SCOTUS Mandates Same Sex Marriage Nationally (UPDATED)

 

shutterstock_141934102From the the syllabus in Obergefell v. Hodges:

The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

More:

Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U. S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___. This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.

From Kennedy’s decision (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan; starts on p. 6):

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. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex…

From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent im- portance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secu- lar realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.

From Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent (joined by Scalia and Thomas; starts on p. 40):

Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.

But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

From Justice Scalia’s separate dissent (joined by Thomas; starts on p. 69):

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write sepa- rately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense per- sonal importance to me. The law can recognize as mar- riage whatever sexual attachments and living arrange- ments it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected commit- tee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

From Justice Thomas’s dissent (joined by Scalia; starts on p. 78):

The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not enti- tlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.

From Justice Alito’s dissent (joined by Scalia and Thomas; starts on p. 96):

Until the federal courts intervened, the American people were engaged in a debate about whether their States should recognize same-sex marriage.1 The question in these cases, however, is not what States should do about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers that question for them. It does not. The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State…

To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that “liberty” under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradi- tion.’ ” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 701, 720–721 (1997). And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.

Published in Law
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 362 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. user_517406 Inactive
    user_517406
    @MerinaSmith

    It’s been fun, Jamie, but I have to get some work done now.  Later.

    • #301
  2. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    Merina Smith: And you seriously think that government is not about to come down on religion and religious believers like a ton of bricks, in fact already has, as numerous people who tried to follow their consciences to the tune of very large fines and lost businesses can attest?  Uh-huh.

    No I do not. I think that the federal government is prevented from doing so based on the 1st amendment.

    As for those people who have already been harmed – I disagree with what happened to them and have donated money to legal defense funds in their name in two cases. But the problem there is the public accommodation laws – not SSM.

    • #302
  3. Frozen Chosen Inactive
    Frozen Chosen
    @FrozenChosen

    Jamie Lockett:

    Frozen Chosen: What is your remedy for the destruction of federalism taking place before our eyes?

    Convince 51% of the population that our side is correct. Win elections. Reverse the policies.

    You know – democracy.

    The unfortunate thing about democracy is even if you’re right that doesn’t mean you win.

    Except we don’t live in a democracy – we live in a constitutional republic. Democracy is a lynch mob which can impose or change any law it chooses.  Our constitutional republic prohibits that unless the constitution is amended as allowed.  It’s not supposed to be changed willy nilly by 9 clowns in black robes who “discover” rights in the penumbras.

    • #303
  4. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    (((Not from private citizens they don’t. That’s not how the Constitution works. This is a common misconception of the first amendment. Freedom from government not freedom from criticism.)))

    It’s becoming clear as I read this thread (and Peters thread on the main)that people think that they are being harmed, and their freedom is being diminished when their views become less popular or their views oppose the States views. They compare this harm to actually being discriminated against by the government. It’s apples and oranges folks. In one the state is taking direct action against you, in the other you have lost a popularity contest.

    • #304
  5. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    Jamie Lockett:

    Merina Smith: Religious and conscience beliefs do deserve special protection because they are the foundation of freedom. That was the whole point of our country’s founding and the Constitution. Lose those and all freedoms are lost.

    Not from private citizens they don’t. That’s not how the Constitution works. This is a common misconception of the first amendment. Freedom from government not freedom from criticism.

    I would be rather careful about that last line if I were you. Too many on the Right were fond of making that statement 8-12 years ago toward people on the Left who got all “Dissent is patriotic” whenever  they were questioned about supporting the country’s military. And look how it’s come back to bite them.

    Don’t place yourself in a position to have that last sentence come back to harm you.

    • #305
  6. user_517406 Inactive
    user_517406
    @MerinaSmith

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    Merina Smith:

    Jamie Lockett:

    Merina Smith: Again, in your dreams. The repercussions are endless.

    I’m not denying that there will be repercussions (especially from a judicially imposed SSM), but the hyperbolic reactions to this are a little much…

    Jamie, I guess time will tell, but I think you have always underestimated the depth and importance of marriage to culture and family.

    But what makes marriage and family deep and important also makes them robust.

    Your co-arguers here have time and time again told me that this is not big change, no big deal. It ought to already be clear that this is a very big deal and that I have been right about that all along.

