God in their extremity if we feed and clothe them?
Rocky gma has the approach that sounds like the one Christ would support.
What I hear from the other side does not have the love of the Lord in it, or for that matter the love of the USA.
Otto ,
By your logic everything would be allowed and there would be no law. And if there is no law, there is no sin.
The reality is that all of us are born with “weakness” and all of us need his grace. The first step, however, is to accept the weakness we were born with so when can rely on God’s grace
Geoff,
How does supporting traditional marriage, and only traditional marriage, strip one of love?
Ken, please don’t question the logic of Otto or anyone else. Your logic on your theory that there would only be one gender argument is the most flawed thing I have ever seen.
Supporting one form of marriage leads to a lack of love for those who want a different kind of marriage. This is inevitable. If you only support traditional marriage, it is inevitable that you will show a lack of support for other forms of marriage and a lack of love for those people. Same as if you only support boys, you will show a lack of love for girls. If you only support whites, you will show a lack of love for people of other races.
Ken, I hear love coming through in what rocky gma says I don’t hear it in your efforts to defend traditional (when did it become traditional for a Mormon to have one wife) marriage.
It sounds a lot like traditional slavery or traditional racism.
I don’t hear anything Christlike in defending your belief that others should be less, or other.
Seeing all the other responses from conservatives, I think perhaps conservative Mormons are using religious arguments to defend their political views. Nothing to do with Gospel truth.
Perhaps the Law of Gravity was a poor comparison. Would those deriding Ken and other traditionalists be the same that scoffed at ideas like “round earth” or “heliocentric solar system”? Believing the earth was flat and carried on a turtle’s back didn’t make it so. And believing gay marriage and/or gay sex is ok with God is just as ridiculous. Don’t shoot the messenger, and don’t shame those that struggle with weakness (we all do!).
Looking to the animal kingdom for support of immoral behavior is nonsense. Animals engage in violence, incest, cannibalism, inter-species breeding and all sorts of behavior that cannot be condoned in humans. We are children of God!
As humans, we struggle with anger management, immoral thoughts (both hetro and homo), addictions, selfishness, pride, greed, etc. Part of our mission on earth is to overcome these weaknesses, not glory in them.
#13 “I believe that as mortals, we should try to approximate God’s will as far as it is possible.”
Many think they know what ‘God’s will’ is, and most of those have differing opinions. Who gets to decide which is right? Religion should be left out of public discourse. We should love one another and follow the Golden Rule – Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. That’s really it. It’s that simple. Leave the judgment to the God you believe in, and if you are so confident in that, then what’s the worry?
The Other Clark,
So Ken and traditionalists are leading the way with NEW theories? Hilarious. They are more aptly compared to those who claimed the earth was at the center of the universe and refused to let the EVIDENCE convince them of the truth.
I never looked to the animal kingdom to support immoral behavior. First, who says its immoral? Second, I only brought up homosexuality in animals bc you claimed it was a violation of God’s law. Why did he create beings that would engage in homosexual activity if it defies his law? With humans, you could argue they choose it but they are taught not to, but with animals, I think it proves that homosexuality is NATURAL!
Who says we are children of god? You accuse others of assumptions but your only evidence for what you believe seems to be an exclamation point. You simply assume it is immoral, and against God’s law. Where is the evidence?
There is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is natural. If people aren’t choosing to be gay, why should they be punished for being born that way? That is wrong. The problem here is that, in the face of uncertainty, we should be more loving and accepting, like Rockies GMA said. Instead, despite no evidence, you and Ken want to prohibit gays from marrying. I think that is wrong, unloving, unChristlike, and hateful.
Ken says, “If the eternal laws of progression and increase (which God too has to obey) allowed us to choose our mate (again this term is now obsolete in America) regardless of gender, then there would only be one gender.”
What? I don’t understand this comment at all. I’m sorry, i can’t comprehend your logic. Could you explain more?
Obviously, there are two main genders, and several sub-genders within each. Honestly, we are only beginning to understand the vast nuances of gender identity. For millennia, humans have had very rigid views cast in stone as to what defines a man or a woman. In my lifetime I’ve seen that stone crack and begin to crumble, as all man made idols must do. There’s far more to us than we can begin to comprehend.
