SCOTUS- Gay Marriage

[bashwell]

5 of 9 Justices believe that a prohibition of gay marriage violates their rights as guaranteed by the 9th and 14th Amendments. That is a ruling on what is or is not legal.

There's room to disagree about whether they are correct in their interpretation of those Amendments, but I don't see any room to question the process or the Court's right to make that determination.

Sorry, pgg, but saying so doesn't make it so. This is the very point of contention. For example, here are a few excerpts from Justice Roberts' dissenting opinion which disagree with your own interpretation of the events:

[T]his 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."

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.

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.

I wouldn't call it a minor point.

To be fair, I never called it a minor point, period. I said it was a minor point for me, by which it should be pretty obvious I meant in the context of this particular discussion or thread.

The very essence of a protected class is that the characteristic in question is something beyond the control of the individual. You can choose to put on shoes or shirt before entering a restaurant; you can't choose to not be black.

(1) Tell that to Rachel Dolezal!

(2) On a serious note, there are at least three main positions on race. First, the denial that race or races exists. Second, that there are natural kinds wherein sub-groups of homo sapiens are equated with races. Third, races exist in terms of contingent socio-cultural behavior and practices. One can mix and match as well. Or argue for other concepts of what constitutes race. So in this respect, it depends in part on what's meant by race.

But if someone means race is contingent on socio-cultural behavior and practices, then it's possible for race to be (at least to some degree) a "choice". Cue Rachel Dolezal again?

For example, Pres. Obama has a "black" father and a "white" mother. Does this make him "black" or "white"? Both? Other? He has said he's black, but why couldn't he instead say he's white? Is it due mainly to socio-cultural factors? If so, then it's possible Obama's "choice" to self-identify with his "black" racial background rather than his "white" racial background could have been the other way around if say he had spent more time with his "white" mother or cousins or whatever.

(3) If "the characteristic in question is something beyond the control of the individual" (and naught else) is what should be the "very essence of a protected class," then this opens the door to many other possibilities of what should be a "protected class". Many people who are addicted to something feel as if their addiction is "something beyond [their] control". Should we make these addicts into a "protected class" as well?

If you want to get really absurd, then some who sympathize with pedophilia argue pedophiles don't have a "choice" in their sexual desire for children. There is within them "something beyond [their] control". If this is true, then by your stated logic, pedophiles should be made into a "protected class".

If you're going to argue that gayness is a choice and therefore undeserving of "protected class" status, OK, make that argument and let it stand or fall on merit or lack thereof ... but that's not the argument that was put before SCOTUS.

(1) I have no immediate qualms with what you've said, but why should the burden of proof be on me to make this argument since I haven't been the one drawing analogies between race and sexual orientation in this thread?

(2) Also, I'm afraid it's naive to think what's set before SCOTUS can't be employed by SCOTUS for purposes beyond its original scope.

(Regardless, I've never understood the argument that if gay people choose to be gay, it's OK to discriminate against them. That's the height of doucheyness.)

(1) Who has made this argument? Not me.

(2) Is this actually a fair and representative argument oft-used by the other side? If not, you're misrepresenting them -- which if unintentional is ignorant, but if intentional is itself "douchey".

The "natural state of affairs" for humanity is polygamy (and short lives in a brutish, tribal, male-dominated, homicide-sprinkled culture). One-man-one-woman lifetime pair grouping is a modern invention just a couple thousand years old, at most - and it's hardly been the norm even for the entirety of that period.

Since you bring it up, if SSM is legal, then why can't polygamy be legal too? If SSM is legally licit, then what's the argument against polygamy? Many groups like some radical Mormons and Muslims, among others, would be happy to legalize polygamous marriage.

I'm not arguing it's likely or unlikely to ever happen per a slippery slope argument. Rather, I'm arguing ontologically why not?

As for redefining that natural state of affairs, well, that's where we got such neat civilization-preserving things as property rights, paternal obligation to care for biologic children, and all sorts of other improvements on the hunter-gatherer / caveman "natural state of affairs" ... this is what governments DO.

(1) You speak of "civilization-preserving things as property rights, paternal obligation to care for biologic children, and all sorts of other improvements" in stark contrast to "hunter-gatherer / caveman 'natural state of affairs'". However, what makes you think some hunter-gatherer communities didn't have things like "property rights" or "paternal obligations to care for biologic children"? Some may not have, but some very well may have.

In any case, you can't make a blanket generalization like this. It's overly simplistic. It depends on the particular group in question.

(2) Besides, this misses the point. It may be what governments do. But the relevant question is whether this is what government should do. Why should governments be the ones primarily responsible for imposing "paternal obligations" on society? Do "paternal obligations" exist only if the government happens to make them exist? (Note this isn't the same as saying governments shouldn't have laws to protect children from paternal neglect. Nor is this about whether "paternal obligations" are followed or not followed.)

While pieces of those arguments are compelling, as I mentioned in a previous post, where they fall short is in the injustice that they accept with a shrug while the legislature and executive branches muddle through and slowly amble, over years if not decades or centuries, in the general direction of getting it right.

(1) Sorry, but that's how our system of government works. SCOTUS shouldn't be able to bypass the legislature and executive branches because they happen to take forever to get things "right".

You want fast results? Dictators can get results pretty quickly.

(2) You assume "injustice" and what's "right" with regard to SSM (presumably because you assume we should regard sexual orientation analogously to race), but many Americans disagree. What's "right" is in dispute in this case. You can't just take it as a given.

(3) Your argument cuts both ways. If it's perfectly acceptable for the Supreme Court to legislate on the issue of SSM, then it's arguably perfectly acceptable for the Supreme Court to legislate on other issues or at least the same issue. Say the Supreme Court becomes majority conservative. Say the Supreme Court makes SSM illegal across all 50 states. According to your logic, this is justifiable.

I mentioned Brown v Board of Education. SCOTUS didn't need to step in there. There was a broad and powerful cultural shift in progress toward equality, and in time perhaps the legislatures of southern states would've gotten it right and integrated schools without SCOTUS compelling them at National Guard gunpoint. And if there were a couple more generations of southern black kids who suffered reduced opportunity and unnecessary poverty because of it? Those legal scholars are arguing that's OK, because that solution is a cleaner, more elegant legal outcome. And too bad if justice was delayed and denied for the lifetime of a black kid born in Mississippi in 1950.

If you want examples of the Supeme Court abusing its power, we can talk about the ACA rulings or just about any decision where the interstate commerce clause is invoked ... but not this one.

(1) I happen to agree with the Supreme Court abusing its power in the ACA rulings so there probably wouldn't be a whole lot for us to talk about if by "talk" you actually mean debate.

(2) You're basing this on what you consider to be "justice," but as I mentioned above that's in dispute.

(3) Ironically, by your logic thus far, it wouldn't seem there's a sound basis for you to argue the Supreme Court can't do what it did with the ACA.

(4) Obama and many other Americans could react the same way you've reacted: "If there were a couple more generations of uninsured Americans who suffered reduced healthcare opportunity and unnecessary poverty because of it? And too bad if justice was delayed and denied for the lifetime of an uninsured kid born in California in 2010".