    What disconcerts me, though, Merina, is rhetoric that argues, on the one hand, that the ties of blood and family run so deep that they are the defining ties in life, and on the other hand, that the traditional family is so very fragile that it’s likely to crumble to dust in the face of such perturbations.

    Arguments like the quoted appear to trust the traditional family above all else – except when they don’t. It can get rather confusing. I guess my lower level of worry means that I trust the strength of traditional family more than you do?…

    Midge, missed this earlier.  I trust the family to some degree.  I think people have an innate desire for family, and that most people want children and want to know their parents.  At the same time there are great obstacles to family–sexual desire leads toward stable family in a way, but also disrupts it when appetites roam.  Parents have an innate desire to protect children, but it is greatly weakened when they aren’t near those children.  And so on. So a good, solid shared understanding of marriage helps avoid all these problems. The underlying assumptions in this case are just all wrong.  Redefined marriage cannot assume that kids should be raised if at all possible by their own parents, quite the contrary.  It assumes that any combination of people is fine, and of course we’re moving toward–already there in CA–any number of parents.  So gone is the understanding that Mom and dad are best and that genetic connection is important. This is terrible for kids, most of whom want to know their Mom and Dad and gain from having male and female in the home.  Now there is no legal certainty about what is (almost always) very best for children and adults for that matter.  It is a giant muddle.  When it comes to family, we should greatly fear the muddle.  No one thrives on muddle except lawyers.

    • #306
  7. user_44643 Inactive
    user_44643
    @MikeLaRoche

    Kate Braestrup:But I do apologize—as mentioned in #264, I’ve got a knee that jerks when it comes to hyperbolic threats to abandon the USA. (The knee doesn’t jerk about conscientious objectors to gay marriage, people who reject judicial overreach, Christian bakers and clergy persons…) I should have recognized it as hyperbole and kept quiet. I’m sorry if I implied that your objections to the SCOTUS decision was the equivalent of affirming slavery—that’s not what I intended.

    Apology accepted.  And I likewise apologize for any offense I may have caused with my spirited comments and replies.  I’m not mean, just Texan.

    • #307
  8. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @TaterHerk

    The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex…”

    If the Court finds that opposite sex marriage is discriminatory to same sex couples, can’t a state then abolish marriage from all state institutions?  Then the only marriage is non-state marriage, i.e. religious marriage.  Couples, groups, corporations can then enter into a contractual relationship under state law to govern relationships.   Can’t the court only mandate same-sex marriage if the state recognizes marriage?

    • #308
  9. Frozen Chosen Inactive
    Frozen Chosen
    @FrozenChosen

    TaterHerk:“

    If the Court finds that opposite sex marriage is discriminatory to same sex couples, can’t a state then abolish marriage from all state institutions? Then the only marriage is non-state marriage, i.e. religious marriage. Couples, groups, corporations can then enter into a contractual relationship under state law to govern relationships. Can’t the court only mandate same-sex marriage if the state recognizes marriage?

    Works for me!

    • #309
  10. user_473455 Inactive
    user_473455
    @BenjaminGlaser

    Are there any professional writers on the conservative side who are still pro-family?

    It seems like every one I have read from National Review, etc… have spoken in excited toned about the legalization of this action, yet only demur at the manner.

    • #310
  11. user_517406 Inactive
    user_517406
    @MerinaSmith

    Benjamin Glaser:Are there any professional writers on the conservative side who are still pro-family?

    It seems like every one I have read from National Review, etc… have spoken in excited toned about the legalization of this action, yet only demur at the manner.

    David French.  He’s great. Also, check out The Federalist.

    • #311
  12. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Merina Smith:

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    Merina Smith:

    Jamie, I guess time will tell, but I think you have always underestimated the depth and importance of marriage to culture and family.

    But what makes marriage and family deep and important also makes them robust.

    …It ought to already be clear that this is a very big deal and that I have been right about that all along.

    What disconcerts me, though, Merina, is rhetoric that argues, on the one hand, that the ties of blood and family run so deep that they are the defining ties in life, and on the other hand, that the traditional family is so very fragile that it’s likely to crumble to dust in the face of such perturbations.

