Thread: Dead Horses: U.S. Supreme Court Decision Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001353

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court justices have said that U.S. states cannot keep same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their unions.


[ 08. April 2017, 01:55: Message edited by: Louise ]
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

---

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
Majority opionion (by Justice Kennedy) states that marriage is a "fundamental right" and that equal protection applies.
Chief Justice's dissent (joined by all 4 dissenters) says that the "democratic process" should have been allowed to proceed.
Scalia threw a hissy fit in his dissent:

quote:

---

If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So is this saying that all states must recognize ssms which occurred in other states, or that no state can prohibit gay couples from marrying?

Anyway, I'll join in with Yay!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Woe! Woe! Look for True Christians™ to be murdered in the streets, rounded up, terrorized, and made to get handgun permits in blue states! It's the beginning of the end, I tell you!

---

quote:

---

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
and family. In forming a marital union, two people become
something greater than once they were. As some of
the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death. It
would misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned
to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s
oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the
eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.

---

cheers from Boston - Joan
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Oh great. Now all the decent men are going to move to America.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Our rector is a canny man, full of forethought, and he has foreseen this Supreme Court decision. He knew the conservative wing of the church was on the losing end of the stick, and he's been doing Reconciliation and Reachout for months. I am certain that some members of our congregation have their hair on fire at this exact moment, and are planning to call for us to secede from the Union or something. He has been trying to put the brakes on the more rampant nuttery.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Weddings already taking place, I've heard.

Well, it took you guys some time, a month after Ireland, but finally you got there.
 

---

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Yay!
 

---

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Woe! Woe! Look for True Christians™ to be murdered in the streets, rounded up, terrorized, and made to get handgun permits in blue states! It's the beginning of the end, I tell you!

---

quote:

---

Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.” (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Scalia's dissent is a thing of unhinged beauty. It reads more like a particularly deranged blog comment than a judicial opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I'm in Salt Lake City and am wandering over to the Episcopal General Convention in a few minutes. I imagine there has been much rejoicing, and I'm looking forward to visiting Integrity's booth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A friend of mine posted a (fictional) assessment by Barack Obama of the political implications: "We've lost Utah for a generation." The joke of course is that Utah is the reddest of red states and went for Romney by a landslide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I'm in Salt Lake City and am wandering over to the Episcopal General Convention in a few minutes. I imagine there has been much rejoicing, and I'm looking forward to visiting Integrity's booth.

---

Integrity has a really nice celebration graphic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Well, it took you guys some time, a month after Ireland, but finally you got there.

---

Only a little bit behind Pitcairn too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh great. Now all the decent men are going to move to America.

---

It's nice to have a pleasant surprise on the news. Those of you in the USA; did you expect this decision, or is it as much of a surprise for you as it seems to be for most of us outside looking in?
 

---

Posted by Salicional (# 16461) on :
 
I'd say that most of the people who follow the decisions of the Supreme Court had an inkling that things were inevitably leading to this outcome. And I'm not at all surprised that Justice Kennedy was the swing vote.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
There were in fact articles months ago predicting this outcome, in large part because the court refused to interrupt the decisions that supported same-sex marriage and only took the matter on once there was a lower court that had ruled against same-sex marriage.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
It's one of those things where I knew it would happen someday, but I still can't believe I am actually seeing it happen. It took me till this morning to weep for joy. Last night I was prtetty much stuck with going from FB status update to FB status update and posting " YEAHHH!"

One of my childhood friends is finally marrying the guy we all considered his husband anyway. YEAAH!

[ 27. June 2015, 14:56: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
There was a time even recently when I couldn't imagine being able to marry-- not in Georgia! Now, after almost 14 years I am officially engaged and the date is set for our 14th anniversary in September.

This morning the joy was tempered a bit remembering a couple here in Atlanta who were together some 60+ years until one of them passed. It came too late for them, but it is because of them and others like them that I can get married in September. I am grateful for those who worked for this but were unable to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Congratulations on your engagement, OB. Many more happy years.
 

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
It's strange being here in Salt Lake City with thousands of Episcopalians. There's great elation at the General Convention.
But we're still in Utah, where SSM has only been legal because of a court decision. This morning's SLC paper had one letter with the usual "people will soon be able to marry their pets," and another saying that marriage can only be decided by the church (e.g., LDS) -- despite their ban on polygamy coming about only because the government said they had to end it in order to become a state.

I was in a local shopping center yesterday and bought a wedding card for two (male) friends who are getting married this fall. It seemed to be a very appropriate day to find a card for them, and I'll be sure to tell them. The cashier asked me if I realized that the card said "Mr. and Mr." -- some people have misread it and at least one person brought it back for a refund. He seemed quite pleased when I said it was intentional and a great day to be buying it.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Wonderfully sane advice

I am only sorry that so many people in my church are going to be wildly upset about this. One must hope it will not lead to violence.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
The one thing it perhaps misses out in the first section is a paragraph saying, "If you are a traditional husband and wife, this ruling won't affect your marriage relationship" - because it won't. Yet some folk seem to think it will. IMO that's bizarre.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I forget in which book of his it was, that C.S. Lewis suggested splitting the sacrament of marriage away entirely from the civil institution. Marriage on the civil side then would become something like the blood test and the marriage license, something you just do in advance of the big church wingding. Meanwhile churches of all denominations could keep charge of their ceremonies/rites/theologies and either marry, or not, whoever they felt doctrinally inclined to preside over.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I forget in which book of his it was, that C.S. Lewis suggested splitting the sacrament of marriage away entirely from the civil institution. Marriage on the civil side then would become something like the blood test and the marriage license, something you just do in advance of the big church wingding. Meanwhile churches of all denominations could keep charge of their ceremonies/rites/theologies and either marry, or not, whoever they felt doctrinally inclined to preside over.

---

This is the practice in most of continental Western Europe.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Oh God, the Orthosphere has gone batshit. We're soon to be rounded up and sent to the gulags when people sue the Orthodox Church for not performing gay multi-partner trans-species weddings. Sodom and Gomorrah have been trotted out, and the need for a return to the monarchy, and how America used to be this nice Christian country, and how this is the first step down a slippery slope to mandatory orgies in the street and sex with antelope.

All reason is lost. I am of course enduring a fair share of abuse for standing up for rationality. Not once having said the Orthodox Church should change its stance and marry gay people, mind. I know better in that crowd. Just trying to preach calmness and compassion and rationality.

I will expect my martyr's crown soon, of course.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And he went to law school for this?

OTOH there is always the possibility of changing your mind.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And he went to law school for this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And he went to law school for this?

---

You cannot be serious.

You. Cannot.

Fuck law school. How can you get to his age without having come across the notion of a CIVIL WEDDING?!??

---

quote:

---

It was at this point that those in the court witnessed Chief Justice Roberts begin to whisper to fellow conservative Justices Scalia and Alito. Justice Roberts then became visibly red in the face at this point and some reports even state that you could audibly hear Roberts say, “Really!?”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
This morning the joy was tempered a bit remembering a couple here in Atlanta who were together some 60+ years until one of them passed. It came too late for them, but it is because of them and others like them that I can get married in September. I am grateful for those who worked for this but were unable to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

---

I just had an image of Moses gazing across the Jordan at the Promised Land that he would never enter.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The one thing it perhaps misses out in the first section is a paragraph saying, "If you are a traditional husband and wife, this ruling won't affect your marriage relationship" - because it won't. Yet some folk seem to think it will. IMO that's bizarre.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It won't have an effect upon individual marriages, but it obviously creates a re-definition of marriage in the public sphere. This surely has psychological ramifications both for those who are for and against. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And he went to law school for this?

---

You cannot be serious.

You. Cannot.

Fuck law school. How can you get to his age without having come across the notion of a CIVIL WEDDING?!??

---

quote:

---

It was at this point that those in the court witnessed Chief Justice Roberts begin to whisper to fellow conservative Justices Scalia and Alito. Justice Roberts then became visibly red in the face at this point and some reports even state that you could audibly hear Roberts say, “Really!?”

---

Good God, you coudn't write a sketch as funny as this. The Three Stooges in " Supreme Stupidity."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am being oppressed by a great many things like this. There are people who simply cannot grasp the difference between church and state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If the highest judge in the land doesn't understand the basic legal construction of marriage, is it any wonder that large numbers of conservative Americans are displaying extraordinary degrees of stupid in their reactions to the Supreme Court decision?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is almost as if the constitution is being treated as revealed scripture, constantly reinterpreted but the text itself altered but once in a blue moon, the amendments often being cited like the new testament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I do find it a bit weird that these kind of issues are often resolved in the US by declaring them constitutional or unconstitutional - but almost never by amending the constitution. Honestly, it is obvious the founding fathers were mainly concerned the rights of white, straight, men. It often feels as if the supreme court is trying to say "actually, you could have done this all along, but we've only just noticed" when they are in fact changing the law. But there is nothing wrong with changing the law, why create an artifice that you are not doing so ? It is almost as if the constitution is being treated as revealed scripture, constantly reinterpreted but the text itself altered but once in a blue moon, the amendments often being cited like the new testament.