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

 

[bashwell]

View attachment 193626

Ha! I probably wouldn't either if I were you. It might be useful for others, maybe, but really it's mainly just between me and the people I'm responding to.

 

[deleted50478]

Where in the bible does it say you can't do business with homosexuals?
Making a cake for a gay wedding isn't going to make you gay and it isn't going to make the couple any gayer. Refusing to make a cake isn't going to stop the wedding.
There is no reason whatsoever to refuse business from homosexuals. They aren't asking for your blessing, just a cake, and they'll pay.
If you feel so strongly, treat the people with respect, make the cake, and donate the proceeds to charity.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Respectfully, this is based on your tendentious caricature of what the "religious" are like or how they think. Here's what you said:

Given this, if anything needs to be made more "palatable," then I'd unfortunately have to say it's your rather bigoted view of what "religious" people are like or how they think.

I'll just respond a little at a time. I've got things to do. Like sleep.

Being good to people and treating them fairly, in my mind, should be palatable to reasonable people. So I suppose I am bigoted against religious views that favor discrimination. I also recognize that this is unfair, because most people don't "choose" what they believe. But that's too bad. Lots of people have disabilities that limit their options in life. Religion in a society with anti-discrimination laws is a philosophical disability. If you can't sell to someone who has a right to buy, then you shouldn't be a salesman or businessman who sells.

As a bigot, I'm ok with what would result in a diminution of discrimination on religious grounds. Maybe that's tantamount to discrimination against the religious, but as things stand, the current circumstances can't accommodate everyone.

 

[bashwell]

Being good to people and treating them fairly, in my mind, should be palatable to reasonable people.

I entirely agree.

One can find both religious as well as irreligious people who are good to people and treat others fairly. One can likewise find both religious as well as irreligious people who are bad to people and treat people unfairly.

However, there's the distinction between moral epistemology (how we know what's moral) and moral ontology (how we ground what's moral). I've primarily been referring to moral ontology here.

So I suppose I am bigoted against religious views that favor discrimination.

This begs the question, for what you're in essence saying is: "I'm bigoted against bigotry" or "I discriminate against discrimination". Yet the religious and irreligious may very well have different beliefs and values about what does or doesn't constitute "discrimination". What's considered "discrimination" by one side may not be considered "discrimination" by the other side.

I also recognize that this is unfair, because most people don't "choose" what they believe.

I presume you're referring to religious and irreligious beliefs? If so, I'm not sure what makes you think "most people don't 'choose' what they believe"? Are you suggesting, for example, atheists don't choose to believe in atheism, or agnostics don't choose to believe in agnosticism, or Muslims don't choose to believe in Islam, etc.?

However, even if it's true "most people don't 'choose' what they believe," it doesn't necessarily follow most people can't choose what they believe.

Speaking purely theoretically, even if it's true "most people don't 'choose' what they believe," it could simply be most people don't choose what they believe because they prefer not to make any choices. They prefer to remain in their (self-deluded?) belief system. They could choose to believe otherwise, but instead they refuse to exercise their choice for whatever reason(s).

But that's too bad. Lots of people have disabilities that limit their options in life. Religion in a society with anti-discrimination laws is a philosophical disability.

Again, this is a bit vague to me. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here.

However, even if I agree this is true for the sake of argument, why isn't it possible for religion or irreligion to overcome this? Just because something is a certain way doesn't necessarily mean something always has to be that way.

If you can't sell to someone who has a right to buy, then you shouldn't be a salesman or businessman who sells.

Are you alluding to businesses selling wedding cakes to homosexual couples? If so, then I suppose it's true businesses are compelled by force of law to sell wedding cakes to homosexual couples. That's not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether these same businesses should be compelled by force of law to sell wedding cakes to homosexual couples. (It's usually at this point that arguments about violation of beliefs or conscience, discrimination against sexual orientation being analogous to racism, and so forth come into play.)

As a bigot, I'm ok with what would result in a diminution of discrimination on religious grounds.

What does being a "bigot" have to do with "a diminution of discrimination on religious grounds"?

As I said above, "discrimination" can mean different things to different people in large part depending on the person's system of beliefs and values. So this needs to be better teased out.

Maybe that's tantamount to discrimination against the religious, but as things stand, the current circumstances can't accommodate everyone.

Hmm, since "the current circumstances can't accommodate everyone," then that's too bad for the "religious". The "religious" just have to be willing to be "discriminated" against. If this is what you're suggesting, then it's obviously unfair to say the least. Why should religious people's rights be tossed aside or trampled on in this fashion?

 

[jwk]

It just may be emoting. But it would make religion much more palatable to the rest of us.

1) Why should religion be more palatable to you?
2) Would any religion be palatable to you?

Just wondering.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I entirely agree.

Great! This is what's important. I wish it were more universally practiced. My personal opinion is that the definition off what's "fair" is often corrupted by religious beliefs, where there is a lot of moral absolutism. This, I think, often results in unfair treatment of many people.

Again, that's my opinion. People have the right to think "irreligious" beliefs more often result in unfair treatments. I disagree.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

1) Why should religion be more palatable to you?
2) Would any religion be palatable to you?

Just wondering.

1) It most definitely doesn't have to be. I just wish it were.
2) Good question. I don't know the answer. Although I don't know all the nuances of the religion, I think Buddhism comes closest to getting it right.
I understand what role religion plays for people. There are signs that the first humans in existence had spiritual beliefs. It's natural for a species capable of deep introspection to try to find explanations for a confusing and often scary existence. I don't mind the effort, I just don't like what people do when they think they've found answers. It's kind of a conundrum that I just have to deal with.

 

[bashwell]

Great! This is what's important. I wish it were more universally practiced.

Cool, sounds good.

My personal opinion is that the definition off what's "fair" is often corrupted by religious beliefs, where there is a lot of moral absolutism. This, I think, often results in unfair treatment of many people.

Of course, this cuts both ways. It could just as easily be said there are plenty of people whose definition of what's "fair" is often corrupted by their irreligious beliefs, where there is ironically a lot of moral absolutism, which in turn often results in the unfair treatment of many people (e.g. militant atheism).

Again, that's my opinion. People have the right to think "irreligious" beliefs more often result in unfair treatments. I disagree.

The more fundamental question is not so much how religious or irreligious people act or behave (important as this is), but rather how religious or irreligious people ultimately justify how they act or behave. If we assume atheism is true (e.g. physicalism or naturalism), then how does atheism ultimately justify universal objective morality?

For example, here is what atheist philosopher Michael Ruse has argued (and many other atheist scholars have argued similar things):

We’re like dogs, social animals, and so we have morality and this part of the phenomenology of morality, how it appears to us, that it is not subjective, that we think it is objective…So I think ethics is essentially subjective but it appears to us as objective and this appearance, too, is an adaptation.

Within the system, of course, rape is objectively wrong -- just like three strikes and you are out in baseball. But I’m a nonrealist, so ultimately there is no objective right and wrong for me. Having said that, I am part of the system and cannot escape. The truth does not necessarily make you free.

