The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

[joecct]

Now where were we?

unofan - if the Court won't address/validate that a marriage in Massachusetts is a marriage in Mississippi when it comes to ssm, will that give a loophole to a state that may have a different minimum marriage age to say the Mike and Sally are not married and can Mike be arrested for child endangerment?

To me Solomon's choice is to allow States to regulate marriage as they seem fit but recognize that any legal marriage is a legal marriage in all the States. It's a win/win for all sides.

Otherwise I am afraid that Pandora's box has been opened and every form of marriage will be legal as long as the plaintiffs can make a 14th Amendment case.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Last up is a takings clause case involving raisins. Roberts writes for the court in a 5-4 split at least in part, this time with the conservatives winning. Can't tell whether parts were 8-1 or not.

Government must compensate owners of personal property just as it does real property.

80 years later, one of the more egregious excesses of the New Deal is finally reined in, eh?

eh, not so much, after all. a narrow technical ruling. 8 - 1 on the overall concept, 5 - 3 on the practical details on how to implement.


and no "sour grapes", eh?

 

[Foxton]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

To me Solomon's choice is to allow States to regulate marriage as they seem fit but recognize that any legal marriage is a legal marriage in all the States. It's a win/win for all sides.

No it's pointless hypocritical posturing by ****ty bigoted states still desperately clinging to "separate but equal".

Otherwise I am afraid that Pandora's box has been opened and every form of marriage will be legal as long as the plaintiffs can make a 14th Amendment case.

Do you have a height requirement to ride this ridiculous slippery slope?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

To me Solomon's choice is to allow States to regulate marriage as they seem fit but recognize that any legal marriage is a legal marriage in all the States. It's a win/win for all sides.

Otherwise I am afraid that Pandora's box has been opened and every form of marriage will be legal as long as the plaintiffs can make a 14th Amendment case.

I want to kill Kanye and Kim. They don't want me to. So Solomon's choice is I get to kill, but just Kanye?

(thinks about it)

OK, bad example...

I just don't buy the box turtle argument. The only place I think it gets a little weird is n-partner unions, and that's a fight for 2050. Today, we've gotten to where we can accept that gays and straights shall be equal before the law. There are still plenty of countries that hold on to the "traditional values," if it means that much to somebody.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Others have threatened to pull their state out of the marriage business altogether, otherwise known as the "taking their ball and going home" defense. That might be legal though it would have a flurry of challenges since marriage is recognized as a fundamental right. I also don't believe the political will to actually go through with that exists. Are you really gonna tell millions of people they can't get married out of spite towards the gays?

Middle class and poor Republicans just spent 30 years screwing their own children out of spite towards the blacks. It is entirely possible.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Now where were we?

unofan - if the Court won't address/validate that a marriage in Massachusetts is a marriage in Mississippi when it comes to ssm, will that give a loophole to a state that may have a different minimum marriage age to say the Mike and Sally are not married and can Mike be arrested for child endangerment?

To me Solomon's choice is to allow States to regulate marriage as they seem fit but recognize that any legal marriage is a legal marriage in all the States. It's a win/win for all sides.

Otherwise I am afraid that Pandora's box has been opened and every form of marriage will be legal as long as the plaintiffs can make a 14th Amendment case.

Pandora's Boxes will be dealt with the by adults who have to pick up the pieces and try to make yet another burst of social engineering work. The folks who push stuff rarely think about such details.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Pandora's Boxes will be dealt with the by adults who have to pick up the pieces and try to make yet another burst of social engineering work. The folks who push stuff rarely think about such details.

I'll say. Look what happened when we let women vote: child labor laws.

The horror. The horror.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Pandora's Boxes will be dealt with the by adults who have to pick up the pieces and try to make yet another burst of social engineering work. The folks who push stuff rarely think about such details.

Yep. They never should have allowed Whitie to marry Blackie.

 

[unofan]

Otherwise I am afraid that Pandora's box has been opened and every form of marriage will be legal as long as the plaintiffs can make a 14th Amendment case.

And this bothers you? By your own premise, such marriages will only be allowed if they can make a valid 14th Amendment case. If they can, why would you be against it?

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Pandora's Boxes will be dealt with the by adults who have to pick up the pieces and try to make yet another burst of social engineering work. The folks who push stuff rarely think about such details.

Bob, I'm disappointed in you! Where is the "Next thing you know you'll be able to marry your dog" statement?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I'll say. Look what happened when we let women vote: child labor laws.

The horror. The horror.

You've tried those unrelated comparisons before (and others). Still not biting.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Bob, I'm disappointed in you! Where is the "Next thing you know you'll be able to marry your dog" statement?

https://republicanfaithchat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/onceyouallowgaystogetmarried.jpg

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

You've tried those unrelated comparisons before (and others). Still not biting.

You not accepting an analogy isn't the same thing as the analogy being false.

Homophobia is just like racism and sexism. It's an iron power relation fist in a velvet religious glove. And just like racism and sexism, when it is overturned legally the people who hold on to it won't magically change their minds. And some of them will pass it on to their kids. But little by little, as the generations pass, it will die out.

And this is a good thing.

 

[joecct]

You not accepting an analogy isn't the same thing as the analogy being false.

Homophobia is just like racism and sexism. It's an iron power relation fist in a velvet religious glove. And just like racism and sexism, when it is overturned legally the people who hold on to it won't magically change their minds. And some of them will pass it on to their kids. But little by little, as the generations pass, it will die out.

And this is a good thing.

Kep

I am not homophobic. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Kep

I am not homophobic. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

You don't get to define what you are or aren't. They do. Or at least they've convinced themselves that they do. Scare tactics and intimidation work on some people, not on others.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

You not accepting an analogy isn't the same thing as the analogy being false.