---

quote:

---

During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito compared the case to that of Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian university in South Carolina. The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 the school was not entitled to a tax-exempt status if it barred interracial marriage.

Here is an exchange between Alito and Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., arguing for the same-sex couples on behalf of the Obama administration.

Justice Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax­exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating.

So would the same apply to a 10 university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage?

General Verrilli: You know, ­­I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is­­ it is going to be an issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You mean the fundies might be forced to render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar? Excuse me while I try and summon the will to care a jot... no, can't manage it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You mean the fundies might be forced to render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar? Excuse me while I try and summon the will to care a jot... no, can't manage it.

---

Well if all religious institutions were to lose tax exempt status you would have a point. However if it is only those institutions that oppose gay marriage that lose such status then effectively you have a situation where religious groups are being fined for holding opinions the government doesn't agree with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You mean the fundies might be forced to render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar? Excuse me while I try and summon the will to care a jot... no, can't manage it.

---

Well if all religious institutions were to lose tax exempt status you would have a point. However if it is only those institutions that oppose gay marriage that lose such status then effectively you have a situation where religious groups are being fined for holding opinions the government doesn't agree with.

---

It doesn't affect churches though, does it? And why are you so concerned about this now, and not with regard the pre-existing judgement as regards interracial marriage? Is it because it's a bigotry you happen to subscribe to that's being threatened in this instance?

In any case, tax exemptions are offered for things that society wants to promote. Usually things like healthcare, education and so forth. Deciding that bigotry is not something we want promoted is not a fine, it's the revocation of a privilege.

---

quote:

---

In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
In both cases the issue is government subsidising theological opinions it likes, which is moving close the the legal establishment of certain religious opinions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It won't have an effect upon individual marriages, but it obviously creates a re-definition of marriage in the public sphere. This surely has psychological ramifications both for those who are for and against. ...

---

I'm curious about the psychological ramifications of marriage equality that apparently won't affect individual marriages. How's that work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Did allowing mixed-race marriages change the definition of marriage? Or just broaden the category of couples who could participate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
In both cases the issue is government subsidising theological opinions it likes, which is moving close the the legal establishment of certain religious opinions.

---

So, the government enforcing discrimination is NOT legal establishment of religious opinions, but the government prohibiting discrimination IS?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It isn't based om their theological opinions.
It is based on the government playing by the governments rules.
If religious organisations want to play by different rules, they are free to.
But if you do not wish to play, get your own ball.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It isn't based om their theological opinions.
It is based on the government playing by the governments rules.
If religious organisations want to play by different rules, they are free to.
But if you do not wish to play, get your own ball.

---

If the government denies tax exempt status to religious institutions whose theology is opposed to same sex marriage (or for that matter interracial marriage) whilst at the same time granting such status to religious institutions whose theology supports such marriages then the government is clearly granting or withholding tax exempt status based
on an institutions theological opinions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It isn't based om their theological opinions.
It is based on the government playing by the governments rules.
If religious organisations want to play by different rules, they are free to.
But if you do not wish to play, get your own ball.

---

If the government denies tax exempt status to religious institutions whose theology is opposed to same sex marriage (or for that matter interracial marriage) whilst at the same time granting such status to religious institutions whose theology supports such marriages then the government is clearly granting or withholding tax exempt status based
on an institutions theological opinions.

---

If this were an archery contest, your miss would endanger the spectators.
Churches wish to pick and choose which rules they observe and yet they wish all the benefits.
A church is free to discriminate however they wish. Why should the government, which is not, be forced to subsidise that discrimination?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
[In both cases the issue is government subsidising theological opinions it likes, which is moving close the the legal establishment of certain religious opinions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
First of all I should correct myself and say that a tax exemption is not a subsidy. A subsidy is when government money is passed to an individual or organisation. A tax exemption if when a government decides to refrain from taking an individual's or organisation's own money away from them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If you took the tax exemption from churches you would see many of them in the US collapse. At this point churches (and non profits, and charities, and even until recently the NFL) are utterly dependent on the tax deduction and its attendants (like not paying real estate taxes). If you really wanted ot get rid of it the thing to do would be to phase it out, over a decade or so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Originally posted by mousethief:
Did allowing mixed-race marriages change the definition of marriage? Or just broaden the category of couples who could participate?

---

quote:

---

A good question, but a particularly American one. I doubt that mixed-race marriages have been illegal for most of history. The Americans were surely aware that mixed-marriages occurred early during their colonisation of the USA. AFAICS they were outlawed not because they were primarily deemed immortal or abnormal, but because they threatened to undermine the divide and rule policy that became necessary as a way of strengthening white rule and dominance in the colonies. And not all slave colonies chose to forbid mixed marriages; some just tried to make them deeply socially unacceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
First of all I should correct myself and say that a tax exemption is not a subsidy. A subsidy is when government money is passed to an individual or organisation. A tax exemption if when a government decides to refrain from taking an individual's or organisation's own money away from them.

---

Don't care whether you call it drab or khaki, the uniform fits the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Well if you want to call a tax break a subsidy then you would have a situation where the government would be subsidising religious institutions provided they practise a theology that accepts same sex marriage (and interracial marriage). In what way is that not the government subsidising certain theological positions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The fact is that in this case the SCOTUS has not made a decision on a theological but on a fairness and rights basis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I'm not suggesting that the government policy itself is based on theology. I was making a specific reference to the question of tax exempt status and granting tax exempt status to some religious institutions but not to others based on their theological opinions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
There is no reason to assume that a white woman and a black man cannot produce offspring with each other, indeed, that they can is pretty much the (racist) reason for miscegenation laws. Hence miscegenation laws cannot be motivated from the nature of marriage as union of man and woman ordered to the begetting and raising of children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure no U.S. state defines legal marriage in this manner. Do you have a citation you could share?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure no U.S. state defines legal marriage in this manner. Do you have a citation you could share?

---

Why would I feel obliged to do so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Because the U.S. Supreme Court (which is what this thread is ostensibly about, if you'll check the title) is obligated to base its decisions on state or federal law, or the federal constitution. While it might be convenient (for you, at least) for the U.S. Supreme Court to base its decisions on your personal theology, the Court obligated to have at least some legal basis for its decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I know shit all about relevant US laws, and consequently about what SCOTUS could base their decision on. I know though that a minority of them did see sufficient legal grounds to reject this decision. That suggests that whatever the status of US law may be, it would have afforded the opposite decision within bounds of valid legal reasoning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Oh, and I briefly critiqued SCOTUS for usurping the role of law maker. That's more a political than a judicial point though.

My length discussion above was instead about the comparison to miscegenation laws. That's a side issue on this thread, obviously, but one that interests me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I know shit all about relevant US laws, and consequently about what SCOTUS could base their decision on. I know though that a minority of them did see sufficient legal grounds to reject this decision. That suggests that whatever the status of US law may be, it would have afforded the opposite decision within bounds of valid legal reasoning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And the only thing I have said about SCOTUS through an oblique Dantean reference is that they have failed their country, a judgement that rests comfortably on having 1) established that SCOTUS could have judged differently (see above), and 2) should have done so based on general "moral" grounds. Oh, and I briefly critiqued SCOTUS for usurping the role of law maker. That's more a political than a judicial point though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

What I actually wrote concerning miscegenation laws is that they cannot be justified on a traditional view of marriage, whereas an opposition to "gay marriage" can be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I also have no particular opinion about the "Loving" decision of a previous SCOTUS, as far as any of the legal detail is concerned.

What I actually wrote concerning miscegenation laws is that they cannot be justified on a traditional view of marriage, whereas an opposition to "gay marriage" can be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
What I actually wrote concerning miscegenation laws is that they cannot be justified on a traditional view of marriage, whereas an opposition to "gay marriage" can be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

It's the US Supreme Court interpreting Federal Law based on the US Constitution, Why is a particularly American question inappropriate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Besides, using this reasoning one could look at prior split decisions and determine that the Supreme court could have affirmed slavery (as they did for a while) segregation (ditto), the inability of a woman to own property in her own right, the unfitness of marriage between races, etc. etc. etc. One could even determine that Gore should have been President.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
You seem to equate "general 'moral' grounds" and "bounds of valid legal reasoning".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
The other thing, of course, is that SCOTUS did not usurp the legislative power. They simply said it is not constitutional to ban the civil state of marriage for gay couples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
When I get married on my 14th anniversary in September, I will be married in the eyes of the State of Georgia, the Federal Government of the United States, my family, and my husband. I won't be "same-sex married" to these entities, I will simply be "married". If you and your wife were to move to the US, the same (and no more) would be true for you in the eyes of these entities. I won't be married in the eyes of the RCC and you will, but they have little to no moral credence with me so I really don't care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
In fact, where I think most anti-gay Christians "get it wrong" is in thinking that gay people will be coming after them to force them to perform gay marriages in their churches, etc. The pressure they feel will be coming from their own internal lay members (and a few clerics), many of whom are NOT gay. There will be little or no pressure from outsiders, who don't really care what they do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If the court said that a particular definition of marriage, or perhaps a particulate type of definition of marriage (still sufficiently characterised) is unconstitutional to withhold from gay couples, for this or that clear reason - then that's fine. Because this would give the law maker scope to decide whether they want to keep that sort of definition, and allow "gay marriage", or change that definition sufficiently to avoid the flagged problems, in order to reject "gay marriage" also in future. But if the court simply declared all rejection of "gay marriage" unconstitutional, then arguably they have hamstrung the law maker in this matter and furthermore certainly exceeded what those law makers had in mind who actually wrote the constitution. That would be a de facto usurpation of legislative power.

