This was unconstitutional

[Revoltingest]

The problem is that "Jews as proto-Christians" buys into the Christian paradigm, portraying Jews as somehow incomplete, Judaism as somehow insufficient. Jews and Judaism are complete unto themselves.

Oh, that's not my paradigm.
I just see them as having shared origins.
As for which is more "sufficient" or "complete", that issue is above my pay grade.

Maybe it's less like the relationship betwen homo sapiens and earlier evolutions of genus homo, and more like certain individuals who dislike knowing that all humanity originated in Africa because they believe the highest evolution of homo sapiens is Caucasian.

Everyone knows the most highly evolved human being isn't white or black....he's blue.

Anyway, I dont' care for debates about whose religion or race is superior.
Aside from being unproductive, the results are entirely driven by bogus premises.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news......
Orthodox Christians Must Now Learn To Live as Exiles in Our Own Country - TIME

 

[Lyndon]

Having some African genes doesn't make anyone black. Not in the physical sense of having dark skin and sub-Saharan African features. And definitely not in the cultural sense of having the experience of being African, or African-American, or African-anything else.

For God's sake people share like 50% of their genetic code with bananas, doesn't make any of us bananas, either.

Speak for yourself, my skin is almost yellow and I'm soft and sweet inside!!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

In the news......
Orthodox Christians Must Now Learn To Live as Exiles in Our Own Country - TIME

I thought this was going to be about Greek, Russian and other Eastern Orthodox churches. Apparently, Protestant Fundamentalists have now decided that they need to change their identity again...
Amazingly, though, there are a number of protestant churches that have absolutely no problem with people being gay and performing same-sex marriages for them.

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought this was going to be about Greek, Russian and other Eastern Orthodox churches. Apparently, Protestant Fundamentalists have now decided that they need to change their identity again...
Amazingly, though, there are a number of protestant churches that have absolutely no problem with people being gay and performing same-sex marriages for them.

For a book offering absolute inerrant truth, the Bible sure leads people in different directions, eh.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Legalizing same sex marriage everywhere was against the constitution of the united states. This is not something to be debated. Anyone who read the constitution would know that any powers that then federal government doesn't have is left up to the states. This should be a state issue, not a federal issue. Instead of giving people a choice it's either making it legal everywhere or illegal everywhere. This was wrong.

Does anyone know the Constitution, let alone care?

Have you researched into the reasoning behind the ruling. I have. I also agree that its a stretch of the constitution and I feel that the congress should make an amendment to the constitution to properly identify it. Two of the most important components of the issue was 1) Discrimination based upon gender and 2) the establishment that marriage is a fundamental right.

Marriage has historically always been considered a fundamental right and thus protected under the due process of the 14th amendment. So the reasoning behind it is that homosexuals should have the right to marriage as it is a fundamental right to all Americans. I think it is too loosely linked to gender and there should be a push to make discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal. It is not nationally illegal. It is illegal in most states however. That is the only amendment that should be added and I think that would definitively clear up all of the issues.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

For a book offering absolute inerrant truth, the Bible sure leads people in different directions, eh.

I'm wondering what it is about the word Orthodox that is appealing to this particular writer (and if this is common, others who are doing this)? Maybe I just haven't been paying attention, but I haven't noticed this usage before in the debate running up to this decision. Of course, I haven't been reading the conservative Christian media, either.

From Dictionary.com:
"Orthodox
[awr-thuh-doks]
Synonyms

• Examples
• Word Origin

adjective
1.
of, relating to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.
2.
of, relating to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.
3.
customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.
4.
sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, especially theological or religious doctrine.
5.
conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church.
6.
(initial capital letter) of, relating to, or designating the Eastern Church, especially the Greek Orthodox Church.
7.
(initial capital letter) of, relating to, or characteristic of Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Judaism."

Well, I would guess that 6 and 7 are right out; and 1, 2, and 3 seem too general; which would leave 4 and 5 as the appealing meanings the writer is going for. Next week I'll be teaching students about how people try to spin their positions through word selection, etc., in the public debates and discussions about policy; I think I've got a new example to use. I'm just wondering why "fundamental" won't do?

 

[fantome profane]

In the news......
Orthodox Christians Must Now Learn To Live as Exiles in Our Own Country - TIME

Also In the news......
Histrionic Headlines Increase Magazine Sales. - BFTP

 

[Revoltingest]

Have you researched into the reasoning behind the ruling. I have. I also agree that its a stretch of the constitution and I feel that the congress should make an amendment to the constitution to properly identify it. Two of the most important components of the issue was 1) Discrimination based upon gender and 2) the establishment that marriage is a fundamental right.

Marriage has historically always been considered a fundamental right and thus protected under the due process of the 14th amendment. So the reasoning behind it is that homosexuals should have the right to marriage as it is a fundamental right to all Americans. I think it is too loosely linked to gender and there should be a push to make discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal. It is not nationally illegal. It is illegal in most states however. That is the only amendment that should be added and I think that would definitively clear up all of the issues.

There's a constitutional difference between limiting & expanding rights.
To limit a prescribed right is (or should be) very difficult, eg, by amendment or constitutional convention.
But the Constitution specifically allows recognizing by fiat previously non-enumerated &/or non-recognized rights.
The 9th Amendment.....

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This would be tricky if a newly recognized right imposed some abridgment or cost upon others,
but in the case of gay marriage, there is only an up side, ie, those who oppose it don't have to
engage in it or pay for it, nor do they in any real way suffer any loss from it..

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There's a constitutional difference between limiting & expanding rights.
To limit a prescribed right is (or should be) very difficult, eg, by amendment or constitutional convention.
But the Constitution specifically allows recognizing by fiat previously non-enumerated &/or non-recognized rights.
The 9th Amendment.....

The issue with that from the get go is that it wasn't defined as a right historically. This is what had to be changed in order for it to be a right. Don't get me wrong I fully support their decision and am happy for it. But I do see the issue with an unspecific declaration of a vague right that seems to be totally subjective to the Justicies.

This would be tricky if a newly recognized right imposed some abridgment or cost upon others, but in the case of gay marriage,
there is only an up side, ie, those who oppose it don't have to engage in it or pay for it, nor do they in any real
way suffer any loss from it..

It wouldn't. It is already a state right in most states.

 

[Revoltingest]

The issue with that from the get go is that it wasn't defined as a right historically. This is what had to be changed in order for it to be a right. Don't get me wrong I fully support their decision and am happy for it. But I do see the issue with an unspecific declaration of a vague right that seems to be totally subjective to the Justicies.

I agree that the justices are quite subjective at times, particularly when they want to rule one way, but the Constitution says they can't.
They often just do as they please, & then rationalize it away.
But in this case, I see a firm foundation in the following.....
- The 9th Amendment
- The 14th Amendment
- Public consensus that gay marriage is a right
- Public benefit & individual without harming anyone (other than bruised religious feelings)

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The issue with that from the get go is that it wasn't defined as a right historically. This is what had to be changed in order for it to be a right. Don't get me wrong I fully support their decision and am happy for it. But I do see the issue with an unspecific declaration of a vague right that seems to be totally subjective to the Justicies.

It wouldn't. It is already a state right in most states.

What do you mean it wasn't defined as a right historically? Since the inception of the nation (actually before, under British Common Law, which our law system derives from), marriage was recognized under law, and not as a privilege that could be offered or withdrawn at whim, and largely not as an "option" except for the lower classes. The states incorporated marriage into their laws, where it has been treated as a right (with limitations) since the founding. Over time, the courts have again and again changed who could get married (such as allowing people of different races to marry--a SC decision about state-regulated marriages, just like the same-sex marriage).

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I agree that the justices are quite subjective at times, particularly when they want to rule one way, but the Constitution says they can't.
They often just do as they please, & then rationalize it away.
But in this case, I see a firm foundation in the following.....
- The 9th Amendment
- The 14th Amendment
- Public consensus that gay marriage is a right
- Public benefit & individual without harming anyone (other than bruised religious feelings)

I agree there is at least a strong case in the latter two and loose but good enough cases in the first two.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What do you mean it wasn't defined as a right historically? Since the inception of the nation (actually before, under British Common Law, which our law system derives from), marriage was recognized under law, and not as a privilege that could be offered or withdrawn at whim, and largely not as an "option" except for the lower classes. The states incorporated marriage into their laws, where it has been treated as a right (with limitations) since the founding. Over time, the courts have again and again changed who could get married (such as allowing people of different races to marry--a SC decision about state-regulated marriages, just like the same-sex marriage).