    Arguments like the quoted appear to trust the traditional family above all else – except when they don’t.…

    I trust the family to some degree…. At the same time there are great obstacles to family–sexual desire leads toward stable family in a way, but also disrupts it when appetites roam. Parents’ … innate desire to protect children… is greatly weakened when they aren’t near those children… So a good, solid shared understanding of marriage helps avoid all these problems.

    I agree a shared understanding of marriage facilitates stable family formation. Not really settling on what marriage is, or could be, adds instability. Adds risk. But how much?

    Scary but feasible? Most likely dooming? There’s a lot of ground to cover between those two options.

    • #312
  13. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Merina Smith:

    Benjamin Glaser:Are there any professional writers on the conservative side who are still pro-family?

    It seems like every one I have read from National Review, etc… have spoken in excited toned about the legalization of this action, yet only demur at the manner.

    David French. He’s great. Also, check out The Federalist.

    David French has been absolutely superb.

    But that’s not been my impression at all at NRO.  Cooke, yes, and I haven’t read everything, but just scrolling through the Corner he seems to be the exception rather than the rule.  (That impression might be colored by the fact that French seems to have written about half the commentary on there today, and that it’s all memorable.)  Maggie Gallagher has a piece on the front page.  Their editorial opposes the result as well as the method — that would indicate there’s a consensus.

    • #313
  14. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @SoDakBoy

    Jamie Lockett:

    Merina Smith: Jamie, you can’t do that when you are bullied by the universities, the media and the courts. Intimidation and lies is not how democracy works, much as this crowd seems to think so.

    You clearly don’t know your early American history very well. Try looking up the Jefferson/Adams elections sometime.

    That said – your beliefs deserve no more protection from the scorn of other citizens and their institutions as mine do. They deserve, like mine do, protection from government, but if the media wants to side against you – well that’s life. Convince the people you are right and you won’t have this problem, people like me will.

    Convince people you are right… And then what?  Have a referendum in 30 states enshrining a definition of marriage for my particular state?  Something like that?

    This is the whole point of this discussion and Scalia’s dissent.  This is no longer a democracy.  On the important issues, we are ruled by judges.

    • #314
  15. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Merina Smith:

    Kate Braestrup:Threatening to secede or bolt for Canada is what leftist friends were always doing when Bush did this or that (you know, started a war or two, bragged about disappearing people during the State of the Union address).

    This is tiresome and infantile no matter who does it. I’m a patriot, boys. Proud to be an American, this is the country my father, grandfather and son all fought for, I pledge allegiance to the flag and mean it. Meaning: I don’t secede, and it’s fine with me if the Stars and Stripes is the only flag we fly.

    Well, yes, but that was a whole different ball game. I don’t agree with you here. There is nothing infantile about defending your belief system, especially for a Christian, quite the contrary. In the current political climate it takes a great deal of courage to defend what you believe. Everybody finds this whole debate tiresome–no question about that. But make no mistake, it is about core beliefs and people cannot and should not give those up, nor will they. This might illustrate the difference between us though. When it comes to my faith and beliefs, the nation doesn’t hold a candle to them. They come first. I’ve been lucky enough to live in a nation that respected them heretofore, but no longer apparently. It’s not even a contest–faith and beliefs above nation, no question.

    There is nothing infantile about defending your belief system. There is something infantile (or at least melodramatic) about saying “all right then, we’ll secede.” We being Texas, I guess, or Arkansas or whatever. Secede. Because of gay marriage. And explicitly conjuring the Confederacy, which stood up for what it believed in, and what it believed in was…?

    Merina, you know I don’t think that your objection to gay marriage is the equivalent of thinking black people should be enslaved. It’s not a comparison I would make. It’s a comparison that was made in this thread by people who are upset about the SCOTUS decision. It would not surprise me to learn that these are the same people who are perfectly willing to declare that Obama isn’t a “real” American (because he grew up overseas)  and/or that he “hates” America.

    • #315
  16. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    But obviously, this is a conversation to engage in once everyone has calmed down, realized they don’t have bits of sky embedded in their scalps, taken a deep breath and regrouped a little. (You’d think by this time I’d be accustomed to how freaked-out straight social/moral conservatives get about this issue… I believe that you’re freaked out, and I’m sorry you feel so awful, I just can’t feel it. My bad.)

