by Jack
In a 5-4 ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy (shown right) wrote for the majority with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent. Their decision, unthinkable just two decades ago, legalizes same sex marriage in all States. 
This was seen as a tremendous loss for people of faith that absolutely believe the bonds of matrimony were ordained by God and reserved for a man and a woman.
In todays decision the Supreme Court said, and I’m paraphrasing, our nations view of same sex unions has evolved from seeing this as a mental illness or criminal behavior, that formerly degraded and demeaned gays and lesbians, to a matter of equal rights.
The Justices said, the history of marriage is one of both continuity and change and cited the “decline of arranged marriages” and ”the abandonment of the law of coverture.” (Coverture - meaning a wife’s rights were subservient to her husbands.) “These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.”
In the SC decision marriage has been defined as a right, not a benefit, and thus as a right it can’t be denied. However, the SC wanted persons of faith to know, “Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.”
The final opinion was that same sex marriage would be “a keystone of the Nation’s social order.”
For a full reading of the SC decision (103 pages) please go to their website and click on 6/26/15 – Obergefell v. Hodges.
———————————————————————————————————————————–
It was apparent to me years ago that this was inevitable, although I had mixed feelings - I can see merit on both sides. However, this was one of those social things that caused single issue voters to support or oppose a particular candidate.
It’s my opinion that many good conservative people who may have been strong advocates for national defense, border protection, tax reform, etc., were opposed by the religious right (single issue voters) if they supported same sex marriage. I think that’s a foolish way to vote; single issue voters do more damage than good.
Well, the issue is now moot – I’m relieved that it’s over! I’m sure plenty of Republicans in Washington feel the same way. Now we need to move on. If we don’t, this will only serve to further marginalize the religious right and all their worthy moral principles and endeavors; it could also compromise conservative causes so essential to preserving this nation.
I hope it turns out that this decision means the issue is “over,’ but I don’t expect that will be the case. The left always has more to do in the grievance industry. For instance, will churches now be forced to perform gay marriages and will they be sued and harassed if they refuse? How about those whose religious convictions prevent them from providing photographic services or baking a same sex marriage cake? I don’t think those with strongly held convictions can bend to the will of this minority.
Like you, I’m frustrated with single issue voters who refuse to look at the big picture when deciding whether or not to vote or who they will choose to support in an election.
If government tries to force religion, any religion, to perform a marriage ceremony…that’s when the revolution starts. There is no way that can gov. can intrude into religious practices without alarming the nation and religions around the world.
The next legal challenge will be as Tina suggests, religious organizations who refuse to perform same sex marriage will be subject to litigation. That is my prediction and I believe it is just a matter of time.
Why should the rights of individuals or religious organizations be any less trampled than the rights of a state? I agree with Roberts’ and Scalia’s dissent.
Another reason not to vote for Hillary, she is a pandering hypocrite who will say anything to get elected.
https://twitter.com/PieGuevara/status/614548570981531648/photo/1
I don’t care who or what people marry. I once tried to marry my Golden Retriever, but my wife objected. Time has passed. Now she would not care.
Ah, with age comes wisdom. If all people would be as loyal and loving as a Golden we wouldn’t have much divorce.
The issue will be over when the right wing stops writing laws based on their personal religion. Stop trying to control everybody.
First of all marriage is a legal contract. It decides the legal details such as assets of a deceased partner,divorce, medical releases, visits, ect ect.
A city hall marriage has nothing to do with any one church. I do believe there are plenty of people to preform the wedding and I just can not believe a same sex couple would want a prejudice church to do any such thing. I mean really! There are plenty of churches that welcome them!
Freedom of religion allows one to practice their religion.
That means:
No church has to change their beliefs.
No one church or religion dictates their beliefs on the population.
So much talk about a nanny State when that is exactly what it is when a religion tries to dictate laws.
In DC you can fire a woman now if she is taking birth control? An employer’s so called religious beliefs now dictates to a woman her medical decisions>?
That is a religious nanny state.
So let’s get real please. You are free to live your life. Others can live theirs. What is the problem?
As I understand the dissenting judges’ response is they object to the process in which the five supporting judges wrote law reserved for Congress instead of upholding the Constitution.
Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court’s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision:
From Justice Thomas:
“Thomas additionally warns that the Court’s “inversion of the original meaning of liberty will likely cause collateral damage to other aspects of our constitutional order that protect liberty.” Further, he argues that the decision will threaten religious liberty by creating an unavoidable collision between the interests of same-sex couples and some religious organizations.
“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”
From Justice Alito:
“Now that the majority has ruled in favor of gay marriage, Alito offers a stark warning about future conflict between religious liberty and progressive ideas.
“By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds,” he writes.
Like his conservative colleagues, Alito worries that the Court is overstepping its power, making sweeping legal changes for every state in the country. He concludes on a warning.
“Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims,” Alito writes. “Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed. ”
Justice Roberts:
“”Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law,” he wrote.”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/marriage-same-sex-gay-supreme-court-dissent-20150626
SCALIA: The Supreme Court is a ‘threat to American democracy’:
“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”
The conservative justice railed against his fellow justices, calling the majority opinion “egotistical” and pointing out that the justices were a homogeneous group that didn’t represent the people. As proof, Scalia pointed out that many went to the same law schools, and none were evangelical or protestant Christians.
“To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation,” Scalia said.
http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-gay-marriage-dissent-2015-6#ixzz3eDZfpyiL
I’m glad gays are “out of the closet” and able to live their lives, but the rights of all will now need to be enforced so people of all faiths are not forced into closets.
Protected by our First Amendment Jews, Christians and Muslims should not be forced to participate in gay marriages. They should be able to practice their beliefs outside of their churches, mosques and synagogues. The florist, baker and photographer who have lost their businesses for refusing to participate in gay marriage ceremonies should be made hold. Clarification needs to be provided that these business will be protected from future lawsuits.
My solution to this issue is a little different than all other approaches.
The primary reason thegovernment is involved in marriage is to define the legalities of the union; what happens with community property and children in a divorce, or the death of one member of the couple, etc. The laws that govern a partnership are not the same but very similar. Given this, I believe the government should treat the joining of two people, heterosexual or gay, as a partnership and use the name civil union. There would be no marriage as far as the government is concerned. Leave marriage to religion and the church. If someone wants to get married they do so at whatever church they want. At the same time they get a Civil Union license and file with the government, same as filing partnership papers. If a person is not religious they can go to City Hall or a chapel and get joined in a civil union. If a church supports gay people then they can allow gay marriage in their church. If they don’t then they can choose not to allow a gay marriage in their church. Couples are not just married, they are married in the “fill in the blank” faith. As a result, there would be many different kinds of marriage, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddest, etc., all to be held and considered to be equal. The people married in their faith would also file for a civil union just like those that are joined in a civil union ceremony, both to be held and considered equal by the government.
MSC, Peggy, JS… Thanks for the thoughtful replies! MSC I agree with you 100%. The only thing government should be concerned about is the legal aspects as in a civil union. I never saw anything wrong with civil unions before, and I thought it handled everything just fine, but obviously my view fell a bit short of what the gay community wanted. Now they can be married at City Hall…but, they still can’t force a church to marry them, nor should they.
I have always believed that marriage is a [religious] ceremony, protected by the Constitution.
We shall see how the rights of the church hold up, but in that regard I have no mixed feelings, it’s totally up to them how they wish to handle their rules for a marriage ceremony.
