[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;405616]I agree. But the Surpreme Court of the United States disagrees with this. Their 5-4 majority ruling makes it clear they believe that disagreement on this topic is a sign that the person is acting out of hatred and bigotry. That's one reason why this recent turn of events is so troubling to me.[/QUOTE]
I thought the Supreme Court was merely answering the question of whether the Constitution protects the right of same sex couples to marry. What does the question of whether dissent necessarily implies bigotry have to do with the majority decision?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;405630]I thought the Supreme Court was merely answering the question of whether the Constitution protects the right of same sex couples to marry. What does the question of whether dissent necessarily implies bigotry have to do with the majority decision?[/QUOTE]

Indeed.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;405630]I thought the Supreme Court was merely answering the question of whether the Constitution protects the right of same sex couples to marry. What does the question of whether dissent necessarily implies bigotry have to do with the majority decision?[/QUOTE]

The answer is somewhat complicated.

The critic in me would say that the reason has to do with the fact that the Supreme Court wasn't deciding what the Constitution actually says. They were making a political statement, being motivated by political purposes. Rather disgusting legislating from the bench, if you ask me.

The lawyer in me would say it has to do with them trying to justify why strict scrutiny was unnecessary.

The mathematician in me would say that you should go to the source document itself (their ruling), and try to discern why they wrote what they wrote from their own words.

The politician in me would then tell you to read the four separate dissents, to see what the other four justices thought were the reasons they did what they did.

[URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33463436"]An essay on the Beeb[/URL] is well worth reading, IMO. Although ostensibly about gay marriage, it is really about religion, ethics and morality.

[QUOTE=xilman;405711][URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33463436"]An essay on the Beeb[/URL] is well worth reading, IMO. Although ostensibly about gay marriage, it is really about religion, ethics and morality.[/QUOTE]

Excellent article! Thanks, Paul.

[url]http://boingboing.net/2015/07/08/tom-the-dancing-bug-judge-sca-3.html[/url]

Of course, it's no secret that I think Scalia is a hypocrite...Zeta and I have discussed this particular point ad nauseum elsewhere.

Paul,

It was an interesting article. I thought that, especially in the first paragraph, [i]he[/i] was being a bit more hyperbolic than those he was trying to portray as in a "persecution mania".

[QUOTE]They feel victims of a form of secular martyrdom that could easily bleed over into the real thing.

It's hard to know why. No church has been closed, no temple shuttered, no sermon suspended.[/QUOTE]Let me try to explain to those of you who live over the pond why many of us over here are concerned (but not in a "victim of secular martyrdom" sort of way--unless you read the ultra-conservative blogs).

1. The Obama administration has recently taken numerous positions in court again exercise of religion. The most visible of these involve attempts to force employers to participate (in one degree or another) in facilitating abortions.

2. While no church has been closed or temple shuttered; the practice of religion goes beyond simple Sunday services. The exercise of religion happens in a myriad of ways, from education, to health care, to reduction of poverty, to the running of soup kitchens, among a myriad of other social goods. And yes, some of these exercises of religion have been shut down. In particular this happened to Catholic adoption charities.

3. During the gay marriage hearings, the justices asked whether organizations could lose their tax exempt status for standing in opposition to these programs. The government answered (essentially) yes.

[QUOTE]At least pluralistic societies that accept many ways of seeing the world have tended to let us see [I]inside our plural selves[/I].[/QUOTE]As I said above, its all about me, me, me. Its the new cult of selfish self-centeredness. Using the talk of plurality to pass the agenda of self-interest.

[QUOTE]Zeta and I have discussed this particular point ad nauseum elsewhere[/QUOTE]That [i]ad hominem[/i] is a nasty form of argument. Why yes we have! :tu:

and you still misunderstand the term ad hominem as it relates to arguments I see. :smile:

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;405739]As I said above, its all about me, me, me. Its the new cult of selfish self-centeredness. Using the talk of plurality to pass the agenda of self-interest.[/QUOTE]
And when you said it above, under a quotation of my opinion about legal acknowledgement of polyamorous relationships, I swallowed my irritation and let it pass.
Now you've seen fit to say it again, and I'm in a crabby mood this time, I'll say that there is nothing self-centred about campaigning for the right to love who we love. I'm not in a polyamorous relationship and I have no vested interest in wanting to see those who are in such a permanent relationship being granted the same freedoms as other people in other types of relationships. And there are plenty of people who campaign(ed) tirelessly for same sex marriage when they are themselves straight and have no particular personal interest in their goal. It's called altruism, and it's not the prerogative of religious conservatives, just in case you think it is.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;405739]Paul,

It was an interesting article. I thought that, especially in the first paragraph, [i]he[/i] was being a bit more hyperbolic than those he was trying to portray as in a "persecution mania".

Let me try to explain to those of you who live over the pond why many of us over here are concerned (but not in a "victim of secular martyrdom" sort of way--unless you read the ultra-conservative blogs).

1. The Obama administration has recently taken numerous positions in court again exercise of religion. The most visible of these involve attempts to force employers to participate (in one degree or another) in facilitating abortions.
[/QUOTE]

A typical lie from the retarded religious right. No one is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Thr right to practice religion does not include the right to cause harm to others, discriminate against
others or to [b]ignore secular law[/b] because of those beliefs. When secular law requires providing medical
insurance for legal medical procedures, one's religious rights do NOT include the right to ignore such law.

You all think "religious freedom" includes the right to do anything your religion says.





[QUOTE]

As I said above, its all about me, me, me. Its the new cult of selfish self-centeredness. Using the talk of plurality to pass the agenda of self-interest.[/QUOTE]

No. It is about equal rights for all and following secular law. Your religious beliefs do NOT take precedence over
the rights of others.