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 4.
I apologize for my entire gender subset, that you were subject to that despicable behavior by a woman.
Jan
raped by a woman, but it wasn't quite the same as
a man raping someone. . they should lose their penises. -- j
.
As far as I can see, all the cases you cited will not be decided one way or the other on the basis of the Court’s gay marriage ruling. Most of these legal actions were launched before the ruling occurred, and would have proceeded regardless of how the Supreme Court ruled. These cases are generally based on “anti-discrimination” laws and government mandates that have been on the books for some time, and are really a separate issue. The gay marriage ruling concerned only the relationship between citizens and their local/state governments, not citizens’ dealings with other citizens.
The one possible exception to what I said above is the issue you brought up regarding forcing a church to perform a gay wedding. I think such an attempt would be quickly shot down in the U.S. However, in Great Britain the issue is more complicated because the Church of England is a long-established state church, making the issue one of citizens vs. government rather than citizens vs. voluntary religious organization.
Jan
I would encourage you to post that advertisement. The 'right' solution to this mess is for people who personally support alternative forms of marriage to be the ones who delight in conducting them. The ministers who are only comfortable with traditional marriages should be able to continue to conduct those ceremonies and not be forced to conform to standards with which they do not agree.
Jan
Jan
A piece of paper is incapable of denying the free association and expression of love and joy. The last thing I want is to do so, or to support laws that do so. I am only concerned with the breakdown of the language and legal implications of a continuing trend in this direction. As the courts have demonstrated they are more interested in loosening and ascribing new interpretations rather than creating true solutions through proper legitimate, constitutional methods.
My interest in this matter is academic and related to a breakdown of our system and our language. Prior to 2003 and for thousands of years the word marriage in dictionaries was a union between one man and one woman. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/563728.aspx
We will adapt, but for legal clarity and communication generally, since we have not coined a new word, elaboration will now be required. I like succinct specificity. It would have been nice to have "one' new specific descriptive word. Alternatively, the government should get out of it altogether and simply provide equal treatment regardless of status or possession of such a license.
Respectfully,
O.A.
A sad display. Unfortunately there are those that are militant and intolerant of the views of others. Civilized people can agree to disagree.
Regards,
O.A.
This ruling will undoubtedly encourage more litigation. People of faith will be forced into positions of offering services contrary to their religious beliefs and practices. This will force associations they would otherwise avoid. There have been churches, bakers, photographers and others already put in this position. So far many have been able to resist, but not all. The cost of defense is often enough to force some to fold. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi...
How the cases eventually play out is yet to be seen but this is analogous to the problem with The Little Sisters (Nuns) who temporarily do not have to comply with the O'care mandate to provide contraception. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/s... There is an element of people in this nation that will use these rulings to take down religious rights simply because they do not like opposing views or the piety.
What we are likely to have is cases that pit one's rights against another. Most LGBTS will not be a problem but there is a militant element that will litigate. Because our laws now are in accord with those of the U.K. we are likely to see cases like this one presently in the U.K. http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millio...
Objectivism dismisses mysticism so it is not a problem for the philosophy. Our nation, however, is not based on objectivist principles. We must live with tolerance for the beliefs of others. So says the first amendment.
Respectfully,
O.A.
As has been pointed out, homosexuals had rights already, and there were other ways to have gone about this. I believe their end game is to violate the rights of conservative Christians. Not all of them, but some. Enough. Because they are so tolerant.
OA made an excellent point. In a free society, all social interaction is voluntary. That implies the corollary that disassociation must also be an option. But this has become unacceptable for many. And, as has been pointed out elsewhere here, this is not just because of this new ruling (businesses are not allowed to legally discriminate based on race, for example), though it is just one more avenue for this discrimination discrimination.
I recently read Ayn Rand's article on Racism, and think it is worth quoting here.
“That absurdly evil policy [racial quotas] is destroying the moral base of the Negroes’ fight. Their case rested on the principle of individual rights. If they demand the violation of the rights of others, they negate and forfeit their own. Then the same answer applies to them as to the Southern racists: there can be no such thing as the ‘right’ of some men to violate the rights of others.”
“The ‘civil rights’ bill, now under consideration in Congress [written in September, 1963], is another example of a gross infringement of individual rights. It is proper to forbid all discrimination in government-owned facilities and establishments: the government has no right to discriminate against any citizens. And by the very same principle, the government has no right to discriminate for some citizens at the expense of others. It has no right to violate the right of private property by forbidding discrimination in privately owned establishments.
“No man, neither Negro nor white, has any claim to the property of another man. A man’s rights are not violated by a private individual’s refusal to deal with him. Racism is an evil, irrational and morally contemptible doctrine – but doctrines cannot be forbidden or prescribed by law. Just as we have to protect a communist’s freedom of speech, even though his doctrines are evil, so we have to protect a racist’s right to use and disposal of his own property. Private racism is not a legal, but a moral issue – and can be fought only by private means, such as economic boycott or social ostracism.”
When a natural right (like freedom to dispose of your private property; freedom of religion) comes into conflict with a civil right (like freedom to marry), which should win?
The “turmoil” generated by this ruling is not necessarily a bad thing, if it encourages people to think about basic issues such as the nature of rights and the proper role of government. After all, Ayn Rand’s introduction of her philosophy generated decades of controversy, but over the long run the spread of her ideas has been beneficial.
I don’t agree 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.” Could you please cite a hypothetical example of such an occurrence? I don’t think the Supreme Court can base its rulings on the possibility of undesirable unintended consequences down the road. To do so, the Court would always have to vote to uphold the status quo, regardless of the merits of the case before it.
As to licensing, I don’t think governments should grant licenses for any purpose. Marriage should be a private contract recognized and enforceable by an appropriate court. The owners of privately owned roads should have the right to make and enforce rules for drivers. And so on. In a fully free-market economy, no government license would be necessary.
I agree with you that “the mark of a legitimate fundamental right is that it does not conflict with others.”
I think it is reasonable to assume that more litigation will be encouraged by this decision. Yes, they will undoubtedly be considered discrimination cases, but they are also cases that involve force being applied to people contrary to their rights of free association and practicing their religious beliefs. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi...
You may be interested in my above addendum and commenting further.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I have no problem with the majority of what you have written and appreciate your contributions generally. On one point though, I think you are underestimating the implications, and the intentions and efforts of some that have already interfered with the rights of some to adhere to their religious beliefs in the private sector. There have been private business owners that have been forced out of business ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi... ) or threatened with discrimination suits for not wanting to provide services for gay weddings because they felt it was a violation of their religion. It is only natural considering history that this is not the end of such litigation. So to date it has not only affected government.
Additionally you may be interested in commenting on my addendum above. Please feel free.
I wish only to understand all arguments and perspectives.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I am pleased to find you are reasonable and measured. You are not alone in this regard. I know from personal experience. However, as is often the case, there are a few that are not as forgiving and take offense when none is intended. We must always keep in mind that the loudest militant voices are not the rule, though the media is fond of giving them undeserved prominence.
I have enjoyed your contributions and the exchange. You may be interested in my addendum above.
Respectfully,
O.A.
:) Thank's. Now you have a much larger task. I am but one and there are hundreds of millions in need of a politically correct dialog. Time to get to work. You are going to be very busy. We will all have to adjust.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Try to debate the issue with yourself and try to present the other sides arguments.
Next step being forced to legally not discriminate against LGBT in housing etc. just as has happened in other anti-discrimination issues (I personally believe it is wrong to discriminate against anyone.)
You are asking questions best answered by anti- LGBT people. I am NOT one of those. I am just stating they have the right to their beliefs as well.
Load more comments...