Here’s where its going to get complicated: Should business people have the right to refuse service based on their religious principles? My view is yes, this is religious conviction and government shouldn’t be involved in forcing them to participate. I know the other side will argue this is discrimination. All beliefs have their limits and we as a society should be fair and reasonable, i.e., was it really a religious belief or was it because they just don’t like gay people? I would hate to see this decided in court, but I can see how it could be, if push came to shove. This is a tough one and there’s no good answer…unless MCS has one?
Anyone who thinks this ruling will not be used in the future by those on the Left as an excuse to restrict free speech they don’t like is living in Fantasyland.
It’s already started. If you don’t agree with the court now, you are considered a bigot and will be sued, maligned, or attacked regardless of the claims on the Left of “Oh, no – we’d NEVER do that!”
Wait and watch.
JS I’m sure you’re right.
Re #6 Dewey :
“The issue will be over when the right wing stops writing laws based on their personal religion. Stop trying to control everybody”
Hilarious, especially coming from Dewey who seeks control but is an ineffectual nut case.
When military veterans pass away their families are entitled to a military funeral. There is no ruling about who must perform the funeral. Gay marriage should now be given the same right. If they request a marriage with the court system they should be entitled that someone will perform the marriage. They should not be able to single out a specific pastor or priest and demand that that individual be forced to perform the wedding.
There are gay republicans and democrats who I have nothing against. I fear the extreme left wing of this country will try to use this as a way to destroy churches. Their hatred of religion is too great not too.
The assaults on Christianity by Islam and the secular world is really ramping up. Christians really are having a bad time right now. I searched the internet and came up with a reason why: John 15:18-20 NIV – “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you.”
Well, well, well, what do you know, ISIS practices mainstream Islam.
ISIS Celebrates Gay Love by Tossing 4 Gays from Roof of Building
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/isis-celebrates-lovewins-by-tossing-4-gays-from-roof-of-building/
I can hear Obama now, “Oh, those ISIS kids what a bunch of cut-ups! Well, I guess I better do something, can’t keep laughing it off…okay, have the Air Force toss a bomb in their general direction, I’ll call it good enough.”
Re #8 More Common Sense :
Ditto.
MCS, you once again live up to your name. If only those in DC and everywhere else possessed half of your wisdom this issue could be resolved tomorrow.
I too believe like Jack “marriage” is not a gov’t concern, it’s a religious matter. My understanding is the gov’t got involved to keep blacks and whites from marrying when slavery was abolished. Before then it was a religious ceremony only.
Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States:
“Anti-miscegenation laws were a part of American law since before the United States was established and remained so until ruled unconstitutional in 1967 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia. The term miscegenation was first used in 1863, during the American Civil War, by American journalists to discredit the abolitionist movement by stirring up debate over the prospect of black–white intermarriage after the abolition of slavery.[1] In those of the original Thirteen Colonies that became states and enacted such laws, they were enacted as state law in the early 18th century; a century or more after the complete racialization of slavery.[2]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States
States regulated marriages from our founding, until last week.
Marriage in the United States:
“Marriage in the United States is a legal, social, and religious institution. The legal recognition of marriage is regulated by individual States. It has important legal and economic and social aspects, and is generally seen as a prerequisite for having a family. While the traditional understanding of marriage has been a union between a man and woman, same-sex marriages are also legally recognized.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_United_States
Off Topic : TPA passage. Wisdom or a power sellout? What do you think?
Republicans to the Rescue A rare partnership on free trade —
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/republicans-rescue_978673.html
From what I’ve heard from GOP lawmakers it’s good deal, I have not formed my own opinion…too much reading and not enough time.
How long before a pastor, priest or rabbi gets sued for not performing a gay marriage?
That is the question isn’t it Joe? We’ll just have to wait and see.
Strings and sealing wax and other fancy stuff.
“There is something wonderful about being part of an oppressed community.”
Twinge of Loss for an Outsider Culture —
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/scotus-same-sex-marriage-gay-culture.html?src=twr&_r=0
And you thought gay “rights” was equivalent to slavery.
Re: #19
If Obama favors it, it can’t be a good deal–for you, for me, or any loyal American. As for reading it, forgetaboutit. To paraphrase the old Brenda Lee song, it’s secret, baby, ah keep it to myself.
#18 Pie, The DC GOP got more than just a phone call from Obama.
John Boehner gets his first Air Force One ride with Obama:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/john-boehner-first-air-force-one-ride-invite-barack-obama-charleston-119478.html
$200 Million Went to House Members to Pass Fast Track – Here’s Who Took the Cash:
http://www.occupy.com/article/200-million-went-house-members-pass-fast-track-%E2%80%93-heres-who-took-cash#sthash.EqYHy8Eb.dpuf
Next big court test will be against a church for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony that conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Only question remains is whether the engaged couple will file it or if Obumble’s Dept of Jerks will do so.
@BlueberryPie:
“Hilarious, especially coming from Dewey who seeks control but is an ineffectual nut case.” Back at ya baby!
Truth is White supremacists and anti-government radicals are responsible for twice as many deaths in the U.S. as jihadists since 9/11.
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html
We Extreme right wing is a terrorist group. Most nutcases live on the right.
I agree with this decision. As Sen. Barry Goldwater once said “It’s none of the governments’s business if you are gay.”
What surprised me is how quickly public opinion turned around on this issue. It was just seven years ago that Prop 8 passed in California. Now most American support gay marriage including almost 60 percent of Republicans under 50.
Jim, does God support gay marriage?
Joe, to be fair to Jim that question is a little above his pay grade.
“Jim, does God support gay marriage?”
Entire books have been written on that subject. There are bible verses which support gay marriage. There are other verses which call homexual intimacy an abomination.
I do believe that the government has no place telling us how to live our personal lives.
I agree Jim, government intrudes into our lives more than it should already.
Truth is Dewey is a lunatic who disseminates lunacy.
Re #26 Peggy : John Boehner, imho, is a Rat.
Re #26 Peggy : https://www.google.com/search?q=tpa+passage&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Re #30 Joe : “Jim, does God support gay marriage?”
One thing for sure, Allah does not support homosexual unions. Here is but one example —
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/12/iran-s-new-gay-executions.html
Did The Four Dissenting Justices In Gay Marriage Case Just Suggest Treason?
Rather than merely state their views and disagreements, they use heated language to accuse the five-person majority of imperialism, a “putsch,” and worse.
Thus, the unprecedented calls of elected officials for open revolt against the Supreme Court—a shocking display of treason—are now accompanied by calls from within the Court itself that Obergefell is illegitimate, and the Supreme Court itself no longer worthy of full respect.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/27/did-dissenting-justices-suggest-treason.html?via=twitter_page
And now there is this…Do you think God approves?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y6qTLf0AI4
Your opinion on this issue is refreshing, Jack.
Can anyone point to any church that was forced to perform an interracial marriage after Loving v. Virginia?
If not, why would anyone think that a church would be forced to perform a gay wedding today?
Marriages between people who have been divorced have always been legal in this country. And yet the Catholic Church in America has never, not once in its history, been forced to perform such a marriage.
Synagogues are not forced to perform weddings for non-Jewish couples. No church has ever been forced to perform a wedding between two atheists. Jehova Witnesses don’t have to perform interfaith weddings.
So why is this suddenly an issue? It just strikes me as baseless fearmongering.
Peggy: “The florist, baker and photographer who have lost their businesses for refusing to participate in gay marriage ceremonies should be made hold.”
Now this is an actual issue that I can see both sides on.