---

quote:

---

Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention, because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
While I do not generally endorse "The Orthosphere", because I genuinely think that they have lost it, this article by Kristor summarises relatively sanely why this will not change much of anything.

---

That's hilarious. I always thought you had no sense of humor, but apparently I was wrong. Here's a favorite bit.

quote:

---

Heterosexuals – especially heterosexual men – can forebear to express their disgust at homosexual sex, but they cannot stop feeling it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
In fact, where I think most anti-gay Christians "get it wrong" is in thinking that gay people will be coming after them to force them to perform gay marriages in their churches, etc. The pressure they feel will be coming from their own internal lay members (and a few clerics), many of whom are NOT gay. There will be little or no pressure from outsiders, who don't really care what they do.

---

I hope you are right. It is not a reasonable hope though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It's the US Supreme Court interpreting Federal Law based on the US Constitution, Why is a particularly American question inappropriate?

---

It's not inappropriate. My point was rather that mixed race marriages haven't normally been deemed to be invalid or immoral in history, although they may have been discouraged or banned for various reasons reasons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
f your traditions include racism, sure they can, just as your tradition including homophobia allows you to justify your views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:
The trick is, of course, depending at what point in history to drive in a stake and declare "This is where Traditional Marriage begins". And as has been pointed out, no where in Genesis is marriage defined. You're taking "man + woman = babies" and "be fruitful and multiply" and back-defining that to be marriage by shoehorning those items in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Limiting lawmakers to acting within the limits of the Constitution may "hamstring" them, but it does so by design and intent, not through some kind of judicial over-reach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I wonder who Kristor thinks is the main customer (demographically speaking) for the lesbian porn market?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Do you see no limit for what SCOTUS can reasonably sell as an interpretation of the constitution? Is all fair game to them, as long as the best legal minds can somehow argue their imposed decision to be in tune with the constitution? Is the political scope of SCOTUS set by their ability to justify their decisions in a reasonable sounding manner? Given that these people are some kind of lawyers, I think that this is a rather naive, and potentially dangerous, take on things...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
What I actually wrote concerning miscegenation laws is that they cannot be justified on a traditional view of marriage, whereas an opposition to "gay marriage" can be.

---

Depends on your tradition, doesn't it? One of the things argued by the attorneys representing the commonwealth of Virginia was that anti-miscegenation laws had a long history in the United States, and in their colonial precursors as well. "[A] traditional view of marriage" was exactly what Virginia's attorneys were arguing to justify their position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I only just recently found out that there was an argument that God had clearly not wanted the different races to marry, because he had put them on separate continents to avoid them meeting. And that modern life had wrecked this arrangement with its new-fangled forms of transport like ships that could cross oceans with slaves in them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I only just recently found out that there was an argument that God had clearly not wanted the different races to marry, because he had put them on separate continents to avoid them meeting. And that modern life had wrecked this arrangement with its new-fangled forms of transport like ships that could cross oceans with slaves in them.

---

And there's no need to get all scientific about it. There is plenty in the Pentateuch about the evils of intermarrying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Doesn't the Pentateuch say it's okay if the foreigners convert? I'm just thinking that off the top of my head.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Didn't Ruth inter-marry with Boaz? And since they became ancestors of David, wasn't that a Good Thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Doesn't the Pentateuch say it's okay if the foreigners convert? I'm just thinking that off the top of my head.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Didn't Ruth inter-marry with Boaz? And since they became ancestors of David, wasn't that a Good Thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Even if it was possible to prove definitively that the Pentateuch taught racial intermarrying was an offence against Jehova, I would still think that was bollocks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
In fact, where I think most anti-gay Christians "get it wrong" is in thinking that gay people will be coming after them to force them to perform gay marriages in their churches, etc. The pressure they feel will be coming from their own internal lay members (and a few clerics), many of whom are NOT gay. There will be little or no pressure from outsiders, who don't really care what they do.

---

I hope you are right. It is not a reasonable hope though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
It's early days. Major swings in the accepted morality tend to have practical consequences eventually.

The heroic story of the rise of homosexuality to normality in the West is of course nothing but the overthrowing of the written and unwritten sexual laws left over from Christendom.

So you actually know what it looks like when a strongly dominant morality has shaped society and its laws. It's what you have struggled against so hard and long.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Good question, especially since no one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. Since Ruth was a Moabite, she'd be in the "forbidden no matter how long your family has lived among us" category rather than the "okay after three generations" category. Of course, it's possible that these rules only applied to Moabite men and not women. English doesn't have the gendered cases found in a lot of other languages so it's possible I'm missing some nuances by reading in translation. Any Hebrew scholars in the house?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Doesn't the Pentateuch say it's okay if the foreigners convert? I'm just thinking that off the top of my head.

---

I'm not sure. There is definitely a good bit of intermarriage once the Israelites slaughter down -- sorry, SETTLE down -- in Canaan, but I'm not sure it's ever really approved of.

But my knowledge here is very incomplete. LAMB CHOPPED WHERE ARE YOU!?

---

You rang?

There is a lot of intermarriage, starting really with Jacob's own children, who presumably married Canaanites etc. as we hear nothing of them going back to the Old Country like Dad did. In fact, we know Judah married the daughter of Shua, a Canaanite, which makes Shua an ancestor of Jesus. Joseph likewise married an Egyptian girl, Asenath, and most likely the rest went the same road.

We are told that a "mixed rabble" came up with the Israelites out of Egypt, and were apparently the starting point of at least one rebellion. I think this refers to people of other ethnicities who grabbed the chance to leave Egypt at the same time Israel did in the general upheaval. They would have been absorbed by intermarriage, I'm sure. Oh, and of course Moses had a Midianite wife, and Judah's leader Nahson married his son off to Rahab the Canaanite. David's commander Uriah was a Hittite married to an Israelite woman, and in good odor with everybody. And etc, and etc, and etc.

It's never clearly stated anywhere in exactly those words, but it appears that the boundary between being "one of them" (Moabites, Canaanites, whatever) and "one of us" (Israel) had to do with faith. A Canaanite/Hivite/Amorite/Girgashite/Jebusite/Klingon (sorry, couldn't resist) who wholeheartedly worshipped the Lord and the Lord only was basically absorbed at once, and there don't seem to have been any bars to intermarriage or other privileges. (Note: for guys this would mean circumcision)

The problem comes in with the small ethnic communities or families that "kept themselves to themselves" while living in Israel--the sojourners, the migrants, and especially those who worshipped other gods or who attempted to worship the Lord and other gods at the same time. Those people did NOT get native status quickly, if at all (or so it seems to me). Nehemiah went so far as to order divorce of such women, though he had an emergency situation going on with the children taking their mother's language/culture and having no Israelite identity (most likely including the faith). If Nehemiah had been faced with a Canaanite woman who had wholeheartedly converted and instructed her children in the faith, then what? It's obviously a guess, but I think he would have accepted her as part of Israel.

Why? Because the one and only reason for forbidding intermarriage, which is harped upon again and again ad nauseum by the prophets, is that those who intermarried usually lost their faith and went after other gods.

No other reason.

So. What about those passages about Edomites etc. to the third, or tenth, generations? I think (and yes, this is only my opinion) those refer to families and communities that chose to remain separate within Israel, rather as the Amish or some Jews do in America today. An Egyptian family that chose not to intermarry but to keep their pure Egyptian ethnic identity could nevertheless be admitted to full "Jewish" worship rights and privileges ("the assembly of the Lord") in the third generation, in spite of the fact that they remained Gentiles. And why the third generation? Well, by the time Moses is laying down this law for the final time, he was basically looking at the third generation to come out of Egypt--the grandchildren of the "rabble"--and it was these people who would enter the land and be counted as Israel regardless of their actual race or ethnicity. So even if Granddad insisted on marrying Dad off to a fellow Egyptian's daughter, and then you came along with no Israelite blood at all--still, you would be able to worship with the rest of Israel, you would gain an inheritance in the land, you would have all the rights and responsibilities of a Jew. Which you have to admit is a pretty sensible way of starting a new nation. Have as little division at the start as you can.