Thus, a Zion people must learn so much more than ever before what it means to be one. Enoch’s people learned. I used to be certain this meant that the people were all alike in beliefs, goals, grooming, and standards. This portends a sort of sameness in everyone…..or a kind of pre-fab model of what a Zion person is. But as I grow older and get better at pondering, together with vast life experience, I’ve come to feel that love, and just about love alone, makes a people of one heart and one mind to the point where they are worthy of being translated and taken from a fallen world.
Such people have no -ites among them. Nor do they have “those people” labels among them. A promiscuous homosexual person is as immoral as a promiscuous heterosexual person. All of us need to live morally clean lives so our spirits can be in tune with the Spirit. And the more we are in tune with the Spirit, the more Love grows and swells.
Gay couples love as deeply as hetero couples. They have God-given libidos. To condemn them to lives of loneliness without loving partners and families is where troubles are born—troubles like depression, suicide, self-medication and self-harm. It seems that marrying and having Christ-centered homes is where gay couples can find peace, love, and joy; thus, avoiding depression, self-medicating, suicide and harming themselves. Just as many hetero couples find these things through marriage and family life, so may gay couples. They deserve the same blessings by participating in the great plan of happiness as the vast majority do. Guidance can be given to help gay families seek full gender development in their children by providing loving opposite gender role models to enrich their lives. These role models can be found in every ward, school, and throughout extended families.
I truly hope we can continue to seek greater wisdom and understanding of Christ-centered love toward all our brothers and sisters until we are a Zion family with hearts and minds filled with the pure, pure love of Christ evermore.
There are a lot of words in the New Testament and there are a lot of words in the BOM. Relatively few of them are the words of Jesus. Even fewer are direct quotes of Heavenly Father. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation and we have folks here who are happy to do the interpreting for us. But the problem is, these personal interpretations bare little resemblance to some of the actual words of Jesus quoted in Matthew:
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Members of the LDS Church who support same-sex marriage will put their own exaltation in jeopardy.
Geoff aus
The lying tongue of the serpent sounds very beautiful and convincing
Winifred, thanks for the kind words.
But do you know what? If supporting same-sex marriage puts my exaltation in jeopardy, SO BE IT. I STILL SUPPORT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.
“The lying tongue of the serpent sounds very beautiful and convincing”
Haha.
I fear the quality of W&T readership is waning.
There’s a lot of sloppy language being tossed around, but it’s especially sloppy to say that the Court “reaffirmed” the ACA. They interpreted one clause in the statute, said that “established by the State” meant “established by the Federal government or a state.” Whether that’s correct as a matter of statutory interpretation is obviously open to dispute–that’s what God invented lawyers and law professors for–but it’s what the Court held. But they said nothing on Thursday about the constitutionality of the ACA, and they certainly didn’t reaffirm it–whatever that means.
I wore my rainbow jacket to church yesterday in Rexburg 🙂 !
Rockies…
“What? I don’t understand this comment at all. I’m sorry, i can’t comprehend your logic. Could you explain more?”
You have answered this with your next statement.
“Obviously, there are two main genders, and several sub-genders within each. Honestly, we are only beginning to understand the vast nuances of gender identity”
Exactly; and, the gender roles and covenants taught to us in the Temple are part of the Celestial law. And, the Celestial law requires members of the opposite sex acting as one to eternally progress and have an increase. I would strongly recommend Elder Hollands book ‘Of Souls, Symbols and Sacraments” to full understand the sacredness of eternal marriage and why it is required between members of the opposite sex. Their eternal identities and roles allow them, acting as one, to fulfill the covenants required for eternal increase.
As you said, and the Apostle Paul taught I might add, one star differs from another in glory. In other words, there are going to be numerous deviation from that Celestial standard. There will be, civil unions, common law & same gender arrangements, infidelity within marriage, and just plain shacking up. As taught in the Doctrine and Covenants, those that cannot or will not abide the higher law will have no eternal increase. They effectively render themselves genderless; without increase.
