Will the Supreme Court Uphold Gay Marriage Ban?
 

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler"]Adam Winkler[/URL], 12/07/12
Professor of Law, UCLA
Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a landmark case challenging the constitutionality of California's ban on gay marriage. But don't count on a game-changing decision too quickly. It's more likely that Ted Olson and David Boies' blockbuster will end with a whimper.


[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/will-the-supreme-court-up_b_2259342.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;321120]And again, times had changed and unlike our ancestors we no longer felt forced to accept oppressive social norms which went against our true nature.[/QUOTE]
Well, see, that's part of the problem. There's human nature, and there's what God intended for us. It's easier to follow human nature, but it won't lead to lasting happiness.

Also, I'd like to apologize to Chappy for quoting a Bible verse in a rude fashion. I get easily annoyed and am quick to lash out at people. It's a character defect that I'm continuously having to work on.

[QUOTE=kladner;321132][url]http://www.npr.org/2012/12/09/165276593/torn-living-as-an-openly-gay-christian[/url]

The entire interview will become available as audio at approximately 7 PM ET.

Excerpt:

"Justin Lee was raised in a conservative Southern Baptist home. He had two loving parents, and was deeply committed to his faith. In school, classmates even referred to him as "God Boy" because of his devotion. But, as he was entering high school, Lee's whole world began to change, as he came face-to-face with feelings that he'd tried for many years to suppress.
"I didn't know I was gay at first, because I was the kid who was preaching against folks accepting themselves as gay," he tells Guy Raz, host of weekends on [I]All Things Considered[/I].
Lee formed the Gay Christian Network in 2001 to try and help other gay Christian kids and their families talk to one another, as well as with their respective churches. His new book is called [I]Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays Vs. Christians Debate[/I]."[/QUOTE]
Don't forget to check out my book, titled,"Living as a Black Caucasion," in wide publication in all Bizarro world locations.

Suffering as a homosexual, and even giving into temptation, as I do with my porn habit, doesn't doom you to hell. But openly supporting obviously unchristian things is highly immoral. I can see a non-christian supporting "gay rights," everything is potentially forgivable if you're not a Christian. But this person says they were raised Southern Baptist, which suggests that they're reasonably aware of the Bible's stance of homosexuality.

When a non-Christian encourages immoral things, it's unfortunate. When a person who claims they're a Christian does it, they're either not a Christian and know it, or they're highly confused. I guess it could go either way.

[QUOTE=jasong;321144]Don't forget to check out my book, titled,"Living as a Black Caucasion," in wide publication in all Bizarro world locations.

Suffering as a homosexual, and even giving into temptation, as I do with my porn habit, doesn't doom you to hell. But openly supporting obviously unchristian things is highly immoral. I can see a non-christian supporting "gay rights," everything is potentially forgivable if you're not a Christian. But this person says they were raised Southern Baptist, which suggests that they're reasonably aware of the Bible's stance of homosexuality.

When a non-Christian encourages immoral things, it's unfortunate. When a person who claims they're a Christian does it, they're either not a Christian and know it, or they're highly confused. I guess it could go either way.[/QUOTE]

You can definitely put me in the non-christian box. However, my sense of ethics tells me that it is immoral to force things upon people just for being the way they are. The harm that is done through attempts to "change" people into a sad, even more repressed version of themselves is reprehensible. This is especially true when it is imposed on young people who are trying to come to terms with their sexuality.

If I were religious, which I am not in any conventional or organized sense, I would say, "God made me gay. Who are you to question?"

EDIT: Can you provide a link to your book?

[url]http://www.upi.com/blog/2012/12/10/George-Will-Quite-literally-opposition-to-gay-marriage-is-dying/9461355150425/[/url]

As noted in an article that Kladner posted will the SCOTUS rule against gay marriage when in 25 years they will look like George Wallace?

Certainly hacks (yes I mean that) like Scalia don't care. Despite years of claiming that States should make these kinds of decisions and that the Government shouldn't interfere in peoples personal lives, and that the Supreme Court shouldn't reinterpret the Constitution, he has become quite the ideologue over the years--and his puppet was always there waiting.

The flip side is that the SCOTUS has for the last decade or so, been very dismissive of most of the big decisions by the 9th Circuit. Both Left and Right sides of the Court have used language very close to mocking the legalese coming out of the Left Coast courts... It will be interesting.

[URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/335258/basics-doma-case-ed-whelan"]Ed Whelan's thoughts[/URL] on the positions of the case.

kladner,

You wrote:
[QUOTE]However, my sense of ethics tells me that it is immoral to force things upon people just for being the way they are. The harm that is done through attempts to "change" people into a sad, even more repressed version of themselves is reprehensible. This is especially true when it is imposed on young people who are trying to come to terms with their sexuality.

If I were religious, which I am not in any conventional or organized sense, I would say, "God made me gay. Who are you to question?"[/QUOTE]

If we were to accept this line of reasoning, what would prevent us from similarly accepting the following?

"However, my sense of ethics tells me that it is immoral to force things upon people just for being the way they are. The harm that is done through attempts to "change" people into a sad, even more repressed version of themselves is reprehensible. This is especially true when it is imposed on young people who are trying to come to terms with their sexuality.

If I were religious, which I am not in any conventional or organized sense, I would say, "God made me promiscuous. Who are you to question?"

It is a false equivalence. You might as well ask if I would be OK with, "God made me a serial killer. Who are you to argue?"

Not all gay people are promiscuous. Still, I don't pass judgement on the promiscuous, either. Just about everyone has issues of some sort. There are many accepted behaviors which [I]may[/I] have negative consequences. Much depends on one's personal agreements with the people in one's life. This applies to race driving, sky diving, or promiscuity.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;321235]kladner,

You wrote:


If we were to accept this line of reasoning, what would prevent us from similarly accepting the following?

"However, my sense of ethics tells me that it is immoral to force things upon people just for being the way they are. The harm that is done through attempts to "change" people into a sad, even more repressed version of themselves is reprehensible. This is especially true when it is imposed on young people who are trying to come to terms with their sexuality.

If I were religious, which I am not in any conventional or organized sense, I would say, "God made me promiscuous. Who are you to question?"[/QUOTE]

color me shocked! surprised even! that Ed Whelan thinks that DOMA will and should be upheld.

Eight federal courts have ruled on DOMA. All eight have ruled that it is unconstitutional. None have ruled that it is constitutional.

The challenges that have been upheld span a wide range of judicial philosophies. The 1st and 2nd circuits ruled against it with conservative Republican appointed judges declaring it unconstitutional and in particular the 2nd circuit court's Dennis Jacobs decision seems aimed exactly at making Scalia into a hypocrite since its logic parrots Scalia's own former legalese on what types of private actions are 'substantially related to the government's interest.'

Of course I think Scalia will vote to uphold DOMA because he is nothing if not a hypocrite.

But, back to the brilliant Ed Whelan, he spends a great deal of time talking about who voted for it, so what? That's as unimportant in this case as what the weather was like that day. It's inches of copy. Noise. My Nuke instructor would have called that Effectively Blank.

What matters now is how the Justices will vote. And if any of the Conservatives on the court have an eye for history or justice (I'm looking at you Alito) the court will rule 7 to 2 against.

It will be 5 to 4 against DOMA. With Kennedy playing the role of honest conservative as always (see also Romer v. Evans--Ironically ruled upon in the same year as DOMA was passed.) Thomas may play his "this law is silly and should be repealed, but not overturned" nonsense. And Scalia will continue his "I support any law that discriminates against homosexuals but I'm not homophobic" stance." Alito is the real question mark since he has basically zero history in the area (like Sotomayor on the other side.)

“Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct...The Constitution’s framers used such broad terms as 'liberty' without defining them because they knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress” --Justice Kennedy (Lawrence v. Texas)

[QUOTE]If I were religious, which I am not in any conventional or organized sense, I would say, "God made me promiscuous. Who are you to question?"[/QUOTE][URL]http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/27/ryan.promiscuity.normal/[/URL]

Thanks for that, Xyzzy!:mike:

The following is posted as a link deliberately as it contains repeated references, to male genitalia, though not any more offensively (IMHO) than the article above. There is nothing graphic about it. You have been warned.:shock:

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHjsaEK4vnw[/URL]

Eric Schwartz is a singer songwriter. This piece is from the J.W. Bush years, hence the references to "George" and "W".

EDIT: I have resisted posting this clip to this thread up until now. The flesh is weak. :razz: