danivon wrote:It isn't. But I am sure you have a point to make.

If a right to marry can be found in the Constitution, why should it be limited as Kennedy wants? Who is he? Why is it limited to adults? Why is it limited to human beings?

The answer is cultural and societal norms . . . until those norms are challenged.

Kennedy turned the Constitution into his playground. We all know the four liberal justices have no regard for it and Kennedy joined them wholeheartedly today.

I am looking for the section of the Constitution that says heterosexuals have the exclusive right to marry...can someone direct me to that provision? Thanks.

Agreed cultural and societal norms dictated by religion are giving way to norms having to be justified by human reason. Ultimately, the exclusion of gays from marriage could not be justified on rational grounds.

Scalia's opinion included a swipe at "hippies". Thomas wrote that slavery didn't affect the dignity of slaves.

Maybe they should have asked DF to write their dissents.

freeman3 wrote:I am looking for the section of the Constitution that says heterosexuals have the exclusive right to marry...can someone direct me to that provision? Thanks.

Hey smart guy, where's the age limit on getting married in the Constitution? Where's the exclusion of those already having a spouse?

#dontbeajackass

Agreed cultural and societal norms dictated by religion are giving way to norms having to be justified by human reason. Ultimately, the exclusion of gays from marriage could not be justified on rational grounds.

Right . . . so just change the definition of the word . . .

Using your logic here: "the exclusion of males from 'womanhood' could not be justified on rational grounds."

Exactly. Words have no fixed meaning. Gender has no fixed meaning. Humanity has no fixed meaning.

The descent into madness continues.

fate

If a right to marry can be found in the Constitution, why should it be limited as Kennedy wants?

The right to marry can't be found in the Constitution.
The right to equal treatment under the law can be found there.
The expanding interpretation of equal treatment .... is indeed a slippery slope. Although i think it is better described as a expanding virtuous circle.
And most minorities have much to thank that SCOTUS has at some point expanding the notion of equal treatment to include them
I think as do others that I think polyamory is a potential option for future change.However it encounters some problems in that marriage contracts between more than one represent a totally new form of contract that may have difficulties being treated equally under current laws. It will take legal challenges to test the notion just as legal challenges brought about inter racial marriage and same sex marriage.
In large part, same sex marriage advanced, as did inter racial marriage because society was willing to accept the idea. That might be the biggest hurdle for polyamory.

danivon wrote:Scalia's opinion included a swipe at "hippies". Thomas wrote that slavery didn't affect the dignity of slaves.

Maybe they should have asked DF to write their dissents.

On the other hand, Kennedy's majority opinion was pathetic:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.

Oh yes, religions will be protected. Sure. As long as they don't speak in public, right? "Free exercise" of religion was never meant to cover more than an hour or two on Sunday (or Saturday, or Friday--whatever your faith dictates), right?

This is little more than an after-dinner belch. Kennedy created a right which he recognizes will come into conflict with rights enshrined in the First Amendment. In his kindness, he deigns to tip his cap to those of "sincere conviction." That's very nice of him and it will prove utterly meaningless. It's about as encouraging as listening to someone like Bloomberg talk about the importance of the Second Amendment. Kennedy knows that those who view the Constitution as he does, as a living, breathing, "growing" document, will soon do everything in their power to make the "freedom of religion" as meaningless as the freedom to keep and bear arms is in many areas of the country.

fate

Words have no fixed meaning. Gender has no fixed meaning. Humanity has no fixed meaning

well words anyway. The meaning of words changes over time constantly. Some people like Shakespeare, and PDiddy just invent words that become accepted in common use...
Like the word wife. It used to also connote that the woman was the mans property...
Not so much in most western nations anymore.

fate

Oh yes, religions will be protected. Sure. As long as they don't speak in public, right? "Free exercise" of religion was never meant to cover more than an hour or two on Sunday (or Saturday, or Friday--whatever your faith dictates), right?