But the Moabites etc? Well, these were folks who came from nations that had done some nasty stuff to Israel along the way as they wandered, if I remember correctly, and this was the payback. But if I'm correct in my readings, even they could become part of Israel at the cost of faith in Israel's Lord (shown by circumcision in the case of the guys) and intermarriage would naturally follow. What wasn't open to them was claiming the privileges of an Israelite while continuing to maintain a foreign identity of any kind. (In theory, the Egyptians could have gone on importing Egyptian brides and grooms for their children ad infinitum, and still have qualified for all Jewish privileges despite being completely Gentile in ancestry. But not the Moabites.)

Of course, I may be wrong on all this. But it's the only way I can make sense of the constant OT link between intermarriage and apostasy (=don't do it! in the strongest terms), taken together with the fact that converts (like Ruth and Rahab) seem to be absorbed instantly and even married off to princes and leaders.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Thank you! I knew you'd have an opinion. Can you spare an additional thought concerning Net Spinster's hunch, immediately above your post, that the rules applied to the men but not the women?
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Net Spinster is no doubt right, because this is a patriarchal culture, and ethnicity is therefore inherited from the father. Daughters are "guest children" in such cultures, and may marry out or in. It doesn't make sense to apply ethnically-based rules to daughters in such a culture. (Just as it wouldn't make sense to apply them to sons in a matriarchal culture like the Cherokee once were--and yes, they had inter-clan marriage regulations! Clan membership (=ethnicity) was inherited there from the mother)

[ 01. July 2015, 03:58: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'd like to drag us back to the main issue here.

It seems to me that there are two vary obvious and conflicting systems of truth here:

a) Divine knowledge
b) Societal norms

IngoB says that he knows what God thinks about marriage. Which is fine by me, he can believe that only one-legged men called Charlie can marry if he wishes.

The problem is not, as far as I can see, that religious groups claim divine insights, but that they think they can impose those insights onto others, even to the extent of suggesting they have an argument that proves a Supreme Court judgement invalid.

Or to look at it the other way around, the Supreme Court (imperfectly, it is obviously true) is there to give equal justice to everyone. On the basis of fairness, it has decided that two people of the same gender should have the same state recognition as two people of different genders. Claims to divine revelation cannot lay any particular weight to this argument because on their own they are not addressing the issue of fairness. Also many people have many claims to divine revelation, what is so special about this one?

As Ingo has illustrated above, the RCC has a view of marriage that others do not accept. Clearly applying that view brings one into conflict with the Supreme Court judgement.

In Ingo's straight-line way of thinking, there is no difference between justice, natural law, the laws of physics and divine revelation. Which is fine, although balmy in my opinion.

In the real world, in my opinion, there is clearly a conflict between claims to divine insight and corporate community understanding of justice. Until that is recognised, this conversation isn't going anywhere.

[ 01. July 2015, 07:58: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 

---

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
My tradition is quite literally my tradition, and as far as marriage being between man and woman goes, that goes beyond the usual apostolic roots of my faith, and even beyond its Jewish predecessors. There simply has been no time so far where this tradition has not been utterly dominant in human history, or best we can tell even in prehistory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Net Spinster is no doubt right, because this is a patriarchal culture, and ethnicity is therefore inherited from the father. Daughters are "guest children" in such cultures, and may marry out or in. It doesn't make sense to apply ethnically-based rules to daughters in such a culture. (Just as it wouldn't make sense to apply them to sons in a matriarchal culture like the Cherokee once were--and yes, they had inter-clan marriage regulations! Clan membership (=ethnicity) was inherited there from the mother)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
If it's not okay for people to continue to discriminate by ethnicity despite tradition and history setting a precedent, why is it okay to discriminate by sexuality (or, for that matter, by gender conformity/non-conformity, in the case of non-cis-gendered people)? I don't get it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Sex has multiple clear purposes, one of which is mutual pleasure for the purpose forming strong, lasting relationships. This is useful for raising children, but historically these would not necessarily have been the offspring of the couple concerned, and such strong relationships have value to wider society even if childless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It can be challenged, and is challenged, at each point, so where does that leave it? As some kind of eternal set of truths?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
That we do other things with all these natural arrangements does not change their functional origins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It can be challenged, and is challenged, at each point, so where does that leave it? As some kind of eternal set of truths?

---

Our natural appetite for food is not really "challenged" by either gourmet cooking or McDonalds, neither by the variety of regional dishes nor by the cultural customs we attach to eating. However, if you eat, then induce vomiting, so that you can eat again or avoid gaining weight - then you are challenging substantially what eating food is good for. And hence such behaviour is indeed immoral, if one believes that "what things are good for" is essential to morality.

It sure isn't always clear where one should see similar challenges in sexuality. People are complicated and do strange things. But that gay marriage really does challenge the natural purpose of sexuality, and its social rendering, is indeed clear. One would be hard pressed to find a more obvious paradigm breaker... By the same conception of morality one can hence surely conclude that it is immoral.

You may not believe in that kind of morality. You may be able to pick various minor holes in its reasoning. Fine. But you cannot really deny that the basic logic here is sound, and that given the premises the conclusion does indeed follow. I would be much more impressed by an alternative account, say using utilitarian morals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Sex has a clear purpose: creating offspring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Food is for both nutrition and pleasure, and you believe this if you've ever gone to a restaurant in your entire life. But when it comes to sex, you are utterly determined to rule out pleasure as a purpose. It's absurd.

---

quote:

---

For a lot of homophobes, the logic appears to be something like this: I had to give up hope for happiness by saddling myself with a marriage to someone I don’t really like much in order to fulfill my procreative duties. Who do you gays think you are, with all your talk of love and passion? You’re starting to give other straight people the idea that they should marry for love? Piss on all of you. If I can’t be happy, no one can.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I remember reading research somewhere showing that marriages by gay couples are statistically more stable than those by straight couples. I'll have to look it up some day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Net Spinster is no doubt right, because this is a patriarchal culture, and ethnicity is therefore inherited from the father. Daughters are "guest children" in such cultures, and may marry out or in. It doesn't make sense to apply ethnically-based rules to daughters in such a culture. (Just as it wouldn't make sense to apply them to sons in a matriarchal culture like the Cherokee once were--and yes, they had inter-clan marriage regulations! Clan membership (=ethnicity) was inherited there from the mother)

---

Is this so? I thought that, in Jewish terms, ethnicity passed from the mother, thus, the offspring of a Jewish man and a gentile woman would be gentile, but that of a gentile man and a Jewish woman would be Jewish. I think that the basic point you are making is correct, though. Whilst things probably ossified over time, in pre-exilic Israel, worship of the One was of much greater importance than ethnicity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I have heard that at least in this country same sex couples divorce more per capita, but that this is probably because most divorces happen in the first few years, and same sex marriages have perforce happened more recently on average than others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I have heard that at least in this country same sex couples divorce more per capita, but that this is probably because most divorces happen in the first few years, and same sex marriages have perforce happened more recently on average than others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't it your whole argument that doing other things with all these natural arrangements is immoral? A chair is for sitting on so standing on it to reach something on a high shelf is immoral. Sex is for procreation, so deriving pleasure from it is immoral. Marriage is about raising children, so a married couple co-authoring a book is immoral.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The other obvious question is why children being raised by homosexual couples not need a "child raising team"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
And largely irrelevant as far as U.S. law goes, which does not stipulate fertility as a condition of marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would just say that you're jumping from is to ought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I continue to find your functionalist description of the human body as bewildering as always. It is supremely divorced from reality. Your penis is for both ejaculation and urination. Your mouth is for both eating and breathing. Your nose is for both breathing and smell. Your ears are for both hearing and balance. Your eyes are not only for seeing but play a crucial part in your attractiveness to potential mates. Your appendix is quite possibly for nothing much, although there's some debate about this. Your belly button's usefulness expired many years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Food is for both nutrition and pleasure, and you believe this if you've ever gone to a restaurant in your entire life. But when it comes to sex, you are utterly determined to rule out pleasure as a purpose. It's absurd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Because you cannot tell me with a straight face that when someone brings a cake to work, and people have some of it when they're not actually hungry, you stand up and declare "eating this is immoral".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I have no idea about IngoB's personal circumstances, but this seems to be the general philosophical position he advocates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
IngoB, my observation of philosophers (or ethicists) is that they don't always agree, and about some fairly fundamental issues. Why do you believe that the Magisterium has got the right end of the stick in this particular aspect of Natural Law?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
IngoB, I'll investigate. (I know Google is only a starting point, not an authoritative source to be cited.)