There is no ultimate truth about morality. It is an invention -- an invention of the genes rather than of humans, and we cannot change games at will, as one might baseball if one went to England and played cricket. Within the system, the human moral system, it is objectively true that rape is wrong. That follows from the principles of morality and from human nature. If our females came into heat, it would not necessarily be objectively wrong to rape -- in fact, I doubt we would have the concept of rape at all. So, within the system, I can justify. But I deny that human morality at the highest level -- love your neighbor as yourself, etc. -- is justifiable. That is why I am not deriving "is" from "ought," in the illicit sense of justification. I am deriving it in the sense of explaining why we have moral sentiments, but that is a different matter.

Similarly, here's atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg in his book The Atheist's Guide to Reality:

Is there a God? No.

What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.

What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.

What is the meaning of life? Ditto.

Why am I here? Just dumb luck.

Does prayer work? Of course not.

Is there a soul? Is it immortal? Are you kidding?

Is there free will? Not a chance!

What happens when we die? Everything pretty much goes on as before, except us.

What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them.

Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral.

Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don’t like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? Anything goes.

What is love, and how can I find it? Love is the solution to a strategic interaction problem. Don’t look for it; it will find you when you need it.

Does history have any meaning or purpose? It’s full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing.

Does the human past have any lessons for our future? Fewer and fewer, if it had any to begin with.

If what Ruse and Rosenberg (among other atheist scholars) say is true, then the implication is there is no objective morality. No objective right or wrong. Morality is ultimately subjective. Dependent on our genes, our feelings, our personal preferences, socialization. This means, crudely speaking, humans can do whatever they like so long as they can get away with it. That, to me, is itself a tremendously frightening prospect. It could quite arguably "more often result in unfair treatments" than certain religious systems.

 

[jwk]

Where in the bible does it say you can't do business with homosexuals?
Making a cake for a gay wedding isn't going to make you gay and it isn't going to make the couple any gayer. Refusing to make a cake isn't going to stop the wedding.
There is no reason whatsoever to refuse business from homosexuals. They aren't asking for your blessing, just a cake, and they'll pay.
If you feel so strongly, treat the people with respect, make the cake, and donate the proceeds to charity.

Ever wonder why this couple didn't just go somewhere else to get a cake?

 

[Pooh & Annie]

You're right. I think atheism has had frightening consequences. I think most modern totalitarian heads of state who were mass murderers were atheists, closeted or otherwise. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot. Whether they claimed to be Christian, Buddhist, or nothing, they clearly didn't think they would have to answer for their actions. (Maybe Hitler. He had some kind of German Christian/mysticism thing going on, and I think was convinced that he was doing the right thing). Regardless, I understand that point.

Right now, today, in the United States I don't see an organized effort by atheists to infringe on the freedoms of others. Yes, they get fiery about religious symbols in various places, but these are not major issues to most people.

The variety of religious beliefs and philosophies in this country, especially when considering intra-faith disagreements, is bordering on infinite. We can't satisfy everyone's beliefs in what we allow/don't allow. Creating law, starting from a position of minimal moral absolutism, is in my opinion the only fair thing to do. Some things are pretty obviously agregious, even if you're an atheist. I don't want murder or rape to be legal because I don't want to be, (or other people to be), murdered or raped.

SSM is one of those things that isn't obviously wrong, as far as I can tell. So I don't personally like the idea, in a polytheistic culture with lots of philosophies, of allowing any particular group's philosophy to dictate to the masses.

I know this isn't entirely a satisfying answer. If we all had the same beliefs, and morals were all clearly absolute, it would be much easier. Instead, the "default" position, I think, often needs to err on the side of policy uninformed by the various moral philosophies, and decide from there what we can agree on as acceptable or not.

 

[bashwell]

You're right. I think atheism has had frightening consequences. I think most modern totalitarian heads of state who were mass murderers were atheists, closeted or otherwise. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot. Whether they claimed to be Christian, Buddhist, or nothing, they clearly didn't think they would have to answer for their actions. (Maybe Hitler. He had some kind of German Christian/mysticism thing going on, and I think was convinced that he was doing the right thing). Regardless, I understand that point.

Right now, today, in the United States I don't see an organized effort by atheists to infringe on the freedoms of others. Yes, they get fiery about religious symbols in various places, but these are not major issues to most people.

The variety of religious beliefs and philosophies in this country, especially when considering intra-faith disagreements, is bordering on infinite. We can't satisfy everyone's beliefs in what we allow/don't allow. Creating law, starting from a position of minimal moral absolutism, is in my opinion the only fair thing to do. Some things are pretty obviously agregious, even if you're an atheist. I don't want murder or rape to be legal because I don't want to be, (or other people to be), murdered or raped.

SSM is one of those things that isn't obviously wrong, as far as I can tell. So I don't personally like the idea, in a polytheistic culture with lots of philosophies, of allowing any particular group's philosophy to dictate to the masses.

I know this isn't entirely a satisfying answer. If we all had the same beliefs, and morals were all clearly absolute, it would be much easier. Instead, the "default" position, I think, often needs to err on the side of policy uninformed by the various moral philosophies, and decide from there what we can agree on as acceptable or not.

(1) I think I agree with the main gist of what you're saying here.

(2) At the same time I should note my previous comments have also been speaking in terms of the deeper underpinnings or foundations of atheism. The grounds of justification for morality in atheism. The philosophy is the most fundamental issue, in my view, because it's the philosophy that ultimately drives a person's behavior. Beliefs have consequences.

(3) That said, the "answer" (inasmuch as we can have an answer) to the question of how to get along with all these various beliefs and ideas and so on in the context of our nation is of course the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and basically our system of government. I trust most Americans would agree with this very broad "answer". So the next question is how one reads, interprets, and applies the Constitution with the Bill of Rights (along with other laws and policies) to this or that scenario today. That's where the debate gets a bit more heated.

(4) Take religious businesses being compelled by law to sell wedding cakes to homosexual couples.

Homosexual supporters might argue since sexual orientation is analogous to race, then discrimination against someone for their sexual orientation is like racism, which is illegal to do. If this is the argument, then we could ask, is sexual orientation analogous to race? I brought up some questions over the analogy between sexual orientation and race in my response to pgg above.

If sexual orientation is not analogous to race, and if this is the sole grounds upon which the law to compel private religious businesses to sell wedding cakes to homosexual couples relies, then these private religious businesses are arguably having their rights violated (and violated by the government no less!).

(5) Related, bracketing whether discrimination against homosexuals is analogous to racism, we could ask why should private businesses (religious or irreligious or whatever) be compelled by the law to sell products or services to people they don't wish to sell to? For example, should we sell compel by law private businesses to sell their products to pornographers if they don't wish to sell to pornographers?

If so, then this isn't an issue over religion vs. irreligion per se, but rather it's potentially an issue over rights and liberties for all Americans.

(6) What's legal isn't identical to a civil right.

Currently, SSM is legal, but it's not a right.

The Bill of Rights delineates civil rights. Indeed, one of the main motives behind the Bill of Rights is that there should exist certain rights and liberties which the government cannot infringe. In fact, some states only agreed to accept the Constitution in the first place if they had their rights and liberties guaranteed and protected under the Bill of Rights.

However, if SSM conflicts with say the First Amendment, if SSM violates the freedom of speech, the freedom of association, and/or the free exercise of religion, then why shouldn't American citizens be allowed to disregard SSM?