    As I say, I am actually not as enthusiastic about the SCOTUS decision as you might think—I’m in favor of gay marriage (being a pro-marriage person generally, as Merina at least might recall from previous conversations) but I would have preferred a legislative process to a judicial one. But the reason I’d prefer that is that I think gay marriage was going to happen either way. More and more people look at it, think about it, and realize that their gay uncle or the nice lesbians next door will have a wedding, and it’s kind of nice and dignified (especially compared to, say, heterosexuals in Hollywood) and nothing horrible happens, so (yawn) maybe then we’d get onto the important things. Like, say, welfare reform. Or fixing the mental health care system. Anyway, BDB,  Mike et al. Don’t secede. Stick around. It just wouldn’t be America without you.

    • #316
  17. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Merina Smith: supposed

    I hope not, Merina. If it were up to me, I’d give very wide latitude for religious exceptions.

    Mike—thank you for forgiving me. Back atcha. I didn’t mean to be a jerk, truly.

    • #317
  18. user_517406 Inactive
    user_517406
    @MerinaSmith

    Kate Braestrup:

    Merina Smith: supposed

    I hope not, Merina. If it were up to me, I’d give very wide latitude for religious exceptions.

    Mike—thank you for forgiving me. Back atcha. I didn’t mean to be a jerk, truly.

    I hope we don’t have to secede, and we can certainly live and let live as we have been doing for a very long time. But we do not have the choice to change our belief system.  If that is forced on us, and if I had to bet I would bet that it will be, then doing what we can toward leaving is our only option.  That’s just reality.  My hope is that people will be reasonable and say–hey–we can live and let live. But that is not the message we have been getting toward pretty much anything, so I am not very hopeful.  I do think that the current time is akin to McCarthyism or the French Revolution, when people careen from one extreme to the next and there is no good sense.  Eventually that just wears out and people wonder what they were thinking.  That is certainly a possibility and what I hope for.

    • #318
  19. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @DadDog

    Frozen Chosen:

    Except we don’t live in a democracy – we live in a constitutional republic. Democracy is a lynch mob which can impose or change any law it chooses. Our constitutional republic prohibits that unless the constitution is amended as allowed. It’s not supposed to be changed willy nilly by 9 clowns in black robes who “discover” rights in the penumbras.

    My point, exactly (see comment #90).  Thank you, FC.

    • #319
  20. Frozen Chosen Inactive
    Frozen Chosen
    @FrozenChosen

    Dad Dog:

    Frozen Chosen:

    Except we don’t live in a democracy – we live in a constitutional republic. Democracy is a lynch mob which can impose or change any law it chooses. Our constitutional republic prohibits that unless the constitution is amended as allowed. It’s not supposed to be changed willy nilly by 9 clowns in black robes who “discover” rights in the penumbras.

    My point, exactly (see comment #90). Thank you, FC.

    [Please enjoy the video here, we’ve removed it to keep it from playing automatically. -Eds]

    great video, DD!

    • #320
  21. Austin Murrey Inactive
    Austin Murrey
    @AustinMurrey

    Begging your pardon, but if we Texans secede it won’t be because of gay marriage but because y’all are crazy.

    • #321
  22. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    The melodrama in this thread is very amusing.

    • #322
  23. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Frozen Chosen:Do states have any rights anymore or is everything to be decided in DC? Just how elastic is your constitution?

    I don’t believe this is still the country your fathers and mine fought for – it has become something wholly unrecognizable to them or us.

    Dear Frozen—yes it does bother me. And I am quite sure that the fact that I favor SSM  (that is, the outcome is generally okay with me) is a big part of why it doesn’t bother me nearly as much as it bothers you.  But that’s human nature. The general gnashing of teeth over this decision has to do with the content, not the process.

    BTW—in a previous post I referred to you being “freaked out” which sounds like I think you’re irrational. What I meant was more like “emotional” or “worried”or something.

    Anyway, Frozen, this may not be the country my grandfather fought for—he was fighting for a very fine, very flawed America; one in which Japanese-Americans were interned, and Hitler cited American racism and our own eugenics programs approvingly as a precedent and justification for his own. If someone had wanted to declare these (both, surely, more horrible than merely permitting gays and lesbians to marry) as a reason for secession or abandoning the country, they would (IMHO) have been wrong.

