After historic arguments, US Supreme Court to rule on same-sex marriage

[kingalfred]

Supreme court of USA . A political court not a legal one.

[Berkshire]

By way of illustration, I offer this letter written to moralising radio "Agony Aunt" Dr. Laura (yes, the one who was in fact exposed for having an extramarital affair and dismissed it because she wasn't "Jewish then").

It humourously illustrates how ridiculous it is to try and cherry pick the bible to back up ones arguments.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that

Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord

(Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in

Exodus 21:7.In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness

(Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.

Exodus 35:2clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination

(Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by

Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?

(Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Good one. I wish a devout Christian could answer these questions. It's keeping me up nights.

[sirineou]

A civil union that provides the same protections under the law I think is the path of least resistance, once people see that such unions present no dangers to society , the respect and acceptance will follow.

But you have not provided any legal or rational reason why a gay couple shouldn't get married.

The law is not there to accommodate irrational fears.

Nor is it there to accord respect or acceptance.

It is there to ensure fairness and justice.

I have still yet to hear a remotely convincing reason why a gay couple getting married is any business of someone else, or why it threatens heterosexual marriages.

Religious conservatives have no right (excuse the pun) to dictate what others do simply because it offends their particular moral code.

No-one should.

By way of illustration, I offer this letter written to moralising radio "Agony Aunt" Dr. Laura (yes, the one who was in fact exposed for having an extramarital affair and dismissed it because she wasn't "Jewish then").

It humourously illustrates how ridiculous it is to try and cherry pick the bible to back up ones arguments.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that

Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord

(Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in

Exodus 21:7.In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness

(Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.

Exodus 35:2clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination

(Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by

Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?

(Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Please show me where I have used the bible to back up any of my arguments

show where I exhibited rational fears and please explain how such fears were irrational

and please explain why a civil union that provides the same protections under the law is unjust and unfair since in your word respect and acceptance is not an issue

PS: funny letter, i got more than one chuckle out of it

Edited April 29, 2015 by sirineou

[Jingthing]

Supreme court of USA . A political court not a legal one.

Perhaps if you like their decisions they would magically be a legal one.

The justices are appointed by elected presidents and then approved by the senate.

That's a political process.

Of course there is a political element to what they do.

Nothing is pure.

Nothing.

[Jingthing]

Again, this case at the supreme court has absolutely nothing to do with civil unions.

Any continued talk of civil unions is totally off topic to this case and the marriage equality issue in the U.S. in general.

That alternative was debated and digested long ago in the U.S. and it has gone by the wayside, never to return.

At this point, IF the supreme court rules against marriage equality it will be rather a shock.

If that happens, which is not likely but possible, it doesn't open a civil union path again.

It just means that some states allow gay marriages, some don't, those that don't aren't required to recognize the marriages from those that do, but that the U.S. federal government recognizes all marriages from ALL states, including same sex ones.

Why hang on to an issue that is DEAD in the U.S.? Civil unions, that is. Anyone who still thinks that is relevant in the U.S. simply has not kept up to date.

[JakeSully]

Jing I found this quite interesting...

Anti gay conservative lawmaker voted against gay rights despite being gay

Quite the irony.. why would he want to take the rights away of who he wants to date? Pure stupidity as usual by the conservatives.. reminds me of the time when a GOP senator got caught having sex in the bathroom with another man..

[OMGImInPattaya]

Then disallow non breeding hetero marriages. Of course nobody wants to do that do they? Bloody hypocrisy.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

And don't forget, no marriages for post-menopausal women (either first or re-marriages) ? Edited April 29, 2015 by OMGImInPattaya

[sirineou]

any one who thinks this is a done deal and is permanent is political naive , political winds change

That is why I think that if this was done under in the context of a straightened civil union and covered everyone in this country then It would be more difficult to reverse

as it is now, while the gay lobby and constituency enjoys political power it is good, but if this changes ........

let's hope I am wrong

[Jingthing]

Jing I found this quite interesting...

Anti gay conservative lawmaker voted against gay rights despite being gay

Quite the irony.. why would he want to take the rights away of who he wants to date? Pure stupidity as usual by the conservatives.. reminds me of the time when a GOP senator got caught having sex in the bathroom with another man..

Sadly, this isn't anything new in history. Closet cases being visibly anti-gay often as a cover.

[Gonzo the Face]

Sometimes some people are too close to the forest to see the trees. Jing your multi repeated retort that Civil Union is over and done with is your interpretation on something. Let me also state that the document we hold most dear , our constitution, which we hold almost sacred in its near perfection, has itself been amended many times as was seen necessary by the people. So I would say your declaring Civil Union a done deal , never to be discussed again.... is therefore flawed.

[Jingthing]

Sometimes some people are too close to the forest to see the trees. Jing your multi repeated retort that Civil Union is over and done with is your interpretation on something. Let me also state that the document we hold most dear , our constitution, which we hold almost sacred in its near perfection, has itself been amended many times as was seen necessary by the people. So I would say your declaring Civil Union a done deal , never to be discussed again.... is therefore flawed.

You are so wrong.

Civil rights in the U.S., once legally granted, are not taken away.

When the supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, those in such marriages never feared there would ever be such bans again, in any state.

