Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8863 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-20-2018 8:24 PM
200 online now:
DrJones*, nwr, xongsmith (3 members, 197 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,717 Year: 13,540/29,783 Month: 986/1,576 Week: 198/303 Day: 22/36 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
6869
70
7172
...
88NextFF
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1036 of 1307 (834450)
06-06-2018 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1035 by Chiroptera
06-05-2018 11:54 PM


Re: Masterpiece Cakeshop: Thomas and Gorsuch
Finally, Thomas repeats his warnings that he gave in his dissent to Obergefell, namely, that Obergefell would be used to squash dissent against same sex marriage

If Thomas reasoning is correct, does that make it a valid argument? Does making folks serve black people discourage dissent against integration mixing? So what if it does?

Thomas then repeats that past cases show that expression of ideas (or, in this case, the refusal to express ideas) cannot be banned just because some person or group finds [the] them offensive.

What Thomas needs to show is that the expression of ideas trumps the civil rights of others. I don't believe he can do that.

In my opinion, the fact that Thomas was completely wrong in Obergefell really weakens his argument here. What was at stake in Obergefell was nothing less than state-enforced inequality for no constitutionally justifiable reason. What Thomas is advocating is returning to that situation so that it is clear that, similar to Dred Scott, gay folks have no rights that a black or white person is "bound to respect."[1]

Thomas' opinion is irrelevant here, except that he is 1/9 of the Supreme Court, and his reasoning is one of several reasonings that might gather 5 justices on the wrong side of the issue later. It is pretty clear that Clarence is not going to change his mind in a case where the hostility issues are not present.

Revised by Edit

Edited by NoNukes, : Add historical reference.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1035 by Chiroptera, posted 06-05-2018 11:54 PM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6505
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 1037 of 1307 (834488)
06-06-2018 5:43 PM


Masterpiece Cakeshop: Ginsburg and Sotomayor
Justice Ginsburg's dissent, joined by Justice Sotomayor.

Justice Ginsburg claims that the comments made by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals rise to the accepted level indicating "hostility to Phillips' religious beliefs." Furthermore, the entire process consisted of several independent steps, culminating in a trial before the Colorado Court of Appeals that "considered the case de novo." Therefore, there is no reason to vacate the lower court's judgment based on hostility toward Phillips' beliefs.

The main thrust of this opinion is that the record contains sufficient information to determine whether Phillips' violation of Colorado's anti-discrimination merits protection under the First Amendment.

In particular, Ginsburg and Sotomayer elaborate on the difference between the Phillips' refusal to create a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage and the other three bakers' refusal to sell William Jack a cake with anti-same sex messages on them.

The three bakers did not discriminate against Jack because of his religion; they would have refused to make such cakes for any individual regardless of religious belief or lack of religious belief. On the other hand, the three bakers would have been more than happy to sell Jack cakes with any other religious message that he wanted, as long as such messages weren't based on "hate".

This is different than Phillips' refusal. Ginsburg points out that Phillips rejected Craig and Mullins' request before there was any discuss on what, if any text, should be on the cake. In fact, Masterpiece Cakeshop's advertisements show no text whatsoever on the wedding cakes. Presumably, despite each cake perhaps being a unique artistic creation, once it's done there is nothing that would indicate whether the cake was or was not intended for a same sex marriage. Therefore, the wedding cake itself cannot be construed as a "message". So refusal to create a cake for a same sex wedding can only be properly construed as discriminating against the couple based on their sexual orientation.

Therefore, Ginsburg and Sotomayor would have affirmed the lower court's judgment.

-

Personal opinion:

I don't have the legal expertise to judge whether or not the majority was correct in reversing the Colorado Court of Appeals' judgment due to hostility toward Phillips' beliefs. Right now, all I feel I can do is defer to the judgment of the majority while acknowledging that there are legitimate grounds for a difference of opinion.

But I think that Ginsburg and Sotomayor make a very good case for the difference between refusing to create a cake for Craig and Mullins' wedding and refusing to bake cakes with explicit messages condemning same sex marriage.