 

[nimbus]

Homosexual supporters might argue since sexual orientation is analogous to race, then discrimination against someone for their sexual orientation is like racism, which is illegal to do. If this is the argument, then we could ask, is sexual orientation analogous to race? I brought up some questions over the analogy between sexual orientation and race in my response to pgg above.

If sexual orientation is not analogous to race, and if this is the sole grounds upon which the law to compel private religious businesses to sell wedding cakes to homosexual couples relies, then these private religious businesses are arguably having their rights violated (and violated by the government no less!).

Think back to junior high school. Did you decide who would or wouldn't give you a boner? Sexual orientation is innate.

 

[bashwell]

Think back to junior high school. Did you decide who would or wouldn't give you a boner? Sexual orientation is innate.

Huh? I never said sexual orientation isn't innate. Although I think it's a bit simplistic. There's a lot more to unpack.

 

[deleted50478]

Ever wonder why this couple didn't just go somewhere else to get a cake?

Yeah, maybe there is a separate but equal bakery nearby.

That still doesn't tell me the point of refusing. It's a meaningless (and mean) gesture.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

Yeah, maybe there is a separate but equal bakery nearby.

That still doesn't tell me the point of refusing. It's a meaningless (and mean) gesture.

If I own a business, why should I not have the freedom to operate it and serve who I want. I understand you may not like it, but we live in the US, not the USSR. If I don't want to serve you, I should have that right because it's my business. Furthermore, when somebody's religious freedom is being infringed they should not have to compromise their principles in order to serve a customer. If the customer doesn't like it, he or she has the right to go to another bakery and give someone else their business. Gay marriage should be legal and they should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but no one should have their religious freedom infringed upon under any circumstances.

 

[nimbus]

If I own a business, why should I not have the freedom to operate it and serve who I want. I understand you may not like it, but we live in the US, not the USSR. If I don't want to serve you, I should have that right because it's my business. Furthermore, when somebody's religious freedom is being infringed they should not have to compromise their principles in order to serve a customer. If the customer doesn't like it, he or she has the right to go to another bakery and give someone else their business. Gay marriage should be legal and they should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but no one should have their religious freedom infringed upon under any circumstances.

So if your religion tells you that girls shouldn't be going to school, you can throw acid on their faces in the name of god? You can have 30 wives? We restrict religious freedom and other freedoms all the time.

 

[nimbus]

Huh? I never said sexual orientation isn't innate. Although I think it's a bit simplistic. There's a lot more to unpack.

It is very simple.

You don't choose your race and you don't choose your sexual orientation.

I don't even believe in god but if there was one, why would he make gay people if he was against homosexuality?

 

[Pooh & Annie]

If I own a business, why should I not have the freedom to operate it and serve who I want. I understand you may not like it, but we live in the US, not the USSR. ...no one should have their religious freedom infringed upon under any circumstances.

I'm not going to condescend folks by putting up a list of some of the outrageous things that the umpteen religions out there would love to be able to do. I don't think this is a well thought out position.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

So if your religion tells you that girls shouldn't be going to school, you can throw acid on their faces in the name of god? You can have 30 wives? We restrict religious freedom and other freedoms all the time.

That's different because you are hurting someone else in the process. The one role of government that is essential is to ensure people's life, liberty, and property are protected from others. Restricting a minor's education is directly hurting her which should be protected in court. I don't see a problem with polygamy as long as all parties are consenting adults. Religious liberty should be protected as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. Not baking someone a cake is not directly hurting someone else, in fact, they are losing business which is self inflicted, but should be allowed. There's a difference in refusing to participate and actually hurting someone else (ISIS).

 

[FollowTheMoney]

I'm not going to condescend folks by putting up a list of some of the outrageous things that the umpteen religions out there would love to be able to do. I don't think this is a well thought out position.

You wouldn't personally do it, but that doesn't mean you should restrict someone else's ability to. For example, I'm not a religious person, but I will defend freedom and religious liberty until my death. There are ways people live their lives that I don't approve of personally, but I would never try to pass a law to restrict their ability to do so. That's what has happened in this country, people decide where they stand on an issue and once they have made up their mind they want to ban or restrict the opposite viewpoint. Many people who don't own guns or are against having guns will seek to ban all guns. Instead of just taking a step back and acknowledging that other people love guns and supporting the freedom to have them, they are selfish and try to ban everything that isn't in line with their way of thinking. I will always try and defend all of our freedoms even as people try to restrict mine.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

(1) I think I agree with the main gist of what you're saying here.

(2) At the same time I should note my previous comments have also been speaking in terms of the deeper underpinnings or foundations of atheism. The grounds of justification for morality in atheism. The philosophy is the most fundamental issue, in my view, because it's the philosophy that ultimately drives a person's behavior. Beliefs have consequences.

(3) That said, the "answer" (inasmuch as we can have an answer) to the question of how to get along with all these various beliefs and ideas and so on in the context of our nation is of course the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and basically our system of government. I trust most Americans would agree with this very broad "answer". So the next question is how one reads, interprets, and applies the Constitution with the Bill of Rights (along with other laws and policies) to this or that scenario today. That's where the debate gets a bit more heated.

(4) Take religious businesses being compelled by law to sell wedding cakes to homosexual couples.

Homosexual supporters might argue since sexual orientation is analogous to race, then discrimination against someone for their sexual orientation is like racism, which is illegal to do. If this is the argument, then we could ask, is sexual orientation analogous to race? I brought up some questions over the analogy between sexual orientation and race in my response to pgg above.

If sexual orientation is not analogous to race, and if this is the sole grounds upon which the law to compel private religious businesses to sell wedding cakes to homosexual couples relies, then these private religious businesses are arguably having their rights violated (and violated by the government no less!).

(5) Related, bracketing whether discrimination against homosexuals is analogous to racism, we could ask why should private businesses (religious or irreligious or whatever) be compelled by the law to sell products or services to people they don't wish to sell to? For example, should we sell compel by law private businesses to sell their products to pornographers if they don't wish to sell to pornographers?

If so, then this isn't an issue over religion vs. irreligion per se, but rather it's potentially an issue over rights and liberties for all Americans.

(6) What's legal isn't identical to a civil right.

Currently, SSM is legal, but it's not a right.

The Bill of Rights delineates civil rights. Indeed, one of the main motives behind the Bill of Rights is that there should exist certain rights and liberties which the government cannot infringe. In fact, some states only agreed to accept the Constitution in the first place if they had their rights and liberties guaranteed and protected under the Bill of Rights.

However, if SSM conflicts with say the First Amendment, if SSM violates the freedom of speech, the freedom of association, and/or the free exercise of religion, then why shouldn't American citizens be allowed to disregard SSM?

1) With regard to atheism, I understand and completely agree with what you say about a complete lack of any underlying moral philosophy. No question, there is no defined "right or wrong."

