Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Supreme Court Takes Up Same-sex Marriage
Today, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to hear a case on the constitutionality of state bans on gay marriage. I thought, and continue to think, that the Supreme Court erred in Windsor two years ago in striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. The decision did not directly overrule the many states that had barred gay marriage, but the reasoning made it clear what a majority of the Justices think: discrimination against gays violates the Constitution.
Nevertheless, I thought it would be best for the Justices to allow the issue of a constitutional right of gays to marry to proceed through the states and the lower courts over time. As someone who supports gay marriage, I believe that the political process is the most appropriate means under our Constitution for the American people to reach a decision on gay rights.
Still, I am not surprised that the Justices agreed to take up a case directly on the issue. There is a “circuit split” on the issue — while several lower federal courts have struck down state bans on gay marriage, one court has upheld them. Perhaps the most important function of the Supreme Court is to ensure uniformity in federal law throughout the nation. Once a sharp conflict arose between the lower federal courts over gay marriage, the Supreme Court had to step in.
I don’t think I am going out very far on a limb to predict that the Justices — by a 5-4 vote — will decide that state bans on gay marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.
Nor within my capacity to imagine it out of whole cloth.
The nutty “do away with marriage” meme is not representative of anything but an exotic fringe. You know how you can tell? Because you could only find one reference to it uttered by someone nobody’s ever heard of. Trying to tar me and the majority of Americans who favor same sex marriage rights with it is dishonest, or a cheap debate trick at best.
And I’m not sure what Murdock links you mean. If you’ve posted some other link, I missed it.
And not that it matters, but Chik-fil-a food is disgusting.
Remind me again why I’m supposed to believe that your disdain for me isn’t based on your religious beliefs?
Gary, is this some reference to the mysteriously absent Jennifer?
(laughs) No, just my usual indirect suggestion that the rhetorical level of the thread is proving to be impervious to improvement.
Oh, as usual, I haven’t seen the movie.
Can’t. I do not hold you in disdain. You seem to wish to believe everyone who disagrees with SSM marriage does hold you in disdain. Why? to give you a green light to hold them in disdain, too? to label them bigots? without feeling guilty for doing so?
If the person were an anomaly, her comment would be condemned. It isn’t the only example. It may not be your goal, but it is the goal of the lefties who have seized the cause for their own means. Chik Fil A is good and gets high ratings. It is the one fast food that has cars wrapped around the drive through lane at all hours of the day.
“Choice” “sin” “lack of self restraint” and the cause of “the breakdown of civil society” and “the growing size, power, and interference of the federal government” the “the loss of freedom.” Unworthy of legal equality. That’s disdain, even if it’s uncomfortable for you to look in the mirror and acknowledge it.
Not if nobody paid attention to it it wouldn’t. Obscure people say stupid things every day without producing a public outcry.
Not easy to ignore her when she is a government-chosen voice at a government-sponsored event precisely because the State Dpt is using the power of government to push an agenda.
-“choice” – how so? Choice vs innate is at the heart of many debates and attempts to understand homosexuality and even its status as a right. The Murdock article says it doesn’t matter if it is choice or not if two consenting adults find pleasure in the arrangement. My argument is different – that if it is choice, then you have no right to force acceptance and and even classify those who don’t accept the behavior as bigoted.
-“sin” – We are all sinners in the eyes of God. Are you saying I have disdain for myself and for all mankind? Again, the Bible prohibits certain behaviors,we call them sins, because the behavior damages. One can’t deny that homosexual male sexual activity causes many health problems. You may think this is an antiquated idea. Convince me otherwise once we find a cure for AIDS.
– “the breakdown of civil society,” “the growing size, power, and interference of the federal government,” and the “the loss of freedom” – yes, I have disdain for anyone who supports these for whatever reason. I openly and comfortably acknowledge this. Prove to me these don’t apply to the SSM movement. You only offer personal opinion. I have offered examples.
-“lack of self restraint” – Do you argue with the premise or with the assumption that that is a bad thing? Heterosexuals can exercise self-restraint, although fewer do so now. Do you want a list of societal ills fueled by the sexual revolution?
-Now let me addressed one – the accusation of bigotry when applied to religious people. The Bible lists ten commandments, the ones related to our relationship with God, “I am the Lord, your God. Thou shall bring no false idols before me. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.” I do not find society more civil now that it is full of pottie mouths. I also prefer the peaceful Sundays we had under the Blue Laws over the 7 days of hustle bustle we have now.
This brings us to the ones on behavior, “Honor thy father and thy mother, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery,Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor, Thou shalt not covet your neighbor’s wife.” These are the biggees …. but I guess I better add the law that offends you, thou shalt not engage in homosexual sex. You contend religious people are bigots for recognizing the latter as forbidden behavior. Therefore, to avoid being a bigot, I must also tolerate dishonoring parents, murder, adultery, theft, lying, and pursuing someone’s spouse.
Once again you demonstrate that your disdain is entirely rational and has nothing to do with your religious prejudices.
“Exercise self restraint?” The guy got married, for Chrissakes. He’s been married for ten years.
Ask any married man, with a smile, if the very essence of the “job” involves self-restraint.
No Gary. I’m out spreading AIDS and breaking down civil society with the practice of my perversion, which I chose for the purpose of defying God.
Yes, it would seem that, despite claims otherwise, homosexuals are getting along just fine picking and living with mates …. for 10 years even? Then I ask again, what is it they will gain by this movement?
Then why don’t you argue that rather than make up some new right and demand federal government sanction. At least the argument that it is a more moral choice for homosexuals just as it is for heteros is more palatable and doesn’t turn the COnstitution on its head. But then I have been there before somewhere around comment #14* ” There is good argument that if it civilizes heterosexuals and makes them more prosperous, then civil unions should be encouraged for homosexuals, as well, for most of the same reasons. I have no problem with the people of the states voting to determine whether their state will allow civil unions. I think “marriage” as a term should be reserved for the union of the male and female to establish a household and raise a family.”