by Rattigan350 175 Replies latest social current
Rat pull your head out of your ass.
Your attempt to inter-mix two separate ideological concepts isn't doing anything toward your position.
What this ruling states is that personal religious convictions, cant make the rule of who can get married by virtue of sexual identity. This still leaves the choice of religions to not be involved in same sex marriages.
Opening the door to same sex marriages is one of a legal matter, not one of select religious adherence.
Rat Again,
WTF did you just type about bood?
Abortion, having the right to ride the same bus or drink from the same water fountain as others whiter than you, disabilities and lots of other things also aren't mentioned in the Constitution, but the SCOTUS has made rulings on them. References to slavery were included in the Constitution as a political necessity to get the S states to ratify, which is why an amendment was required to negate that.
The more you post the more irrational and hateful you show yourself to be.
The SCOTUS exits to ensure fair treatment of all citizens based on the stated and unstated intentions of the Constitution, as interpreted by the men and women who comprise the SCOTUS at any given time (another issue you are struggling with).
The framers could not have possibly included everything that might evolve over the centuries, which the majority opinion stated and which Roberts and the other 3 dissenters CLEARLY UNDERSTAND AS THE REASON THEY HAVE THE JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE.
And replace 'marriage or 'same sex marriage' with 'slavery' and Roberts' dissenting statement would have been as equally valid, which means not valid at all. Roberts' statement: “If same-sex marriage, then polygamy” has to be one of the lamest, most fundie, reactionary statements ever. If, at some time in the future polygamy is A-Ok with US society and the SCOTUS, WTF difference does that make to him or you, other than the need to develop the legal structure to deal with divorces, etc. Polygamy and ss marriage are RELIGIOUS constructs or the constructs of societies long passed that were trying to evolve out of caves and clans.
You need professional help.
You believe that the constitution provides marriage as a human right, because the Court, a small group interpreted that, though marriage is not mentioned in the constitution.
Look, it's simple. The Constitution says all laws must apply equally and that they cannot, without compelling state reason, be partial. The Constitution also doesn't mention cars, the FCC or airplanes, yet there are laws about them that apply equally to everyone also. Why are you not getting that?
However, the Bible says to abstain from blood, and another small group interpret that to mean blood transfusions also, but you don't accept that.
I'm an atheist, love, why would I?
Vivianne " look it's simple. The constitution says all laws must apply equally and that they cannot without compelling state reason be partial"
The Rebel ( A) The constitution was written late 1700s.
Are those laws interpreted? Or is it the origional meaning that must apply today?
If the origional meaning, shouldn't a person have the right to defend themselfs against ink that was spilled so long ago? Isnt to live by laws written in the late 1700s, insane?
The Rebel.
The constitution was written late 1700s.To which part of the Constitution do you think I am referring? When do you think the Constitution was last updated?
Are those laws interpreted? Or is it the origional meaning?
If the origional meaning, shouldn't a person have the right to defend themselfs against ink that was spilled so long ago? Isnt to live by laws written in the late 1700s, insane?
Rat-Again,
I want to thank you for one thing. Had it not been for your quoting Robert's dissenting opinion, I would have never read it in its entirety. I'm not alone in believing it is one of the worst, most subjective and biased dissenting opinions ever written.
Roberts is clearly suffering from AOWM syndrome. His dissent, which reads more like a fundie tirade, is sprinkled with specious statements, assertions and views that I would expect to read on this site - not from an esteemed, experience judge sitting on the SCOTUS. It reads like someone angry that society is changing, they don't like the changes and hate that their influence is waning.
100 years from now law schools will use his dissenting whine as a case example of the bigotry that flourished in this country, even at its highest levels, in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Roberts picture will be alongside the Grand Dragons of the KKK and their ilk in the 22nd century version of a textbook. Roberts should be embarrassed.
