freeman3 wrote:Our culture is not in decline but the bigotry and intolerance against gays that came in a significant part from religious teaching is declining. That's a very good thing. If the religious teaching offends thee, cast it out. And we , as a culture, have done so.

danivon wrote:So you are objecting something he DID NOT WRITE?

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...)

rickyp wrote: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.

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.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So you are objecting something he DID NOT WRITE?

No. I'm objecting to the fluff he wrote. His assurances are as valuable as those uttered by a used car salesman.

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...)

No, you've got it quite reversed. While Christians imposed nothing prior to this ruling (heterosexual marriage has been the rule throughout history), the levers of government are going to be utilized to impose secular views upon Christians. That is inevitable.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote: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.

Ever the sophist. Where does the Bible prohibit treating blacks as equal to whites?

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.

Because if they dare disagree with the REdefinition of marriage, they must be punished!

Yeah, that's freedom of religion . . . or not.

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.

Thank you for providing a succinct view of the redefinition of "freedom of religion." Christians are free to practice their religion in private . . . maybe in their closet.

That sound in the background . . . ah, yes. I recognize it now. It is the sound of the Constitution being run through a shredder.

danivon wrote:Imposing bans on gay marriage is what, if not imposing something? And doing it as a "cultural norm" backed up by what people say God wants is exactly what was happening.

By the way, the USA is a secular country, based on the First Amendment.

No-one can make Christians change their beliefs but themselves.

And not all Christians today oppose gay marriage (and for those who are opposed, it's less about whether anyone can do it than whether they should condone it or accept it in a religious sense).

Question:

What freedom of yours is lost by this decision? Not a theoretical, slippery-slope one. An actual thing you could do before yesterday that you can't do now.

An increasing number of religious and social conservatives are diverting their energy away from preventing same-sex marriage. They are working harder to establish the right of individuals, companies and churches to actively discriminate against the LGBT community without running afoul of state human rights legislation. They promote this in the name of religious freedom. But it is not religious freedom in the historical meaning of the term, which includes the freedom of belief, freedom to assemble, freedom of religious speech, freedom to proselytize, etc. It is a recently emerged meaning for religious freedom: the religiously-based freedom to oppress and discriminate against others. Few seem to realize that the ethic of reciprocity -- a.k.a. Golden Rule -- requires Christians and followers of other religions to do the exact opposite

The truth is these laws were a response to judicial decisions. Judges have been creating this right and people responded to those decisions.

rickyp wrote:Fate how do you feel about the the Golden Rule?

An increasing number of religious and social conservatives are diverting their energy away from preventing same-sex marriage. They are working harder to establish the right of individuals, companies and churches to actively discriminate against the LGBT community without running afoul of state human rights legislation. They promote this in the name of religious freedom. But it is not religious freedom in the historical meaning of the term, which includes the freedom of belief, freedom to assemble, freedom of religious speech, freedom to proselytize, etc. It is a recently emerged meaning for religious freedom: the religiously-based freedom to oppress and discriminate against others. Few seem to realize that the ethic of reciprocity -- a.k.a. Golden Rule -- requires Christians and followers of other religions to do the exact opposite

.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr_menu.htm

rickyp wrote:fate

The truth is these laws were a response to judicial decisions. Judges have been creating this right and people responded to those decisions.

Judges did not write the 14th amendment.
They have interpreted its application.

Without a fundamental acceptance of same sex marriage by most Americans, I doubt they could have interpreted the 14th amendment as they did.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

LGBT activists and their fellow travelers really will be coming after social conservatives. The Supreme Court has now, in constitutional doctrine, said that homosexuality is equivalent to race. The next goal of activists will be a long-term campaign to remove tax-exempt status from dissenting religious institutions. The more immediate goal will be the shunning and persecution of dissenters within civil society. After today, all religious conservatives are Brendan Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla who was chased out of that company for supporting California’s Proposition 8.

Third, the Court majority wrote that gays and lesbians do not want to change the institution of marriage, but rather want to benefit from it. This is hard to believe, given more recent writing from gay activists like Dan Savage expressing a desire to loosen the strictures of monogamy in all marriages. Besides, if marriage can be redefined according to what we desire — that is, if there is no essential nature to marriage, or to gender — then there are no boundaries on marriage. Marriage inevitably loses its power.

What would you think if the Court had decided the opposite? That is, if the Court had held that same sex marriage is unconstitutional, so that all state laws approving such unions are void, and all court decisions establishing same sex marriage are overruled. Would you then think it appropriate for “five lawyers,” as Chief Justice Roberts put it, to remove this issue from the democratic process and purport to resolve it by judicial fiat?

I am pretty sure you wouldn’t. I am pretty sure that in the face of such a ruling, you would howl with outrage and insist that the issue of same sex marriage be determined by democratic processes.

I realize that hardly anyone on the Left acknowledges any obligation to be consistent. But logically, the issue of same sex marriage either is governed by the Constitution, or it isn’t. The truth is that the Constitution is silent with regard to marriage, which has always been a matter of state law. To assert that the Constitution mandates gay marriage is as outrageous as to assert that it prohibits gay marriage. It does neither.

Liberals have become accustomed to the idea that Supreme Court decisions can help, but never hurt, their causes. But that isn’t true. At one time, the Court held that there is a fundamental constitutional right to own slaves, which Congress could not limit in the territories. (The justices in the Dred Scott majority were loyal Democrats, doing their party’s bidding much like today’s progressives.) Subsequently, the Court held that wage and hour laws were unconstitutional because they infringed the fundamental right of contract. Both of those cases were decided on precisely the same theory as the Court’s gay marriage decision, i.e., substantive due process.

It is disheartening to see the almost universal acclaim received by a decision that is, in terms of process, a raw and unconstitutional usurpation of power. One would think that there should be many Americans who care about the Constitution, regardless of their views on gay marriage. But that does not appear to be the case.