They had no fear their own marriages done in non-ban states would be taken away either.

Similar situation here.

If the court rules favorably to marriage equality, it's a national decision impacting all states.

If not, there will still be many many states offering same sex marriages, current marriages won't be taken away and new marriages can happen in those states.

There is really NOTHING in this case about civil unions.

As far as constitutional amendment banning gay marriages, theoretically possible.

Practically and politically basically impossible. The bar is too high in a country with majority support for marriage equality.

Look at the world when nations take the marriage equality step.

They don't go backwards from that.

The U.S. won't either.

Of course, nothing to stop people from discussing this thing that will NEVER happen in the U.S. ... the U.S. becoming a country with civil unions offered nationally and no gay marriage, again that will NEVER happen, if that amuses you to waste time on things that will NEVER happen, do enjoy the game, but as far as THIS thread, civil unions are completely OFF TOPIC.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Jingthing

[Gonzo the Face]

I wholeheartedly disagree with you and your interpretation but feel free to continue with your hope, your wish, your dream.

[Ulysses G.]

any one who thinks this is a done deal and is permanent is political naive , political winds change

That is why I think that if this was done under in the context of a straightened civil union and covered everyone in this country then It would be more difficult to reverse

as it is now, while the gay lobby and constituency enjoys political power it is good, but if this changes ........

let's hope I am wrong

I have to disagree with you. I think gay marriage is pretty much a done deal even though I don't support it. I am all for gay rights, but I don't think completely changing the definition of marriage is a "right". IMO, it should have been done with civil unions with equal rights, but it is too late now. The concept of "marriage equality" has been sod to the public and it is way too fashionable to stop it now.

[JDGRUEN]

Latest reports indicate that the SCOTUS will likely cite Federalism - States Rights ... indicated by the line of questioning even by liberal justices.

So basically it could be a non decision in effect ... return it to the states - as it should be - if the U.S. Constitution is to be respected.

[Berkshire]

Interesting article on "Why a Ruling for Same-Sex Marriage Would Help Republicans:"

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/upshot/why-a-ruling-for-same-sex-marriage-would-help-republicans.html?mabReward=CTM&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine

An excerpt:

"With the legality of same-sex marriage being argued on Tuesday, the court could allow Republicans to abandon an unpopular position without abandoning their principles or risking a primary challenge. History would effectively be bailing out the party."

As always, it's about the politics.

[Jingthing]

Latest reports indicate that the SCOTUS will likely cite Federalism - States Rights ... indicated by the line of questioning even by liberal justices.

So basically it could be a non decision in effect ... return it to the states - as it should be - if the U.S. Constitution is to be respected.

What reports?

Delusional tea party blogs?

[Jingthing]

I wholeheartedly disagree with you and your interpretation but feel free to continue with your hope, your wish, your dream.

You clearly haven't been following the news in the last few years if you think the U.S. marriage equality movement has not been real. It's been a massive, historical success.

[Jingthing]

any one who thinks this is a done deal and is permanent is political naive , political winds change

That is why I think that if this was done under in the context of a straightened civil union and covered everyone in this country then It would be more difficult to reverse

as it is now, while the gay lobby and constituency enjoys political power it is good, but if this changes ........

let's hope I am wrong

I have to disagree with you. I think gay marriage is pretty much a done deal even though I don't support it. I am all for gay rights, but I don't think completely changing the definition of marriage is a "right". IMO, it should have been done with civil unions with equal rights, but it is too late now. The concept of "marriage equality" has been sod to the public and it is way too fashionable to stop it now.

Yep. Your side lost. Good of you to be realistic about it. Even if the supreme court punts now (doubtful) your side still lost. The marriages will continue in most states and continue to be recognized federally. There is no current discussion of civil unions as an alternative and there never will be again in the U.S. People who understand the progression of this issue get that. Others are simply misinformed.

[Berkshire]

any one who thinks this is a done deal and is permanent is political naive , political winds change

That is why I think that if this was done under in the context of a straightened civil union and covered everyone in this country then It would be more difficult to reverse

as it is now, while the gay lobby and constituency enjoys political power it is good, but if this changes ........

let's hope I am wrong

I have to disagree with you. I think gay marriage is pretty much a done deal even though I don't support it. I am all for gay rights, but I don't think completely changing the definition of marriage is a "right". IMO, it should have been done with civil unions with equal rights, but it is too late now. The concept of "marriage equality" has been sod to the public and it is way too fashionable to stop it now.

Yep. Your side lost. Good of you to be realistic about it. Even if the supreme court punts now (doubtful) your side still lost. The marriages will continue in most states and continue to be recognized federally. There is no current discussion of civil unions as an alternative and there never will be again in the U.S. People who understand the progression of this issue get that. Others are simply misinformed.

The argument for a "civil union" sounds very much like the "separate but equal" mantra in support of segregation years ago. But we know what happened with that--separate but largely unequal was the reality. Would have been the same with civil unions.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Latest reports indicate that the SCOTUS will likely cite Federalism - States Rights ... indicated by the line of questioning even by liberal justices.

So basically it could be a non decision in effect ... return it to the states - as it should be - if the U.S. Constitution is to be respected.

What reports?

Delusional tea party blogs?

More likely the Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Santorum Facebook pages ?