Posts by Rattigan350

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

Rattigan350

Orphancrow: "A "dissenting opinion" is always welcomed here. Ignorance and inaccurate facts that those opinions are based upon are not."

I quoted and agreed with the dissenters on the Supreme court. Thus I was not ignorant or inaccurate. In Survivor when a person is a swing vote, that person is considered the most powerful person in the game. In this case, perhaps, Stephen Breyer was the most powerful person in the nation as he could have been the swing vote. Kennedy wrote that mess. We know that the one who was drunk at the state of the union, Ginsberg was always a liberal. Kagan, Soto-mayer they are just followers who joined to get a favor later, or they owed a favor.

And people say it was a good ruling???

46

Another Kim Davis inspired self-invented "gay issue"

by Simon in

what is it about some of these self proclaimed "christians" who go seeking persecution when it don't exist?.

we've had a case locally in calgary where the initial reports sounded like the person had a legitimate claim: a bus driver didn't want to drive the bus in a gay pride parade and said he'd resign if they made him and that the local transit company was threatening him to force him to do it.. except it was all invented ... by him !.

they already proactively told him that there was no danger that he would be asked to drive that bus in the parade (i.e.

Rattigan350

I would like to know what gay pride is. What do gay have to be proud of?

No originally so they steal words like 'gay' and marriage'.

They can't think their way out of their problems.

Rather than go to their congressmen to solve their problems, the ones in Obergefell, went to unelected judges through a federal case. It seems that doing things in a personal way is something out of their nature.

What do they have to be proud of?

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

Rattigan350

I am at Scalia's part of the dissent. and he said "I write separately to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy."

Exactly what I said.

"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."

This is the first time that I agree with Scalia.

" 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."

That is exactly what I said even before I read that. Great minds...

"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."

"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to.1 Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work"

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

Rattigan350

any

DJS you said:

"JG and Rat,

Your whining is tedious and unflattering. You lost. Get over it. You are on the wrong side of history on this topic - not to mention that your kind,"

My whining? I posted an analysis and you call that whining and tedious? and I did not lose, America did. I fully support the reasoning of the dissent. And anytime the dissent is longer than the majority opinion, then there must be something wrong. As I said, the ruling is not to be taken seriously.

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

Rattigan350

Orphancrow, when you said "Those principles are exactly the principles that legalizing gay marriage is based upon - the right of the minority."

You are not right. The principles of the first amendment keeps the government away from people. Nothing to do with numbers. In fact the articles defined the government roles, but then they discovered that they forgot to elaborate the rights of the people. So they made the Bill of Rights. Those rights are to protect what the WTS does not give people, speech and religion.

But the gay marriage movement makes the government an integral part of their marriage by stating that they need to get permission to be married, just to get a name on a death certificate, as in one case. You mean he couldn't just go to his congressman and get help with that? That would be more personal and fulfilling.

The dissent also said, what I have been saying before I read that: "Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer."

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

Rattigan350

Wow, I totally agree with Junction Guy. A first time for everything. He is making sense because it is not about religion but in how proper law should be enacted.

You said "Viviane, that is not idiotic at all, that is just what happened! We left a country where the King and the royal family had the power concentrated in their hands, and came here to America, where we the people (majority rules) could decide our destiny as a nation. Power was no longer in the hands of a few, but was placed in the hands of the many."

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

Rattigan350

Sir82, I disagree. The constitution said their job is not to define the law, it is the state legislature that defines it.

The dissent got it right, and give them credit, when it said: But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment." and

"The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage."

"The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial "caution" and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own "new insight" into the "nature of injustice." Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?"

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

Rattigan350

jws said "Don't fool yourself either. The legalization of gay marriage was spreading anyway. And the more it became legal and was accepted, it's my opinion that the remaining states would cave as well. So like it or not, Gay marriage would be widespread and eventually be legal in all states. Probably. Except for the most ignorant states. Or states like Utah with it's huge Mormon presence."

Well, that is fine. That is democracy.

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

Rattigan350

No Viviane, "So your complaint is "The U.S. Constitution, legislative, executive and judicial branches worked exactly as designed, but I don't like the results"?"

I say that the constitution is for checks and balances and separation of powers there was none in that case.

I agree fully with the dissent on law principles.

"But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment."" and

" The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State's decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition."

The dissenters said to leave it to the legislature and the people as it has been. That is what works best if no one is being hurt by that. The petitioners in this case were not hurt by leaving things alone. The Supreme Court works best when it helps the oppressed like in the Barnette case and in the aftermath of Gobitis when their wrong ruling caused more violence against JWs and and the court stated that the proper recourse for dissent was to try to change the school policy democratically. But what of in the mean time? Failure to comply was considered "insubordination" and dealt with by expulsion. Readmission was denied by statute until the student complied. This expulsion, in turn, automatically exposed the child and their parents to criminal prosecution; the expelled child was considered "unlawfully absent" and could be proceeded against as a delinquent, and their parents or guardians could be fined as much as $50 and jailed up to thirty days. That was a penal law that penalizes. So it had to be reversed. Thus West Virginia v Barnette was beneficial.

Since it is split liberal v conservative, the ruling can not be taken seriously. It was scripted. If one person had gone the other way, the ruling would have been different. 5-4 majorities are considered bad rulings.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against gays. I like how they push the envelope like Game of Thrones pushes the envelope as to what is shown on TV. But there are hate crime laws and anti discrimination laws already.

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

Rattigan350

While many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry God and sinners. But both are missing the forest through the trees.

The problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times. Five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle. Like a majority of the governing body decides matters for JWs lives.

Policy is supposed to be based on the community electing a representative based on the majority view and then the representative represents the community in congress, either house, and again, the majority makes the law for the state. Thus the many states can have different laws and regulations.

If laws under the penal code violate ones' rights the courts can strike down those laws, because one can not be punished for an unconstitutional law or procedure. But saying that same sexers can not marry is not a punishment (it is really a blessing as those of use who are married will say), so it is not for the court to step in.

The Court overstepped it's bounds. When women wanted the right to vote, they didn't take it to the court, they got the 19th amendment passed. The 14th amendment was for raising the treatment of blacks to the mainstream as people were saying that the federal gov can not tell the states what to do. So protections were extended. That was done to prevent lynchings, beatings and the many atrocities that kept going on with the law looking the other way. To place gays marrying in the same arena is an insult to the purpose that the 14th amendment came about.