While I, personally, would be fine with these types of businesses being allowed to refuse service for gay weddings, the argument as I understand it is that these businesses are not “participating” in such events in any meaningful way. Couples don’t typically consider a florist to be a “participant” in their weddings; they are simply providing a service.
Civil rights law since the 60s says that if you provide a service to the public, you have to provide that same service to the entire public, without respect to race or gender. Some would like to add orientation to that, but I think gender already covers it.
That said, I think that exceptions could be made for florists, bakers and photographers on the grounds that theirs is a creative medium. I would be in favor of laws banning hotels and restaurants from refusing to serve gay couples, but I think there’s a big difference between those types of accomodations and businesses such as the ones you described.
“States regulated marriages from our founding, until last week.”
That’s simply not true; see Loving v. Virginia.
Joe: ““Jim, does God support gay marriage?”
He doesn’t know, and neither do you. Stop claiming to know that which you have not earned. The height of arrogance is to proclaim a special understanding of the divine; if God wanted us to know certain facts about his existence, he would have revealed himself to us. If he exists, he has hidden his existence for a reason, and I highly doubt it’s so we can all play a game of “Guess which religion is correct!” where the losers get to suffer for all eternity.
Off Topic: Monster new/higher taxes for California —
http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2015/06/27/heres-some-monster-newhigher-taxes-that-california-politicians-are-anxious-to-impose/
Re #37 : Further proof that Dewey and the Daily Beast are a species of left wing hyperbolic ass.
#35 Pie, Pretty easy to figure out where that $200 million came from to buy the necessary votes.
Boehner and “his team” aren’t just rats they’re low-life evil snakes who will attack those who cross their paths.
My how things have changed.
Remember when the word gay meant happy?
Remember when you would smoke a fag?
I just hope the Lord calls me home before he destroys this modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.
Poor Dewey is still trying to pander that Daily Beast crap.
Over the last few days I’ve spent considerable time thinking about the issue of businesses that deny goods and services to gay people for moral and/or religious reasons. It took me a while to sort out my thoughts but I think I have a proposal that might work. I’m presenting it here for discussion. I don’t think I need to say “feel free to comment and critique”.
I was able to “boil” it down to one very simple statement. I believe, in this case, that people do not have the right to discriminate against an individual that participates in an activity that violates their religious or moral beliefs, but they do have the right not to participate in that activity. The real test has to do with how much that person would be participating in the activity if they served the person that is involved in the activity.
Here are some examples to demonstrate the concept.
A company that sells party supplies would not be able to refuse to sell party supplies to someone that was going to use them for a gay wedding reception. Once they purchase the supplies they can do anything they want with them. A business person that would refuse to sell to someone that was gay is definitely decimating and is also a very bad business person. I really can’t see how selling generic products to a gay couple somehow makes a statement that you condone their lifestyle. However, they could refuse to deliver and set them up at the reception site. The sale really doesn’t involve participation in the activity, the delivery and setup does. If the items were rental items (ie. table and chairs) they could refuse because the items are their property and providing them would be indirect participation.
A baker could not refuse the request to bake a generic wedding cake, but they could refuse to add anything to that cake that would make it a gay wedding cake, like writing or same sex statues.
A florist could not refuse to provide flowers strictly based on the knowledge that they were going to be used in a gay wedding but they could refuse to add anything to the flowers that would make them specific for a gay wedding. They could also refuse to deliver the flowers to the venue. I believe, preparation for an activity onsite is an indirect form of participation.
A restaurant owner could not refuse to serve a gay couple just because they were gay. But, the restaurant owner could refuse to cater their gay wedding reception. The distinction here is everybody eats, but not everybody gets married in a gay wedding. The restaurant owner could refuse service if the couple begins to get physical in view of other diners but this is something a restaurant owner would normally do with heterosexual couples too.
A DJ or videographer could refuse to work a gay wedding because that would involve a high level of participation on their part to perform their service.
Of course, a church or chapel could refuse to hold the ceremony because that would definitely involve a high level of participation.
I believe there is precedent for this type of a distinction. I’m sure there are bakers that would refuse to write something on a cake that they found distasteful. Would a reasonable florist send a wreath to a funeral that says “Glad he is dead!”? Would a Muslim caterer participate in a banquette where the main course was pork? Would a Christian DJ be forced to work a satanic party? Please, I don’t want anyone to claim I am equating gay marriage to the activities I just listed. I’m not. I’m just making a point that there is precedence for a business to choose not to participate in an activity.
Some people have tried to equate being gay and race as a way to say that businesses must be forced to participate in a gay wedding. I believe this is very poor logic. In the past many restaurants, hotels, and other businesses refused to serve black people. This discrimination was directed to the black people because they are black not because of any specific activity. All people eat! All people sleep! Refusing to provide services for something that everyone does is undeniably discrimination and should not be allowed. I don’t have an example for my next statement. It is difficult because I want to make a point without someone missing the point because they think I am attacking a particular race. So, I’ll just make a statement. If members of a particular race (any race) were far more likely to participate in a activity that the restaurant owner found distasteful or unacceptable (such as smoking in a state where there are no anti-smoking laws) it would not be discrimination if the restaurant owner refused to server people conducting that activity even if that refusal affected a particular race considerably more than any other race. However, they would have to serve the people if they weren’t conducting that activity during their time in restaurant.
I personally believe that being gay is something you are. This is my opinion based on my own observations. I have a gay family member. A college friend “came-out” after college. I owned a hair salon as an investment and a number of the stylists were gay. Although I am sure there are some gay people that are gay because of their environment and background, I believe the vast majority are born gay. There are cases of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. I suspect at some future time a DNA sequence will be found that will determine if a person is straight or gay. But if I didn’t believe this, I also believe it is not my place to tell other people how they are supposed to live their lives. This belief extends to the point where their behavior affects me. If two people of the same sex want to get married that is up to them. Personally, I don’t feel threatened by this. It doesn’t weaken my marriage one bit. My previous post suggesting that “marriage” be reserved for religion was my way of trying to settle the battle. But, even though I believe I have no say in what two other people do in this regard, I don’t think that anyone has the right to force me to participate in any activity they do if I don’t want to.
MCS, excellent comments, I’m sure you’re going to get a lot of comments back. There is a huge amount of psychiatric evidence and physical, that’s say most people were born that way. If true, then it throws a whole new light on what we should consider “moral” behavior. It would certainly weaken the fundamentalist Muslim contention that gays should be thrown off tall buildings or subjected to some other kind of torture before death. It would also make the Christian position of objecting to same sex unions much weaker.
I’m wondering if religion in general (that labels gays as degenerates) isn’t going to lose more support for this position as our understanding of sexual behavior is expanded?
Joe: “My how things have changed.
Remember when the word gay meant happy?
Remember when you would smoke a fag?”
Remember when gay people were arrested and chemically castrated because of who they loved?
Nostalgia sure is fun when you’re not an oppressed minority.
“I just hope the Lord calls me home before he destroys this modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.”
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were full of ungracious, greedy rapists, not because of homosexuality. But no surprise that you don’t know this–those who thump the Bible the loudest are typically the most ignorant of what’s actually in it.
Chris, you said, “Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were full of ungracious, greedy rapists, not because of homosexuality. But no surprise that you don’t know this–those who thump the Bible the loudest are typically the most ignorant of what’s actually in it.”