Do you know of any current natural law philosophers outside of the Catholic Church?

Do you think I'll be persuaded that natural law is the correct basis on which to found an ethics if I find that all natural law ethicists speak the same way on same-sex marriage? I'm just as likely to conclude that there's something extremely damaged about natural law as a foundation for ethics if those are its conclusions.

Now I'm curious about other ways that philosophers seek to ground ethics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
In response to the SCOTUS ruling Mississippi is considering stopping issuing marriage licences altogether

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
The US Episcopal church has just voted to allow same-sex marriages to be performed by willing clergy with an 87% majority vote among both clergy and laity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
These things are not generally immoral, since one is still executing the various functions correctly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Possibly not relevant, but the genealogies in the NT are both sexes (but overwhelmingly men). From memory I think Bathseba and Ruth are mentioned in one or the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Again, I have no experience of US legal practice, but the majority judgment seems very thin on legal argument - a strong moral case, but not a legal one. I'm even more surprised by the language in the minority decisions. Dissents here are couched in much tamer words, and agains with much greater legal content by the standards I'm accustomed to.

---

There is definitely a general difference in legal writing style. Although judges at the Supreme Court level are not elected, I still have a sense that the whole process is far, far more politicised in the USA than here.

There seems to be a basic assumption that on most matters the vote of about 7 of the justices can be predicted before the case is even heard, with only 1 or 2 'swing votes' in the middle determining the outcome.

We simply don't have anything like that situation in Australia. You do get the occasional High Court judge that develops a bit of a reputation as 'conservative' or 'liberal', but there's rarely the sense that that was the whole purpose of their appointment in the first place.

I also have a theory that the USA writing style goes more for finding memorable turns of phrase because the founding documents of the USA go more for that style. Their Constitution is a new country declaring its independence and new way of doing things. Ours is basically an 1890s free trade deal.

[ 02. July 2015, 08:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
I have just found out about this decision (no internet for a while) and am totally

Orfeo - what are the chances of Australia allowing same sex marriage? I know the PM is very conservative on the issue, but is the rest of the Parliament as staunchly opposed as he is? I don't really know anything about politics over there, but when the legislation went through here I was astounded at some of the conservative politicians who backed it.

Huia
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I am curious about marriage as a legally defined procreative measure. For example, in Texas, the then Attorney General (Abbott), used this argument - that the state of Texas had an interest in married couples producing and looking after children - in his defence of bans of ssm.

I think a federal judge had ruled the ban unconstitutional, and of course, the Supreme Court has done the same now.

I am just curious as to how much the US legal system has promoted procreation as an important element in marriage. I think in the UK, civil marriage law does not refer to children - in other words, if you want to get married, a registrar or clerk is not going to quiz you about this.

This suggests that natural law arguments have been obliterated in the secular state's legal systems.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huia:
Orfeo - what are the chances of Australia allowing same sex marriage? I know the PM is very conservative on the issue, but is the rest of the Parliament as staunchly opposed as he is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
A chair is for sitting on so standing on it to reach something on a high shelf is immoral.

---

Standing on a chair is using it differently, not contrary to its purpose. Deriving pleasure from sex is ordered to procreation, since it motivates us to procreate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Again, I have no experience of US legal practice, but the majority judgment seems very thin on legal argument - a strong moral case, but not a legal one.

---

quote:

---

Much worse than its aesthetic problems, however, is where Kennedy leaves equal protection law as it pertains to LGBT rights more generally. As with Kennedy’s Doma opinion – about which I wrote that he “flirt[ed] awkwardly with federalism, due process and equal protection rationales without ever quite summoning up the courage to invite one to the prom” – he maddeningly continued in this opinion to vaguely invoke both equal protection and due process theories without clarifying the applicable standard when it comes to LGBT rights more generally. “Each concept – liberty and equal protection – leads to a stronger understanding of the other,” asserted Kennedy.

The problem with Kennedy’s judicial vagueness is that public officials and lower courts need to know whether classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, like those based on race or gender, or whether such classifications require only a “rational basis”, like economic regulation. If heightened scrutiny applies, states can only use sexual orientation classifications in law if it they are closely related to a compelling state interest – a test states usually fail. If states need only a “rational basis,” courts are generally very deferential to the state. After Friday’s opinion, it seems obvious that heightened scrutiny is being applied in practice, but Kennedy inexplicably refuses to say so. The refusal to define sexual orientation as subject to heightened scrutiny will lead to unnecessary confusion, and possibly permit federal and state judges to deny LBGT rights claims that even Kennedy might think should be upheld.

By not being more specific about his rationale for forcing all states to recognize and perform same-sex marriages, Kennedy leaves open the legal possibility that marriage is the only form of discrimination against same-sex people that is covered by the 14th Amendment. But LGBT people face many other types of discrimination – in public accommodations and in employment, for example – that now may have to be fought out case by never-ending case in the lower courts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am just curious as to how much the US legal system has promoted procreation as an important element in marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Do you know of any current natural law philosophers outside of the Catholic Church?

---

quote:

---

Now I'm curious about other ways that philosophers seek to ground ethics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
There are three main schools in secular thought:

You can try to ground ethics in what humans want or find pleasant, so that ethics is a way of resolving conflicts: generally utilitarianism, and forms of contractarianism or game theory based ethics.

You can try to ground ethics in reason or logic, which is the broadly Kantian tradition.

You can try to ground ethics in the human biology, psychology and sociology, which includes natural law theory and also other forms of virtue ethics.

Introducing God (or other supernatural elements) allows for a fourth school, divine command ethics, and also allows for variations and refinements on the above forms. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
It appears this decision will have the effect of banning sexual orientation discrimination in employment across the US. It is possible this decision may be challenged in court however, as the EEOC are authorized interpreters of the law rather than getting to set the law per se.

---

quote:

---

A federal judge here on Thursday ordered a Kentucky clerk jailed for contempt of court because of her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, was ordered incarcerated after a hearing here before Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court. The contempt finding was another legal defeat for Ms. Davis, who has argued that she should not be forced to issue licenses that conflict with her religious beliefs.

“The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order,” Judge Bunning said. “If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”

Judge Bunning said Ms. Davis would be released once she agreed to comply with his order and issue the marriage licenses.

---

1. Ms. Davis is a government official, not a private citizen nor a representative of a religious organization. This dispute isn't about her individual liberty, which she's free to express on her own time, but rather whether a government official can use their own prejudices to deny the legally recognized rights of the citizens she's supposed to serve.
   -
2. In Kentucky the position of "county clerk" is an elected office, meaning that Ms. Davis has no immediate supervisor who can fire her. She can be impeached and removed by the state legislature, but they're adjourned until January. Even if they were in session, it seems likely that they'd regard this as a dispute between a local official and the courts, not something they'd want to get involved with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The principled thing for her to do in response to the legislation, would have been to resign.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
All these people seem to think that "religious liberties" are absolute.

So, what happens when they encounter someone who sees murder as a religious duty in certain circumstances?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The principled thing for her to do in response to the legislation, would have been to resign.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
There are several other similar clerks. She can't really be fired easily since she's elected. I don't know if the Judge could appoint a special master, with the salary paid by fining her all of her salary, but we'll see if the clerks actually perform the marriages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, the laws of Kentucky are not the same as the moral code of a small number of Christians based on their particular interpretation of a couple of verses of the Bible.

---

Given Kentucky's reputation, I'm sure there are any number of jokes that could be made there.

[ 04. September 2015, 13:19: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
One thing I don't understand: didn't she consider that publicity would mean her own rather complicated marital history would come to light? (AIUI: 3 marriages (and divorces?); child with another man; married the kid's father.)

Not condemning her for her history...but maybe she's not the best person to be teaching about ideal marriage?

Of course, she's straight, so that must make everything ok.

 

---

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
She remains in jail this morning. At this point, it isn't for refusing to issue licenses herself, but because she wouldn't promise the judge she wouldn't interfere in her deputies issuing them.
Whatever claim she had for personal religious freedom flew out the window when she escalated this to preventing anyone in the office from issuing the licenses.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Some people think that people who take a stand like she has are principled. But actually she is unprincipled. She has allowed herself to feel good, even elated, because of the mythology of a principled person standing up to government for their individual rights. But she isn't any of that.
 

---

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
I have not been able to find any details about the religious affiliation of Ms. Davis. She talks about the Bible but not (as far as I can tell) any specific church.
 

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by HCH:
I have not been able to find any details about the religious affiliation of Ms. Davis. She talks about the Bible but not (as far as I can tell) any specific church.

---

quote:

---

from a court referral on the question

"it is enough that the effect of the legislation is to deny equal protection or benefit of the law"

"if enacted, will create situations where a same-sex couple contacting a marriage commissioner for the purpose of getting married will be told by the commissioner that he or she will not provide the service requested. This is not a merely theoretical concern. It is entirely clear from the affidavits filed ...

