Same-Sex Marriage is now a Right

[BedellBrave]

As for yesterday's ruling, obviously I'm beyond emotional that this day has finally come. I'm no lawyer, so how the ruling was written is far secondary to me to gaining the actual rights across the full nation. I don't believe that citizens should be able to vote on the rights of a minority. So that the courts had to be involved seems apparent and inevitable to me. Aren't courts supposed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the many? This all seems pretty textbook example. Let me vote on your right to marry, and see how you feel. Marriages and the rights that come with it should not dissolve or resume depending on which border is crossed here in America. That makes a far bigger mockery of the institution than two people of the same sex could ever do. Now, of course, the Right is trying to backdoor their anti-gay marriage laws with these so-called religious freedom laws. Are these not slippery slope precedents that worry you? People like to point to the pizza parlor incident, which seems more like a PR stunt to me by the Right. But where will religion draw the line? Pizza is fine to discriminate. Bathrooms are fine to discriminate. Water fountains are fine to discriminate. (Starting to sound familiar?) Buses. Schools. Medical facilities....

I'm thankful for Dane because he's honest. He said in a thread some years ago that this battle was ultimately not about tolerance but approval. And now he cuts to the chase again. Non-discrimination laws and local statues will be applied and there's really no line to be drawn, you see. And I know what that will mean.

 

[BedellBrave]

Speaking of which, here's a post by someone connected with that OPC church in SF firebombing case:

"I'm heart-sick with the Supreme Court's decision yesterday and all the pursuant demonstrations... including the White House bathed in the colors of the Gay Flag. It's "the people's house" no longer.

...If Christians think that their churches (and businesses!) and their pastors will be exempt from this ruling just because Justice Kennedy "says" so - think again, and prepare yourselves. Read "Walker v. First Orthodox Presbyterian Church of San Francisco, et al."... oh, that's right... you'll never find any record of that case EVER happening (anywhere except in our garage!). All papers and anything related to the case "mysteriously" disappeared from public record shortly after the case. A few years after summary judgment, even the judge (who wrote a 10-page opinion in the church's favor) couldn't find any record of the case. You see, the judge had been denied a political appointment in San Francisco because the gay community protested against him based on his ruling in our case. The judge had forgotten, but they never do. The judge found that all papers - public or private - relating to the case were simply "non-existent" as far as the public record knew... but the gay community knew. The judge's wife contacted us and finally got a copy of "Walker v. The First Orthodox Presbyterian Church" from us... but the judge never got the appointment. That's how it works, folks!..."

 

[BedellBrave]

I see your Link (from 30+ years ago), and I raise you This,

"The only suspect for the attack was Rodger Dale Nunez, a local hustler and troublemaker who had been ejected from the bar earlier in the evening after fighting with another customer"

 

[BedellBrave]

I see your Link (from 30+ years ago), and I raise you This, This, and This.

Religion and governments have persecuted gay people much longer and more horrifically than any of the "intolerant" things you may hear about gays treating Christians these days. Violence is abhorrent in all instances. But let's not pretend that gays haven't had their fair share against them.

Which of those three stories Dane are you pinning on Christians?

Secondly, are you saying these wrongs make the OPC Church firebombing right?

Third, Julio asked for a case and I gave him one.

Fourth, I abhor and denounce all of these acts of violence.

Fifth, never said gays haven't suffered abuse.

 

[BedellBrave]

As the residential Mormon I disapprove of this message.

No practicing Mormon has practiced polygamy in a 150 years.

Darn it! ;-) But now's the time to go for it!

 

[57Brave]

The people decided the 2000 election.

oh really

 

[goldfly]

But there is a process for that, and Scalia's point is that the 9 people on the supreme court shouldn't decide that result. He made sure to point out that the democratic process was working in this situation. That those who were pro gay marriage legitimately had their say and they were changing opinions and they could go back and fight those same battles later that they lost. I just personally could not have less respect for liberal judges after this ruling.

We don't want 9 people making decisions in a democracy. This is my concern here. I know Dane is happy and I am glad that he can marry his significant other, but I think it's a huge mistake to discount the process. I think the process was important.

this is part of the process

that is what i don't get about this line of complaint.

the same people that wanted to ban gay marriage and put this into law is what made this happen. you made your bed, sleep in it now.

 

[57Brave]

here we go again:

"when they can't win on policy
they argue the process
when they can't win the process
they make it
personal "

"... Scalia's point is that the 9 people on the supreme court shouldn't decide that result. He made sure to point out that the democratic process was working in this situation. That those who were pro gay marriage legitimately had their say and they were changing opinions and they could go back and fight those same battles later that they lost. I just personally could not have less respect for liberal judges after this ruling."

"symptoms of the disease of liberal judicial activism that has infected our judiciary," Cruz writes. "A remedy is needed that will restore health to the sick man in our constitutional system. Rendering the justices directly accountable to the people would provide such a remedy."
- Ted Cruz

 

[57Brave]

http://www.newsweek.com/jim-obergefell-man-behind-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-decision-347314

 

[striker42]

oh really

The court decided the 2000 election in the same way the home plate umpire decided the 1992 NLCS. You still have Pirate fans that complain that Bream was really out.

Generally I find people who complain about Bush v Gore don't know what that decision was actually based on. When you actually look into it you find the court was right in how they decided. It was Gore that screwed up.