I thought I knew why the Bible says these twin cities were destroyed, but I wanted to double check and so I fell back on good ol online research and I found I was wrong. The best explanation I discovered was on a site called ReligiousTolerance.Org:
“The text of Genesis 19 implies that God approved of Lot’s behavior, even though he made an offer of his virgin daughters to be raped. This approval would have been extended to Lot’s family as well. But God apparently had a fierce anger directed at the other inhabitants of the town. He destroyed Sodom with fire and brimstone (sulfur) dumped from above. According to the story, he killed all of the men and women of Sodom, as well as all the innocent children, infants, newborns, etc. who lived in the city. This is one more example of a theme that runs throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation: transferring the punishment from guilty people to innocent people. This is commonly called “scapegoating” and is condemned in all major religions.
It is unclear from this brief passage in Genesis why God demolished the city. The following theories have been advanced.
The people of Sodom:
1.Engaged in consensual homosexual acts — a same-sex orgy in this case. This is the belief of most conservative Christians. This option seems unlikely because:
◦ Genesis 19:5 said that all of the men (perhaps all of the people) of Sodom formed the mob at Lot’s house and demanded to “know” the angels. The percentage of homosexuals in a typical group of male adults is generally around 5%, not 100%. (Statistically in the USA its about 2% – So was this 100% claim exaggerated for effect? We’ll never know for sure, but it seems so.)
◦ Also, Lot had lived in the city for some years and would have know if all of the men were homosexuals; he would hardly have offered to sacrifice his daughters to the mob if the men were entirely homosexual.
◦ Finally, as noted above, if the men of Sodom were all homosexuals, there would be few if any children and widows in the city as are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.
2.Were uncharitable and abusive to strangers, the poor, sick, and disadvantaged. In that society, a person had a very strong obligation to protect any guests in their home. Many liberal Christians believe that this is the meaning behind the story of the destruction of Sodom. This belief has considerable support in the many other references to Sodom in the Bible and Jewish literature.
3.Wanted to humiliate their visitors by engaging in “an act of sexual degradation and male rape…These are acts of violence that are committed by parties seeking to show their hatred for those they are degrading. It is not an act of love or of caring” 1 Some theologians suggest that the sin of Sodom was the threat of mass rape.
4.Wanted to engage in bestiality — having sex with members of another species. The mob may have wanted to rape the angels; angels are not human beings; they are of a different species. This would be consistent with the frequently mistranslated verse in Jude about the men of Sodom going after “other flesh” or “strange flesh.”
5.Wanted to adsorb the power of the angels: In ancient times, sacred sex was very common. People would engage in sexual intercourse with temple prostitutes who represented a god or goddess. By doing so, the people believed that they would receive a blessing from the deity. If the people of Sodom realized that angels sent by God were present in their city, the men of Sodom may have concluded that raping the angels might give them supernatural powers. 2
What were the sins of Sodom according to other biblical passages that refer to the city:
A common procedure in biblical apologetics is to let the Bible interpret itself. Looking elsewhere in the Bible for references to Sodom may help us determine which of the four above interpretations is correct.
The interpretation of Genesis 19 as referring to a homosexual sin appears to have been created in the 11th century by the Italian ascetic St. Peter Damian. 3 Christian theologians generally accepted this explanation until recently. In fact, the English word sodomy, which popularly means either homosexual or heterosexual anal intercourse, was derived from the name of the city. The term “sodomy” is also used in some ancient laws to refer to a variety of sexual behaviors in addition to heterosexual intercourse. Some of these laws are still on the books although the U.S. Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional in 2003-JUN as part of its Lawrence v. Texas decision.
Opinion among most liberal and mainline Christian and Jewish theologians has now reverted to the original Christian belief that Genesis 19 refers to a lack of charity and to ill treatment of strangers. Consider:
In ancient Jewish literature, such as the Ethics of the Fathers and the Talmud, there are many references to Sodom. The phrase “middat Sdom” was used. It may be translated as “the way the people of Sodom thought”. It meant a lack of charity and hospitality towards others; ignoring the needs of the poor, etc. In the Middle East, a person’s survival could depend upon the charity of strangers. To help strangers was a solemn religious duty of paramount importance. See Leviticus 19:33-34 and Matthew 25:35, 38 and 43.
Isaiah 1; The entire first chapter is an utter condemnation of Judah. They are repeatedly compared with Sodom and Gomorrah in their evildoing and depravity. Throughout the chapter, the Prophet lists many sins of the people: rebelling against God, lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry, engaging in meaningless religious ritual, being unjust and oppressive to others, being insensitive to the needs of widows and orphans, committing murder, accepting bribes, etc. There is no reference to homosexuality or to any other sexual activities at all.
Jeremiah 23:14:”…among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.” Jeremiah compares the actions of the prophets with the adultery, lying and evil of the people of Sodom. Homosexual activity is not mentioned.
Ezekeiel 16:49-50:”Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom’s sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered; sexual activity is not even mentioned.”
Another site, Got Questions said, “Clearly, homosexuality was part of why God destroyed the two cities. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform homosexual gang rape on the two angels (who were disguised as men). At the same time, it is not biblical to say that homosexuality was the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.”
To be totally candid, this is tough subject! I feel at risk for being candid too! But here goes:
Speaking only for me, this test of right and wrong can’t come from a single passage in the Bible. I have to take a bigger view. I look at the (Bible) statement in question and then I want to see if it has stood the test of time.
I have found a few things in the Bible that haven’t. I can hear some folks thinking, “Oh, so I must think I smarter than God!” Nooooo, that’s not what I’m saying. Its just my personal opinion that the Bible was crafted by men and much of their imparted wisdom was limited by their understanding of the world they lived in and the values of the day. Yes…there’s room for divine inspiration in this, so please don’t think I am calling the Bible all wrong – I am not!
However, for what I have found that is [wrong] I can’t excuse it away because of mere misinterpretation. After 60 plus years of being exposed to things written in the Bible, I’m convinced that not everything it says is accurate or right. I think most people feel this way, even people of deep faith, but with an open mind. So, yeah, I think the Bible was probably wrong about gays. There it is, I said it. I didn’t always think that, but now I do. Too much evidence says almost all gay people were born that way.
Now, I’m more in the camp of just keep government out of it – let people choose who they love and lets move on to solving more important things. For me, the gay debate is getting boring, I would rather focus on the Flat Tax, ISIS, Putin or immigration.
More Common Sense, I have greatly enjoyed reading your comments in this thread. We have disagreed quite often in the past, but I find myself agreeing with you almost 100% in your comments above.
“A baker could not refuse the request to bake a generic wedding cake, but they could refuse to add anything to that cake that would make it a gay wedding cake, like writing or same sex statues.”
I especially agree with this, but it’s my understanding that this may already be the law in many states.
The one thing I slightly disagree with is making marriage solely a religious institution, and calling the government contract a civil union. I object to this only on a practical basis, not a moral or legal one. I simply don’t see the majority of Americans agreeing to this. Everyone knows what people mean when they say they are “married”–it’s a word that is at once extremely versatile and precise. There is a lot of attachment to the word, and not everyone who is attached to it is religious. It seems to me that the only reason to change this would be to mollify those on the religious right who are opposed to same-sex marriage, but they’re already losing influence by the day. So while your suggestion isn’t necessarily wrong, I just don’t see it happening any time soon.
Great and informative comments, Jack.
The gay “marriage” debate is over. Extinguished by the SCOTUS decision. “Civil Union” with all the legal particulars of marriage would have worked for me, but a very tiny minority — homosexuals — insisted upon redefining “marriage” for the rest of us.