[It] will have the effect of drawing a distinction based on sexual orientation.... Gay and lesbian individuals will be treated differently than other people who wish to be married. The differential treatment will be negative and will flow directly from their sexual orientation. "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HCH:
I have not been able to find any details about the religious affiliation of Ms. Davis. She talks about the Bible but not (as far as I can tell) any specific church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
One thing I don't understand: didn't she consider that publicity would mean her own rather complicated marital history would come to light? (AIUI: 3 marriages (and divorces?); child with another man; married the kid's father.)

Not condemning her for her history...but maybe she's not the best person to be teaching about ideal marriage?

Of course, she's straight, so that must make everything ok.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think it is reasonable to compromise for existing employees - provided the service is still covered - but people should only be hired who are prepared to do the job as it now is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
It seems to be the associate pastor of Charity Freewill Baptist Church in Morehead, Randy Smith, that is leading the local support group (or at least showing up in all the articles). The Apostolic Christian church seems to be Pentecostal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think it is reasonable to compromise for existing employees - provided the service is still covered - but people should only be hired who are prepared to do the job as it now is.

---

Does any private business work like this? How much wiggle room does any employer give to an employee who likes their job exactly as it is and doesn't want management to implement any changes?

The analogy I keep thinking of today (thanks in no small part to Betty Bowers, America's Favorite Christian) is that Davis is like a long-serving waitress at a restaurant who thinks she's earned the right to veto any changes to the menu.

It's fundamentally about where power lies. People don't normally have the power to define their own job unless they are self-employed.

---

Thank you for this. I had been looking for a way to describe exactly this but have been unable to come up with the words.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
A rabbi* has written a blog piece about saving Kim's soul. There's a comment by WTG which tries to untangle which kind of Apostolic church she attends.


*Interesting guy, with very funny bio in the "About" section. MT, I think you'd like him.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
No Prophet etc, thanks for that link to the Saskatchewan case. It reads as a much better argued decision than that recently decided by the US Supreme Court - solid reference to statute and authority and well reasoned. The US got the right answer but a D- for quality of decision making.

Surely her lawyers could point out to Ms Davis that she is simply performing a civil function, not a religious one, in issuing licences. Does she allow a very strange dislike of dogs prevent her issuing a dog licence?
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Odd stuff now emanating from her lawyer, claiming that the licences issued by her deputies have no status. He also claims that she is the equal of Martin Luther King in standing up for her beliefs.


 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Her lawyer has an agenda other than giving her the best legal advice possible for her present situation. Her lawyer works for a group that is opposed to gay marriage. My thought is that her lawyer is looking at the great PR and fund raising opportunities the jailing brings.

I would say he is violating his duty to her as an attorney except that - looking down the line to when she gets out of jail - she will have it made on the speech and personal appearance circuit. She will be a hero.

I could be entirely wrong (and often am) and I think this whole episode points out the problem with religious belief that conceives a wrathful and punishing god.*

This woman has led an - interesting - life and has only recently "converted." She was also raised in an atmosphere where all kinds of people and behaviors were condemned as being sinful and not Christian. What better way to demonstrate to a wrathful god that you have changed and are worthy of being saved than to be splayed on the altar of what you think god needs help getting done right?

I know how awful it is to fear God. Had I been raised in a church community that spoke of the punishments meted out in Hell when you piss off god I am pretty sure I would do all kinds of crazy things to make sure I didn't end up in the Lake of Fire. Shit, I did enough crazy stuff as it was.
___________
*Nope. The god referenced here is not my conception of God, hence no capitalization.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
He also claims that she is the equal of Martin Luther King in standing up for her beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Her lawyer has an agenda other than giving her the best legal advice possible for her present situation. Her lawyer works for a group that is opposed to gay marriage. My thought is that her lawyer is looking at the great PR and fund raising opportunities the jailing brings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
He also claims that she is the equal of Martin Luther King in standing up for her beliefs.

---

Well, arguably she is. That doesn't say anything about the quality of her beliefs as compared to Martin Luther King's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
He also claims that she is the equal of Martin Luther King in standing up for her beliefs.

---

Well, arguably she is. That doesn't say anything about the quality of her beliefs as compared to Martin Luther King's.

---

Arguably she is not. MLK spent a lifetime doing his work. This person has not shown any sort of comparable commitment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
Odd stuff now emanating from her lawyer, claiming that the licences issued by her deputies have no status.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
He also claims that she is the equal of Martin Luther King in standing up for her beliefs.

---

Well, arguably she is. That doesn't say anything about the quality of her beliefs as compared to Martin Luther King's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I assume you're trying to say that he did give Ms Davies what he considered the best legal advice possible. And, that by happy coincidence for the group he works for the outcome raises great PR and fund raising opportunities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
...
In other words, she would ascribe her complicated relationship history to when she was a sinner.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This is an interesting parallel. Moslem flight attendence refusing to serve alcohol. Should she be forced to or be canned?

---

quote:

---

Masri said the arrangement Stanley had with other attendants to serve alcohol for her had been working out fine since Stanley converted to Islam about a month after becoming a flight attendant for ExpressJet.

"I don't think that I should have to choose between practicing my religion properly or earning a living," Stanley said. "I shouldn't have to choose between one or the other because they're both important."

---

Has she also made arrangements with her colleagues so that she doesn't have to serve non-halal food? Or serve women who aren't modestly dressed or properly veiled? IANAM, but what's she doing in an airplane with all those men who aren't relatives? And she knows that most people pay for their tickets with credit cards, right? Many airlines based in Muslim countries serve alcohol on their flights. If you're flying Emirates, you can check the wine list on your flight, FFS.

Cases like this make me cranky. Having seen first-hand the barriers that keep e.g. people with disabilities out of so many workplaces, not just airplanes, ISTM she's quite fortunate that her version of her religion allows her to pick and choose her workplace limitations.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
GoFundMe has said "No, Fundie". The crowd funding site has refused her the permission to mount a campaign.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

"I don't think that I should have to choose between practicing my religion properly or earning a living," Stanley said. "I shouldn't have to choose between one or the other because they're both important."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It brings to mind that clerk in the Dickens novel who, whenever invited to do some work at the office, replies, "I should prefer not to."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This is an interesting parallel. Moslem flight attendence refusing to serve alcohol. Should she be forced to or be canned?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
He also claims that she is the equal of Martin Luther King in standing up for her beliefs.

---

Well, arguably she is. That doesn't say anything about the quality of her beliefs as compared to Martin Luther King's.

---

Piss poor argument it would be. One fought for the freedom from oppression and the other fights for the freedom to oppress. All POV are not equal, so the struggles to maintain them are not equally comparable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This is an interesting parallel. Moslem flight attendence refusing to serve alcohol. Should she be forced to or be canned?

---

Despite the headline, the article says she was put on administrative leave after a colleague complained about her head scarf. That, to me, sounds like discrimination - unless someone can come up with a reason why wearing a head scarf hindered her ability to do the job. The article implies that serving alcohol, or not, wasn't a problem since she had worked up a suitable arrangement with colleagues that allowed her to uphold her belief against serving alcohol (and, it doesn't matter one jot whether that's a mainstream Muslim belief, or her own personal belief) while allowing customers to have a beer if they wanted.

Surely that is what tolerance for the beliefs of others is about? The compromises that allow for different principles to coexist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
BTW, I heard, a day or two ago, that she didn't just stop SSM licenses, but ALL marriage licenses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
My guess is that she conceives of herself as a hero and wonders why God is letting her be persecuted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
My guess is that she conceives of herself as a hero and wonders why God is letting her be persecuted.

---

I hope that's not the case, as that would show gross ignorance of the words of Christ and willing disconnect from the legions of Christian martyrs down through the centuries. Sadly this kind of thinking is rampant in 21st century American Christianity (or Christianism). It's a corollary of the prosperity gospel, and to a lesser extent of popular Calvinism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Despite the headline, the article says she was put on administrative leave after a colleague complained about her head scarf. That, to me, sounds like discrimination - unless someone can come up with a reason why wearing a head scarf hindered her ability to do the job. The article implies that serving alcohol, or not, wasn't a problem since she had worked up a suitable arrangement with colleagues ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And, in this sentence, you give testimony to why what you hope is wrong is actually correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Despite the headline, the article says she was put on administrative leave after a colleague complained about her head scarf. That, to me, sounds like discrimination - unless someone can come up with a reason why wearing a head scarf hindered her ability to do the job. The article implies that serving alcohol, or not, wasn't a problem since she had worked up a suitable arrangement with colleagues ...

