Same sex marriage is a constitutional right for all USAians, regardless of the homophobic, religiously-motivated bigotry in 14 state legislatures.
Chief Justice Kennedy writing the 5-4 decision:
“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person,
… under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, couples of the same sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
.. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry,
… [They] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. </blockquote>
And Antonin Scalia displays his usual regressive Catholic assholishness: <blockquote>The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic,
Suck it, Popey-boy.
HT: Chris Clarke, image, and Ophelia Benson
Edit: Should have been Justice Kennedy, not Chief justice Kennedy. Thanks for the reminder, Kantian Naturalist :).
In short, because the alternative claims to make ‘equal’ what is actually (except to the rationally and logically idiotic, as Erik says) ‘unequal’. Equal ‘under law’ is (potentially, put in the money) covered by ‘civil unions’. The ‘dignity’ argument of Kennedy in scotus is the extra-legal feature of this discussion. The overly-vocal atheists, however, are not too keen to allow religious views into the room (atheist exclusionism) for obvious reasons…based often on a diabolical ‘social evolutionary’ bullshit argument (not defensible by ‘[strictly] natural science’!).
Elizabeth, for all your ‘subjugation of women’ talk, there are many, many wonderful women, faithful women, compassionate and caring women, sincere and devout women, diligent and decisive women, leaders and followers, even today, in good relationships with their (husbands, not ‘wives’ and) churches, mosques and synagogues, with their religion. Pouting about this and trying to cast doubt upon it, practising ‘skepticism’ as you like to so shallowly and callously call it, as an empty-hearted professed adult-convert (yet still nostalgic, lowercase ‘god’ wannabe quaker) atheist, as if the religious world is really ‘against women’ (Hail Mary, full of Grace!), is indeed a clear sign of sickness, not health.
Yes. I know.
It entirely irrelevant to the FACT that until the nineteenth century, in most jurisdictions, a woman became on her marriage, the property of her husband, as did her actual property.
So when people bang on about “traditional marriage”, they ignore the FACT that marriage has already changed, radically, for the better since then.
There is nothing either “shallow” or “callous”, about a skeptical approach to claims promoted as truth.
I am not “empty-hearted”, Gregory. You Made That Up.
I have said no such thing. In fact you seem to have missed my entire point: that the “religious world” has accepted without demur the radical redefinition of marriage, but now part of it wants to defend a mythical “traditional” definition that it has already, rightly, abandoned.
Tee hee hee hee. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
[breathe]
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
[breathe]
Ha. Uh. Okay, I’m okay now.
“diabolical”
Hee hee hee hee.
Oh god don’t make me laugh so hard, Gregory. It hurts!
You are so confused and lost, Elizabeth. No anchor. No faith. No reality (except in the brain/mind/consciousness) to fall back on.
Edited for update: “empty-hearted professed adult-convert (yet still nostalgic, lowercase ‘god’ wannabe quaker) atheist”
If your heart is really full, Elisabeth, I’d like to hear someone talk about your sincere faith in God at your funeral. Self-goddess is what seems to have become the substitute.
“A man and a woman.” Simple. Concrete. Clear. As even children understand it.
Gov’ts can distort or legislate anything they want ‘by law’ at their peoples’ discretions. That doesn’t make this particular ‘verdict’ an ‘evolution.’ Good to atheists like you, Elizabeth, after all, is simply a subjective preference, like which flavour of ice cream or chocolate you like better.
Also make sure they have blue eyes and blonde hair.
Gregory manages to rehash UD talking points from years ago. Bravo, Gregory! Genocide = Rum and Raisin, if anyone is interested. Charitable selfless giving = Raspberry Ripple The jury is still out on Mint Choc Chip.
CAn you actually support this, Gregory, or is it just your supposition? Because it is getting very irritating.
Well, Richard, it goes a fair bit deeper than the predominantly shallow IDist waters of UD. But I don’t expect comfy atheist sleepers like you to know much about that.
Gregory, there was a simple solution that religions rejected a long time ago. Abjur political entanglement. Do not expect government to enforce your religious laws, and do not expect government to sanctify your religious rites.
Gregory,
We don’t all have you HPSS background, Greg. O_o
Elizabeth,
Is this really only about you? Demonstrate otherwise if it’s false, Elizabeth. Show us your faith beyond atheism. Let that wannabe quaker out of her contrarian, disenchanted, adult convert to emptiness penguin skin!
