Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 175 Replies latest social current

  • 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.

  • Junction-Guy
    You're absolutely right! This whole movement reminds me so much of the Watchtower, the similarities are uncanny.
  • Viviane
    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.

    So your complaint is "The U.S. Constitution, legislative, executive and judicial branches worked exactly as designed, but I don't like the results"?

    Here's a pro-tip for the uninformed such as yourself: The U.S. is not a democracy. The court did exactly what is was supposed to do according to the Supreme Law of the land. You are 100% wrong and uneducated on how your government works.

  • jws

    And let's keep in mind that conservatives outnumber progressives in the court.

    Like Vivian says, this is the judicial branch and is interpreting the constitution which is it's job.

    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.

    And let's keep in mind that the polls showed most of America in favor of gay marriage. And religion is declining in America. Eventually it'd be voted legal in each state. So supreme court aside, gay marriage would become a reality anyway.

    And how in the world can you say refusing marriage isn't a punishment? Show me your Mensa card.

    So in your opinion nobody should marry? Because it's a punishment? The stupidity of this statement shows your IQ. So you shouldn't marry the one you love. What if they're in a hospital but denied access because you're not family or married to them? Is that not punishment.

    It doesn't affect you in the least so get over it and evolve.

  • Junction-Guy
    funny though, if the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution differently and ruled against gay marriage, people would be crying, "this is a democracy, this can't happen" etc etc. They want to use democracy when it is convenient for their agenda, and when it isn't they just defer it to the judicial branch--it is an end run around the will of the people, placing power in the hands of a few. Our forefathers would be horrified if they could see how our government has gone.
  • sir82

    Five unelected federal officials did exactly what the US Constitution indicates is their job description is.

    There, fixed that for ya.

  • OrphanCrow
    Rattigan: Five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

    That isn't what happened.

    You speak of "amendments". Those "five unelected federal officials" made their decision based upon the First Amendment which protects the rights of minorities. Surely you must remember that one...we have the WTS to thank for that.

    Look it up - a SOTUS ruling...I think it is the Barnette case. It is the case that the "policy" you speak of rests upon.

    I don't think you understand the democratic structure.

  • DJS


    Some may have cried as you state, but the majority of gays and those supporting their cause understood that the ruling could go either way (just like the perfect GF). As jws points out, they were in it for the long run and would have re-directed their efforts to the individual states.

    Our federal and state governments confer enormous economic and social privileges to married couples. Prohibiting same sex couples from being legally identified kept them from such privileges and benefits, even though many gay and lesbian couples have been together for many, many years.

    And you two haters are OK with that. You two are on the losing side of history. Your kind did the same thing in the civil rights' era. Now they are dead or have STFU. Just as you will.

    Now stop whining.

  • redvip2000

    @ Rattigan

    We are talking about interpretation of the law based on the constitution, which is what the Supreme Court does.

    Isn't it time to simply give in to the fact that homosexuality has gained enough acceptance, that this was in order?

    Why does it take a change of generations in order to change minds? If you are 50, 60, 70 years old or older, you need to accept the fact that societal norms have changed since you were a kid - things are not supposed to remain the same. The forefathers that you mentioned, were slave owners, certainly they were as enlightened as we might think.

  • Giordano

    Apart from the Court being a bit more conservative look at the religious makeup:

    1. There are six Roman Catholics currently serving on the court (Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarence Thomas) and three Jews (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagen).

      Apparently protestants need not apply.

      P.S. The decision was a good one.

Share this