Edited by Chiroptera, : I misspelled Justice Sotomayor's name in the comment title, and it was really starting to bug me.



Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing. - George Orwell

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6505
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1038 of 1307 (834515)
06-07-2018 11:56 AM


My opinion on the judgment
The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to reverse the judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals on narrow technical grounds. Comments made by two members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals shows evidence of hostility toward Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs and so a strong possibility that the decisions made were not adequately based on permissible secular reasons to protect citizens against unfair treatment but because Mr. Phillips had beliefs that were unpopular.

Yet three of the justices -- Thomas, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor -- felt that there was adequate information in the record to rule on merits of the underlying case itself, and I would say that Kagan and Breyer did as well. But Kagan and Breyer as well as Kennedy and maybe Roberts felt that they couldn't rule on these merits. (Gorsuch and Alito seem to have a different take on the issue.)

Why?

(1) It may be that the hostility the justices saw in the record were sufficient to taint the proceedings to such a degree that the Court had no choice but to deal with this evident bias before they could justify examining the underlying case itself. I'll have my opinion on this a little later.

(2) I also get the impression that the Court is signaling that unpopular and offensive beliefs are protected and that no judgment will be allowed just because someone's beliefs are unpopular. I think that I recall that Kennedy's opinion makes an issue of this, and Kagan's felt that she and Breyer had to emphasize that the Misterial Exception was absolutely not in jeopardy. When I read Thomas' opinion, I was even more convinced that this issue was on the minds of the Court.

(3) Interestingly, on the same day this ruling was announced, Politico and The New Republic ran articles predicting that the Court was going to use the religious-bias-shown-by-officials'-statements argument to strike down Trump's Muslim ban. It's possible that these two cases together focused some of the Justices attention to the statements made by the relevant officials.

-

Now for my personal opinion. Ironically, it's my agreement with much of what Justice Ginsburg writes that makes me agree with Justices Kagan and Breyer. I think that Kagan and Breyer's opinion is spot on.

The differences that Ginsburg and Sotomayor pointed out that between the two situations -- Phillips refusing to create a cake for Craig and Mullins versus the other three bakeries refusing to sell Jack his cake -- are so obvious that I'm rather amazed that these differences were never pointed out and used in the prior proceedings.

As a note, I'll admit that I had trouble articulating these differences myself before I read Ginsburg's opinion, but it wasn't my job to give this case my full, undivided attention while examining all the relevant facts and listening to all the arguments made by the parties.

As Kagan and Breyer point out, the Colorado Court of Appeals -- the last venue hearing the case before it was presented to the Supreme Court -- didn't make this distinction. Instead, the Appeals Court merely said that the bakeries found Jack's message "offensive", but not giving the same consideration to Phillips. And, as the majority of the Court points out, it is not permissible to make rulings because one set of beliefs is "offensive".

I think that the fact that the Court of Appeals missed a very clear and obvious difference (or that the defendant, the State of Colorado, was itself unable to understand the true difference) and instead had to rely on a legally impermissible distinction gives good evidence that the Appeals Court was ruling because of disrespect and hostility toward Phillips' beliefs.

I therefore (as a layman citizen, of course -- IANAL!) feel that the Supreme Court was correct in taking a strong stand against this evident bias and reversing the judgment.

-

The reason I feel this way is because I believe, just out of a sense of fairness and justice, that beliefs themselves must not be punished, at least not by the government. That's not to say that we, as individuals, can't find some beliefs reprehensible or that we can't, as private citizens act against a person based on their beliefs. In fact, I myself find Phillips' beliefs in the case terrible and his behavior reprehensible, and I would certainly not patronize his bakery. However, legal judgment cannot be based just because I find his beliefs terrible -- legal judgment needs to be purely based on the secular harm that his actions cause.

I will also admit that I'm being a bit self-serving here. I am on the left; although I don't mind being called a liberal, I'm actually a socialist, and I am an atheist. Whenever laws have been made because some beliefs are "offensive" and whenever judgments were based on the "offensiveness" of ideas, my side loses way more often that the other side does! I warn my compatriots on the left, if we allow bias against "offensive" beliefs to be a part of government action, we will be cutting our own throats.

