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 11.
But why is it a negative thing if someone wishes to marry two people simultaneously? Can you give me an objective rational argument against it?
The argument that this is an attack on the first amendment is misguided and backwards. The High Court did not dictate how churches must define marriage, nor did it determine what type of ceremonies it must perform. It stated that states may no longer restrict marriage licenses to opposite sex couples because that is inherently discriminatory. This is in no way an attack on religious freedom. The reality is that the religious wing of society was attempting to use the state to enforce their beliefs and promote their particular preferences. This is the first step in reversing that. If anything, it is improving the separation of church and state by disallowing one or several religions to obtain special benefits for those who follow them.
Me dino was thinking--"Why doesn't he paint the whole thing red and be done with it?"
This was NEVER about equal legal rights and protections. That will be shown in the next few months when the radical LGBT activists find something else to whine about so they are still important (if they ever were).
Personally I don't care who they poke or lick or where they do it (in private) and I feel the should have been able to enter into legal "unions", The uproar caused by less than 5% of the population is total BS, especially when there are so many other IMPORTANT issues to be handled.
This decision was essentially inevitable. The beginning of the redefinition of "marriage" was not when same-sex couples wished to also gain the same rights and benefits as opposite sex couples, it was when the state first became involved in the process of deciding who can and cannot be "married" by issuing marriage licenses. While this process may have been started hundreds of years ago, this was the first step and the origin of the problem. what exacerbated the problem and eventually brought this result was the enthusiasm of the religious right to promote what they thought was a beneficial institution by providing additional benefits and privileges to those who participated. However, since this is inherently discriminatory, eventually those oppressed or just simply left out would inevitably demand to be included.
Well I believe the ultimate solution is to remove state sanction of any relationship agreement, this is a necessary first step to not only pointing out the obvious hypocrisy but also to right a wrong. As rational egoists and freedom lovers we must always celebrate improvements in our system, which includes elimination of state enforced discrimination.
The question should never have been , why did it take so long to become legal. The question is, who gave them the authority to make it illegal in the first place.
(I'm obviously speaking of much more than mere personal relationships)
In the Marxist–Leninist interpretation of Marxist theory, developed primarily by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, religion is seen as retarding human development, and socialist states that follow a Marxist–Leninist variant are inherently atheistic. Due to this, a number of Marxist–Leninist governments in the twentieth century, such as the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, implemented rules introducing state atheism.
I have never been against gay marriage or polygamy... at least in the sense of your relationships. It's the fact that the government wants to control this. I was always taught that Marriage was an institution of the church (at least in Catholic Church). And from what i've learned, Churches used to control marriage certificates; up until inter racial marriage was an issue, then the "State" took over!
Say good bye to your Religions and churches. The Pope is already killing the Catholic Church...
Government can afford for be hated, reviled and despised. What it can't afford, however, is to be ignored and that is specifically what going Galt means to me. I chose to follow my own spiritual and moral convictions and government be damned. I mean no harm to any of 546 clowns running this particular circus, but I will offer no help. I think many more will eventually come to the same conclusion and will to a greater or lesser extent do the same.