So it basically boils down to numbers--more justices ruled for gay marriage than against. Had it been the other way around, then gay marriage would have lost. I guess the majority rules in this instance.
Implications of gay marriage ruling
by Rattigan350 175 Replies latest social current
-
-
SecretSlaveClass
JG:
Too bad for you and your anti-gay crowd. I just can't see why you can't be happy for other humans trying to find happiness themselves.
-
sir82
I guess the majority rules in this instance.
US constitution indicates that the majority rules in every instance.
You sound disappointed.
-
Junction-Guy
I am not happy when I see democratic principles thwarted. I voted against gay marriage 8 years ago, and would gladly vote against it again. I see this whole movement as one big cult, bent on destroying traditional values and free speech in this nation. I have seen them twist the bible in the very same way the Watchtower does, I have seen them try to silence dissent, in the very same way the Watchower does. I have seen them do an end run around the political process by whoring off the judicial system, in the same way the Watchtower does. It would be hypocritical of me to lambast the Watchtower society, and then turn around and embrace this movement, for it stands against everything I hold dear--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc etc. -
sir82
You sound bitter and hateful.
I'd suggest therapy to get those feelings resolved.
-
DJS
SS,
Ditto. I've noticed over the past few years that a lot of R wing Fundie types are using the constitutional/states' rights argument. It isn't that the states' rights argument isn't valid at times, but when it comes to issues that are for the common good, that are utilitarian in nature, the Constitution is the final arbiter.
Imperfect humans interpret that document; they haven't always gotten it right, but thankfully, over time, the SCOTUS fixes their mistakes and gets it right. They got it right this time.
The Fundie types often use the states' rights argument to re-write history. Recently I heard a close friend of mine (a x-tian R wing fundie, yes I have friends of all stripes) state that the Civil War wasn't about slavery - it was about states' rights. That's nothing but a parroting of the Grand Poobas of hate, such as Rush. There are so many historical documents from the old S that show clearly the Civil War was about slavery. States' rights were a secondary issue, and Fundies try to use it now to justify hate.
That's serving as the backdrop for Rat's rant. The x-tian Fundies hate is clear (god hates fangs and sodomy); the politico fundies try to put a more pleasant looking bow on their package of hate. State rights is that bow.
-
Junction-Guy
Sir82, that is the opposite of what this movement says--this movement is not about majority rules and will gladly tell you so. They will tell you that "majority rules" does not exist. Our forefathers left a "minority rules" type of government to come here so the majority could rule. They came here so "we the people" could determine our own destiny as a nation instead of having power concentrated in the hands of a few. -
SecretSlaveClass
DJS:
Absolutely. And yet when it comes to stretching the interpretation for their benefit, that's acceptable to them.
On the civil war and slavery, watch this if you haven't. It's by Col. ty Seidule, head of Department of History at West Point :
-
OrphanCrow
Junction: They came here so "we the people" could determine our own destiny as a nation instead of having power concentrated in the hands of a few.
Yeah, well...you can't escape history, can you?
Those "we the people" decided quite some time ago (okay...a while back but not that long), that the destiny of the nation was to respect and uphold the rights of a minority in the face of majority opposition.
...it stands against everything I hold dear--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc etc.
You just shot yourself in the foot with that statement. Those principles are exactly the principles that legalizing gay marriage is based upon - the right of the minority. Without that right, your freedom of speech and freedom of religion would be flushed down the toilet.
It does NOT stand against everything you hold dear - it is because of what you hold dear that this ruling came about.
-
SecretSlaveClass
Great point OC!