You won, Chris, “marriage” lost, get over yourself and just gloat.
I agree with Jack, the government should get out of the “marriage” business and at most define a civil contract in its place.
The only amusing irony of the SCOTUS decision is that gays are pissed off that they have lost their oppressed specialness and their victim identity status. Some people there is no pleasing and gays seem to be particularly bitchy —
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/scotus-same-sex-marriage-gay-culture.html?_r=0
“I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”
The Age of Intolerance
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/366896/age-intolerance-mark-steyn
You just can’t make this stuff up. Black zombies attack black queer zombies in Gay Day Parade —
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/29/black-lives-matter-protesters-disrupt-chicago-gay-pride-parade/
Jack you did a good thing to say what you believe. I believe you are right.
Chris, one day you will meet your maker and you will be judged for all you have said and done.
Addendum to all of the above : Dang, I need to move to Texas, the only Americans left that have any balls —
http://www.mediaite.com/online/texas-ag-probate-judges-can-refuse-to-issue-same-sex-marriage-licenses/
A lot of folks are moving to Texas for that very reason, and a booming economy despite Obama.
Chris, where do you think the word sodomy came from?
The term is derived from the Ecclesiastical Latin peccatum Sodomiticum or “sin of Sodom”, which in turn comes from the Ancient Greek word Σόδομα (Sódoma).[8] Genesis (chapters 18-20) tells how God wished to destroy the “sinful” cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Two angels are invited by Lot to take refuge with his family for the night. The men of Sodom surround Lot’s house and demand that he bring the messengers out so that they may “know” them (the expression includes sexual connotations). Lot protests that the “messengers” are his guests and offers the Sodomites his virgin daughters instead, but then they threaten to “do worse” with Lot than they would with his guests. Then the angels strike the Sodomites blind, “so that they wearied themselves to find the door.” (Genesis 19:4-11, KJV)
Chris, one day you will meet your maker and you will have to stand in judgement for all the lies you have told.
Black pastors are not happy with Obama.
Black Pastor: Obama is the “Most Immoral President We’ve Ever Had”:
http://conservativetribune.com/obama-immoral/
Black Pastors Threaten to Do the Unthinkable Over Gay Marriage… And They Aren’t Backing Down:
http://conservativetribune.com/black-pastors-threaten/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=ConservativeTribune&utm_content=2015-06-30
Pie: “The gay “marriage” debate is over.”
It’s actually just marriage, not “marriage.” There’s no need for the quotation marks.
““Civil Union” with all the legal particulars of marriage would have worked for me,”
This decision had nothing to do with you, so I’m not sure how “what works for Pie Guevara” would have been at all relevant to this case.
“but a very tiny minority — homosexuals — insisted upon redefining “marriage” for the rest of us.”
Actually, a majority of Americans support allowing homosexuals to marry, and that number has been growing every year.
Also, nothing has been “redefined” for you, or anyone else who is not planning on getting a same-sex marriage.
“You won, Chris, “marriage” lost,”
I’m still not sure why you are using quotation marks incorrectly, or why you think it’s possible for a word to lose anything. Words don’t have rights or feelings or dreams–only people do.
This is not just a win for the gay community and its allies, this is a win for all Americans. When anyone is not free, all are not free.
“The only amusing irony of the SCOTUS decision is that gays are pissed off that they have lost their oppressed specialness and their victim identity status.”
Well you’ve managed to keep yours despite all odds, so I wouldn’t be too worried.
“Dang, I need to move to Texas, the only Americans left that have any balls”
Judging by your link, you’re apparently mixing up “balls” with “complete ignorance of the law.”
Finally, as noted above, if the men of Sodom were all homosexuals, there would be few if any children and widows in the city as are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.
How do you know they weren’t bi-sexuals, Jack? Sin knows no boundaries, Jack.
EDITORS NOTE: Joe you should direct your comment to the quote from RelgiousTolerance.com, not to Jack. He didn’t say anything about this part.
Except for the language I agree with this guy. Just wait for the backlash.
So You Think That Rainbow Makes You Look Cool?:
“If you think that backlash had potential for disaster when we were talking about bakeries and florists, just you wait and see what happens when it kicks down the doors to the house of worship.”
http://christophercantwell.com/2015/06/29/so-you-think-that-rainbow-makes-you-look-cool/
Peggy, it’s a shame that the African-American pastors featured in that article haven’t applied the lessons of the civil rights movement to today. Instead of helping other oppressed groups achieve their civil rights, their stance seems to be “I’ve got mine, now screw everyone else.” Hardly inspiring.
Your second link is equally flawed. Christopher Cantwell simply doesn’t understand the court’s decision at all. He writes:
“The court decided that the constitution, despite lacking any language saying so, promises everybody a “right” to a “license” to marry.”
But the court did not decide any such thing. They decided that allowing opposite-sex couples to marry but not same-sex couples violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.
I beg you to actually read the decision itself, instead of relying on second-hand interpretations of it.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/scotus-opinion-document-obergefell-hodges/
Jack at #50
I’m curious Jack, is God also wrong when it comes to stealing, adultery, or lying?
In my book sin is sin, one no more terrible than another and ultimately not for me to judge in others. Biblical warnings (God’s Word) against sinful practices is are for our own well being and happiness (not to mention our souls). Sin harms so God directs us toward choices that will not harm us and others.
Abraham did ask God if he would spare good people and He replied he would but no righteous people were found. Genesis 18:23-25:
The above was referenced at About Christianity which makes the following points from this verse and several others:
Tina,
My point was that in the light of modern knowledge, i.e. we now know that many gay people are born with that predisposition. So, if they are born that way it’s kinda hard for me to understand why the Bible would label them as sinful and thus ineligible to enter heaven?
I’m speaking only for myself on this subject and I would never want to try to convince anyone that my position is right. It just seems logical to me, however others may see it quite differently and that’s another opinion which I can respect even if I disagree with it.
But, in closing please know I did not mean to offend anyone’s beliefs pro or con.
Unintended consequences.
SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision may have just legalized the concealed carry of loaded firearms across all 50 states, nullifying gun laws everywhere:
“SCOTUS may have nullified gun control laws by legalizing gay marriage.
The Supreme Court, in other words, appears to have just nullified gun control laws all across America.
As Bob Owens writes on BearingArms.com, “By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends ‘certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy’ accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. The vast majority of states are ‘shall issue’ on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states.”
He continues:
I’ll be driving through the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York in several weeks, places that until yesterday I did not have a legal right to concealed carry. As of today, with this decision, it would seem that these states and the District must honor my concealed carry permit, or violate my constitutional rights under the 14th and Second Amendment.
AWR Hawkins, writing for Breitbart.com, adds:
When the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that every state must recognize same sex marriages, they used a basis for judgement that will not easily stop at same sex marriage. In fact, it is a basis for judgement that should offer itself to national reciprocity of concealed carry permits and permit holders.
“Equal protection” must now apply to all things, not just gay marriage
The fascinating part of the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage is that it sets a precedent of a principled interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment which must now be applied to everything.”
http://www.naturalnews.com/050237_SCOTUS_gun_laws_same-sex_marriage.html#ixzz3eeXJDl30
Tina, by the same token, one could ask you “Is God wrong when it comes to eating shellfish, mixing fabrics, and women speaking in church?”
There are only a few Biblical injunctions against homosexuality in the Bible, and each of them is written very close to one of these rules that I know you don’t take seriously today.