I see those qualities in your discourse quite clearly, like shining neon lights. What is irritating to me is your platitudinous self-righteous pomp as if you are really a soulful person promoting meaning in life to others. The atheism you continually defend here at TSZ quite frankly utterly belies that.
But this is a thread about judicial activism (in mainly ‘western’, secularising countries) that redefines ‘marriage’ trying to make ‘equal’ what is quite obviously ‘unequal’. Calling the new contract ‘civil unions’ would have done the trick. So why not put yourself aside?
So maybe you do understand why I don’t feel inclined to move Gregory’s comments to guano.
Gregory, what was the point of making a sacrament into a civil contract? You lost this battle thousands of years ago when priests sought and acquired earthly power.
Can anyone tell me what Gregory is talking about?
No, it’s a thread about a recent court decision.
If you wanted to discuss judicial activism, then the “Citizens United” case would be a better example.
Judge Richard Posner had some interesting comments on the gay marriage decision (h/t Ed Brayton)
The moment Gregory talks disparagingly about secular governments, you know he’s a dominionist or equivalent. Things would be better if laws were made by priests.
Oh, goodness, I thought English was your native language, Lizzie.
“Show us your faith beyond atheism.” No, you refuse? Stop with the “platitudinous self-righteous pomp” because the atheism you defend belies the meaning in life you pretend to endorse. No, you still cannot?
‘Civil unions’ (even with considerable cost & legal complexity) would have done the trick. For marriage, ‘man & woman’ is still the core. It *IS* equality.
Don’t play idiotic as if you don’t understand English language again, please. Stop this confused, anchorless ‘skeptic’ waffling.
But not yours, right?
I have no idea what this means, so I can’t either refuse or accept.
Like “stop beating your wife”, right? How can I stop doing something I don’t think I’m doing?
wtf?
The only person I can see waffling here is you. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
Well, there is just so much grist for the mill here in this thread, where to start. But speaking as the new Mung, I shall try to be fair to both positions.
Gregory and Erik are flat out mistaken. What are they thinking, expecting people to be rational over this issue. After all, Christianity is irrational too!
I bet the definition of porn has changed over time. Can we post gay porn?
No, but you can’t get married here either. But you can post your home videos on the internet without being arrested.
Actually, no. Are you now seeking to redefine bold?
😉
Use the strong tag for bolding text here.
Mung. This decision is within secular law. Why is religion tangled up in law?
You should have put a ‘?’ on that. 😉
So religion turned to government to enforce religious laws, and now religion is hoist on its own petard.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.
If you’re going to turn out to be one of those anti-gay-marriage bigots, you’re going to break my heart, Mung.
I hope my decent opinion of you remains justified.
hotshoe_,
Hypocrite, perfect role model for TSZ!
petrushka, I don’t think I have any real bone to pick with you over this topic. You have said some of the more sensible things in the thread. A model for others.
I’m not sure I agree with some of your points, but such disagreements are tangential (e.g., the role of priests and who was using who in state/religion) so I am willing to be at peace if you are. Perhaps topics for another day!
We’re waiting for the new new Mung — the one who actually is fair, as opposed to merely “trying”.
I’ve responded to this twice already, Gregory, but I will do so once more at at bit greater length. [So, PAY ATTENTION!]
Once upon a time, many of the schools in the United States were segregated. In some parts of the country there were schools for white kids and schools for non-white kids. Where this segregation occurred, the schools for whites and the education provided by them were far superior to what blacks got.
There were, generally, three attitudes toward this issue. First, there were outright bigots. They took the position that blacks aren’t really as good as whites, are barely human (“defective” perhaps?) and there’s no reason why their schools need to be as good as the schools for real kids. “Blacks can’t really learn, so what’s the point?” Etc.
Then there were the liberals who took the position that kids are kids, whatever the color of their skin, and all of them should be in the same schools together. That way there will be no danger of better and worse schools based on the race of the children in them.
Finally, there were the Gregories of their day. They took the position that even if blacks are no worse than whites, they are surely different (anyone can see this!). There is no justification for the claim that any school district ought to be required to integrate. However, as the black kids are no worse than, even if different from, their white (non-)brethren, we must endeavor–through the writing of laws and the expenditure of additional funds–to make sure that their education is equal to that of the white kids. These Gregories held that there is no reason why they education provided to the kids of both races can’t be “separate but equal.”
