For John, BLUF: Today the US Supreme Court meets on Same Sex Marriage. Nothing to see here; just move along.
One of my sources for blogging ideas is Law Professor Ann Althouse, who teaches out in Madison, Wisconsin. She has had a couple of interesting posts up in the last 24 hours on Same Sex Marriage (SSM), which I will link to below:
- "Ann, if you're correct and gay marriage is inevitable it might be more profitable to ask of gay marriage proponents 'How do you want to win?'" The flip side of this is the question "How do you want to lose?" The professor says she wants to win in the US Supreme Court. Go to the link to see why.
- "There’s no way of knowing what combination of these singular features of marriage confers which of its demonstrated advantages, culturally and psychologically." This is in response to an article by Andrew Ferguson, in The Weekly Standard. This is a look at the chicken and egg question of if marriage begat government or government begat marriage or if it really is a Sacrament instituted by God. More important, what are the implications of the answer.
- Lastly is a post on Ms Jean Podrasky, a cousin of Chief Justice John Roberts, and a Lesbian, who says: "He is a smart man... He is a good man. I believe he sees where the tide is going." "I do trust him. I absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction." She will be there today for the SCOTUS Session.
Will the world be the same after? Will the world be the same after the decision is released? And what do we mean by "the same"?
Regards — Cliff
8 comments:
The world will be unaffected in spite of our perception that the rest of the world revolves around the US. The US will continue its headlong race toward a state administered "utopia" in which everyone is completely equal, except for the ruling class who will decide for the rest of us what is good and bad for us. The SCOTUS findings more and more push us toward that aspect of governance. While we point proudly to our being one of the most free nation states on earth, in fact, we are blinded by our own sense of self procured glory. We are much less free on an individual basis that we think. MUCH less, and those few individual freedoms remaining are being removed from the option list as a matter of "the public good" and in some cases, notions of "equality." In almost all those instances, true equality is not the point or the objective, rather, it is the imposition of one groups will over the rest of the group. Minority rules more often than majority. We celebrate each "victory" as being accomplished in the name of "fairness" but neglect to note that by being "fair" to one class, we almost always create or promote unfairness to another. What is "fair" is highly situational and exceptionally personal.
The SCOTUS should confine its deliberations to matters of Constitutional law. Instead, it has become the font of supreme moral arbitration made acceptable by the label, "law."
In the end, issues decided by government such as this only serve to deepen and expand a schism that has become more acute in this century. By arbitrating moral issues, the government is systematically removing personal freedom and replacing it with the edicts of a few.
But then, we are merely duplicating the course of life for human groups and nation states throughout history.
The world is moving, and so is not the same - increment by increment.
Weather marriage exists as a sacrament is orthoganal to the real issue which is that marriage exits as a legal entity regardless of other meanings ascribed to it. Today's matter is the latter and so the former is a red herring.
As to which way to win, I think Olsen and Boise put it well today in the WSJ:
“For one to say that the Supreme Court should leave the question of marriage equality to the political processes of the states is to say that states should remain free to discriminate--to impose this pain and humiliation on gay men and lesbians and their children--for as long as they wish, without justification.”
And honestly, what we're talking about at its core is a dispute of law. The fact that the venue is the courts over a dispute of law should be unremarkable. When you consider that and remember that courts can decide that they shouldn't decide, it seems like strange pearl-clutching to find this point controversial at all.
Chris says:
QUOTE
Whether marriage exists as a sacrament is orthoganal to the real issue which is that marriage exits as a legal entity regardless of other meanings ascribed to it. Today's matter is the latter and so the former is a red herring.
UNQUOTE
The real, underlying, issue is always marriage as a sacrament. Everything else is just how mortals implement the natural law. But that is just my opinion.
That said, what is being discussed today, and tomorrow, is a legal issue and thus it is in the proper venue.
Regards — Cliff
The issue at the court though isn't about sacrament - it can't be. We're not talking about equal treatment with regard to sacrament (something the government has no business in anyway) but equal treatment under the law.
The sacrament is a distraction - the dispute on the law exists and must be resolved in venues of law, not sacrament.
I am just saying that the legal side is subsidiary to the larger forces of nature, but that the SCOTUS is the place to deal with those legal issues.
Regards — Cliff
The issue being considered as a matter of law treads on very slippery and dangerous ground.
First, it tramples all over the 10th Amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution as amended that permits this sort of judicial intrusion, other than to arbitrate, arbitrarily, a dispute among sovereign states and special interest groups within. That the case is being considered by the SCOTUS necessarily promotes the superiority of the Federal government over the perquisites reserved for the states. By merely rendering mandates from on Federal high does not change anything within the hearts and minds of those who a)feel the matter should be decided through social process and by b) state jurisdictions. Nor will it quiet the strident clamor of the gay community to have it all their way....enabling them to be "in your face," which has been part of the agenda for as long as I can recall.
All this does is deepen the anger and distrust on both sides and perhaps drive more unreasonable actions by each.
The real danger of the SCOTUS decision is that it further centralizes power in the Federal government to mandate what it pleases in response to special interests...ie....whoever can yell the loudest and pay the most in political tribute. In the end, freedom itself is lost.
OF COURSE the SCOTUS is going to OVERWHELMINGLY overturn the CA law and destroy the DOMA. This is power politics as its strongest...and perhaps at its worst.
Having said all that, what you call a union between two people is totally irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. The only reason for this is that a group opposes the use of marriage for certain pairings, and so, in retaliation, the "injured" group is going to do everything within its power to shove it right up one of the oppositions body orifices.
In the 50's, my high school principal and my high school biology teacher were as gay as you can possibly get. The entire town knew it and nobody rose up in any kind of indignation. As they lived in their jointly owned house in my neighborhood, I was an occasional visitor doing chores for them or seeking advice or assistance. They were wonderful people....caring people....loving people....especially to one another. I don't know what the hell anyone called their "relationship".......but nobody cared and as far as I know, they figured out how to do almost every thing "normal" couples do...including all the financial/"legal" things. Frankly, I think they would have been deeply offended by what is going on today shepherded and energized by a relative few radical militants.
As I said earlier, the SCOTUS decision will change no minds and it is doubtful that it will engineer any new "law." That they decided to hear the case only endangers individual freedom.
Out of my hands... I'm not a major corporation or rich or whatever to throw my weight around (Thank You Citizens United). Whatever happens I wake up the next day and do what I'm already doing.
EGGZACTLY Renee. No minds will change, no practices will change, no attitudes will change.....but the Federal government has flexed its muscle just a little bit for than before....feeling that power....pushing the envelope....until we get to the point in our society that anything is okay and everything is normal and nobody can object because the State rules on every matter. Once the State speaks....it is "settled law." Welcome to the brave new world.........
Post a Comment