Homosexuality is only referred to as an “abomination” in Leviticus, but so is the eating of shellfish. But the Old Testament rules aren’t followed by Christians anymore and you have a good reason why, so let’s just look at the New Testament.
The only injunctions against homosexuality in the New Testament come from books written by the apostle Paul. He calls homosexuality a sin. BUT he also says its sinful for men to have long hair; for women to have short hair; for women to leave their hair uncovered in church; for women to speak in church; or for women to even teach a man anything at all:
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” –1 Timothy 2:12
I know for a fact you don’t follow this rule, nor should you!
So why is it that you think all of these rules are negotiable, but the condemnation against homosexuality is cut and dry, and straight from God?
How do you know God said this, and it wasn’t just Paul? I mean, I know that you don’t really know, and that you take it on faith. But you’re already picking and choosing; why put faith in a belief like “homosexuality is a sin,” when you don’t put faith in other passages from the same book of the Bible, like that women shouldn’t speak in church or have any authority over men? Aren’t these based on the same wrongheaded views of gender that permeated Paul’s society? How could something so parochial and arbitrary come from a perfect God?
The other problem with your question is that stealing, adultery and lying all cause measurable harm. It’s very easy to show why they’re wrong, with logical arguments. Your only argument for why homosexuality is a sin is…God said so. Ok, why? Don’t you owe it to those struggling with this issue to have a better argument than that? I’m all for religious freedom and faith, but if you’re just accepting “this is sinful because It says so on the Bible” as the be all end all of your morality, you’re doing yourself a disservice. And you do others an even greater disservice when you try and legislate based on such a tenuous moral system. Because what happens if you suddenly decide to give up Christianity? Does that mean stealing, lying, and adultery suddenly become OK? No, those are prima facie harmful, and therefore wrong. Homosexuality isn’t.
God can’t be arbitrary. He can’t be wrong. Nearly all Christians already accept that Paul was wrong on women’s role in the church, and that he wasn’t speaking for God in those passages. It’s time to either find a way to justify, logically and morally, Paul’s position on gays, or abandon his teachings on this issue just as they’ve abandoned his teachings on women.
Peggy, that is a ridiculous argument.
SCOTUS didn’t rule that a state has to accept any license from another state. They ruled that bans on gay marriage violate Due Process and Equal Protection, and that marriage is a fundemantal right, which was also ruled in Loving v. Virginia forty years ago.
Loving also ruled that no state could refuse to recognize an interracial marriage performed in another state. If that didn’t legalize concealed carry across all 50 states, why would this decision?
SCOTUS has never recognized a right to carrying guns in public, only in one’s own residence. Furthermore, Equal Protection doesn’t apply here, because there is no class of people who are being unconstitutionally prevented from getting a concealed carry license.
As usual, the writers at Breitbart simply aren’t interpreting the law correctly.
More discussion about how the concealed carry analogy fails is here:
http://amptoons.com/blog/2015/06/26/supreme-court-legalizes-marriage-equality-nationwide/comment-page-1/#comment-349885
Pie at #52: “The only amusing irony of the SCOTUS decision is that gays are pissed off that they have lost their oppressed specialness and their victim identity status.”
I’m not at all surprised about this! For many decades the gay push was that we must accept their “alternative lifestyle.” They were all about being proud of that non-traditional way of living. People accepted the reality that gays would now be open about their sexuality and “different” choice. The American people have an incredible capacity for acceptance.
Next came demands for legal recognition regarding property and other benefits and rights. Most of these were accommodated by creating civil unions. But acceptance of alternative lifestyles and civil unions by a vast majority of the American people, including Christians with strongly held religious beliefs, was not enough! Dissatisfaction once again set in. The gay community chose to toss it’s pride of lifestyle to embrace the “traditional” and demand marriage for themselves! They insisted that “marriage” was a squishy, somewhat meaningless word that could easily be redefined to accommodate them.
They have now succeeded, through the courts rather than the legislative branch, in re-defining the words marriage, husband and wife. Marriage is now based on love without definition as to numbers or genders.
I never had a problem with the alternative lifestyle, civil unions, or equal treatment regarding benefits.
I do have a problem with a handful of unelected officials turning the meaning and tradition of marriage on it’s head through the demands of a minority.
I keep coming back to children. It seems to me that there would be no need for marriage at all except for the need to encourage the best possible support of children, the nations future. I believe profoundly that if government is going to involve itself at all it should first consider children who deserve the benefits of growing up under the guiding hand of their biological mother and father. (I also believe marriage laws should be tightened up for the same reason. A contract is a contract and should be honored except under extreme conditions.)
This is a precedent setting decision. We have no way to know what might result from this decision. I know how the Roe decision turned out, abortions are not “rare” as was promised and millions upon millions of small lives have been snuffed out. It seems to me that along with that bitter reality comes the reality that we no longer hold the same reverence for life that we once did and our children take a back seat to their parents desires and wants.
Americans have given children short shrift across the board through infidelity, divorce, drug and alcohol use, abuse, abandonment, and neglect. When adults fail to put the well being of their children above their own needs and happiness children lose and our entire society declines.
I understand the gay position; Chris has articulated it well. But I don’t think those behind redefining marriage had any consideration at all for those that held an opposing opinion. In fact, I saw bullying, demonizing, and harassment, used as a means to create an enemy and sway public opinion. This push has been emotional and designed to manipulate opinion and wear the public down. Most just want the whole thing to go away, so tired are they of the issue. Traditional marriage had a civil purpose as well as a religious purpose. It’s too bad arguments in favor of upholding traditional marriage were never given a real chance to be heard through the political process and responsible debate.
EDITORS NOTE: Joe you should direct your comment to the quote from RelgiousTolerance.com, not to Jack. He didn’t say anything about this part.
Then why did he include it as what he called “the best” explanation?
But that’s, OK. I’m done here, anyway. I am not going to be visiting a blog that supports the gay agenda, attacks God and insults the people of the South.
If I want all that I can go to any mainstream media site.
Nobody here has attacked God Joe…nobody. And as far as insulting the South, well, I saw a statement of fact, I didn’t see an insult. Next issue: What support of a gay agenda are you talking about? That’s not fair to say something that absurd and then just run off.
Are you saying this blog supports the gay agenda because I said had mixed feelings about the gay marriage ruling by the Supreme Court and I’m glad its over so we can move on to more important things…is that what you are calling an endorsement? lol
Joe is proof that no one is as overly sensitive and obsessed with imaginary victimization as privileged bigots. (Yeah, I’m breaking my own rule and using that word as a noun. If you’re going to tell everyone who disagrees with your religion that they are going to Hell, you’ve taken on bigotry as a central aspect of your identity, and earned the label.)
Chris, this is why I try to stress everyone needs to be respectful of differing opinions. We can learn a lot here if we allow ourselves. Free speech podiums like this really help shape public opinion too.
Tina: “I keep coming back to children. It seems to me that there would be no need for marriage at all except for the need to encourage the best possible support of children, the nations future. I believe profoundly that if government is going to involve itself at all it should first consider children who deserve the benefits of growing up under the guiding hand of their biological mother and father.”
As has been pointed out many, many times, including now by the Supreme Court, this argument is a non-sequiter with no connection to the issues at hand.
Thousands of straight marriages in this country will never produce children, either by choice or by their nature. Thousands of other straight marriages in this country are raising children from previous relationships. Thousands of others adopt children. All of these couples are still, somehow, married–not “civil unioned,” not “married light.” Married. And no one has ever challenged this.