-

So I admit, I may be a little overly sensitive to charges of bias and hostility against beliefs on the part of government actors. Be it as it may, I find Kagan and Breyer's opinion to be compelling.

-

I will also say that my opinions in the case are still in a state of flux. It could be that my opinion may change again as I think about it more, or as I hear what other people have to say, or if I learn additional facts about the case than was mentioned in the opinions I've read.

Edited by Chiroptera, : Typos in the last sentence.



Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing. - George Orwell

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6505
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1039 of 1307 (834520)
06-07-2018 5:13 PM


Opinion piece from the Guardian
I just read this column from the Guardian, written by a former law clerk of Kennedy's.

Basically, Mr. Matz states that he disagrees with the ruling, but he understands and respects Kennedy's decision in this matter and says that this in no way tarnishes Kennedy's legacy in advancing the rights of our gay and lesbian cousins.

He also points out some of the very positive aspects of this ruling, one of which is that a clear majority of the Justices signed onto a decision that explicitly acknowledges that

“gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth”.


Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing. - George Orwell

Replies to this message:
 Message 1040 by Faith, posted 06-07-2018 8:38 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29538
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1040 of 1307 (834530)
06-07-2018 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1039 by Chiroptera
06-07-2018 5:13 PM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
“gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth”.

So would it be treating a person as a social outcast or as inferior in dignity ad worth who wanted to marry an underage child by denying that marriage? Denying marriage to people who are not qualified by nature or universal custom for marriage does not seem to me to be denying them dignity or worth.

Seems to me this law is denying ordinary rights to Christians who will have to close their wedding oriented businesses to avoid being sued or prosecuted for their religious faith. Kind of a perfect example of the Liberal Nazism that is ruing the country these days and is only going to get worse.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1039 by Chiroptera, posted 06-07-2018 5:13 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1041 by Chiroptera, posted 06-07-2018 9:05 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1042 by Modulous, posted 06-07-2018 9:45 PM Faith has responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6505
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1041 of 1307 (834531)
06-07-2018 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1040 by Faith
06-07-2018 8:38 PM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
So would it be treating a person as a social outcast or as inferior in dignity ad worth who wanted to marry an underage child by denying that marriage?

Well, as far as I know, it's never a crime to simply want something.

I suppose in the private sector, if an individual expressed a desire to marry an underage child there might be some social consequences. But I'm not aware that "people who want to marry underage children" are, as a class, unfairly discriminated against in terms of housing, employment, or conducting business. But you may feel differently; in that case, it is your right to lobby your elected officials to add "people who want to marry underage children" to your state's anti-discrimination statutes.

-

Seems to me this law is denying ordinary rights to Christians who will have to close their wedding oriented businesses to avoid being sued or prosecuted for their religious faith.

Yes, a Christian might make that choice. Or a Christian might discontinue the wedding related stuff and continue selling the non-wedding products. Or the Christian might just decide that gay money spends just as well as non-gay money and sell the same products to all their customers equally. In some cases, a Christian might go the "civil disobedience" route and court increasing fines and jail time to make an important statement.

I admit that a socially conservative Christian might have some difficult decisions to make. But then, as a non-conservative non-Christian, I've also had to make some choices I didn't like. But that's the price one sometimes has to pay in order to live peaceably with other people in a diverse society.



Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing. - George Orwell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1040 by Faith, posted 06-07-2018 8:38 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1043 by Faith, posted 06-07-2018 11:38 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1042 of 1307 (834532)
06-07-2018 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1040 by Faith
06-07-2018 8:38 PM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
https://i.imgur.com/V4sW2dC.jpg
So would it be treating a person as a social outcast or as inferior in dignity ad worth who wanted to marry an underage child by denying that marriage?

Yes, I'm comfortable calling child rapists, 'outcasts', and treating them as social inferiors.

Denying marriage to people who are not qualified by nature or custom for marriage does not seem to me to be denying them dignity or worth.