Homophobia is just like racism and sexism. It's an iron power relation fist in a velvet religious glove. And just like racism and sexism, when it is overturned legally the people who hold on to it won't magically change their minds. And some of them will pass it on to their kids. But little by little, as the generations pass, it will die out.

And this is a good thing.

While your premise is correct, I thought your analogy was a bad one. Women's suffrage was accomplished essentially by permitting votes at the state legislature level until enough voted in favor to grant approval of the Amendment. A US Supreme Court ruling didn't cause the change in 1920.

A state by state approval is what some on the right have been demanding regarding gay marriage. Personally, I think opposition to gay marriage is silly, but I understand that others have a religious belief system that's different than mine.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

While your premise is correct, I thought your analogy was a bad one. Women's suffrage was accomplished essentially by permitting votes at the state legislature level until enough voted in favor to grant approval of the Amendment. A US Supreme Court ruling didn't cause the change in 1920.

A state by state approval is what some on the right have been demanding regarding gay marriage. Personally, I think opposition to gay marriage is silly, but I understand that others have a religious belief system that's different than mine.

I would say miscegenation is a better analogy for gay marriage than women's suffrage.

The point is the idea that "social engineering" is ivory tower* types heedlessly tinkering with the rock solid certainties of social mores is a crock. These things happen when the culture changes and old, bad ideas are left behind. Abolition of slavery was far more "social engineering" than gay marriage; so was desegregation for that matter. About 60% of people approve of gay marriage now -- I doubt any of the prior advances by oppressed populations had that level of widespread support.

* I just learned about where "ivory tower" comes from. It's from Song of Solomon 7.4:

1] How graceful are your feet in sandals,
O queenly maiden!
Your rounded thighs are like jewels,
the work of a master hand.
[2] Your navel is a rounded bowl
that never lacks mixed wine.
Your belly is a heap of wheat,
encircled with lilies.
[3] Your two breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle.
[4] Your neck is like an ivory tower.
Your eyes are pools in Heshbon,
by the gate of Bath-rab'bim.
Your nose is like a tower of Lebanon,
overlooking Damascus.
[5] Your head crowns you like Carmel,
and your flowing locks are like purple;
a king is held captive in the tresses.
[6] How fair and pleasant you are,
O loved one, delectable maiden!
[7] You are stately as a palm tree,
and your breasts are like its clusters.
[8] I say I will climb the palm tree
and lay hold of its branches.
Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine,
and the scent of your breath like apples,
[9] and your kisses like the best wine
that goes down smoothly,
gliding over lips and teeth.
[10] I am my beloved's,
and his desire is for me.
[11] Come, my beloved,
let us go forth into the fields,
and lodge in the villages;
[12] let us go out early to the vineyards,
and see whether the vines have budded,
whether the grape blossoms have opened
and the pomegranates are in bloom.
There I will give you my love.

Now, unless you're the world's most closeted neurotic, that is about fvcking, and in fact it's some of the best erotica ever written. And there it is, in the Bible. Anywho... the Fathers weren't down with the erotic, at least not when it came to women, so they needed to reinterpret what is an obvious sex poem as something symbolic. And in the distortion that followed, "ivory tower" wound up being the church, and then afterwards in common understanding it came to be identified with the cathedral schools, and then scholasticism in general, and thus fanciful academic speculation.

Whereas in reality, it's basically the Bible's way of saying pearl necklace.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

You not accepting an analogy isn't the same thing as the analogy being false.

Homophobia is just like racism and sexism. It's an iron power relation fist in a velvet religious glove. And just like racism and sexism, when it is overturned legally the people who hold on to it won't magically change their minds. And some of them will pass it on to their kids. But little by little, as the generations pass, it will die out.

And this is a good thing.

And when they're forcing boys to become feminine, like disallowing them to pee standing up ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izHCEBv8Aec ) or forcing them to undergo sex changes ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html ), I'm sure you'd defend that as well. They're not able to naturally reproduce, so do not allow them around children.

 

[unofan]

Kep

I am not homophobic. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Why?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Kep

I am not homophobic. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

I am absolutely certain there were people who said "I am not a racist, yet I don't believe the races should mix."

It may be true that clause B does not imply clause A. I can't see into your heart of hearts and know your motives (only Bob can do that). Is it possible for someone to hold an "x-ist" idea and not be an "x-ist" themselves? It's easy to make good arguments both ways. Especially for those of us who are old, it's quite possible to hold on to homophobic notions without meaning them in any way as anything other than just "ordinary thinking." We do a disservice to people to evaluate their opinions against current standards, because standards change. It was once absolutely natural for even the gentlest and kindest and most loving white person to use the N word when describing blacks, just as an off-handed description. "I saw that guy yesterday, he was flying a kite." "Which one, the Eye-tie?" "No, the N." People hold on to their notions, and it's unfair to develop an elaborate theory of their personality taking evidence that is, chronologically, "out of context." Nice grandparents use the N word. They're not racists, it was just a word for them. But the N word is now, most definitely, racist.

So, what I'd say is, opposition to gay marriage is homophobic. You and I may have grown up among people for whom it wasn't anything significant at all, it was just a ground condition one would never even think about. But times change, and in the context of a gay rights movement that has been going on highly publicly for 40 years, and a backlash against it becoming more hateful and disgusting by the day, the social meaning of opposition to gay marriage has become homophobic. We have become "unstuck in time" where our attitudes and our character no longer match up. Our personal meaning doesn't match the social meaning on some issue. As long as we only talk to ourselves, there's no dissonance. But the minute we start talking to other people, that outside meaning starts to seep in.