To say that the only purpose of marriage is to provide a couple support in raising their biological children is–in addition to being obviously false–insulting to these thousands of married heterosexual couples who do not fit that criteria. Throughout the marriage equality debate, it was consistently opponents of equality who insulted and denigrated marriage in this way.
There are many reasons we license marriage in this country. Married people are less likely to commit crimes and be imprisoned. Married people are less likely to be on welfare. Married people live longer and need less government assistance in securing healthcare. Married people are more involved in their communities and give more to charity.
Not only are all of these compelling state interests, they are arguably MORE compelling than the state’s interest in ensuring children are raised by their biological parents.
Ensuring that children have the advantages of married parents (biological or otherwise) is ONE of the state’s interests in licensing marriage. It is far from the only interest, and it arguably isn’t even the most important one. It is certainly not the determining factor in deciding which couples get to marry and which don’t.
Furthermore, same-sex marriage does not, in any way, jeopardize any child’s chances of securing “the benefits of growing up under the guiding hand of their biological mother and father.” Gay people are not trolls who steal healthy babies from their married biological parents. No child who would otherwise be raised by their married biological parents is going to be raised by gay married parents instead under the new status quo. (I suppose you could argue that some children would have been raised by a straight married couple in which one of the parents is gay and closeted, but–aside from the problem of why anyone would think that’s preferable–that probably would have become much less common even without gay marriage, given the growing and unstoppable acceptance of homosexuality in our culture.)
If you are really thinking of the children, you should be happy for the children being raised by same-sex couples who will now enjoy the benefits of having married parents. You still may not consider their situation ideal, but so what? You wouldn’t argue that the average child is better off being raised by his biological mother and her boyfriend than if his mother and the boyfriend got married, would you? So why isn’t a child already being raised by a same-sex couple better off now that that child’s parents can secure the benefits of marriage?
“In fact, I saw bullying, demonizing, and harassment, used as a means to create an enemy and sway public opinion.”
That you saw this as only or even mostly coming from those fighting for their civil rights, while you said nothing about the bullying that gays faced on a daily basis from opponents of equality, says everything. Your abridged history of the gay rights movement, in which most of America accepted gays with open arms almost instantly (as long as they kept to their own weird selves and didn’t try to pretend to be married like us normal folk–because separate but equal totally works) is an absurd fantasy which ignores the reality of Stonewall, anti-sodomy laws that existed until 2003, constitutional bans on same-sex marriage AND civil unions in many states, opposition to allowing gays to openly serve in the military up until 2013, gay teens bullied into suicide, gay teens lynched, gay teens making up around 40% of homeless youth due to their bigoted parents kicking them out, and the daily parade of hate from the religious right in which gays were routinely compared to rapists, pedophiles, and people who have sex with animals, and blamed for all sorts of natural disasters, as well as the apocalypse itself. It’s a fantasy designed to make yourself feel more comfortable about your complicity in ensuring that people different from you were treated as second-class citizens for no logical reason.
Wow. Much tolerance. So accept.
“It’s too bad arguments in favor of upholding traditional marriage were never given a real chance to be heard through the political process and responsible debate.”
Your arguments were heard. Your arguments were loud. Your arguments were, as shown above, embarassing and terrible and also wrong.
The reasons your arguments were so terrible is that there never was a compelling argument against same-sex marriage. Because the arguments were so transparently weak, it is very hard for a rational observer to conclude anything other than that these arguments were made post hoc, as a smokescreen for bigotry and animus.
I wasn’t going to brag, but since your last comment amounts to nothing but sour grapes and a reiteration of all of your previous terrible arguments–from “marriage is for babies” to “separate really is equal”–I’m going to.
Your arguments were bad.
That is why they lost.
The arguments are “bad” only for those who don’t think words have meaning, those who refuse to look at a bigger picture, those who think only of their own selfish wants and needs, and those who believe marriage is a civil right.
The alternative lifestyle crowd wanted benefits. They wanted a rubber stamp of legitimacy, which civil unions gave them. Unsatisfied, they had to manipulate the language and manufacture a phony definition of marriage to achieve their goal. By my estimation this makes their unions less legitimate because it’s based on a lie.
My opinions are not born of bigotry no matter how much you would like it to be so. You are incapable of discussing issues like this and allowing for difference of opinion without screaming bigotry and racism. Unfortunate, but completely understandable given your PC record.
Our courts consider children first in divorce cases. I see no reason for lowering the standards by which we consider children when it comes to the definition of marriage.
Sour grapes? Not at all. I said long ago that your side had won the battle and I also congratulated you. But a SC decision doesn’t wipe out free expression or my right to hold and express these views.
Tina: “The arguments are “bad” only for those who don’t think words have meaning, those who refuse to look at a bigger picture, those who think only of their own selfish wants and needs, and those who believe marriage is a civil right.”
Well, if that’s the case, then it should be very easy for you to address the freaking counter-arguments.
You haven’t done this. At all.
Instead, you’ve trotted out some of the same lame non-sequiters that have nothing to do with anything.
For instance, you write:
“Our courts consider children first in divorce cases. I see no reason for lowering the standards by which we consider children when it comes to the definition of marriage.”
What does this mean? What do those words, in that order, have to do with the subject at hand?
How on earth does allowing same-sex marriage “lower the standards by which we consider children when it comes to the definition of marriage?” You still won’t say. It’s word salad. A bunch of feel-good phrases that seem like you cut up a bunch of bumper stickers and then drew pieces out of a hat.
Can you explain to me, logically, how allowing same-sex marriage will prevent ONE SINGLE CHILD from being raised by their married, biological parents?
Can you explain to me why, if ensuring children are raised by their biological parents is the sole purpose of marriage, our nation allows people with children from a previous marriage to re-marry, and no one on the religious right objects to this?
Can you explain to me why, if ensuring children are raised by their biological parents is the sole purpose of marriage, we celebrate and honor marriages which never produce children with the exact same rights and benefits?
Can you explain to me why you believe ensuring children are raised by their biological parents is the sole purpose of marriage, when I have listed several societal benefits that follow from marriage that have nothing to do with children, such as a decrease in government dependency?
If your answers to these questions are all “no,” then you have no argument. And I can only suspect that your answers to these questions are all “no,” because I have asked them of you many, many, MANY times, and every time you have responded with more non-sequiters about “definitions of words,” as if those have more rights than actual human beings.
Please answer these questions, Tina.
Also:
“But a SC decision doesn’t wipe out free expression or my right to hold and express these views.”
No one ever said it did. Your arguments have not been silenced. They’ve been criticized. I haven’t told you to shut up and not express your opinion. In fact, I’ve asked you to explain what I see as logical inconsistencies in your opinion many times, and asked you very pointed questions about why you believe the things you do, most of which you’ve ignored.
It’s very common for people who have a hard time defending their beliefs to deflect by pretending their right to free speech is being attacked whenever their arguments are criticized. This is probably a good thing, since it shows that on some level the speaker is aware of the fundamental weakness of their position.
Chris I wonder what your take on this is: The Confederate States Constitution was freely ratified and it has never been rescinded in a similar manor. Therefore the constitution remains in effect, albeit suppressed! The right to rescind the Confederate States Constitution and to overthrow the Confederate States Government has never been granted to an aggressive and barbaric invading foreign power. Thus the seats in the Confederate States Government remain unto this day, vacant but valid. The process awaits national elections to be arranged for that purpose.
The race to wipe out freedom has already begun. The fundamental strength of the left’s position.