Encouraging people to enter into a same gender marriage, is no different than encouraging them to enter into a civil marriage between members of the opposite sex. I suppose it is better than encouraging them to shack up; but, in either instance they will lose their chance at eternal increase, and some may be fine with that outcome.
Much has been said about the SSM decision; but the unaffordable care act is the more troubling of the two. Seriously, I read as article over the weekend “Greek Banks And Stock Exchange in Shut-Down”
Talk about illogical. Greece is collapsing under the weight of its social programs and it will lead to enormous unrest in the days, weeks, months and years to follow for this very small country. It will also have an enormous impact on the Euro (which is falling like a rock) and on the global economy (the dow just dropped 300 points) and the hammer hasn’t fallen yet.
How can anyone with any sense of responsibility say implementing more unfunded social programs is a good idea? Can they not see the enormous trouble this is causing to the very people it is set to help? Hopefully, our country will learn from the enormous unrest Greece’s cradle to grave entitlement programs are going to create in Europe and shift our policies accordingly.
Thanks for explaining what you meant, Ken. I see your point and am sorry you cannot see mine. Being gay, but celibate is truly a disaster. The statistics show many social woes that result from that viewpoint. All of us can see how poorly that works.
So if a few in this life are gay (and we don’t know if they were or not prior to mortality, nor whether they will be eternally) you consider it a weakness to overcome. I do not any longer. I consider it a difference, just as some people have blond hair and blue eyes while others have black hair and black eyes. All are alike unto God.
I guess I don’t buy into the view you have from the temple of eternal marriage and increase belonging to only hetero couples in the Celestial Kingdom. Gay families are having their own children already through modern mortal medicine, so I feel confident that glorified resurrected gay couples could have eternal increase. As long as gay couples keep the commandments, love God, serve others, and strive to be like the Savior I can easily see them living among the hetero couples in that glorious kingdom…..
Glory, that!
But, of course I could be wrong. After all, Brigham Young taught that if any woman who will not accept plural marriage in the hereafter will not be allowed to enter the highest degree in the CK and will be required to become a servant to her husband and his wives. As you say, she’ll be gender less and alone. That doesn’t sound anything remotely like a degree of glory to me, so I’m deeply grateful that Pres. Hinckley said on national television that he didn’t believe polygamy was doctrinal. Perhaps women need not fear the eternities, after all.
And perhaps someday, neither will gay people. That is my fervent prayer.
NO ONE KNOWS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE AFTERLIFE.
In the face of this uncertainty, how can anyone tell anyone else NOT to pursue romantic love? It is probably the strongest human instinct/desire that we have, other than merely surviving, and telling someone to repress those feelings for their entire life is the most CRUEL teaching I can imagine.
Once again, I find myself in agreement with Dexter! Particularly in comments # 34 and 41.
I could not have said it better myself.
Dexter
the deceiver lieth in wait.
boy, he is good, isn’t he?
Rockies…
I appreciate your sincerity and commentary.
I understand your plight more that you realize with a child that struggles with same gender attraction. Reconciling this with what we know to be true is extremely difficult. I feel your pain and wish you well brother.
#39 Ken, you give yourself away here. You’ve railed long and hard about the overreach of the court, yet here you are advocating that the court should have struck down the ACA. Your reasoning – because it was illegal? No, because it “isn’t a good idea.” In other words, you’d like the Supreme Court to be an activist court for issues with which you agree, but when it cuts the other way you there’s a mighty wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Any discussion of the ACA and SSM cases from last week should be rooted in the proprieties of our secular laws. God does not rule the United States of America. It is governed by laws, which were made by humans, period. Any person’s opinion about what god would or wouldn’t want is completely irrelevant to this discussion. God doesn’t have a say in the matter.
#36 – Mark B., be careful about employing logic in this context. It’s not likely to be well received.
Brjones,
The decision by the majority was not rooted in law.
According to Scalia. “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so…They [the majority] have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since.”
