Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 10 months ago to Government
Well there you have it folks. Another decision that has the effect of complicating and distorting our language.
I personally have no problems with what the LGBT people do. It is only a matter of definitions and giving new meaning to existing words that bothers me. I believe that a new word should have been created and that equal rights in every way should be granted. Unfortunately now the word marriage will be less descriptive and specific. This has been the case of several decisions lately that only confound our language. The court believes it can re-write Webster's dictionary.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Addendum: Some final thoughts
After contemplating the arguments presented, I wish it understood that since I have no strong religious convictions on this matter, I have no personal problems with this ruling other than a minor irritation with the effective changing of the definition of the word marriage. I will have little difficulty adjusting my language and accepting the outcome. However, others of a contrary nature and the undoubted turmoil that will ensue for our nation will not likely foster comity. After all there are a very large number of people of religious convictions that will not wish to have their rights to practice and live by their beliefs abrogated.
I accept the absolute right of free association that is involved, but free association as a right cannot exist without its corollary of disassociation. One cannot objectively avoid recognition that this ruling will lead to the violation of rights of those that hold a contrary view by forcing them into associations they would otherwise avoid.
The problem’s origin seems to stem from the fact that the government has bestowed upon holders of a “marriage” license, benefits that others were not granted. This is unequal treatment and thus unjust. This is the crux of the problem and should be rectified and could be done easily by eliminating those benefits or granting them to everyone regardless of possession of such a license. It would seem that it is largely the result of government getting into something it should not have in the first place and as usual producing unanticipated consequences.
Is acquisition of this license in and of itself a fundamental right? If this were so, would it not apply to a driver’s license also? It has been understood that such a license is a privilege, which by definition one must qualify for. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, would not this line of reasoning lead one to conclude that any license or even contract that someone else can acquire is equally a right for all regardless of criteria? For instance should one demand that since some have contracts with the NBA that it should be the right of all so desiring? This is of course reductio ad absurdum.
What precedent for our nation and the effects upon states rights and the tenth amendment will this have? The implications are incalculable. The more cases that redefine the meaning of words, the more cases of the past will be in jeopardy. Without unchanging meanings we become a nation not of written laws, but of the whims of men and the political winds of the time. The fact that some words already have ambiguity is not a persuasive argument for acceptance of more of the same done with purpose born of temporary convenience or political correctness.
Some say (as the majority opinion did) that this is necessary to grant dignity and respect for the pro gay marriage crowd. This argument is specious since no government issued paper can grant dignity. Dignity is a reflection/matter of approval and acceptance of one's peers and the community.
Ultimately our nation will likely suffer further division and struggle with this issue just as we still do with Roe v. Wade. This is unfortunate since there were other alternatives. I hope it is not more than our ever more fragile peace between factions can handle. Frankly I hope I am wrong in this matter and we can move past it, but it does seem inevitable that our courts will be needlessly filled with cases where some “rights” are pitted against others. The mark of a legitimate fundamental right is that it does not conflict with others.
In closing, I would like to thank all those that have participated in this conversation and invite the reader to comment further as they desire.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I personally have no problems with what the LGBT people do. It is only a matter of definitions and giving new meaning to existing words that bothers me. I believe that a new word should have been created and that equal rights in every way should be granted. Unfortunately now the word marriage will be less descriptive and specific. This has been the case of several decisions lately that only confound our language. The court believes it can re-write Webster's dictionary.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Addendum: Some final thoughts
After contemplating the arguments presented, I wish it understood that since I have no strong religious convictions on this matter, I have no personal problems with this ruling other than a minor irritation with the effective changing of the definition of the word marriage. I will have little difficulty adjusting my language and accepting the outcome. However, others of a contrary nature and the undoubted turmoil that will ensue for our nation will not likely foster comity. After all there are a very large number of people of religious convictions that will not wish to have their rights to practice and live by their beliefs abrogated.
I accept the absolute right of free association that is involved, but free association as a right cannot exist without its corollary of disassociation. One cannot objectively avoid recognition that this ruling will lead to the violation of rights of those that hold a contrary view by forcing them into associations they would otherwise avoid.
The problem’s origin seems to stem from the fact that the government has bestowed upon holders of a “marriage” license, benefits that others were not granted. This is unequal treatment and thus unjust. This is the crux of the problem and should be rectified and could be done easily by eliminating those benefits or granting them to everyone regardless of possession of such a license. It would seem that it is largely the result of government getting into something it should not have in the first place and as usual producing unanticipated consequences.
Is acquisition of this license in and of itself a fundamental right? If this were so, would it not apply to a driver’s license also? It has been understood that such a license is a privilege, which by definition one must qualify for. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, would not this line of reasoning lead one to conclude that any license or even contract that someone else can acquire is equally a right for all regardless of criteria? For instance should one demand that since some have contracts with the NBA that it should be the right of all so desiring? This is of course reductio ad absurdum.