Clearly, the capability for abstract thought, which really I think "defines" our intelligence as much as anything, followed our basic animal/mammalian instincts in terms of evolutionary development. So now it's not good enough that I want to fit in (an instinctual trait), by following society's rules. If I have no inherent morals, shouldn't I be struggling everyday with the limitations placed on me by the "made up" morals of modern society? I don't. I want to fit in, meaning I don't want to do things that would result in imprisonment; I want to keep a job; I want to keep my friends and family. Four decades of life in civilized society, along with my instincts (including sociability), has made all these things very "natural." None of that changes the fact that there is no definitive "right and wrong."

2) Yes, I think it's safe to say that at this point in the U.S., sexual orientation is analogous to race. The legal nuances of infringement on the rights of others will NOT be resolved. Ever. Other than that recognition, I can't say I have much interest in constitutional law. That is of course subject to change as the country evolves.

 

[deleted50478]

If I own a business, why should I not have the freedom to operate it and serve who I want. I understand you may not like it, but we live in the US, not the USSR. If I don't want to serve you, I should have that right because it's my business. Furthermore, when somebody's religious freedom is being infringed they should not have to compromise their principles in order to serve a customer. If the customer doesn't like it, he or she has the right to go to another bakery and give someone else their business. Gay marriage should be legal and they should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but no one should have their religious freedom infringed upon under any circumstances.

A. Selling cake isn't counter to their religion.

B. Can Walgreen's checkers refuse to sell condoms to gay people because of their religion? Or lube?
Can bars and restaurants refuse to serve alcohol to gay people because it promotes sexual activity?
Can a baker refuse to sell a birthday cake to a gay person for his significant other out of fear that the birthday surprise might help him get laid? Or is it just wedding cake that's the problem?

C. What if every baker, drugstore, and bar refuses to serve gay people out of xtian bigotry?

 

[deleted126335]

A. Selling cake isn't counter to their religion.

B. Can Walgreen's checkers refuse to sell condoms to gay people because of their religion? Or lube?
Can bars and restaurants refuse to serve alcohol to gay people because it promotes sexual activity?
Can a baker refuse to sell a birthday cake to a gay person for his significant other out if fear that the birthday surprise might help him get laid? Or is it just wedding cake that's the problem?

C. What if every baker, drugstore, and bar refuses to serve gay people out of xtian bigotry?

In some jurisdictions the answer to that question is yes. This ruling establishes/protects the rights of gay people to marry. Gays can still be discriminated against in other ways depending on where they live and work.

 

[deleted50478]

In some jurisdictions the answer to that question is yes. This ruling establishes/protects the rights of gay people to marry. Gays can still be discriminated against in other ways depending on where they live and work.

Yeah, and it's amazing that christians are somehow playing the victim.

 

[bashwell]

We restrict religious freedom and other freedoms all the time.

What's ironic about this statement is it could just as easily be turned around and used by any number of groups to argue for whatever positions they want to argue. For example, a Muslim American who doesn't approve of homosexuality could use your statement to argue for "restrict[ing] freedoms" against homosexuals. Surely you'd wish to unpack your statement. To say more, add qualifications, etc. Otherwise, you've made a blanket statement. An overly simplistic statement.

It is very simple.

You don't choose your race and you don't choose your sexual orientation.

I'll just adapt my previous response:

(1) It only takes one example to the contrary to sink your blanket statement. For example, anecdotally, I know of heterosexuals who have chosen to become sexual orientations other than heterosexual, and I know of homosexuals who have chosen to become sexual orientations other than homosexual. (I came from a very politically and socially liberal background to say the least.)

However, I grant some people may not know of any such people in their own lives. So, even if it doesn't disprove it to other people since they don't know people like this, I do, and so it does disprove it based on empirical evidence I myself have seen and heard. This would be the same for others who are like me.

(2) Many people who are addicted to something feel as if their addiction controls them. They feel as if they have no choice but to choose their addiction. Does this mean addiction is likewise analogous to sexual orientation because you don't choose your addiction?

(3) There are at least three stock positions on race. First, the denial that race or races exists, that we're all humans without racial distinctives. Second, that there are natural kinds wherein sub-groups of Homo sapiens are equated with races. Third, races exist in terms of contingent socio-cultural behavior and practices. One can mix and match. One can argue for other concepts of what constitutes race. So in this respect, it depends in part on what's meant by race.

(a) If someone denies race exists, then what analogy is there to make?

(b) If someone subscribes to the natural kinds theory, then it's possible to bring up evolutionary ethics, which potentially opens up other venues far beyond SSM (e.g. polygamy).

(c) If someone means race is contingent on socio-cultural behavior and practices, then it's possible for race to be (at least to some degree) a "choice". Cf. Rachel Dolezal.

Along similar lines, Pres. Obama has a "black" father and a "white" mother. Does this make him "black" or "white"? Both? Other? He has said he's black, but why couldn't he instead say he's white? Is it due mainly to socio-cultural factors? If so, then it's possible Obama's "choice" to self-identify with his "black" racial background rather than his "white" racial background could have been the other way around if say he had spent more time with his "white" mother or cousins or whatever.

I don't even believe in god but if there was one, why would he make gay people if he was against homosexuality?

(1) It depends on how you define "God". The God of Judaism is arguably different than the God of Christianity which is arguably different than the God of Islam which is arguably different than the Gods of Hinduism which is arguably different than the Platonic God, etc. Every theological or philosophical system may have a different theodicy, so it depends on which "God" you're referring to.

(2) However, this cuts both (or several) ways. This includes atheism too. If there is no God, then atheism must likewise answer to the ramifications of a universe without God.

As I cited above, there are atheist scholars who argue atheism cannot ground universal objective morality. At best, morality is subjective. Subject to our genes, our upbringing and socialization, etc. If their arguments are sound, valid, and true, and morality is indeed fundamentally subjective, then atheism has no grounds by which to ultimately justify what is right or wrong. True, homosexuality is neither right nor wrong. But this applies to virtually everything else as well (e.g. polygamy, rape, murder).

People may not "like" the ramifications of atheism. But people's subjective feelings don't have any bearing on truth. If it's true, then it's true regardless of how we feel about it. It's just a brute fact of life.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

A. Selling cake isn't counter to their religion.

B. Can Walgreen's checkers refuse to sell condoms to gay people because of their religion? Or lube?
Can bars and restaurants refuse to serve alcohol to gay people because it promotes sexual activity?
Can a baker refuse to sell a birthday cake to a gay person for his significant other out of fear that the birthday surprise might help him get laid? Or is it just wedding cake that's the problem?

C. What if every baker, drugstore, and bar refuses to serve gay people out of xtian bigotry?

A. Depends how you look at it.
B. In some places, yes.
C. I think a business should be able to operate however it wants. I think as long as no one is forced to do something they don't want to do I don't have a problem with it. If a business chooses to do that, that would be bad for business but I think they should have the freedom to do so. I believe in the non-aggression principle. I believe in maximum freedom for all people and all parties involved. What you're supporting is force, where businesses are forced to do something. I just don't believe in that.

 

[bashwell]

1) With regard to atheism, I understand and completely agree with what you say about a complete lack of any underlying moral philosophy. No question, there is no defined "right or wrong."

Thanks, I understand now.

Clearly, the capability for abstract thought, which really I think "defines" our intelligence as much as anything, followed our basic animal/mammalian instincts in terms of evolutionary development.