State Silences Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple, Fines Them $135K
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/02/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake-for-lesbian-couple-fines-them-135k/
Black woman calls George Takei a racist.
Watch This Amazing Young Black Woman Tear George Takei To Shreds. BOOM!:
http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/29720-watch-this-amazing-young-black-woman-tear-george-takei-to-shreds-boom
Pie, my first reaction to that case you bring up is that the amount of damages sound ridiculous and over the top.
That said, Snopes notes that the damages seem to be consistent with previous cases:
“The Final Order notes that the non-economic damages are consistent with the agency’s previous orders, such as an earlier ruling against a Bend dentist In the Matter of Andrew W. Engle. In that case, BOLI awarded a Christian employee $325,000 in damages for physical, mental and emotion suffering due to religious discrimination and harassment.”
http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet-cakes-melissa-damages/#1d5CV4wOA8TUrvXz.99
So it seems like this is less of a case of the “intolerant left” wiping out freedom, and more of a case of Oregon being very serious about combatting discrimination, whether that discrimination is against gays or against Christians.
As for the freedom of speech claim, the Kleins remain free to speak of their opposition to same sex marriage as much as they would like. What they can’t do is advertise their intent to continue discriminating against same sex couples in a public accommodation. Few would argue that businesses have the right to put an “Irish need not apply” or “No Jews allowed” sign on their door; by the same token, the Kleins cannot continue to publicly state they will not serve gay couples without violating Oregon discrimination law.
Now, as I’ve said before I have mixed feelings about whether or not bakeries and ther businesses should be able yo refuse to serve gay weddings. I liked More Common Sense’s suggested compromise that bakers should have to provide the wedding cakes but not be required to put any kind of messages or decorations that would be interpreted as support for gay marriage. That seems rational to me, but it wouldn’t satisfy everyone.
If the Kleins believe their freedom of speech and religion has been violated they could take it up with the Supreme Court. It’s possible they could win, and we’d have legal gay marriage and businesses with the legal right not to serve gay weddings. I would be fine with that; the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
Peggy, I agree that Takei’s statement was racist. Fortunately he issued a very genuine sounding apology:
“I recently was asked by a reporter about Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent in the marriage equality cases, in which he wrote words that really got under my skin, by suggesting that the government cannot take away human dignity through slavery, or though internment. In my mind that suggested that this meant he felt the government therefore shouldn’t be held accountable, or should do nothing in the face of gross violations of dignity. When asked by a reporter about the opinion, I was still seething, and I referred to him as a “clown in blackface” to suggest that he had abdicated and abandoned his heritage. This was not intended to be racist, but rather to evoke a history of racism in the theatrical arts. While I continue to vehemently disagree with Justice Thomas, the words I chose, said in the heat of anger, were not carefully considered.
Takei apologized for personally attacking Thomas instead of the content of his argument:
I am reminded, especially on this July 4th holiday, that though we have the freedom to speak our minds, we must use that freedom judiciously. Each of us, as humans, have hot-button topics that can set-us off, and Justice Thomas had hit mine, that is clear. But my choice of words was regrettable, not because I do not believe Justice Thomas is deeply wrong, but because they were ad hominem and uncivil, and for that I am sorry.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/03/george-takei-clarence-tho_n_7724876.html
I agree with that college student’s overall point that it is wrong to act as if all blacks should hold a single political opinion, and that many liberals are sometimes guilty of that. Calling black Republicans “Uncle Toms” is wrong, especially when non-black liberals do it.
By the same token, it is equally racist when some conservatives refer to blacks as being “stuck on the Democrat plantation.” This phrase also demeans blacks and their struggle by equating their freely chosen political beliefs to slavery.
Black Republicans, as well as black Democrats, should be judged on the merits of their positions, like everyone else. Bringing their race into an evaluation of their political judgments is wrong and unfair.
Off-Topic:
I disagree with Lindsey Graham on most things, but his courage in immediately distancing himself from an anti-Muslim bigoted extremist is admirable.
Lindsey Graham to Iowan: “I’m not your candidate”
The very first question Lindsey Graham answered Thursday in Sioux City is one he’s received several times on the campaign trail: Why should we trust you?
“Here’s the one thing you’re going to get from me,” the South Carolina senator answered. “Exactly what I believe.”
Graham said he’s not afraid to let people know when he disagrees with them. And he proved it about 10 minutes later.
The same man led up to a question about the Islamic State by saying the United States should outlaw Islam in order to deal with the problem.
“You know what, I’m not your candidate,” Graham said, cutting him off. “I don’t want you to vote for me. I couldn’t disagree with you more.”
Graham said that in order to deal with ISIS, he would strengthen the military and put more troops on the ground in Iraq. Outlawing Islam is not the answer, he said.
“The bottom line is I’m not trying to please him,” Graham said after the event. “I’m not putting up with that. He’s got a right to say whatever he wants to say, but I have an obligation to the Republican Party, to the people of Iowa and the country as a whole to be firm on this. I’m not buying into that construct. That’s not the America that I want to lead.”
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/07/02/lindsey-graham-iowa-le-mars-sioux-city/29643887/
#83 Chris: “By the same token, it is equally racist when some conservatives refer to blacks as being “stuck on the Democrat plantation.” This phrase also demeans blacks and their struggle by equating their freely chosen political beliefs to slavery.”
How about when it’s a black conservative or when he’s being judged by white liberals?
“Carson has had a pretty rough time lately. The pediatric neurosurgeon studied hard and worked his way out of rough circumstances to make a name for himself at the top of his field. Today that name is being pummeled, and all because he opened his mouth.
Carson knows who to blame for the metaphorical beating he’s taking, though. White liberals. “They’re the most racist people there are,” he told radio host Mark Levin on Monday. “Because they put you in a little category, a box: ‘You have to think this way, how could you dare come off the plantation?’”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/04/03/note-to-ben-carson-its-not-racism-or-a-plantation-mentality-its-just-politics/
Peggy: “How about when it’s a black conservative or when he’s being judged by white liberals?”
I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you asking me if I think Carson’s statements are racist, or if I think certain criticism of him is racist?
Certainly some have criticized Carson in racist ways–that happens to all black politicians, just as sexist attacks are all too common on female politicians, left and right.
I doubt anyone has actually said to Carson, “How could you dare come off the plantation.” That sounds like his own editorializing. Carson really likes to compare things to slavery.
Far be it from me to tell an African-American what he can and can’t say about slavery, but I know many in the black community have found his statements comparing black Democrats and welfare recipients to slaves on a plantation, as well as calling the ACA the worst thing since slavery, very offensive. He’s also made a number of very homophobic statements as well.
I’ll let the black community be the judge of whether or not Carson’s statements were over the line. He seems very confident that his ideas are better than those of the Democrats. If that’s the case, he should be able to win over plenty of black voters without insulting them.
Also, Peggy, I think the author of your Washington Post link–a black woman–makes some very good points:
“It’s insulting to the black men, women and children who were actually slaves, who endured far more than verbal pushback or questions from a few senators. Invoking their memory and sacrifice seems self-pitying and shameful.
It’s also insulting to African Americans who happen to be Democrats because just maybe they agree with a majority of the party’s platform. If Carson is off the plantation, does that mean they are on it? Members of the Congressional Black Caucus don’t hesitate to criticize the Democratic Party or the president, most recently for failing to appoint more African Americans to high-level positions in the administration. And the last time I looked, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who survived beatings, batons and worse as a civil rights activist, was nobody’s slave.”