Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
*chuckle*
My opinion of the SCOTUS decision re. Gay Marriage.
It sucks, it's a bad decision. If you thought Roe v. Wade was divisive, you haven't seen anything yet.
First some background. Personally I could care less who you hang with or who you choose to make a legal binding with, that's your business. The issue is the word 'Marriage.' And that's what it's always been about. My debates on the subject with Rys (a militant gay) go way back and are still a matter of record here on Lit. He insisted that nothing less that calling the union a 'Marriage' would do, I disagreed then and do so this day.
Starting with what a 'Marriage License' really is. It's nothing more than a paid for permit for civil union. To execute that permit you don't need a preacher, or a church, just a notary public to affirm that the act of commitment was witnessed. Anyone can perform the ceremony, anywhere any time. So why not be honest with yourself and shit can the notion that forming a bond is some sacred sacrament barred from others based on religious prejudice....it's not and thinking so is a joke.
Words mean things.
Marriage is something that has been around for a several millennia. It's based on the concept of a man and a woman forming a life partnership. Even non-religious societies, such as the Romans, understood the meaning of the word. Apparently our SCOTUS doesn't, or thinks it can re-define it.
The 'Marriage License" you buy at the court house is the crux of the matter. I should have never been called a 'Marriage License', rather a civil union license or the such. Which brings us to the fact that if a government has the power to license any activity of any sort, then it has the power to determine under what conditions that license shall be issued. The court has effectively stripped away that authority from the states. What's next, drivers licenses?
Further the court has set itself up for innumerable conflicts. Anyone remember Burwell v Hobby Lobby? Well, that ruling set the stage for anyone of religious foundation to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone based on whatever their Gospel may be. Essentially stripping the states of enforcement of equal rights based on sexual preferences, Expect to see more of this in the future. I see a class action "Bakery Shop" suit in the future. I can only guess how the court is going to resolve the corner it's painted itself into.
I DO understand the desire for gay couples to enjoy the legal benefits that are currently in place for hetero unions without the need to employ a staff of lawyers. But could this have been accomplished without the re-definition of a word with such a history?
Words mean things.
As soon as you re-define a word then it is open for even further re-definition. And law suits will precipitate from that simple fact. As a matter of fact they already are. There is a suit winding its way through the courts regarding polygamy. If you read the plaintiff's logic it is essentially the same as the case recently adjudicated. And quite frankly that logic can be applied to virtually any combination of relationships regardless of gender, familial, or number of participants relationships.
No good deed is without unintended consequences.
The court should have said, "No." and along with that rendering have opined as to how the various states might cure the legal loop-hole, Like calling the paper you pay for a "Civil Union Permit", which is what it is, instead of a damn "Marriage License!"
Like dropping pebbles in a pond, it takes a while for the ripples to reach the farthest bank.
Ishmael
My opinion of the SCOTUS decision re. Gay Marriage.
It sucks, it's a bad decision. If you thought Roe v. Wade was divisive, you haven't seen anything yet.
First some background. Personally I could care less who you hang with or who you choose to make a legal binding with, that's your business. The issue is the word 'Marriage.' And that's what it's always been about. My debates on the subject with Rys (a militant gay) go way back and are still a matter of record here on Lit. He insisted that nothing less that calling the union a 'Marriage' would do, I disagreed then and do so this day.
Starting with what a 'Marriage License' really is. It's nothing more than a paid for permit for civil union. To execute that permit you don't need a preacher, or a church, just a notary public to affirm that the act of commitment was witnessed. Anyone can perform the ceremony, anywhere any time. So why not be honest with yourself and shit can the notion that forming a bond is some sacred sacrament barred from others based on religious prejudice....it's not and thinking so is a joke.
Words mean things.
Marriage is something that has been around for a several millennia. It's based on the concept of a man and a woman forming a life partnership. Even non-religious societies, such as the Romans, understood the meaning of the word. Apparently our SCOTUS doesn't, or thinks it can re-define it.
The 'Marriage License" you buy at the court house is the crux of the matter. I should have never been called a 'Marriage License', rather a civil union license or the such. Which brings us to the fact that if a government has the power to license any activity of any sort, then it has the power to determine under what conditions that license shall be issued. The court has effectively stripped away that authority from the states. What's next, drivers licenses?
Further the court has set itself up for innumerable conflicts. Anyone remember Burwell v Hobby Lobby? Well, that ruling set the stage for anyone of religious foundation to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone based on whatever their Gospel may be. Essentially stripping the states of enforcement of equal rights based on sexual preferences, Expect to see more of this in the future. I see a class action "Bakery Shop" suit in the future. I can only guess how the court is going to resolve the corner it's painted itself into.
I DO understand the desire for gay couples to enjoy the legal benefits that are currently in place for hetero unions without the need to employ a staff of lawyers. But could this have been accomplished without the re-definition of a word with such a history?
Words mean things.
As soon as you re-define a word then it is open for even further re-definition. And law suits will precipitate from that simple fact. As a matter of fact they already are. There is a suit winding its way through the courts regarding polygamy. If you read the plaintiff's logic it is essentially the same as the case recently adjudicated. And quite frankly that logic can be applied to virtually any combination of relationships regardless of gender, familial, or number of participants relationships.
No good deed is without unintended consequences.
The court should have said, "No." and along with that rendering have opined as to how the various states might cure the legal loop-hole, Like calling the paper you pay for a "Civil Union Permit", which is what it is, instead of a damn "Marriage License!"
Like dropping pebbles in a pond, it takes a while for the ripples to reach the farthest bank.
Ishmael