---

That comment made me wonder whether management approved her arrangement. If they did, then they should have stood by her. If they didn't, that puts the employer in a very bad spot. First of all, they can't do their legal duty to accommodate an employee if they don't know about the employee's needs. Second of all, they can't download the duty to accommodate to the employees to figure out on their own. And third, while employees on a good team will help each other out, management still has the right to say, "No, Fred, you can't do Joe's filing for him."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
BTW her lawyers may have a slight case on the licenses not being valid. Kentucky law vests that power in the County Clerk and gives her authority to hire deputies to help her do her job; in an absence of the Clerk the County Executive/Judge (Walter Doc Blevins) has that power. If she hasn't given them that authority (or has revoked it or fires them), they may not be allowed to issue marriage licenses. Now she hasn't fired them which would make clear her revocation of that authority.

---

quote:

---

A group of anti-gay Christians took to the residence of United States District Judge David Bunning on Monday.

Bunning, who lives on Carrington Point in Ft. Thomas, has been the target of such activists since his multiple rulings involving Rowan Co. Clerk Kim Davis who is now in a Carter Co. jail cell over her refusal to issue marriage licenses. Davis has refused to perform her job duties in Morehead since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a right nationwide.

A news release issued by Rev. Flip Benham said that "Christians from all over the country" were going to be present in front of Bunning's house. There were more than a dozen protestors holding signs that preached against homosexuality and that called for the release of Davis from jail. Benham is the North Carolina-based leader of Operation Save America, which takes a position against abortion. He has previously been found guilty of stalking an abortion doctor in Charlotte.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
From their headscarves, most of the female servers who work in the McDonalds I used to take my student were Muslim. They didn't have any problem serving my student with a double bacon and egg McMuffin when we went there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
... living in a delusional narrative and I can assure you that it only leads to bad things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
... living in a delusional narrative and I can assure you that it only leads to bad things.

---

"delusional narrative" is a helpful phrase.

Evidently she feels she is the Persecuted One, that she is part of a Godly Good Group which requires defence, that her principles trump people. Trumping people, thumping people. She like everyone, likes to see justice done to someone else. We are all miserable failures even in our attempts to sin.

---

quote:

---

On a domestic flight, I could see a member of the cabin crew not wanting to serve alcohol being possible - not many passengers buy alcohol, so it's easy to summon a colleague. On a long-haul flight, where free wine and beer is available, it wouldn't be practical to have someone doing the drinks service who couldn't actually serve the drinks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
if the other attendants wish to accommodate her, fine. But the airline has no obligation and is within its rights to consider her failure to comply as actionable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
From their headscarves, most of the female servers who work in the McDonalds I used to take my student were Muslim. They didn't have any problem serving my student with a double bacon and egg McMuffin when we went there.

---

It all comes down to a question of what accommodation is "reasonable", and that's guaranteed to have fuzzy edges. It seems obvious that it's would be unreasonable for a McDonald's employee to refuse to sell bacon, or for a bartender to refuse to serve alcohol.

On a domestic flight, I could see a member of the cabin crew not wanting to serve alcohol being possible - not many passengers buy alcohol, so it's easy to summon a colleague. On a long-haul flight, where free wine and beer is available, it wouldn't be practical to have someone doing the drinks service who couldn't actually serve the drinks.

UK shipmates will no doubt remember the case of Nadia Eweida, an employee of British Airways who was placed on unpaid leave for refusing to cover up a small cross necklace. Her case ultimately went to the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that in banning the necklace, BA had not struck a fair balance between its desire for a uniform corporate image and Ms. Eweida's desire to express her faith.

BA had argued that it allowed Muslim employees to wear headscarves, and Sikh employees to wear turbans, as those garments were necessary parts of their religions. By contrast, it argued that Ms. Eweida was not required to wear her cross, and so it was within its rights to forbid it.

The EHCR's ruling rejected this bright line division of people's religious observance into things "required" and "not required".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It does raise an amusing point, though. There are many cases in which a minority religious preference can be reasonably accommodated: if you have several alternative staff members, and the thing in question is not a central part of your business, then it doesn't seem like a huge hardship to ask one of the other members of the cabin crew to deal with the alcohol sales (for example).

But what if the religious preference is less minority? What if all the members of cabin crew working on a particular flight were Muslims opposed to the sale of alcohol? Can you accommodate them all? Or do you only allow one slot for an alcohol objector per flight?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
She is being released.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:
She will return to work on Friday or Monday--apparently her ordeal has left her a bit ragged, poor dear--and is refusing to say whether she'll abide by the terms of her release (not to interfere in the issuance of licenses) or again block licenses.

---

quote:

---

Defendant Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. If Defendant Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be considered a violation of this Order and appropriate sanctions will be considered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The context of Davis is that she's the head of her office and has not just been not processing the marriage paperwork, she has been preventing anyone in the office from processing the paperwork (in part presumably because it would have her name on it as the office-holder).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:
However, if no one else were available to do the search, then the prisoner's rights trump the prison officer's. This is because the prisoner is the more vulnerable in this situation, and because it is the prison officer's job to take care of the prisoner.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Except people. People are not reasonable, people are rational.

---

Well, IME, people are neither reasonable nor rational, but YMMV.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
What a performance she (and the politicians, and the jail, which shouldn't have enabled it) put on on release. I heard her this morning, and felt she had certainly imbibed the speech patterns of her community. And probably spent so much time shouting at her living god that she can't hear Him. I've just seen it on that link about her determination to carry on tainting people's weddings. (As in the link below the story.)

And it seems a bit odd that the first ad at the bottom is for cute plus size clothing.

[ 09. September 2015, 20:14: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Except people. People are not reasonable, people are rational.

---

Well, IME, people are neither reasonable nor rational, but YMMV.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: Oh, damn. Stupid me not paying attention and forgetting an important not.

---

How irrational
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The context of Davis is that she's the head of her office and has not just been not processing the marriage paperwork, she has been preventing anyone in the office from processing the paperwork (in part presumably because it would have her name on it as the office-holder).

---

As I see it, Davis has no legs to stand on. The law of the land is that same-sex couples are allowed to register marriages. Registering marriages is a central function of Kim Davis's office. Her choices are either to register the marriages or to resign. The same would go for local administrators who had principled objections against issuing licenses for hunting, concealed carry of handguns, and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Thank you for that link Orfeo. I have only quickly skimmed it, but one of his arguments (with which I agree) is just how thin the majority judgement in the US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell is. The judgements in the Saskatchewan case to which No Prophet referred are much sounder. The answer the US Supreme Court gave is what we would want, but it is not supported at all by the judgement.

---

I think many of us feel that. I defused one line of argument yesterday by a conservative Christian friend by declaring I thought the Supreme Court decision was pretty crappy before he attempted to prove it to me.

The oddest thing about it is that they had plenty of well-reasoned judgements from lower American courts that they could have used.

But, even so, no matter how crappy a judgement of a country's highest court is, it's still the law of the land. Heck, I think I argued in one of my law school essays that the High Court had got it wrong on some constitutional issue, but I would never for a second think that that anyone, including myself, could treat what I thought the law should be as if it was the actual law.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Oh, this is too good!!

Fox News panel concludes that Kim Davis’ lawyer is ‘ridiculously stupid’

The panel of lawyers basically concludes that Davis' lawyer doesn't know the Constitution, and Davis can practice her faith by not being in that job!


 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
A friend on Facebook shared that the other day, and concluded that when Ms Davies can't even get the support of Fox then she really has lost all credibility.

I'm also amused by how all her supporters, many of whom I presume would be Republican, conveniently forget she's a Democrat.
 

---

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
Being cynical, I'm wondering whether Kim Davis needs the time off to catch up with the housework/laundry etc. that her denomination might consider beneath the male dignity of her husband or sons to do.

The deputies are at least in a better position to protest if she tries to impede marriage paperwork in the office since they themselves are now under a court order to issue licenses. Apparently 10 or 11 couples have gotten licenses (3 or 4 apparently opposite sex couples and 7 apparently same sex couples) though I'm not sure how many have had the ceremony performed and had the officiant return the marriage certificate (at least one couple has). One couple who are known to have wanted a license have not yet got it.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

But, even so, no matter how crappy a judgement of a country's highest court is, it's still the law of the land. Heck, I think I argued in one of my law school essays that the High Court had got it wrong on some constitutional issue, but I would never for a second think that that anyone, including myself, could treat what I thought the law should be as if it was the actual law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Does anyone understand why the Supremes didn't follow the path that had been so well laid out for them by lower courts?

Is it just Kennedy's(?) style to go for the grand gesture rather than the meticulous argument?

---

Hard to say, but most likely. I posted something about two months back on this subject, with a link to a fairly strong criticism of Kennedy's opinion.
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
<tangent> Every time someone says 'the Supremes', I think of these people... <\tangent>

[ 10. September 2015, 16:43: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Jane--

That's why it's such a great nickname!
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And that's why the Notorious RBG is so fun.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Brenda--

Thank you for that!! I don't think I'd heard about that nickname for Justice Ginsberg. I looked it up. Related products are going on my gift list!

