Supreme Court: Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right

[vee]

I know what comes next, the legalization of same sex divorce! 

[Era Might]

I thought this was just silliness:

 

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.

Highest ideals? Two people become something greater than they once were? Love that endures past death? These are pretty bold philosophical assertions, not to mention a pious/romantic view of marriage. I love the reference to loneliness...who knew, all these writers and poets writing about love and loneliness for thousands of years, and the Supreme Court had the answer all along...marriage! Why didn't anyone ever think of that!

I'm reminded of the Seinfeld episode where the dentist becomes a Jew to tell jokes, and Jerry says it doesn't offend him as a Jew, it offends him as a comedian. That's how I feel about this pious blather...it offends me as an intelligent human being...if you want to legalize it, then do it, but don't think that this is not an assertion beyond law...this is a vision of human nature, metaphysics, history ("one of civilization's oldest institutions" used to be polygamous), and apparently, the afterlife.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Era Might

[KnightofChrist]

why the negative down votes?   I stated no opinion on whether or not the Church leadership/rulers are divinely empowered or not.  Just stating that it lost it's ability to convince the populace of it's authority. 

Or do you fundamentally disagree the Church desires to direct/influence/rule the behavior of people?

The correlation is neither really is really accommodating ot tolerating different opinions.  

I'm not sure that is a statement based in truth. For most of the US populace that was actually allowed to vote on the matter most voted against it, even California, giving evidence that counters your opinion. I think in total it was 50 million, 50 million people had their votes nullified by 5 people. Whether or not one supports the SCOTUS ruling today, that is very dangerous.

[franciscanheart]

I'm not sure that is a statement based in truth. For most of the US populace that was actually allowed to vote on the matter most voted against it, even California, giving evidence that counters your opinion. I think in total it was 50 million, 50 million people had their votes nullified by 5 people. Whether or not one supports the SCOTUS ruling today, that is very dangerous.

By my calculations, that leaves 268.9 million Americans.

[CrossCuT]

I would support this being decided by the people however I honestly believe it would have the same outcome. Winds of change have begun.

Next lets ban the Confederate flag pls.

Edited June 26, 2015 by CrossCuT

[Anomaly]

I'm not sure that is a statement based in truth. For most of the US populace that was actually allowed to vote on the matter most voted against it, even California, giving evidence that counters your opinion. I think in total it was 50 million, 50 million people had their votes nullified by 5 people. Whether or not one supports the SCOTUS ruling today, that is very dangerous.

knight, 

that is my point.  SCOTUS. Did not really listen to the people or allow accommodations for differing opinion.  That ultimately leads one to think the tolerance of some religions' ability to opt out will be eliminated.  

The Church and religions have failed at making the distinction between promoting the ideal vs outlawing anything else.  Both a dig at Winnie's constant anti-authority rants and a dig against a one dimensional argument of simply "because God said so".   Given that other Christian religions have retreated from defending heterosexual marriage except Catholics and Muslims, it's apparently an unconvincing argument and open to interpretation and debate. 

The down votes are a sign of typical thoughtless toadyism and no wonder engagement intellectually, theologically, and philosophically isn't seriously attempted.  Civilization's masses are generally more educated, intelligent, and thoughtful now then three hundred or two thousand years ago.  

[Winchester]

Let's not bicker and argue about who married who...

[Era Might]

As far as the apocalyptic fury, this isn't going to ruin America. If "God" could bear with America's enslavement of millions he can bear with the admittance of homosexuals into the American middle class. As long as the empire is making money and winning wars, people will be satisfied. That's the way it is. Take away people's bread, then you'll see problems. Married homosexuals are a great boon for American business....more families to market to.

[Era Might]

Civilization's masses are generally more educated, intelligent, and thoughtful now then three hundred or two thousand years ago.  

At the risk of going off-topic...how so? Drop someone today in a society 3,000 years ago and they wouldn't last a day. Drop someone from 3,000 years ago into today and they would probably be fine...they'd get social assistance, help, whatever. To me, that doesn't say we're more educated, but that we live through institutions and have our lives taken care for us. Someone 3,000 years ago could probably engage in hand-to-hand battle, hunt their own food, grow their own crops, etc. Someone today doesn't have to...they pay taxes to soldiers who fight for them, pay writers to give them stuff to read, pay teachers to do their reading for them, etc.

The trending hashtag on Twitter right now is #LoveWins...that's what being "thoughtful" is to us, a hashtag with a meaningless phrase like Love Wins.

[Socrates]

knight, 

that is my point.  SCOTUS. Did not really listen to the people or allow accommodations for differing opinion.  That ultimately leads one to think the tolerance of some religions' ability to opt out will be eliminated.   

The bigger issue from a legal/constitutional standpoint is why did the SCOTUS even hear and decide on this case in the first place?

According to the U.S. Constitution, the powers of the federal government are carefully defined and limited.  Nowhere does the Constitution grant federal courts the power to define "marriage."

All moral arguments aside, this was another case of federal judicial overreach.  According to the Constitution, such matters should be left entirely to the respective states and the people.

Whether the people in every state would vote this way anyway (so far they have not) is a moot point.  Would those cheering the SCOTUS decision be so supportive had the court decided the other way?

Why should every single issue be dictated to the entire country by nine unelected people in black robes?

That's not a constitutional republic.  It's tyranny.

[Ash Wednesday]

Eh... do I just save everyone the time and just move this to the debate table, or.....?

[veritasluxmea]

There is still such a thing as religious liberty.

I think the main concern is if both are constitutional rights; what happens when they but heads? Someone claims the constitutional right to "marry" and someone claims the constitutional right of religious freedom? Which right will be supreme? 

[dominicansoul]

Statement on Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage by another bishop...emphasis mine

AUSTIN – Bishop Joe S. Váquez, bishop of the Diocese of Austin, released the following statement, today:

I am deeply saddened by the Supreme Court’s decision to require States to recognize same-sex marriages, because the opinion is based on the court’s belief that the culture has changed its views of marriage. This causes confusion among those who are faithful to the Gospel and erodes rights of persons in each State.

...

Regardless of the court’s decision, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. We will remain true and faithful to the Gospel and we will continue to call people to look deeply into the beauty of our theology of marriage and to come to a full understanding of a true sacramental marriage.

Jesus taught that from the beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. We follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to act according to this truth. I join my brother bishops in encouraging the faithful to move forward with faith, hope, and love: faith in the unchanging truth about marriage, rooted in the immutable nature of the human person and confirmed by divine revelation; hope that these truths will once again prevail in our society, not only by their logic, but by their great beauty and manifest service to the common good; and love for all our neighbors, even those who disagree with our faith and moral convictions. We intend to proclaim the goodness, truth, and beauty of marriage as rightly understood for millennia.

[vee]

We heterosexuals have been trashing marriage for years.  We desecrate it with birth control, with porn, with having sex with that person before marriage.  We are awash in failure heart break and the misery of divorce.  This ruling just means that there will be more misery and heartbreak because I seriously doubt the homosexuals who "marry" will have any more success at it than heterosexual unions. 

[Guest]

Sad day.