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 8.
I'm a gay man and I agree that this issue is much less important than many. I supported it but not to the point of donating money or marching in the streets.
(This was NEVER about equal legal rights and protections.) Of course it was! What do YOU claim it was about?
(That will be shown in the next few months when the radical LGBT activists find something else to whine about) OMG, you're so right! Just like after the civil rights act passed those pesky blacks kept finding trivial shit to complain about for DECADES! Holy Zeus, they're still at it today! I so wish they'd sit down and shut up - in the back, of course.
(Personally I don't care who they poke or lick or where they do it (in private)) Liar, liar, pants on fire! Wording it like that proves that you DO care. And as far as private goes, should I be restricted from holding my boyfriend's hand, or hugging, or kissing him in public? Please make up a list of things that straight couples can do in public that gay couples can't. I'll make sure the radical activists add it to our gay agenda. [Oh, and please tell us the juicy details; do you mostly poke or lick your wife? Does she swallow?] I hope 90% of you are ROFL right now...
(The uproar caused by less than 5% of the population is total BS) I KNOW! This republic that the founding fathers created is such a pain in the ass! The fact that it was specifically formed to protect the rights of the minority proves that we should really have a democracy. That way the rest of us could just oppress and abuse any less powerful group that annoyed us.
Regarding your current objection, though, there have been antidiscrimination laws on the books for decades. Let's use our put-upon baker as an example again. Can he refuse to make a Jew's kid's bar mitzvah cake? No! Can he refuse to make a black's Kwanzaa cake? No! Can he refuse to make a gay wedding cake? Apparently not! So what changed?! Not bloody much!
Could he refuse to make a straight wedding cake? You betcha! How f'ed up is our country?!
I've been waiting to write about this one, "if one tries to push their beliefs upon me..."
Here goes. If a Muslim threatens to saw your head off unless you convert, THAT is pushing their beliefs on you. But I fail to understand how asking you to make a cake that says "happy marriage John and Steve" involves them pushing any beliefs at all on you! You don't have to believe anything at all to decorate a cake, do you? They aren't inviting you to an all male orgy, they just want a cake!
If a mixed race couple came in, are they pushing their beliefs on you? What about a Jew who wants that bar mitzvah cake or a Muslim asking for an end of Ramadan cake? Are they pushing their beliefs on you?
I swear to Zeus that "pushing their beliefs on me" argument is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. (Here's your sign.)
At least it's unlikely to be extended to discrimination, though, because they got Hobby Lobby right.
It gets resolved and these days it doesn't involve much embarrassment.
The lack of mention of marriage in the Constitution does (probably?) mean that the federal gov't has no business recognizing marriage other than as a contact matter.
I wonder if that means the IRS shouldn't have a special category for married couples?
Jan is correct, no church should be forced to perform our even recognize a same sex marriage. And this ruling doesn't affect churches or religion in any way. It only says that the several states of the United States must allow and recognize it.
It will probably affect justices of the peace (which I am one). Because we're commissioned by a level of government that is forced to recognize same sex marriage we're probably required to perform them. I'm gay so I've never had an objection anyway.
I haven't heard of any case in CT where a JP refused to perform a same sex marriage. But an easy way out would be to say you weren't available on that day. Every town here has plenty of JP's so the couple would likely just call another one.
Today it would depend on the speaker. If I were to "misuse" the word literally it would be intentional, for exaggeration. For some others, maybe not so much.
Regardless, SCOTUS has no power to redefine words. To me this ruling was obvious solely under the Constitution's equal protections clause.
When it comes to SCOTUS redefining English, the real atrocity was the ObamaCare decision. In that one they blatantly ignored the crystal clear meaning of the statute and changed law, which is not their job.
The proper ruling, as they've done many times before, would have been to rule for the plaintiff and tell Congress to fix their own mess.
In my household, we speak three languages at any given point. My profession has me working with multiple languages and all their beautiful intricacies every single day. I understand the need to change and adapt. I also understand the need to choose words carefully to be understood--especially in law. Being confused when there is potential to be sued just freaking sucks, John. Also, yes, I do like how you kept with the theme. I showed it to my gay (happy and bisexual) sister, and she also appreciates your wit. Thank you for your responses.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stosse...
anything called marriage. . the Constitution says
Nothing About It At All.
second, people ARE free to live as they please, and
to form partnerships as they please -- called by names
which they choose.
third, my current "marriage" was done in a church,
by a dear friend, a family counselor.
fourth, my first "marriage" was done by a justice
of the peace, and was simply an interpersonal contract.
it was legitimate, too. . this whole dust-up is stupid.
IMHO. -- j
.
Beyond that powers NOT granted prohibits any action on their part. The States may have the right depending on the State Constitution and if the people granted them that power.
The federal government can only address secular issues thus the use of partnership or civil union is the end of their nose. Marriage is beyond the reach of their nose.
Separate but equal is a non-argument as it was struck down in a number of amendments and acts along with the rest of the Jim Crow laws. The main proponents were Democrats and I doubt they would consider it today in their new guise. In any case one is a legal contract by whatever name and the other is a religious concept More like apples and Zucchini
If a surprising number would accept it then the right thing to do is amend the Constitution. Failing that it's a power not granted and requires the surprising amount of people step forward state by state by state.
Maybe we should give the Government Party a nickname besides they one they held from 1840 or so up until their recent attempt at a change
Pinnochio Party comes to mind quite readily.
Not it's time to go look up what the Supreme Court actually said in the majority opinion. As the hubbub over Heller vs. Washington DC showed the headlines and the facts were far apart.
Jan
I think it is crucial to distinguish between the lack of barrier to marriage and the actions of the 'liberal terrorists' who inflict themselves on the private lives of other people. Perhaps the point needs to be made to them that their right to have their personal life-style decisions indicates that other people require the right to their own decisions as well.
Jan
Also, coming from someone within the community, I really don't think you have to feel embarrassed or ignorant about making such an assumption. If you and I were to have had that exact conversation, I would look at it as an opportunity to get to know each other better, rather than If you and I were to have had that exact conversation, I would look at it as an opportunity to get to know each other better, rather than A reason to be upset or offended. Well not everyone will react this way, perhaps changing someone's reaction to such a small misunderstanding is a good way to judge their character.
I would also be cognizant of such possible misunderstanding, and I would likely be into the conversation with "my husband and I just finished our honeymoon in Maui." I would also be cognizant of such possible misunderstanding, and I would likely be into the conversation with "my husband and I just finished our honeymoon in Maui." That would not only clear up any questions about the gender of my beloved, but also subtly advise you on my preferred spousal pronoun.
Perhaps, organically a new term will arrive at Salz all of our problems. But is it really less activist of a court to create new words for all of us to use?
Without being married you can not designate a significant other (of either sex) as your next of kin or point of emergency contact at a medical facility for example. State Farm would not let us jointly insure our vehicles before we were married. We are a heterosexual couple that lived together for 5 years before finally getting married and getting married makes a lot of things easier.
I wonder if there were not these thousand little "inconveniences" for unmarried couples would this even be an issue???
Load more comments...