 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
What is especially delightful is that she is totally cool with the nickname. She even occasionally gives away Notorious RBG tee shirts.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
An interesting twist from Kim Davis:

quote:

---

Speaking to reporters, Davis said she won't interfere as her deputy clerks continue to issue marriage licenses, in compliance with the order of U.S. District Judge David Bunning. But she has further altered the wording of the licenses so they no longer bear her name or the title of "Rowan County Clerk," which she says wrongly suggests her approval. The deputies sign off as notaries public, not as Rowan County officials.

"Any unauthorized licenses they issue will not have my name, my title or my authority on it. Instead, the licenses will say that they were issued pursuant to a federal court order," Davis said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't know what is legally required, . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, how does Ms Davis handle the sale of a house to a couple who are not married? I would expect that to come up fairly often.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, how does Ms Davis handle the sale of a house to a couple who are not married? I would expect that to come up fairly often.

---

Unless it is quite different in Kentucky than it is here in North Carolina, all she does is record real property transfers and collect appropriate taxes. It's pure record keeping, not licensing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Has anybody anywhere considered that a county clerk's name on a marriage license means "I approve of this marriage"? It's inane. It means "These people have satisfied the legal requirements." That's all.

Kim Davis is a fucking moron.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It's pure record keeping, not licensing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Issued by the County Clerk or one of her deputies. I suspect most of the marriage licenses in Kentucky are done by the deputies. To quote the page pointed to

"The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It's pure record keeping, not licensing.

---

That's all a marriage license is. It says that the two people listed are legally permitted to marry. It's bookkeeping. It's no different from verifying the owner of a particular plot of land.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Has anybody anywhere considered that a county clerk's name on a marriage license means "I approve of this marriage"? It's inane. It means "These people have satisfied the legal requirements." That's all. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

Maybe one reason she hasn't quit is that her office was held by her mom and (IIRC) grandmother before her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
gcabot--

AIUI, she's an elected official, which means she can't simply be fired. There might have to be a recall election/petition. Or maybe the governor (or the presiding person of her county, if that office exists) could do something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
And, based on what I've read, she'll be re-elected overwhelmingly when a new election does arrive.

John

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
feh

Let Dick Cheney's illegitimate daughter stay in office, get re-elected, or whatever else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
She is already seeking Martyr status for her horrific few days in jail. Why give her even more of a public platform by trying to remove her?

---

quote:

---

it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it?
1 Peter 2:19-20

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Well it turns out that while the Pope was wandering around the U.S. he had a private audience with Kim Davis. It's apparently in line with speeches he made about Religious Freedom. Apparently the right to keep homos from being marriage trumps her being remarried multiple times.


Same shit, different Pontiff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If Ms Davis is to fall under the category of conscientious objector then she should be given the opportunity for alternative service. Soem job other than county clerk...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I find myself unsurprised that the pope is Catholic.

---

quote:

---

Father Lombardi: Thank you, Holy Father. Now it is the turn of Terry Moran of ABC News, one of the great American networks.

Terry Morgan: Holy Father, thank you very much, and thanks to the Vatican staff as well. Holy Father, you visited the Little Sisters of the Poor, and we were told that you wanted to show your support for the Sisters, also in their court case. Holy Father, do you also support those individuals, including government officials, who say they cannot in good conscience, their personal conscience, comply with certain laws or carry out their duties as government officials, for example in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples? Would you support those of claims of religious freedom?

Pope Francis: I can’t foresee every possible case of conscientious objection. But yes, I can say conscientious objection is a right, and enters into every human right. It is a right, and if a person does now allow for conscientious objection, he or she is denying a right. Every legal system should provide for conscientious objection because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise, we would end up selecting between rights: “this right is good, this one less so”. It is a human right. I am always moved when I read, and I have read it many times, when I read the “Chanson de Roland”, when there were all these Moors lined up before the baptismal font, and they had to choose between baptism and the sword. They had to choose. They weren’t permitted conscientious objection. It’s a right and if we want to have peace, we have to respect all rights.

Terry Morgan: Would that include government officials as well?

Pope Francis: It is a human right. And if a government official is human person, he enjoys that right. It is a human right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I don't think that can work with an elected official.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Today the Vatican is saying that the meeting was not private and was not an endorsement of Kim Davis and what's she's doing. Somehow I trust their version more than I trust Ms. Davis and her lawyer.

---

quote:

---

That’s not out of character for Staver, who was forced to admit last week that a photo he presented at the Values Voters Summit, which he claimed showed a 100,000-person prayer rally to support Davis in Peru, was taken in 2014 and did not, in fact, have anything to do with Davis.

---

quote:

---

The statement stressed that “the only real audience” — private meeting— “granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family.” As CNN reported Friday afternoon, that student, Yayo Grass, happens to be an openly gay man who brought along his partner of 19 years.

---

quote:

---

“Office holders remain free to draw upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their positions in the public square,” Elder Oaks said. “But when acting as public officials, they are not free to apply personal convictions, religious or other, in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices. All government officers should exercise their civil authority according to the principles and within the limits of civil government.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wonder if Oaks got to thinking about all the bad ways Mormons were treated, especially early on, and figured another group of people shouldn't have to go through that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
To my mind, it's likely the outcome of the Utah War of the 1850s also had something to do with it. While the Mormons managed to avoid major bloodshed in their confrontation with the U.S. Army, the end of the conflict brought the (slow) decline of Mormon power in the western U.S.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
To my mind, it's likely the outcome of the Utah War of the 1850s also had something to do with it. While the Mormons managed to avoid major bloodshed in their confrontation with the U.S. Army, the end of the conflict brought the (slow) decline of Mormon power in the western U.S.

---

Yeah, now they only control Utah, southern Idaho, and bits of Arizona.

---

They certainly don't have the level of control they did in the early 1850s - at that point, Brigham Young was territorial governor, and the government and church hierarchy were virtually indistinguishable. While there are a large number of Mormons in public office in the region, simply due to demographics, it's not the theocratic regime it once was.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
I'm fond of the opening of a speech of a Utah delegate to a Democratic Convention;
"And from Utah, where the separation of Church and State is exactly one city block...."
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
LOL, Palimpsest.
 

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm fond of the opening of a speech of a Utah delegate to a Democratic Convention;
"And from Utah, where the separation of Church and State is exactly one city block...."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
And on a less happy note, Mormons sharpen stand against same-sex marriage

Mormons in a same sex marriage are guilty of apostasy and drummed out. Any child of a same sex married family will not be given religious rites until they are over 18 and not living with the family and denounce same sex marriage.

This formalizes the church position against same sex marriage, but it's sad to watch them treat kids that way. Then again, it's probably a pretty toxic place for a kid from a same-sex parent family.

It will be interesting to watch as they turn away part of the next generation of Mormons. It will also be interesting to see if this inspires the Catholic Church to similar actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
You'd think they'd WANT to give the kids every religious support that they could, given that they think the parents are living in sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not quite. The Mormon decision focuses on one aspect of otherwise practicing faithful.
Your Christian example is about general disregard to the entire belief system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In response to the turmoil ( a thousand Mormons resigned in a mass rally) the Mormon Church issued a clarification that children of divorced couples who were not residing with a same sex couple could have the benefits of the Church ceremonies.

---

However, this still means that a child living with same-sex parents cannot be baptized if they hadn't been already. Of course, they can always baptized after they die--I'm sure that's comforting for all.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Due to the independent status of Native American nations, "Gay marriage is legal but not on tribal lands" (AP/Yahoo). The law depends on the particular tribe.

[ 28. November 2015, 00:35: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Bumping this thread because a "clever" legislator in Kentucky has come up with what he thinks is a way around the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision [PDF]. The idea is fairly simple:

1. Add something called "matrimony" to the civil code of Kentucky and specify that while anyone can "marry", only opposite sex couples who are married can enter into "matrimony".
   -
2. Remove all benefits currently assigned to "marriage" from Kentucky law and assign those benefits to "matrimony.

quote:

---

The bill is over 450 pages long because, once it defines “matrimony,” it proceeds to add the term throughout all of Kentucky law. For the statutes that define the basic parameters of marriage, duplicate language is added defining “matrimony” by the exact same parameters. But anywhere that the law outlines a privilege, benefit, or responsibility previously made available to marriage, the word “marriage” is replaced by the word “matrimony.”

For example, the bill amends Kentucky statute 216.515, which addresses the rights of residents of long-term care facilities. Where that law grants married residents the right of private spousal visits as well as the right to a shared room with their spouse if they both live in the same facility, HB 572 replaces the word “is married” to “has entered into matrimony.” Thus, the law would only apply to married different-sex couples, not married same-sex couples.

A cursory glance at the long bill suggests that it effectively removes all marital rights from every possible state statute, from parenting rights to insurance rights and so on — reserving these privileges only for couples that have “entered into a matrimony.”

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0