This isn't about denying someone marriage. That battle is already over. This is about denying service to specific groups who are typically the target of cruel bullies who use whatever tactics they can to continue to oppress them.

If a Muslim artist who did operated a public business decided he wasn't going to paint portraits of Jewish couples because he didn't want to be seen to support the propagation of Jews...that'd be a problem too - even if the Muslim's beliefs are religious and sincerely held.

Seems to me this law is denying ordinary rights to Christians who will have to close their wedding oriented businesses to avoid being sued or prosecuted for their religious faith.

Actually it also denies the right of Atheists, Muslims and Jews to deny service to Christians, Hindus or Sikhs. The only difference is that Christians don't need to worry so much about that because being in much larger numbers than Muslims or Jews etc., it would generally be a terrible business plan.

Still, one day, maybe Christianity will be a minority. Then the Christians will be glad that there are protections preventing business owners using their religious freedoms to try and make their lives difficult, humiliate them etc.

Kind of a perfect example of the Liberal Nazism that is ruing the country these days and is only going to get worse.

It was the patriotic, right wing actual Nazis that denied service to Jews.

The 'Liberal Nazis' want people to be treated fairly, and to have restitution for tangible harms done to those that harmed. Be they Christians, Homosexuals, Women or Lithuanian.

The 'Liberal Nazis' want to prevent law abiding, free human beings from being marginalized by the powerful majority whenever that majority decides they are the target of the year. Right now that's Jews, Muslims, Gays and Transfolk. Tomorrow it might be Christians, white grandmothers or the disabled.

Because we 'Liberal Nazis' know that denying service to minorities is the tip of the iceberg and if you let it slide - the right wing Nazis...you know the Hitler loving swastika bearing fascist thugs that still actually exist... will take that inch and march a mile.

I'm sure many Christians who want to refuse service are perfectly nice folk and all - but we can't let it stand. The harm to those that are bullied is greater than the harm to the bullies (deliberate or accidental) when someone stops them.

I'm sure it'll be an uncomfortable time for some people, but before too long the very notion this discussion even took place will seem strange to Christians.

...is only going to get worse

The Supreme Court just slapped a case down in your favour because the arbitrators suggested hostility towards your religious viewpoint. 'You guys' hold SCOTUS, POTUS and the legislature and you're still worried it's going to get worse? I hope you're right. I hope the gust of change is with you, but the winds of change are generally against you and topple your ideals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1040 by Faith, posted 06-07-2018 8:38 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1044 by Faith, posted 06-07-2018 11:46 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29538
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1043 of 1307 (834536)
06-07-2018 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1041 by Chiroptera
06-07-2018 9:05 PM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
But I'm not aware that "people who want to marry underage children" are, as a class, unfairly discriminated against in terms of housing, employment, or conducting business.

That's a bit odd. What does gay marriage have to do with all those forms of unfair discrimination?: Does gay marriage solve those problems? . However, the issue is whether there is an overarching objective standard for marriage or it's all just a matter of people's wanting it for personal reasons.

However, yes, I think Christians are going to have to give up wedding-related businesses, it looks like that's the way things are going, Christians who take the Bible seriously anyway.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1041 by Chiroptera, posted 06-07-2018 9:05 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1047 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2018 12:46 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1048 by Chiroptera, posted 06-08-2018 8:26 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1049 by Chiroptera, posted 06-08-2018 9:25 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29538
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 1044 of 1307 (834537)
06-07-2018 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1042 by Modulous
06-07-2018 9:45 PM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
So far so good as far as that SCOTUS decision goes but it's awfully limited and doesn't challenge the real issue which is the conflict created with biblical faith by the legalizing of gay marriage. I agree with you that the winds of change are against Christianity and we are the ones who are going to have to adjust. That's probably a good thing though since we've become a wimpy compromising complacent lot overall, a little persecution should sharpen our sense of priorities.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1042 by Modulous, posted 06-07-2018 9:45 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1045 by NoNukes, posted 06-07-2018 11:57 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1051 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-08-2018 10:17 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1045 of 1307 (834538)
06-07-2018 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1044 by Faith
06-07-2018 11:46 PM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
a little persecution should sharpen our sense of priorities

I hear you loud and clear.