Scalia then called out the majority for acting like activists, not judges by saying “States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ ‘reasoned judgment,'” he wrote.
Scalia’s scorn went beyond picking apart the majority’s legal judgement. He also made fun of their language The majority began its opinion with the line: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.” Where does the constitution allow or call for this?
In short, the decision has nothing to do with personal opinion about same sex marriage. It is an issue of States rights and the majority in the court got it wrong. I ask you, why do 9 justices have more say than the majority of voters in Utah? Or California for that matter who also established traditional marriage as the law of their State?
Ken, why do you assume that Scalia is the final word on what is law? Is Scalia inherently more qualified as a jurist than the five justices who clearly feel the decision IS rooted in law? Your biases are incredibly glaring here. I could quote from Kennedy’s majority opinion in an effort to “prove” that the decision was valid, but that would just be me supporting my opinion by quoting someone else’s opinion. Scalia is just one person, and he was outvoted in this instance. He’s obviously very upset about it, but that doesn’t make him right.
To your question about why 9 justices have more to say than a majority of voters in Utah, the answer is that it’s the explicit job of those 9 justices to determine what is and what isn’t constitutionally permissible in this country. It is not, nor has it ever been, the job or the right of the voters in Utah to make such determinations. And in case you weren’t aware, “State’s Rights” is not the answer to every question. Voters in this country have NEVER had the final say on what laws are or are not constitutional. If voters were the final arbiters of such things, we would still have segregation and bans on interracial marriage. You may wish we as voters had the right to do whatever we wanted by virtue of majority rule, but that’s not the way it works in this country, nor has it ever been, and Scalia knows better, which makes his dissent all the more pathetic. I’m not sure what your fundamental disagreement with the decision is other than you simply don’t like it. The Supreme Court’s job is to determine whether individual laws and actions are constitutionally valid. In this case they said no. A few months ago they struck down a Washington D.C. law that limited citizens’ rights to carry handguns. I’m guessing you agreed with that decision. I’m also guessing you agreed with the Hobby Lobby and Citizens United decisions, both of which were just as guilty of “judicial activism” as the two cases decided last week. Again, the difference here is that you just don’t like the way these came out. I wish your arguments were more than sour grapes, but they’re just not.
And as an aside, Scalia is a strict constructionist, meaning he believes the constitution should be interpreted according to the meanings ascribed to it by the founders. Fine. I don’t agree with him, but I understand that different people have different views on how to interpret the constitution. Unfortunately, Scalia’s hubris knows no bounds, and he is unwilling to in any way accept that intelligent people, even his esteemed colleagues, may interpret the constitution differently. This is why quoting Scalia to me is meaningless. According to Scalia’s theory of how the constitution should be interpreted, the quotes you provided make perfect sense. However, under a different rubric, they are completely unpersuasive. Scalia is a smart man, but he’s only one smart person. He is not the only smart person. In this case he lost. I think it’s more dignified to simply say you disagree with the reasoning used by the court and move on. Maybe you’ll get another crack at it and maybe not, but acting like there’s an absolutely right and wrong answer to questions of interpretation just makes you look like a crybaby.
Scalia believes that the constitution is not an excuse to rewrite anything to fit the current mores, that the social contract calls for a need for the super-majority process in the constitution to change it rather than political and social winds.
Want prohibition — change the constitution. Decide it is a bad idea — change the constitution by amendment, not by judicial fiat.
The problem with the contrary view is that if the public meme and consensus change, so do your rights.
13th Amendment? Well, slavery really is a social construct and the 13th Amendment really doesn’t bar it if the majority really wants it back.
That is an extreme example, but it is what is underneath Scalia’s disdain.
“Scalia is a smart man, but he’s only one smart person.”
Exactly. And so are the other justices, which is precisely why the 3 million people in Utah should have the right to make their own laws, not 5 justices (6 in the unaffordable care act)
” I think it’s more dignified to simply say you disagree with the reasoning used by the court and move on.”
Now hold on Mr. Jones, that is precisely what I did above….I like Scalia dissent…Alito dissent….and only three justices that based thier decision on the constitution.
