Jump to content

Two Historic Supreme Court Cases


Recommended Posts

So beginning on Tuesday this week, the Supreme Court is supposed to start their examination of the constitutionality of DOMA and Proposition 8. We might not hear the final results until June, but until then what are your thoughts about the cases? Which way do you think they'll be likely to rule? Personally I'm being cautiously optimistic for a narrow ruling with broad implications for the future. I don't expect the Supreme Court to magically legalize gay marriage in all 50 states but I think the best result we could hope for is that they'll rule that Prop 8 and DOMA are unconstitutional but they'll take Obama's position on gay marriage and leave the issue up to the states to decide. But maybe if I keep my expectations low but still optimistic I'll be pleasantly surprised?

Edited by Neon Genesis
Link to post
Share on other sites
A Washington Post poll concerning the issue asked the question....
"Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married ?" The results showed 58% said legal and 36% said illegal. But i think the results may be flawed by the question. Perhaps the question should be....
" Do you think the United States should recognize marriage as only between a man and a woman or between two people regardless of their physical gender? "
The first question forces the respondent to choose between illegal or legal while the second addresses the real question which is the recognition of marriage by the government as other than between a man and a woman.
Sometimes changing the wording of a question can alter the results substantially.
I have no opinion on what the results of the Supreme court might be at the present time but in the past... The Supreme Court wrote this memorable passage explaining the authority the Constitution grants Congress to define marriage, even for incoming states:

 

[C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.

 

Murphy v. Ramsey
, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1885).

Anyway, i think there are strong points made on both sides of the issue and i leave predictions on the present outcome in June to those so inclined.
Joseph
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me unfair or inaccurate to automatically classify any individual/s or group as "anti-gay" because they may not be in support of recognizing marriage as other than between a man and a woman. But that is just my personal opinion.

 

As far as any strong points for or against the US recognizing marriage to other than a man and a woman, i think it is a matter of personal opinion for many that will be presented and hopefully be made clearer in this case before the Supreme Court in a civilized fashion . I think society has a right to determine which way it wants to go on the definition of marriage issue and hopefully it can be done without name calling or labeling offensively those who may see the issue at hand differently. From my readings, there seems to be extremists on both sides of the issue and my hope is that calmer heads will prevail.

 

Joseph

Link to post
Share on other sites

You had previously complained about my usage of the word homophobic so I used the more neutral term of antigay but apparently you still find that objectionable. Is there any word that would be appropriate to use or are you going to be offended by anything critics of antigay Christians say? If you're going to just be offended by anything I say, just go ahead and lock this thread and I'll find another site to go post at because I can't keep posting under such stifling restrictions and I don't know why you've been becoming increasingly more conservative in your posts, JosephM, when this is supposedly a progressive Christian site.

Edited by Neon Genesis
Link to post
Share on other sites

What extremists are there on the pro-gay side? Why should societies have a right to determine whether they can discriminate against gay people when they wouldn't for any other class of people in society?

 

Perhaps there are no extremists and i am in error?

 

Societies have always including ours not only had the right but do discriminate against certain classes of people. It is the natural role of societal government. We discriminate against the rich by higher tax brackets. We discriminate on age by having a driving age , a drinking age. by determining sentences for what society determines criminal behavior, etc etc. Society has the authority and right to determine such including what they will recognize under the definition of marriage. That is historical fact and not my opinion. Whether it is right or wrong one can make up their own mind.

 

Joseph

Link to post
Share on other sites

You had previously complained about my usage of the word homophobic so I used the more neutral term of antigay but apparently you still find that objectionable. Is there any word that would be appropriate to use or are you going to be offended by anything critics of antigay Christians say? If you're going to just be offended by anything I say, just go ahead and lock this thread and I'll find another site to go post at because I can't keep posting under such stifling restrictions and I don't know why you've been becoming increasingly more conservative in your posts, JosephM, when this is supposedly a progressive Christian site.

 

Sorry for your mis-understanding Neon,

 

I do not find your use of the word anti-gay personally objectionable nor offensive in the least. It was just expressing my personal opinion that it seems to me to be an unfair or inaccurate description as relates to ones opinion on the issue of whether one considers the US sanctioned definition of marriage limited to a man and a woman. I believe anyone's differences of opinions on such an issue as individuals do not automatically make us "anti-gay" but you are certainly entitled to believe differently. I do not agree with all that Christianity teaches but it seems to me it would be unfair or inaccurate of me to label them anti-Christian just because of any differences in opinions.

 

On your second point, i am speaking here as a member and have no intentions as a moderator of restricting your personal opinions or locking this thread and on the contrary welcome your posts. Also i believe you will find all views whether conservative, liberal or fundamental are welcome on this site in this forum area regardless of this being labeled a progressive Christianity site as long as they are within the forum guidelines of etiquette and respectful behavior. it is my experience that Progressive Christianity here does not dictate agreement or ones beliefs to be construed as conservative or liberal and is more focused on sharing and encouraging each individual's search for truth at whatever point they are presently in their journey. I hope you will not let any perceived differences we might have come between us.

 

Joseph

Edited by JosephM
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps there are no extremists and i am in error?

 

Societies have always including ours not only had the right but do discriminate against certain classes of people. It is the natural role of societal government. We discriminate against the rich by higher tax brackets. We discriminate on age by having a driving age , a drinking age. by determining sentences for what society determines criminal behavior, etc etc. Society has the authority and right to determine such including what they will recognize under the definition of marriage. That is historical fact and not my opinion. Whether it is right or wrong one can make up their own mind.

 

Joseph

Drinking age limits and driving age limits are enforced to keep people from being harmed by irresponsible behavior. Gay marriage has never been proven by anyone to cause any harm to anybody at all so you're using a false equivalency fallacy here Your same line of reasoning could also be used to justify slavery or banning interracial marriage simply if society says it should be banned. Are you suggesting you think homosexuality should be considered criminal behavior?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neon,

 

I'm not suggesting anything concerning gay marriage nor do i consider myself anti-gay, I am only suggesting that it is societies role (right and authority) to determine this issue and suggesting that regardless of the outcome one side or the other will in my opinion feel discriminated against. So as to avoid being misinterpreted, I have no further thoughts or responses than already posted on the subject of your thread and have nothing to add to this conversation.

 

Thanks for the opportunity to respond with my thoughts,

Joseph

Link to post
Share on other sites

So yesterday the Religious Rights' argument was that Prop 8 was justified because the right to decide the definition of marriage should be left up to the states to decide. Today the argument seems to have flip flopped and now the Religious Right is arguing that DOMA is justified because it makes more sense to have uniformal laws across all 50 states than for the federal laws to be inconsistent. So which one is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On another forum, the term Heterosexist was posited as an alternative to Homophobic. It more accurately describes those opposed to allowing full marriage privileges for homosexuals.

 

I think that the justices, should they embrace the spirit of the Constitutional ideal of equality under the law, will have no choice but to overturn both DOMA and Proposition 8.

 

A friend of mine suggested that there ought to not be state support of marriage; period. Selecting out one group of people - married couples - and giving them special tax treatment and all kinds of goodies that no other single person or group is patently unfair.

 

I don't agree with him on that score, because I think society has a valid interest in supporting marriage between two people. It is BECAUSE of this idea, that I think we ought to embrace marriage of same sex couples. There have been all kinds of studies that conclude that there is equal benefit to children of same sex couples as heterosexual couples. In fact, children of gay couples fare better than children of a single parent.

 

I can honestly see no valid argument for disallowing two couples - irregardless of gender - from marrying. Your right to express your religious beliefs ceases where it impinges upon my ability to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

NORM

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service