You are taking precisely this position with respect to gay marriages now. They can have their equal rights, you say, if we create an appropriate civil union law and spend enough money–but their unions will be separate, because (let’s face it!) gay marriages are different from straight marriages.
In this way, you insist that the term “legitimate marriage under the law” must be reserved for the kind of marriages you approve of, but that you are not harming anybody else, since you are being careful to protect everybody’s rights. “It’s ridiculous to want more than that!” you holler.
But, as I’ve said, the substitution of your judgement for those of gays and lesbians with respect to what is good enough for them is no better than the substitution of the judgment of white segregationists for that of those affected by the segregation restrictions. You may say they’re being silly or unreasonable, but, TBH, it doesn’t really matter what YOU say.
Again, the claim that the marriages are “unequal” is a confusion. Just as the term “children” may be expanded to include various races of kids, the term “marriage” may be expanded to include both gay and straight marriages. It’s a sortal term: after all, my marriage isn’t equal to yours, either, even if we’re both in straight marriages.
So, again, WHY should the term be broadened? Because the constituency wants it that way. That’s democracy.
But there’s this: So, what if the electorate wants racial discrimination, or anti-gay discrimination, or even slavery? Must it be OK then? After all, Horn, you’ve said you’re no friend of “natural rights” theories! What about that?? Does the tyranny of the majority get to do its thing even when it restricts the happiness of gays or blacks? (Answer, Horn, you rat bastid!)
The answer to that (good question) is long and hard (see the Lincoln-Douglas debates, if you don’t believe me). It IS answerable, I think, but it requires more energy and words than I feel like putting in here at present. Fortunately, it’s not an issue in this case, since the majority opinion is in synch with that of the Justice’s Decision. So I’ll just settle into my bastidness.
For the record, I neither cheered nor mourned over the decision. I wasn’t even aware of it until the OP. That’s how much I care about the whole issue.
I don’t believe in killing or vilifying, which are in essence the same, as Jesus taught.
But then, neither do I think Erik or Gregory should be painted [vilified?] the way they have been painted in this thread just because they choose to say that words have meanings and argue for that position.
Nothing I’ve seen convinces me either of them are bigots.
[Well, Gregory, but that’s about ID, lol.] 😉
No, no, no, Gregory. NOT hypocrite.
Your English is (nearly) as good as mine. Surely you understand the meaning of the word “hypocrite”.
For you to be a “hypocrite” you’d have to do one thing but say another, or pretend that one thing is okay if you and your friends do it but suddenly not okay if your opponents do the exact same thing. That’s “hypocrite”.
Me, I’m consistent. I’m consistent in my approval of rude observations (in general, minus sexist / racist / phobic slurs), consistent my whole life in being a loudmout,h, as I said not ashamed of it and not trying to pretend that I am better than I am to win a momentary pass for bad conduct. Absolutely as prone to censure myself and friends for what I see as bad conduct as I am to censure my idiotic opponents, and absolutely as prone to encourage both friends and enemies to do better. Not a hypocrite in the least.
Perhaps you were confused and meant “Hippocratic”? Did you guess I was a doctor??
But yay for being The Perfect Role Model. I should put that on a T-shirt!
The Perfect Role Model.
Yes, I like the look of that.
Thanks, Magnussen. 🙂
Unfortunately I will always be trying to spot something I might say that you can subsequently take out of context and abuse.
I see Elizabeth has stopped trying to justify herself to you. Good for her.
Shall we head over to Noyau keiths? Why don’t you head over there now and I’ll try to catch up with you?
Cheers!
Most of what Elizabeth posts here has nothing to do with atheism. So your complaint is bogus (and ad hominem).
If you go with that be sure to mispell it, lol.
The Perfect Roll Model?
Yes, you’re consistent “being a rude, mean, insulting ass.” Fitting for Lizzie’s TSZ rules!
Duh, didn’t you learn anything about ‘reproduction’ in your 3rd grade education?Even the *possibility* of childbirth means the relationship is UNEQUAL. Why are you so afraid of ‘different’?
Again, as an atheist ‘philosophist’, settling into vast minority bastardness is your right.
Gregory, I’ve explained to you three times now how the marriages are different, and how the same. I’ve tried to use simple, easy-to-understand language for you. If you still can’t understand this, I guess I can’t help you. As you take my education to have been limited to 3rd grade, my advice to you is to seek out a 1st or 2nd grader: maybe they can do this for you with crayons or something.