Do you really think that "freedom of religion" means that the religious adherent can justify discriminating against others because of their religion?

rickyp wrote:fate

Words have no fixed meaning. Gender has no fixed meaning. Humanity has no fixed meaning

well words anyway. The meaning of words changes over time constantly. Some people like Shakespeare, and PDiddy just invent words that become accepted in common use...
Like the word wife. It used to also connote that the woman was the mans property...
Not so much in most western nations anymore.

Ah, but some words ought to be fixed in meaning. Words like "man," "woman," "male," and "female" are not fluid. That they are now judged to be fluid is a reflection of the brain cloud under which our culture functions.

rickyp wrote:fate

Oh yes, religions will be protected. Sure. As long as they don't speak in public, right? "Free exercise" of religion was never meant to cover more than an hour or two on Sunday (or Saturday, or Friday--whatever your faith dictates), right?

Do you really think that "freedom of religion" means that the religious adherent can justify discriminating against others because of their religion?

And here you nearly hit the mark. "Discrimination" on the basis of race or gender? No.

"Discrimination" on the basis of activity? Yes.

Did you know you cannot join a biblical church if you are living with your girlfriend? Did you know you cannot join a biblical church if you are, habitually, a drunkard? Did you know you cannot join a biblical church if you are in an adulterous relationship?

The Bible lists all of these as sins. It also lists homosexuality as a sin. It lists many others as sins. Will the Supreme Court protect religion and the right of homosexuals to marry simultaneously? More importantly, will bureaucrats and lower courts?

Scalia nails my civil concerns (bold mine):

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Scalia's opinion included a swipe at "hippies". Thomas wrote that slavery didn't affect the dignity of slaves.

Maybe they should have asked DF to write their dissents.

On the other hand, Kennedy's majority opinion was pathetic:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.

Oh yes, religions will be protected. Sure. As long as they don't speak in public, right? "Free exercise" of religion was never meant to cover more than an hour or two on Sunday (or Saturday, or Friday--whatever your faith dictates), right?

So you are objecting something he DID NOT WRITE?

Religions would have a right to recognise or not marriages (as they do now - Catholics do not recognise second marriages, for example), and to carry out weddings as they want to.

And everyone (religious or otherwise) has the freedom to express their views. Again that's not abrogated.

What they can't do is try to use the levers of government to impose those view (Jinda, Abbott, etc, I'm looking at you...)

Doctor Fate wrote:Ah, but some words ought to be fixed in meaning. Words like "man," "woman," "male," and "female" are not fluid. That they are now judged to be fluid is a reflection of the brain cloud under which our culture functions.

And who you made you the keeper of dictionary corner?

Doctor Fate wrote:

This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Hmmm.

So people who want to govern themselves by having a gay marriage are not important. But people (such as politicians in states like Texas and Louisiana etc) who want to use the state to govern others and ban it should be protected.

He cites the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It's almost as if he never read it.

As I said above, I am glad that more people can now become happily married.

Fate

The Bible lists all of these as sins. It also lists homosexuality as a sin. It lists many others as sins. Will the Supreme Court protect religion and the right of homosexuals to marry simultaneousl

y?
Yes.
But it doesn't allow the use of religion as a justification for actions outside of the faith.
You can't refuse to serve a black man in a bakery.
You can't refuse to serv a married couple who are of different races.
You can't refuse to serve someone because of their sexuality.
It may offend their religious beliefs that blacks and white live in an equal society (If they still hold the religious values that were used to justify slavery and later segregation. ) But that sense of offence doesn't allow them to discriminate.
It may offend them that different races marry. The Bible was used to justify the laws that originally forbade inter racial marriages. I imagine some still hold true to that interpretation. It wouldn't protect them from laws against discriminatory behaviur.
The same goes now, for same sex marriages. A bakery that refuses to serve a same sex couple cannot claim their religion protects them from laws against offering the same service to gays as to everyone else.
Within their church, they can do what they want. That's religious freedom. But the Constitution also protects everyone else from the tyranny of religiously proscribed discrimination.... That's separation of church and state.