Gore asked for a hand recount in only 4 counties. The court decided equal protection would be violated by only hand recounting in 4 heavily democratic counties. You'd essentially be giving people's votes there more weight. 7 Justices agreed on that. It was 5-4 overall because 2 thought there was sufficient time for an alternative.

In any event, it was later determined Gore still wouldn't have won even with a hand recount in just those 4 counties.

 

[57Brave]

The election in Fl was decided in the winter of 1999-2000. That has been documented.
Not complaining. Just to be clear. Jeb/Katherine Harris did the deed.

Saying the people decided is not true.
~ Invoke Nadar perhaps. The purging of voter roles played won the day

Having said that, you could say SCOTUS ruling was in the ball park. But memory reminds me Supreme stopped the count.
Stopped the count.

Now, who wants to talk "Judicial Activism"

 

[57Brave]

The court decided the 2000 election in the same way the home plate umpire decided the 1992 NLCS. You still have Pirate fans that complain that Bream was really out.

Generally I find people who complain about Bush v Gore don't know what that decision was actually based on. When you actually look into it you find the court was right in how they decided. It was Gore that screwed up.

Gore asked for a hand recount in only 4 counties. The court decided equal protection would be violated by only hand recounting in 4 heavily democratic counties. You'd essentially be giving people's votes there more weight. 7 Justices agreed on that. It was 5-4 overall because 2 thought there was sufficient time for an alternative.

In any event, it was later determined Gore still wouldn't have won even with a hand recount in just those 4 counties.

The winners write history.

...
Bream was safe not even close.

 

[AerchAngel]

The black church does not like this decision at all. Just like Illinois they went against it as well. I have said over the years, blacks vote Democrat, but they are socially Conservatives.

I don't care about the rights, just don't like how it was accomplished. It was inevitable. But now the black church might try to challenge this or put up a front (will amount to nothing in the end) but least it get it out of politics outside of the total disrespect to the Constitution.

 

[50PoundHead]

The people decided the 2000 election.

Yes, they did. But you can't argue that the Supreme Court didn't short-circuit that process by pulling the plug on the recount. The recount ultimately proved the W. won Florida, but that's not the argument I'm making. Like I said in an earlier post, people's view of the Supreme Court seems to shift depending on which side of the 5-4 you're on.

striker, you never answered my question on where you sit on Brown v. Board of Education.

 

[striker42]

Yes, they did. But you can't argue that the Supreme Court didn't short-circuit that process by pulling the plug on the recount. The recount ultimately proved the W. won Florida, but that's not the argument I'm making. Like I said in an earlier post, people's view of the Supreme Court seems to shift depending on which side of the 5-4 you're on.

striker, you never answered my question on where you sit on Brown v. Board of Education.

Sorry, didn't see you ask that.

Brown is a case where I agree with the result but the court definitely stepped outside their bounds in the reasoning. What comes down to is that they disagreed with the law so they held it facially invalid. They could have easily held the law invalid as applied and had better footing but it wouldn't have had the same dramatic, sweeping effect. It would have been more of a slow crawl towards desegregation. But that's actually what the courts are set up for.

 

[Runnin]

Complaining about "the process" sounds a lot like the mob boss who can't believe he was finally put away on tax evasion. In 5 years, will it really matter?

 

[striker42]

Complaining about "the process" sounds a lot like the mob boss who can't believe he was finally put away on tax evasion. In 5 years, will it really matter?

More than you'd ever think. The process is incredibly important. How the SCOTUS decides an issue can be used as precedent in deciding future issues by all levels of federal courts.

Guys, the way this was decided could be bad news. Do you want unelected judges deciding issues based on their own, personal policy preferences? Do you want a super legislature? If this marks a new era for the court it will be a bad one.

 

[weso1]

Yes, they did. But you can't argue that the Supreme Court didn't short-circuit that process by pulling the plug on the recount. The recount ultimately proved the W. won Florida, but that's not the argument I'm making. Like I said in an earlier post, people's view of the Supreme Court seems to shift depending on which side of the 5-4 you're on.

striker, you never answered my question on where you sit on Brown v. Board of Education.

I disagree with you. I don't think they short-circuited the decision, I think they made the right choice. I think striker makes my point better than I could make it, but my opinion is that the recount was unreasobable. Gore's lawyers chose the 4 county deal because they new that was their only chance at victory. The supreme court stepped in and said, well that's not democracy.

 

[weso1]

Complaining about "the process" sounds a lot like the mob boss who can't believe he was finally put away on tax evasion. In 5 years, will it really matter?

Good thought, but I disagree with your premise. The mob boss always knows he could be put away. I think in 5 years this decision has the potential to make a major impact. I know I have said it way too much, but I am a supporter of gay marriage, I voted for it in the last election for my state. I don't support this court decision and I honestly think a lot of you have a big problem with it as well, but are unwilling to admit it. I just don't want Americans to take for granted the importance of our system of checks and balances. I see young folks who see the importance of freedom, but I fear they don't understand the importance of our system.

 

[weso1]

Sorry, didn't see you ask that.

Brown is a case where I agree with the result but the court definitely stepped outside their bounds in the reasoning. What comes down to is that they disagreed with the law so they held it facially invalid. They could have easily held the law invalid as applied and had better footing but it wouldn't have had the same dramatic, sweeping effect. It would have been more of a slow crawl towards desegregation. But that's actually what the courts are set up for.

I need you to expound on this point. To me the supreme court made the right decision in regards to segregation. In fact from my understanding it was a unanimous decision. What are your arguments that they messed up? My opinion is that the constitution gives equal rights to all Americans.