That’s “misspell,” mung.
Lizzie,
Apparently he thinks faith is a virtue rather than an intellectual failing.
walto, you’re about as clever as a sophistic fool. Let the argument rest with your dilettante conflation of equal with unequal. The label ‘philosopher’ is obviously too precious and sincere to concern or represent you.
He’s so unpleasant, I’m not sure he actually aspires to any virtues, though. Very mean-spirited and nasty. Humorless, angry and insulting.
Not at all what they tell me Jesus would do. But I guess Jesus was tough on the money-lending pharisees and nitpicky rule purveyors and their (beaked?) ilk, so maybe he’s channeling the Angry God thing when he talks about KN’s religious upbringing, and maybe there’s a kind of harsh virtue in such (more-like-OT?) chastisements of the philosophists, dilettantes, atheists, fools, 3rd graders, and other assorted devils here.
WTHDIK?
There is literally no valid reason to argue against recognizing same-sex marriage equality other than bigotry. All the reasons they list are shams rooted in (conscious or unconscious) bigotry.
There is literally no reason to froth about what the majority of USAians and majority of US Supreme Court justices have agreed on regarding the Equal Protection clause guaranteeing the right to same sex marriage. Democracy in action and the Federal Government working exactly as the constitution spells out. No reason, unless one is the kind of person who (consciously or unconsciously) thinks that marriage is now tainted by those icky gays having access to it. (As Erik said repeatedly “defective” and as Gregory said repeatedly “unequal” — and what they meant was “icky”.)
Of course, most people deny their own bigotry. IF they say something bigoted, they excuse it as simply “rational” or “logical” or even “scientific”. It’s only the outside observer who can correctly identify the pattern of bigoted speech and actions.
IF they didn’t have a bigotted reason to argue, they’d have no reason at all. They would react basically the same way you did “Oh, same sex marriage is a thing now? Whatever, cool, dude.”
There is literally no reason why anyone would care what the “historical” definition of marriage was, except to use it as a mean-spirited pretext to deny progress, to keep what their own group “traditionally” have AWAY FROM the undeserving, inherently unequal, inherently defective have-nots.
Even if true that they understand the historical definition, which in the case of most christians, they obviously don’t, the only reason they’re trying to USE the historical definition is to bulwark their current prejudices in today’s world.
We’re seeing the same masks with the resistance to removing Confederate flags from government buildings. But, but, but, it’s history! It’s sacred history! It’s a memory of the sacrifice of our brave boys fighting for the right to own other humans and to destroy human lives for profit. But we’re not racist, no sirree bob! We’re just proud of our history!
They might be lying to themselves successfully, but there’s no reason for me to buy it. If it’s goddamned history, put it in the goddamned history museum and go pay your respects to it there.
Don’t expect the rest of us not to call you out on your racism or sexism or homophobia when you insist on literally flying it in our faces. (Not you, Mung, the other “you” out there.)
I must say, though, that I was surprised when Gregory outed himself as one. Not all christians … Not all theists … Not all IDists … Not even the majority, I think. Not even enough to spoil the joy of the recent days.
Just enough to make it worth the effort of responding to show that we don’t have to put up with their dinosaur prejudices anymore.
Well, I am definitely a sexist! What’s the word for being afraid of women? I’m probably one of those too.
One thing I’ve noticed is that Gregory has now criticized me both for being too complicated for him (“Why would you think anybody would understand these technical terms here?”) and as foolish as a third grader. I’m inferring from this–as well as his posts on this thread–that he can’t understand philosophy at ANY level. Just yells back confused responses and insults, more loudly each time.
Welp, we does what we can.
Bless your heart, Gregory.
Mung,
I’d go with “sensible” or “experienced”.
The Female of the Species
Will you now take these words out of my supposed mouth with your quotation marks and stop telling lies?
GUANO, dear Gregory.
GUANO.
This complaint, hotshoe, defines your emptiness. If it actually *IS* a lie, then you should not defend walto. You should side with me, who is NOT an atheist like you, to root out the lies at TSZ. Since I didn’t actually say what walto falsely put into my mouth with quotation marks, the reality betrays your position. But since you don’t seem to really care at all about truth in your intentional bid to be “a rude, mean, insulting ass,” you have no credibility and deserve no pass. This entire thread reflects the anti-religious ideology of The Atheist Zone quite clearly.