As atheist philosopher of mind Patricia Churchland has argued in her article "Epistemology in the Age of Neuroscience":

Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in . . . feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances for survival. Truth, whatever that is, takes the hindmost.

If this is true, then this means our cognitive faculties do not primarily select for truth/falsehood, but rather our cognitive faculties primarily select for what helps us survive or thrive in a given environment. If this is true, then this means our cognitive faculties may or may not be reliable. Say we split the difference and say our cognitive faculties are reliable 50% of the time and unreliable 50% of the time. If our cognitive faculties are only reliable half of the time, then this itself is enough to make us not trust our cognitive faculties. If we can't trust our cognitive faculties at least half of the time, then what can we trust? What can we trust if we cannot trust at least 50% of what's processed through our nervous system?

For example, say Earth was invaded by an advanced but hostile extraterrestrial alien civilization which conquered and destroyed human civilization. Say only a few million humans are left. But say the aliens imprisoned all the remaining humans in pods to feed off of us or use us for whatever other purposes they've designed. Say in order for us humans to survive in this hopeless environment, our cognitive faculties have adapted in such a way that it makes us imagine we are sitting in front of a computer typing, or we are going to work, or seeing patients, or whatever else we experience in our daily lives. This is the only way for us to cope and survive, otherwise we'd be utterly destitute and all of us would commit suicide, thereby ending humans as a species forever, so our cognitive faculties have adapted in this way for us. Thus, what our cognitive faculties tell us is happening (e.g. we're shopping, working, eating dinner) is not necessarily indexed to reality (i.e. we are imprisoned by aliens).

Of course, this example is essentially the same thing as in the movie The Matrix. But I bring it up because if what Churchland says is true, then this scenario isn't entirely far-fetched. It's possible our cognitive faculties are not indexed or not indexed well enough to match reality. If so, then that's a significant problem for us.

So now it's not good enough that I want to fit in (an instinctual trait), by following society's rules. If I have no inherent morals, shouldn't I be struggling everyday with the limitations placed on me by the "made up" morals of modern society? I don't. I want to fit in, meaning I don't want to do things that would result in imprisonment; I want to keep a job; I want to keep my friends and family. Four decades of life in civilized society, along with my instincts (including sociability), has made all these things very "natural." None of that changes the fact that there is no definitive "right and wrong."

I agree with you here, I think. That is, if it's true morality is subjective, not objective, then it doesn't necessarily imply humans will feel any sense of conflict over this fact. The latter doesn't necessarily follow from the former. For instance, you may not "struggle" because it would be evolutionarily detrimental for the survival of the human species if most humans constantly "struggled" with such conflicting emotions and so on, even though it's true there is no objective morality. It could be evolution's way of keeping social order and cooperation among humans. Indeed, that's basically what the atheist philosopher I cited above, Michael Ruse, is presuming is happening.

However, the problem is, if morality is ultimately subjective, then there's no ultimately justifiable reason for an individual not to do all sorts of horrible things if they can get away with it. According to society's "rules," yes, rape or murder is illegal and punishable by the law. However, since there is ultimately no objective morality, then nothing (including rape or murder) is ultimately morally wrong or right. Morality is only subjective -- subject to our feelings, society, etc.

So, for some people who have no feelings for their fellow human beings (e.g. sociopaths or psychopaths) and who are smart enough to get away from any legal or social repercussions, then they can literally get away with murder. They may live their entire lives without being caught, live long lives, and die a relatively happy and comfortable death in their own bed. And there are no consequences for them. By contrast, there are good people in the world who have sacrificed a lot to help others, and who aren't recognized by anyone their entire lives, and in the end they might die a very painful death. But both these good people as well as bad people will receive no rewards and face no ultimate consequences for how they lived. It's all the same in the end, no matter how they chose to live.

2) Yes, I think it's safe to say that at this point in the U.S., sexual orientation is analogous to race. The legal nuances of infringement on the rights of others will NOT be resolved. Ever. Other than that recognition, I can't say I have much interest in constitutional law. That is of course subject to change as the country evolves.

I responded to the sexual orientation and race analogy above.

 

[bashwell]

It is very simple.

You don't choose your race and you don't choose your sexual orientation.

Sorry, but it's not so "simple". Otherwise someone could "simply" reply:

You don't choose how attractive or ugly you are. Therefore we need universal laws against discriminating against attractive and/or ugly people (e.g. Hollywood and beauty pageants are discriminatory against ugly people).

You don't choose how tall or short you are. Therefore we need universal laws against discriminating against tall and/or short people (e.g. the NBA and various volleyball leagues are discriminatory against short people).

Etc.

It could quickly devolve into absurdity.

Point being: How is whether someone can or cannot change a characteristic a necessary and sufficient condition for whether we should have laws against discrimination of the same characteristic?

I don't say it's not possible, but I haven't seen a good case made in this thread.

(This is in addition to what I wrote above about sexual orientation and race.)

 

[bashwell]

A. Selling cake isn't counter to their religion.

B. Can Walgreen's checkers refuse to sell condoms to gay people because of their religion? Or lube?
Can bars and restaurants refuse to serve alcohol to gay people because it promotes sexual activity?
Can a baker refuse to sell a birthday cake to a gay person for his significant other out of fear that the birthday surprise might help him get laid? Or is it just wedding cake that's the problem?

C. What if every baker, drugstore, and bar refuses to serve gay people out of xtian bigotry?

There can be a distinction between basic morality or ethics and what should be made legal or illegal. For example, if someone said, "I only want to have dinner with white people," then I'm sure there'd be many people who would condemn this attitude even if they agree the person should have the legal right to make that choice.

Similarly, even if (ad arguendo) we agree it's morally wrong for someone to discriminate against someone else for their sexual orientation, it doesn't necessarily follow that we should compel people by force of law to do business with them. We'd need a further argument in order to establish this. (At least from what I've seen this further argument usually seems to be based on an analogy with racism. But the argument is only as good as the analogy. If the analogy fails, then so does the argument.)

 

[deleted126335]

There can be a distinction between basic morality or ethics and what should be made legal or illegal. For example, if someone said, "I only want to have dinner with white people," then I'm sure there'd be many people who would condemn this attitude even if they agree the person should have the legal right to make that choice.

Similarly, even if (ad arguendo) we agree it's morally wrong for someone to discriminate against someone else for their sexual orientation, it doesn't necessarily follow that we should compel people by force of law to do business with them. We'd need a further argument in order to establish this. (At least from what I've seen this further argument usually seems to be based on an analogy with racism. But the argument is only as good as the analogy. If the analogy fails, then so does the argument.)

More and more people accept the analogy as valid.

 

[bashwell]

More and more people accept the analogy as valid.

The quantity of people accepting an argument is not what's important but rather the quality of the argument itself. Is the argument sound, valid, true? That's what matters. Not that everyone accepts it. For example, just because "more and more people accept" the Earth is flat doesn't make the Earth flat. It could be most people are mistaken. Truth, of course, isn't decided by majority vote.

Also, I've already given reasons above (in two or three different comments) for why I don't see the two as analogous to one another; or at least that I see both analogies as well as disanalogies between the two.