What precedent for our nation and the effects upon states rights and the tenth amendment will this have? The implications are incalculable. The more cases that redefine the meaning of words, the more cases of the past will be in jeopardy. Without unchanging meanings we become a nation not of written laws, but of the whims of men and the political winds of the time. The fact that some words already have ambiguity is not a persuasive argument for acceptance of more of the same done with purpose born of temporary convenience or political correctness.
Some say (as the majority opinion did) that this is necessary to grant dignity and respect for the pro gay marriage crowd. This argument is specious since no government issued paper can grant dignity. Dignity is a reflection/matter of approval and acceptance of one's peers and the community.
Ultimately our nation will likely suffer further division and struggle with this issue just as we still do with Roe v. Wade. This is unfortunate since there were other alternatives. I hope it is not more than our ever more fragile peace between factions can handle. Frankly I hope I am wrong in this matter and we can move past it, but it does seem inevitable that our courts will be needlessly filled with cases where some “rights” are pitted against others. The mark of a legitimate fundamental right is that it does not conflict with others.
In closing, I would like to thank all those that have participated in this conversation and invite the reader to comment further as they desire.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 6.
There is no "separation of church and state". That term was coined by an activist Federal judge in the 1960's. The applicable standard according to the First Amendment is that the State shall not establish an institution of religion as the federal standard. It doesn't mean banning such expression at all. To do so is to violate the freedom of thought.
And if marriages as you correctly identify are contracts, is not the whole point of this to determine whether or not those contracts are valid and enforceable? Is not that subject to what the people have to say and not a handful of robed vigilantes? Are you so bent on giving the Federal Government power to overstep their clearly delineated bounds that you are willing to give to them not only the ability to create laws and rewrite meanings, but to override the voted will of the people they are supposed to be representing?
It really tightens my jaw to think of all the women all over the world who are sold into a marriage they despise, and which they cannot legally escape. The freedom to "not" is crucial.
Jan
What concerns me is that once one redefines marriage in this manner, where does the logical boundary now lie? What is to proscribe a man from marrying a pig? Or their dead cousin? Or a five-year-old? If you erase the lines by redefining marriage to be anything but the union of a man and a woman, you have a hard time backing out. They haven't redefined marriage, they've utterly destroyed it.
I'd be way more concerned with NAMBLA than the Mormons.
Jan
Second, there is not such thing as "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. That phrase was coined by a 1960's activist judge. It is a well-known fact that well into the 1900's various congregations used Federal buildings including the halls of Congress for religious meetings. The earliest debates of the Continental Congress opened and closed with prayer. It is not to say that Congress adopted a specific religion (contrary to the First Amendment), only that it was not openly hostile to religion as it is today.
What is more important is the slew of lawsuits that will now be leveled at religious organizations attempting to force them to recognize homosexual unions and even perform them. You know what their leverage is going to be? Their tax-exempt status. The government will use that to put religions out of business _literally_ since once they lose their status, they will be businesses.
This was a sad fay for freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of the mind. You can be religious or not, but now you have the heavy hand of government overstepping its Constitutional bounds to author moral decrees.
Stossel was hot in his hippie days. Those eyes!
Jan, likes eye candy
Regarding equal protection, it's my understanding that unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns, participate in each other's social security benefits (despite paying the same amount into the system as married couples), can be compelled to testify against each other in court, are not recognized as "family members" by many states if one of them becomes incapacitated and needs a guardian. The list goes on.
If the government were to cease deciding who is entitled to marry whom, and begin treating all individuals equally before the law, the whole issue would go away.
The "dignity" right will bite this country in the ass. Lawsuits will now fly anytime some thinks their dignity was violated. That's the conversation we need to have here. What is a dignity right, and what is the scope of it. Maybe better to start a new thread on that
Nope just as I don't brand all blacks BGI members ...there is a group of LGBT extremists whose goal was not ever to get legal parity for gay unions. It was only to make sure the term marriage would be used.
The analogy was way off base. LGBT people already had equal rights and equal protection (even as a protected class ... http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotect...). This was about highjacking the term "marriage" .......
As is shown by YOUR statement "No, that was just icing on the cake. "
"Eliminate" the states role - easy, remove the spouse tax deduction, and SS survivor benefits, truly, that's the only reason why govt injected themselves into it, other then collecting the marriage license fees.
I for one could not care about ones sex, race,religion, or sexual preferences. As Reardon in Atlas Shrugged was told who , when, and how much he was told to sell his product to so am I by our government these are the facts.
I at least respect your opinion even though I don't agree. Don't feel you do that is your individual right so for this reason if a person with that mind set would want to come to my personal Gulch they would be sent on with my best wishes.
.
.
And I didn't state a single belief. I stated objective facts.
The Gulch isn't somewhere for those who are antisocial and/or confused about individual rights to go skulk until they think it's safe to emerge.
Load more comments...