I left it there until you accused me of basing it on my personal views. I responded to your accusation.
“Scalia believes that the constitution is not an excuse to rewrite anything to fit the current mores”
Excellent. As Alito said, “Words don’t mean anything any more.”
We might as well take the 14th Amendment and rip it to shreds.In effect, this is what Kagan, Bryer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor have done. They make decisions based on their political views, not on the constitution Regardless of what personal view you have, both of these cases were based on States rights to make laws.
It is a really scary proposition that 5 (or even 9) lawyers decide our fate. If they don’t follow the constitution (which was inspired) they are kings. We have the reign of the judges, which is an assault on liberty.
This has sweet nothing to do with the Supreme Court or the legality or their decision but everything to do with moving on.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/354051-35-companies-just-told-america-exactly-think-scotus-gay-marriage-ruling/
#53 – the unfortunate limitations of what our ‘inspired’ Constitution (and I do believe it was, but not so sacrosanct that amending would offend our Lord) can do. As long as said (in)Justices can articulate their legal opinions IAW accepted standards and procedures, and I see no evidence to the contrary, they can, in fact, decide based on ‘politics’. Why electing the President that appoints the successors is so important.
As for the (in)ability of the states to make laws re: marriage, as of this point the SCOTUS has spoken, and the procedures to change that, though they exist, are onerous, for reasons very well that any ‘states rights’ or ‘strict constructuralist’ would affirm. So the nationwide legality of gay marriages, however odious it may seem to many (myself included), is proverbially “King of the Mountain”, and ‘dere ain’t nuttin’ you ladies can do about it!”
IMO, Harvey Fierstein is a prime example of why you have to at times shuck the hard feelings and just enjoy. The man’s voice and delivery style are truly uncommon gifts. More, more, more…
Alice,
What is the point of the 14th admendment (or the constitution) if you are not going to follow it? Especially when people in these states strongly voice their collective opinion on the matter?
I get it things change. But let’s change laws through the legal process via the congressional and executive branches, not by judicial fiat
Alice,
I would add the 10th admendment only gives the federal government the powers delegated to it by the Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the States or the people!
#54 – thank you, Alice, you have rendered a useful service. Now I know where to NOT spend my money.
Sorry, Ken. I’m not interested in a back-and-forth with you. I’ve already said how I feel about the decision at the top of the string.
The link was intended as a rather light, if effective, illustration of the fact that history is moving on however any of us feel about the decision. Sorry you missed that.
The Constitution says “All men are created equal.”
People who support “States Rights” seem to forget this important phrase. They used to argue that blacks were not equal. They used to argue women are not equal. They currently argue gays are not equal.
All should receive equal protection under the law. I don’t care that Scalia understood that the founders believed that blacks were inferior under the constitution, and that slavery and segregation were constitutionally protected discrimination. If we believe that all men are created equal they should have ALWAYS been equal in the eyes of the law. Blacks and women ALWAYS should have been allowed to vote, and we should have never had to amend the constitution because of the bigotry of the founders. God abhors bigotry. All are alike unto God, male and female, black and white, bond and free.
It seems to me that conservatives over the years use “states rights” and “religious liberty” as an excuse to PROMOTE discrimination against gays, blacks, and women. I think when conservatives do this, it is taking God’s name in vain, and God will say “Depart from me.”
States rights and religious liberty should not be used as clubs to discriminate. “All are alike unto God.”
Now I do think a case can be made that gay relationships are against scripture, but even if that is the case, the constitutional provision that “all men are created equal” means that gays should be treated equally under the constitution. For Scalia or anyone else to pretend that equal treatment is unconstitutional seems to ignore “all men are created equal”. Equal treatment is most certainly constitutional. Gay marriage is equal treatment under the law, not some stupid imposition on heterosexual couples.
I am grateful that federal laws promoting equality trump state discriminatory laws. “States rights” that promote discrimination are inherently immoral, and any Christian should promote anti-discrimination if they believe the constitutional provision that all men are created equal.