    Then there’s the country my father fought for— splendid and flawed (HUAC, Jim Crow). And the one my son enlisted to fight for back in 2004; plenty of people thought America had lost its collective mind…not because people were getting married but because people were getting dead. (This was when I heard so much “I’m moving to Canada” talk from left wing friends.)

    Anyway, yes,  this is definitely the splendid, flawed country my grandfather, father and son fought for, and it is my son who gets to decide whether it was worth his sacrifices. As it happens, my son the (heterosexual, as it happens) Marine and his buddies joyfully celebrated the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell; another moment when the sky, mysteriously, remained in place. Easy for me to say, but I really think this is going to be okay.

    • #323
  24. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Asquared:

    Majestyk:This is no surprise at all.

    Agreed. The health care decision was much easier to decide the other way. If SCOTUS is willing to ignore statutory language to further the left’s agenda, there was never any doubt they would discover a hitherto undiscovered constitutional right to force your views on the faithful since the language of the First Amendment no longer presents an obstacle to appeasing the left.

    I would hope the pro-SSM crowd will stand up for the right of the faithful in the aftermath of their complete victory, but I doubt it. As someone said in another thread, you give the left an inch and they will take a mile.

    I am not optimistic for the future of the first amendment rights in this country. But let’s be honest, they’ve been under attack for a few decades now.

    EDIT

    I will stick up for you, Asquared, and for the First Amendment. Promise.

    • #324
  25. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    DrewInWisconsin: Very true. As we know, every time the vote was put to the citizens, the citizens voted against it. Even in California. Activist judges regularly overturned the will of the people.

    Not in Maine.

    • #325
  26. Frank Soto Member
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    Jamie Lockett:The melodrama in this thread is very amusing.

    There is a degree of melodrama in all political discussion, but I think Christians are right that the battle ahead to preserve their religious liberty will be quite difficult.  You can forgive them a moment of lamenting that it has to come to a point where such a basic liberty needs to be fought for in America.

    • #326
  27. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Frank Soto:

    Jamie Lockett:The melodrama in this thread is very amusing.

    There is a degree of melodrama in all political discussion, but I think Christians are right that the battle ahead to preserve their religious liberty will be quite difficult. You can forgive them a moment of lamenting that it has to come to a point where such a basic liberty needs to be fought for in America.

    Yes—“lamenting”—that’s what I meant. Not “freaking out.” Sorry.

    • #327
  28. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Frank Soto:

    Jamie Lockett:The melodrama in this thread is very amusing.

    There is a degree of melodrama in all political discussion, but I think Christians are right that the battle ahead to preserve their religious liberty will be quite difficult. You can forgive them a moment of lamenting that it has to come to a point where such a basic liberty needs to be fought for in America.

    Even if that were not true, you’re looking at people’s genuine fears for their most precious liberties, and you, as a libertarian, truly find that funny?

    • #328
  29. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Melodrama is always “melo” in the supercilious eye of the beholder. Basil has called me out plenty on my “melodramas” (in that British accent I always imagine him having…)

    I may think these fears are overblown, but I don’t think they’re wholly groundless. Freedom of Conscience is enshrined in our constitution because it needs to be declared and protected against enemies, foreign and domestic, and everyone has an inner Totalitarian squatting within, whispering “you know, everything would be so much better if everyone was a…”

    Cheerleader! Says Mike.

    Libertarian! Says Fred.

    Universalist! Says Kate.

    Etc.

    • #329
  30. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    Frank Soto:

    Jamie Lockett:The melodrama in this thread is very amusing.

    There is a degree of melodrama in all political discussion, but I think Christians are right that the battle ahead to preserve their religious liberty will be quite difficult. You can forgive them a moment of lamenting that it has to come to a point where such a basic liberty needs to be fought for in America.

    I was at today’s session of the Western Conservative Summit in Denver. I got to see Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina (very impressive, BTW), and Mike Huckabee speak. I will say that every speaker I saw was…quite subdued about the SSM issue. Even Huckabee and Tony Perkins were sticking to anti-SCOTUS boilerplate regarding the decision.

    So if you’re looking for someone to deliver a speech heavy on the need to protect religious liberty, you weren’t getting much of that today.

    • #330
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.