 

[deleted126335]

The quantity of people accepting an argument is not what's important but rather the quality of the argument itself. Is the argument sound, valid, true? That's what matters. Not that everyone accepts it. For example, just because "more and more people accept" the Earth is flat doesn't make the Earth flat. It could be most people are mistaken. Truth, of course, isn't decided by majority vote.

Also, I've already given reasons above (in two or three different comments) for why I don't see the two as analogous to one another; or at least that I see both analogies as well as disanalogies between the two.

This is not an argument about provable scientific truths. This is an argument about morals, ethics, and the law. All of the which vary to some degree and evolve. Unlike scientific truths. So the numbers of people who accept an argument is not irrelevant. Not the only issue, but certainly not irrelevant.

 

[bashwell]

This is not an argument about provable scientific truths. This is an argument about morals, ethics, and the law. All of the which vary to some degree and evolve. Unlike scientific truths. So the numbers of people who accept an argument is not irrelevant. Not the only issue, but certainly not irrelevant.

Actually, this is an argument from analogy (i.e. is sexual orientation analogous to race), and the point stands that this isn't decided by numbers or quantity of people agreeing or disagreeing with the argument, but as I said on the quality (e.g. soundness, validity, truthfulness) of the argument itself. Otherwise, if it's about quantity of people agreeing or disagreeing, then by parity of argument someone could argue race/racism is decided by majority vote rather than being inherently unethical. So if 51% of Americans had voted for racism, then racism would be ethical, but if 51% had voted against racism, then racism would be unethical, which is absurd. (By the way, I'm not sure if you want to suggest sexual orientation has no basis in provable scientific truth.)

Besides, as I said, and what's more to the point, I've already given my reasons for why the argument doesn't seem to be analogous.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

It could quickly devolve into absurdity.

Point being: How is whether someone can or cannot change a characteristic a necessary and sufficient condition for whether we should have laws against discrimination of the same characteristic?

Maybe it wasn't a pragmatic ruling. Maybe the legal precedence will result in chaos. Maybe it'll have to be reversed. Maybe every American will sue for protection from discrimination. I doubt it though.

I understand, and I think a lot of others understand, your position. With due respect, you've stated it several different ways with a LOT of typing. It's not a bad argument.

For now, a lot of people who love each other and want to get married can do so. I'm ok with that.

 

[bashwell]

Maybe it wasn't a pragmatic ruling. Maybe the legal precedence will result in chaos. Maybe it'll have to be reversed. Maybe every American will sue for protection from discrimination. I doubt it though.

I understand, and I think a lot of others understand, your position. With due respect, you've stated it several different ways with a LOT of typing. It's not a bad argument.

For now, a lot of people who love each other and want to get married can do so. I'm ok with that.

Thanks. I basically agree.

As I've stated previously, I'm not arguing against legalizing SSM per se. It's fine if every state wants to legalize SSM. However, I just don't agree with how it was accomplished -- i.e. unilaterally by the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court that can legalize SSM is also a Supreme Court that can illegalize SSM. What SCOTUS gives with one hand, it can take away with the other hand. Instead, my considered opinion is legalizing SSM should've been done by Congress, state legislatures, or referendum.

Also, just to clarify, I've never claimed sexual orientation isn't analogous to race. I actually think there are analogies as well as disanalogies. However, I am against poor or facile arguments, canned cliches, etc., which is why I took issue with a lot of the (sorry to say) shoddy arguments here.

In other words, at least in this regard, I'm perhaps what Christopher Hitchens once called a young contrarian.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

Wait, but more importantly... is Doze actually a neocon?

 

[deleted50478]

The court's ruling isn't the intrusion into people's lives/government over-reach that some are pretending it is. The small government, freedom-loving, classically liberal position is for the government to stay out of it and let people do what they want. The gay marriage bans/defense of marriage laws were the government over-reach. Quit trying to flip it around.

 

[bashwell]

The court's ruling isn't the intrusion into people's lives/government over-reach that some are pretending it is. The small government, freedom-loving, classically liberal position is for the government to stay out of it and let people do what they want. The gay marriage bans/defense of marriage laws were the government over-reach. Quit trying to flip it around.

At the risk of stating the obvious, this isn't a zero-sum game: It's possible both "gay marriage bans/defense of marriage laws" and the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing SSM across the nation are instances of "government over-reach". If so, then I have no problem arguing for both to be stricken down.

In addition, how did the "gay marriage bans/defense of marriage laws" become "laws" in the first place? If they were decided by state legislatures, for example, then that's quite different than if they were decided by the Supreme Court and legalized across the entire nation in one fell swoop.

 

[Green Penguin]

So, mob rule then? Two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner plans? The reason we are a republic, the reason we have a legislature and a Supreme Court in the first place, is to avoid that. The mechanism for "all citizens" to get involved is to elect legislators to pass the laws they want, and to convince them to amend the Constitution if those laws get struck down by the Court. But ain't nobody got time for that, I guess.

Justices are APPOINTED to serve for LIFE for a very specific reason. They're supposed to add some inertia to the system, to slow down the ability of the government to make sweeping long-lasting changes because of transient fads of public opinion, and to guarantee that the Constitutional rights of minorities aren't trampled by the majority. An equipotent 1/3 of the federal government, unconcerned with the need to win re-election, ideally free from political pressure and special interest money.

There would seem to be to be reasonable 9th and 14th Amendment arguments that some legal joining of two gay people ought to be recognized nationwide, and this case would seem to embody exactly what we have SCOTUS for and what we want them to do: guarantee that the rights of a minority group aren't infringed.

Maybe most people (on both sides) would've been satisfied with a legislature-created compromise to make nationally-recognized "civil unions" between any two humans and leave the "marriage" term to churches. Maybe SCOTUS should've given the state legislatures more time to get there.

And maybe SCOTUS should've denied cert to Brown v Board of Education and given the states more time to "get there" on integrating schools.

But at some point when a group's Constitutional rights are being infringed by a state, it's time for SCOTUS to step in. Justice delayed is justice denied.

"Mob rule" is a disparaging way of referring to democracy. We elect representatives because that was what was practical when the country was founded, not because it is preferable to direct democracy. We now have the technology for direct democracy (of which referendums are one example).

We have justices to add intertia? Is that why they keep making sweeping controversial decisions? Citizens United and gay marriage are only two recent radical SCOTUS decisions in a long line, and gay marriage is the epitome of a transient fad of public opinion if ever there was one. Illegal all of history, suddenly hip. If anything SCOTUS adds radicalism, not inertia.

Your assertion that SCOTUS is there to protect minority rights doesn't address the fact they they are now creating new rights, not protecting existing ones.

 

[Green Penguin]

I did not get that Memo.

Note...this isn't my interpretation, this came from a Monk (on the internet) responding to a comment re: this issue.

There were two sets of old laws: that which God had dictated - the 10 commandments - and that ever-more errant interpretation which the Jews were practicing.

His life and death, along with his teachings, DID "fulfill" God's old laws… To a true Christian, the Old Testament should be nothing but a history book. In Christ's opinion, they had been misinterpreting the 10 commandments and gotten way off track. He came to set them straight.