“Marriage” and the right to marry isn’t in the constitution. If all the state legislatures wanted to repeal their laws on marriage tomorrow, they could. There is nothing in the constitution that compels or mandates them to have “some law” whatever it may be, defining marriage. You can’t give away what you don’t own, and you can’t make a right out of something that isn’t mandated by the constitution. Now, one can make the argument that if a state DOES have law on marriage, then under equal protection principles, it must open the laws up for whoever. I actually agree somewhat with the court’s rationale under an equal protection approach. But to say there is a “right” to marry in the constitution, when “marriage” isn’t even addressed in the constitution, makes no sense.
Stephen Marsh and Ken, I actually don’t have a problem with what you’re saying. I understand the argument, and I think it’s well reasoned and not unpersuasive. I believe reasonable minds can differ on whether the Constitution should be more static or more responsive to evolving societal standards. The problem I have with your position, Ken, is that you seem to believe that your position is objectively correct, as opposed to just your personal opinion. This is factually unsupportable. Strict constructionism is just one of several philosophies as to how the constitution should be interpreted, and is not objectively any more correct than any other. The fact that you can’t acknowledge this damages your credibility in the argument, in my opinion.
The only other thing I’d add, and I address this to Stephen Marsh as well as Ken, is that if Scalia’s and your interpretation had been strictly adhered to, we would still have racial segregation and miscegenation laws. I would like a direct answer to the question of whether you think that is an acceptable state of affairs in our society, if and until the majority gets around to doing away with such things.
MH & Brjones;
I will take your counsel Brjones and offer it more as my opinion.
I am for equal rights. Totally.
I just side with the jurisprudence Thomas, Scalia and Alito; and, more importantly the equal protection under afforded to those via the 14th admendment that VOTED. Are they not entitled to equal protection? If so, does thier voice for support of traditional marriage mean less under the law?
In my opinion, it was put to a vote and the most votes should win if we truly adhere to Equal Protection under the Law.
Ken, “I just side with the jurisprudence Thomas, Scalia and Alito; and, more importantly the equal protection under afforded to those via the 14th admendment that VOTED.”
I remind you that blacks couldn’t vote for for about a century, and women for about 1.5 centuries. Under the criteria of voting, blacks and women couldn’t vote to overcome this blatant discrimination.
Scalia would have us believe that (a) the founders intended this discrimination, (b) discrimination is constitutional, and (c) there was nothing wrong with this discrimination despite the fact that all men (and women) are created equal. Suffice it to say that I find your opinion, as well as Scalia, not rooted in this important constitutional principle. Discrimination should never be ok and we shouldn’t use the constitution to bludgeon a person’s rights. It isn’t a Christian thing to do, and discrimination should never be considered an appropriate use of constitutional principles.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/07/01/episcopal-church-oks-gay-marriage.html
You can control your personal morality but not the world and not the country. So, might as well relax and be a good neighbor, KWIM?
MH,
As Scalia noted; the 5 judges that voted for SSM effectively represented judicial Putsch. Pretty powerful words from a key figure in the court.
Ken, how in the world does Scalia’s discrimination square with the ideal that all men are created equal?
“Ken, how in the world does Scalia’s discrimination square with the ideal that all men are created equal?”
First of all. We are not equal. We never have been and we never will be. Secondly, this is not about equal rights, it is about following the law and the change it will have on society.
I was driving to our home in Saint George and listening to CNN on the radio. They had some guy on from Montana who wants to legalize polygamy. He used the same arguments those that pushed for “marriage equality”: consenting adults, equal under the law, it is about love, etc.
I liked the comment from the anchor “this is not going to end at same sex marriage; eventually polygamy will be legal” they then commented it will lead to group marriages; and marriages to inanimate objects. The 5 justices opened Pandora’s box and soon marriage will not mean anything.
“We are not equal.” But the Constitution says plainly All men are created equal.
So you just admitted you disagree with the Constitution. Nice unconstitutional argument! Don’t ever try to argue constitutionality of any law, because it is clear you don’t believe or follow the Constitution. Quoting Scalia is clearly an exercise in ridiculousness because neither you nor he support the Constitution.
I rest my case.