Fundamentalist Christian parents are going to have to have "the talk" with their children who would be bakers of cakes or who want to run a tuxedo shop. Watch out! If you do that, you may find yourself having to either bake a cake for some undesirable or get into another business. Best to learn some calculus or how to plumb a sink.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1044 by Faith, posted 06-07-2018 11:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1046 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 12:12 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29538
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1046 of 1307 (834539)
06-08-2018 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1045 by NoNukes
06-07-2018 11:57 PM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
"..may find yourself having to either bake a cake for some undesirable refuse to do something that would dishonor God and by doing that make a customer unhappy, or get into another business."

It's a genuine dilemma, NoNukes, both options have seriously unwelcome consequences. I don't think you heard anything "loud and clear," I think you've got a cotton gob of prejudice in each ear.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1045 by NoNukes, posted 06-07-2018 11:57 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1052 by ringo, posted 06-08-2018 11:47 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1244 by ramoss, posted 07-01-2018 6:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14346
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1047 of 1307 (834540)
06-08-2018 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1043 by Faith
06-07-2018 11:38 PM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
quote:

hat's a bit odd. What does gay marriage have to do with all those forms of unfair discrimination?: Does gay marriage solve those problems? .

Of course the legal issue here is not and never has been gay marriage. The issue is anti-discrimination legislation which does go a way to tackling those problems. Even if it wasn’t obvious from the arguments, this case comes from events in 2012, before gay marriage was legalised in 2015.

quote:

However, the issue is whether there is an overarching objective standard for marriage or it's all just a matter of people's wanting it for personal reasons.

That is an issue settled by the First Amendment if not before. The U.S. is a secular state. Your religious ideas about marriage have no bearing on the law, any more than the Mormon belief in polygamy did (the mainstream Mormons caved on the issue but there are breakaway sects who still cling to that teaching. It’s still illegal).

And you have yet to show any scripture that says that Christians have the right to dictate secular law or even that Christians are required to refuse to do work for hire related to gay weddings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1043 by Faith, posted 06-07-2018 11:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6505
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1048 of 1307 (834543)
06-08-2018 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1043 by Faith
06-07-2018 11:38 PM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
However, yes, I think Christians are going to have to give up wedding-related businesses, it looks like that's the way things are going, Christians who take the Bible seriously anyway.

I doubt that's what's going to happen, though. Some will make a big theatrical display about turning off the lights, but in the end most are going to decide that whatever the Bible says about same sex marriage, it doesn't require them to shut down the business they love.

At worst, they'll just accept having to serve gay couples as just one more of the small indignities they think they already have to suffer. Most, though, will eventually decide that it's actually not as much a big deal as they were afraid of.



Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing. - George Orwell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1043 by Faith, posted 06-07-2018 11:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6505
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1049 of 1307 (834544)
06-08-2018 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1043 by Faith
06-07-2018 11:38 PM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
However, the issue is whether there is an overarching objective standard for marriage or it's all just a matter of people's wanting it for personal reasons.

Oh, well, that train left the station a long time ago.

Well before the Obergefell decision, marriage in the United States underwent a long, sometimes slow transformation into what it has now become. In fact, Kennedy made it very clear in his decision that Obergefell would not have been possible if marriage in the United States had not already changed into what it now is.

The decision in Obegefell that forced the states to recognize same sex marriage did not change marriage; marriage had already change and Obergefell only recognized that change.



Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing. - George Orwell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1043 by Faith, posted 06-07-2018 11:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6505
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 1050 of 1307 (834546)
06-08-2018 10:01 AM


A fable
When I was in Africa, I used to frequent this tea shop that was owned by Muslims. They kept their tea shop open during Ramadan to continue serving tea to the Christian customers. One of the workers told me, it's not their place to force their religious beliefs onto other people.


Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing. - George Orwell

  
RewPrev1
...
6869
70
7172
...
88NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018