The concept of homosexual marriages have not been a historical right. The concept of marriage itself has been a historical right but historically it has been withheld from same sex couples in America until 2003. I am glad to have seen this changed but I am also in favor of adding an amendment to the constitution to make sure that it is undeniable. Be sure, liberal or conservative, that this ruling wasn't a clear cut understanding of the constitution but an reflection of the majority of the American people that has been achieved through subjectively interpreted passages in the constitution. Some disagree with me. It doesn't make the ruling any less legitimate it just means that we were one Justice away from it going the other way. There is nothing really stopping the next president (if he is conservative) from pointing a new Justice to tip the scales again. I think it is unlikely that it will change anytime soon but ten years ago I would have said that it was unlikely that we would see the supreme court declare bans against same sex marriage unconstitutional. I treasure this ruling and support it. Its why I feel that the fight should be continued to protect it.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The concept of homosexual marriages have not been a historical right. The concept of marriage itself has been a historical right but historically it has been withheld from same sex couples in America until 2003. I am glad to have seen this changed but I am also in favor of adding an amendment to the constitution to make sure that it is undeniable. Be sure, liberal or conservative, that this ruling wasn't a clear cut understanding of the constitution but an reflection of the majority of the American people that has been achieved through subjectively interpreted passages in the constitution. Some disagree with me. It doesn't make the ruling any less legitimate it just means that we were one Justice away from it going the other way. There is nothing really stopping the next president (if he is conservative) from pointing a new Justice to tip the scales again. I think it is unlikely that it will change anytime soon but ten years ago I would have said that it was unlikely that we would see the supreme court declare bans against same sex marriage unconstitutional. I treasure this ruling and support it. Its why I feel that the fight should be continued to protect it.

I understand, I thought you were talking about marriage in general not being a historical right; my bad! Yes, anyone who studies the SC and its rulings comes to understand that sometimes the rulings are a bit more subjective than in other cases, but that is why Congress can create legislation to override or address the SC rulings, and amendments can be approved by Congress and the states (or via the other mechanisms)--and future cases may force the court to one day revisit the issue again. Citizens United was another recent decision where the majority was a bit subjective, but going in the Conservative's direction.

 

[Jainarayan]

The issue with that from the get go is that it wasn't defined as a right historically. This is what had to be changed in order for it to be a right. Don't get me wrong I fully support their decision and am happy for it. But I do see the issue with an unspecific declaration of a vague right that seems to be totally subjective to the Justicies.

It wouldn't. It is already a state right in most states.

Loving v. Virginia established marriage as a fundamental right of man. So there is SCOTUS precedent for upholding marriage as a right. Granted, Loving specified race not gender but I think the court knows that society has changed and the law should change with it, within reason and precedent. The Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy, but the 14th was cited primarily in Lawrence v. Texas. A little bit of 14th goes a long way.

 

[metis]

Legalizing same sex marriage everywhere was against the constitution of the united states. This is not something to be debated. Anyone who read the constitution would know that any powers that then federal government doesn't have is left up to the states. This should be a state issue, not a federal issue. Instead of giving people a choice it's either making it legal everywhere or illegal everywhere. This was wrong.

Does anyone know the Constitution, let alone care?

It was not unconstitutional. As bizarre as it may sound, the Constitution is what the SCOTUS says it is, and this has been our practice for well over 200 year. Also, a reminder there is something called the "Supremacy Clause".

 

[metis]

Gun control, multiple welfare programs, having less freedom because you might "offend" someone, healthcare that's crappy and forced upon others, these are all things socialist countries do. How do you not see this? Social security is something a socialist would do. Trying to spread the wealth around is a socialist trait.

There are times where I feel like I'm Mugatu from Zoolander and I just want to scream "Doesn't anyone see this, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"

We have what is called a "mixed economy", so socialism is very much a part of what we have. We long have abandoned a more capitalistic approach because it simply caused way too many problems.

My experience is that when some don't like certain governmental approaches they scream "socialism!", but if it's a program that they like because it favors them, that's OK. Thus, the many of the Tea Party people would say the want "smaller government" while at the same time carrying signs that say "Don't touch my Medicare!" and/or "Don't touch my Social Security!".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The decision was the right one. I suggest you either get over this or move to another country.

Yeah, join the crowd of people who are moving to Canada over America legalizing gay marriage, even though Canada legalized it along time ago.

In the news......
Orthodox Christians Must Now Learn To Live as Exiles in Our Own Country - TIME

Maybe one day I'll understand how sharing this nation with others is interpreted in ways such as "living as exiles in our own country." It's pretty bad when I used to be one of them and I still can't understand it.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Yeah, join the crowd of people who are moving to Canada over America legalizing gay marriage, even though Canada legalized it along time ago.

Maybe one day I'll understand how sharing this nation with others is interpreted in ways such as "living as exiles in our own country." It's pretty bad when I used to be one of them and I still can't understand it.

Its the sound of the privileged lamenting "Woe is me! Woe are Us! We are so put upon!"