If the "old law" continued to be followed in the manner in which Jews were following it, then logically - to a Christian - Christ would have lived and died in vain. He came (and died) to fulfill it. He IS the law. To a Christian, his teachings are the law; not the old rites and rituals found within the Old Testament.

We must keep in mind that Christ's goal (and John the Baptist before him) was a better, more accurate way to follow God's desires (practice Judaism), not a brand new religion. Christianity was merely the name given to "Jew 2.0" - the Judaism that Christ practiced. The reason for this new school, first posited by John the Baptist - was that Judaism had gotten so caught up in rites, rituals and traditions that they had strayed from God's desires. Their attention was not focused upon being godly; it was sucked up by their rites and rituals and putting on airs; acting religiously. They were worshipping their religion, rather than their God.

Those who follow the Old Testament today are not practicing Christianity, regardless of what they may label themselves. While the Old Testament should be respected as a history of how things were, only the New Testament should be heeded in how things ought to be - how we ought to behave - as dictated by Christ.

The Sermon on the Mount explains quite clearly how to be a Christian. Indeed, it was with that single speech - in that moment - in which "Christianity" was born. Jesus explained in great detail - item by item - what the old law said, how it had been misconstrued, how people had gone astray from God's desire and how to follow God's desires properly, rather than being mired in the rites and rituals that Jewish scribes had infused into the mix.

Indeed, when he finished that speech, a new religion had been born:
"And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching; for he taught them as having authority and not as their scribes. And when he had come down from the mountain, many multitudes followed him." (Matthew 7:28-8:1)

To be clear, there isn't one shred of Christianity in the Old Testament. Christianity lies in Christ's teachings alone. One cannot serve two masters, as Christ said in that very same sermon. One cannot both be a Christian and follow the old, errant Jewish practices and interpretations of God's commandments and desires, for they are not the same; in truth, their practices are in conflict with God's law. Christ said so himself.

Read the Sermon on the Mount in full. It's not that long. You'll see "Christianity" clearly and, in the future, be able to easily recognize who is a Christian versus who is merely bearing false witness; who is a hypocrite; who is using the Lord's name in vain, etc. People either follow Christ's instructions or they do not. Those who do not simply aren't Christians, regardless of how they may label themselves or what others may call them.

 

[pgg]

Direct democracy is a disaster. Exhibit A, California's referendum system. I suppose it's better than a fascist dictatorship or a theocracy or communism, but that's faint praise. A Constitutional Republic is far superior to direct democracy.

 

[Green Penguin]

Direct democracy is a disaster. Exhibit A, California's referendum system. I suppose it's better than a fascist dictatorship or a theocracy or communism, but that's faint praise. A Constitutional Republic is far superior to direct democracy.

Exactly what about the California referendum system do you find disasterous? Is it that most California voters want things that you disagree with, and you prefer that 5 people in the Supreme Court can overrule those millions of voters?

 

[Green Penguin]

Let me add to that...Switzerland has the closest thing that I know of to direct democracy in modern history, with many referendums. The Swiss state isn't suffering for it.

 

[BLADEMDA]

A republic is better than a democracy if those allowed to vote are informed, intelligent and concerned about their nation. If I had my way those on the government dole would be excluded from voting; here is my exclusion list:

1. Unemployed or receiving unemployment insurance (right to vote restored with employment)
2. High School dropout or no equivalency of a high school diploma
3. Welfare recipient
4. No Proof of Citizenship (Voter ID required)
5. Felon or former Felon
6. Disability (I'm on the fence with this one)
7. Food Stamps

By enacting 1-7 we could preserve this republic for another 200 hundred years; without 1-5 we won't survive another 50.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

 

[Green Penguin]

Thi

A republic is better than a democracy if those allowed to vote are informed, intelligent and concerned about their nation. If I had my way those on the government dole would be excluded from voting; here is my exclusion list:

1. Unemployed or receiving unemployment insurance (right to vote restored with employment)
2. High School dropout or no equivalency of a high school diploma
3. Welfare recipient
4. No Proof of Citizenship (Voter ID required)
5. Felon or former Felon
6. Disability (I'm on the fence with this one)
7. Food Stamps

By enacting 1-7 we could preserve this republic for another 200 hundred years; without 1-5 we won't survive another 50.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

Those sound like arguments for direct democracy with voting privileges restricted to those who meet set qualifications. That is different than having to vote for others that you hope might represent you (republic), but having no direct day on any particular issue despite being otherwise eligible to vote. And many of your suggestions I could get on board with.

 

[BigMAC3]

Been meaning to chime in on this.

I don't find the decision to be surprising. Gay people are a minority group, and they are often marginalized. You can't put the rights of a minority group up for popular vote.

I also think the GOP has shot themselves in the foot on this issue. This is a group of people who want to marry, start families, settle down, and move to the suburbs with a house and white picket fence. Here's an except directly from the GOP website.

"FAMILY VALUES - Our country should value family, life, and hard work. This is why we insist that public policy – from taxes to education, from health care to welfare – should be created to strengthen and support, not hurt, American families. Individuals and families should be able to maintain their independence from government, raise their children by their own values and build communities of self-reliant neighbors."

Sounds great. I agree with this statement 100%....but the "American Family" also includes gay people. Sadly they choose to recognize some families, but not others. They have needlessly thrown away the vote of 2% of Americans who identify as LGBT, their friends and family, and unfortunately it is going to cost them dearly. Truly a missed opportunity.

 

[pgg]

Exactly what about the California referendum system do you find disasterous?

Alexander Tytler, someone who most people think was a Scottish dude who lived a couple hundred years ago, was (is?) actually a time-traveling Californian who left modern day California after Prop 13 passed in the late 1970s. His observations of California's experiment led him to remark

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy”

Is it that most California voters want things that you disagree with,

While that is vaguely generally true, it's not why I think the referendum system is a mess. Let's not confuse issues.

I like California. I was born there, left for med school a couple decades later, went back in 2009 and left again in 2014. The weather is glorious, the food better. As great as those two things are, they're not enough. I doubt I'll return.

and you prefer that 5 people in the Supreme Court can overrule those millions of voters?

When those millions of voters vote for things that are violations of the Constitution, you betcha I want the courts to overrule them. I'd feel better if the votes were 9-0 but 5-4 is OK too.

Exhibit B: Prop 8

 

[pgg]

I also think the GOP has shot themselves in the foot on this issue. This is a group of people who want to marry, start families, settle down, and move to the suburbs with a house and white picket fence. Here's an except directly from the GOP website.

"FAMILY VALUES - Our country should value family, life, and hard work. This is why we insist that public policy – from taxes to education, from health care to welfare – should be created to strengthen and support, not hurt, American families. Individuals and families should be able to maintain their independence from government, raise their children by their own values and build communities of self-reliant neighbors."

That's the GOP for you - nose cutting and face spiting. Consider the ongoing immigration of all those Mexicans moving to the US for work. Most work hard, very hard. They value family so much that many send a great deal of their pay home to support their extended family stuck in Mexico. Lots of Catholics.

So here's a bloc of hardworking, religious, family values people ... the GOP could own the entire Latino voter bloc. But instead the party gives immigrants the finger and drives them to the D candidates.