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.
The Wrong Side of Morality
Many of my friends are very happy about Friday’s US Supreme Court decision. While I have mixed feelings, I realize that many of them are driven by great love and respect for other people, their dignity, their equality, and their love. And perhaps they’re right to celebrate the Supreme Court’s expansion of the definition of marriage.
A small minority of them, however, undermine their claim to be driven by love and respect when they lash out in hatred, anger, and derisive mockery at Supreme Court justices, or at others who do not share their views. If you write or like a post that calls Justice Thomas a highly unpleasant expletive, for example, the emotion driving you does not seem to be love, and the values guiding you do not seem to be respect or tolerance.
The moral line dividing us does not run between those who think that marriage and dignity are Constitutionally-protected rights and those that think these are issues for Congress or state legislatures. It does not run between those who think the opposite-gender clause must remain in the definition of marriage and those who think it must be removed. The moral line runs within us, between those parts of us that are driven by anger, bigotry, intolerance, and hate, and those that are driven by love and respect for other people, their orientations, and their opinions.
Wherever one stands on the issue, the part of us that wants to mock or condemn the justices who disagreed with us on Friday is probably on the wrong side of that moral line. We should worry less about being on the wrong side of history than about being on the wrong side of morality and human decency.
You got some non sequiturs in there on the way to calling me a bad man. I disagree with your characterization, I resent the condemnation, and I’ll see our enemies burnt in Hell with broken backs before I make nice. And I’m agnostic, so I guess that’ll be a while.
“If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams
No first without the second. No John without the Sam.
Fair enough, I wrote too broadly. You want to hate Stalin and Mao, go for it. Regarding the justices in Friday’s opinions, I think respectful disagreement is more appropriate.
Here lies Publius who died a respectful end
He was shot in the head while reviewing his work for affront before pressing send
Can I try?
Getting a little personal, don’t you think?
I do not believe that it is love and tolerance that drove the issue, but I don’t understand the animus behind it. Turning narrow agendas into rights, of course helps undermine the constitution and the rule of law while providing the pleasure of imposing one’s enlightened views on the unwashed, but what really drives it is beyond me. But love and tolerance? There is no evidence of this except in words and self images.
While reviewing *a* thread?
I hear what you are saying, Gil!
I’m a Canadian Conservative and I cringe for the Republicans, because this affects their image. As you say, so many of them appear to be bigoted, hate-filled people who oppose SSM, and many other social issues. Can’t they see themselves and what a picture they are projecting?
It appears that these people, unfortunately Republicans, prefer to follow the baser side of their nature, as you say. Don’t they feel any empathy for people who want to have their love recognized by their families, friends, and society? People who are in mixed-race marriages have already gone through this. They too, came up against the same bigoted opposition. But society sided with them in the end.
We in Canada have had legal SSM for ten years. The sky hasn’t fallen in.
We are also having the discussions around whether the Supreme Court, human rights, and the Law, trumps the politicians and Parliament.
As the great Tina Turner sang, “What’s love got to do with it?”
I, perhaps, wrote too broadly as well. Respectful disagreement has its place but where has that gotten us? Perhaps we should adopt the Alinskyite tactics of the left if we want to win more of these battles.
I seem to be an even worse writer than I had thought. My core example was some #LoveWins people who demonize Justice Thomas. When one finds himself using methods of hatred and intolerance, he should question whether or not his motives are really love and tolerance.
There are times when hatred and demonization are appropriate. The monsters throwing gay people off of buildings qualify. And it’s odd that many people have no love in their hearts for Evangelicals but are full of love and understanding for the Muslim Brotherhood, President Erdogan, and Iran’s Supreme Leader.
If we truly love America and the idea of civil society, our hearts must be wide enough to go all the way from the majority opinion of Justice Kennedy to the dissents of Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.
RF;
Marriages can be recognized by families, friends and society without the state becoming involved. The mixed race argument is a red herring because mixed race marriage does not violate the common law definition of a marriage between one man and one woman. The race laws were adopted by the Southern states after the constitution and were legitimately thrown out as being a violation of the common law understanding.
You’re just hitting some nerves that have been exposed and rubbed raw this week.
Cannot the Constitution and Federalism get as much play here as love and respect? Respect is always earned and is easily discarded by inappropriate behavior. Love and hate have little to do with conservative response to these Supreme Court rulings.
“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.”
― Samuel Adams
“Many of my friends are very happy about Friday’s US Supreme Court decision.”
None of mine are. Not one.
Gil: “I have mixed feelings”
Mixed feelings on SSM are doubleplus ungood. Nothing less than radiant approbation is permitted.
SSM is a wonderful thing. SSM has always been a wonderful thing.
2+2=5. The sooner you confess it, the easier it will go for you comrade.
Your attitude has been noticed you know. Oh yes, its been noticed.
“Your attitude has been noticed you know. Oh yes, its been noticed.”
—
There was enough room here for thirteen gay families’
There is no link whatsoever between mixed race marriages and SSM. Literally none.
It is this very thing – Linking the unlinkable – that makes the whole thing bananas.
Argh, this drives me crazy.
Casey
There is no link whatsoever between mixed race marriages and SSM. Literally none.
It is this very thing – Linking the unlinkable – that makes the whole thing bananas.
—
Words do not matter. Ideas count for nothing. There is only power, and the will to wield it. And they have it and we do not, so we will do what they say.
Interpreting the U.S. Constitution through feelings and emotions in lieu of reason and logic is what divides the Court. And please do not use ‘us’ to include those members on this site who refuse to be dominated by these lame emotional influences when expressing political views.
This was never about “love”; that was only the media campaign, the ‘winning slogan’.
Like Jeb Bush on Immigration, you mistake “self-interest” for “love”.
Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, Roberts, and Kennedy all disregard the constitution when it suits them, and ignore their oaths of office. They all deserve nothing but contempt and scorn. To respect them is to be on the wrong side of morality.
How can I show respect to anyone when they’ve expressly stated they don’t respect me? When they say they hate me because I don’t (and won’t) agree with them? The laws against inter-racial marriage were struck down, and rightly so. However, for gays to be able to claim discrimination, they have to tell everyone they are gay, lesbian, whatever. Their appearance, unlike a black woman or Asian man, is not necessarily indicative of their orientation. They don’t all flap their hands and say, “Hey, sailor!” Or bat their eyes and exclaim, “my, aren’t you precious?”
Blacks, Indians, Japanese people didn’t have a choice in their race. People who decide they love someone of the same sex are making a choice! Well, I choose to not respect the way they choose to express their sexuality. I just hope the U.S. doesn’t suffer the fate of Sodom, or Lot’s wife, because others choose to look the other way.
So, in other words, onanism.
;-)
Gay marriage was unthinkeable just 20 years ao. Just as so many situations have now emerged from the shadows and challenge our current ideas about how life should be.
Along with attitudes to Gays changing, so have attitudes to Mixed marriage, and what about Pornography. I used to be that porn of any form was banned and forbidden. I think most men on Ricochet think pornography is fine for them to view and they have not turnd into rapists or sex maniacs. So why not other changes to our norms? Gay marriage has been going on in Canada for over a decade. I dont see much changd.
If you think Gay Marriage is wrong, I say to you that pornography is wrong. Give up pornography – 20 years ago would you have been open about using porn?
To be fair to the social conservatives, Indaba, the kind of man who is most disturbed by the SSM ruling is unlikely to be a porn enthusiast. Most SoCons are not hypocrites.
They’re just wrong about gay marriage.
Have you looked at Ontario’s sex-ed curriculum lately?