Tax funded Christian colleges in California are whining because they no longer can discriminate (divorce, believe)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why should a government allow one belief system make sweeping decisions for everyone? Christians are known to exclude others whom have different beliefs, the government can't just side with you. You excluded a group from marriage, in your first sentence. The government decides what constitutes a marriage, not your fundamentalist sect.
No one wanted sweeping changes except those arguing for same-sex marriage. No one wanted to exclude anyone from it -- we wanted it the same as it's always been. And I don't believe it's good policy to allow a minority of people to dictate to the majority these kinds of changes.
Quote:
Once again, your little game of semantics isn't working, same sex couples did not always have the right to marry each other. Now this right has been extended to everyone, including you. The SCOTUS ruling is not a special right, it applies to everybody.
And I never had the right to take a 2nd wife, or marry another man, or any of a number of deviations from normal. So what? So, yes--the SCOTUS ruling is adding new rights.
This is the real "sticky wicket" in all of this: SCOTUS is NOT "the law of the land".
That is for the Legislative Branch to do...not the Judiciary.
That was the main point of the dissenting Justice's--That SCOTUS is not supposed to make law...but that is what they effectively did...prompting the "Who do we think we are?" written in objection to it.
It has always been well known to be a big problem, this "legislating from the bench" that they do.
Ask Dred Scott.
Wrong. SCOTUS decides the constitutionality of the law. If there is a claim that a law is unconstitutional the case will wind its way through the Court.
That is when SCOTUS decides the constitutionality of the law. They did not make the law in the first place. They are the final arbiter if a law is constitutional.
Every future case about marriage equality will be based on SCOTUS rulings.
The relief for the Scott v Sanford was the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendment. It made the decision moot.
The Legislature cannot appeal Marriage Equality and neither can the States.
What they can do is seek an Amendment to the Constitution about marriage. 2/3 of both Houses would need to agree to a proposed amendment. Another way is for the States to have a Convention of States.
If the amendment is adopted by both Houses or the States it goes before the electorate for a vote and there are time limits to the vote.
No one wanted sweeping changes except those arguing for same-sex marriage. No one wanted to exclude anyone from it -- we wanted it the same as it's always been. And I don't believe it's good policy to allow a minority of people to dictate to the majority these kinds of changes.
And I never had the right to take a 2nd wife, or marry another man, or any of a number of deviations from normal. So what? So, yes--the SCOTUS ruling is adding new rights.
The Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of a law. Pull out your Skousen.
Your remedy is to convince 2/3 of the both houses of the Legislature to propose a new Amendment to the Constitution. You have a remedy, so stop complaining and get busy.
After that you have to get 2/3 of the States to ratify.
I am amazed how little you know about our Government.
You didn't do that well in Civics Class I take it?
You really don't understand the role of SCOTUS, do you? Or, like many, choose not to understand if the rulings go against your preconceived notion?
I don't like some SCOTUS decisions, I don't like some SCOC decisions, but in both cases, they are what interpret if a law is constitutional, and what it means. To paraphrase Churchill, "It is a the worst judicial system to have, except for all the others".
Go take a remedial Civics Class.
Your assumptions are poor.
SCOTUS just makes an assessment of the law...they are not "the law of the land"
A law must already exist for the Court to consider it...they don't (or, not supposed to) make law.
But that is what they do many times.
Funny you didn't address my post to you that noted rulings based on the bias of the Justices....that should never occur.
The bias is so great...you can very accurately predict on how each Justice will rule on a case. Which proves that system is bogus...and thinking we couldn't do better is bogus too.
I guess all those (including many Government Officials and even some of the Justices themselves) that complain about "Judiciary Overreach" need more Civics education, huh?
Wrong. SCOTUS decides the constitutionality of the law. If there is a claim that a law is unconstitutional the case will wind its way through the Court.
That is when SCOTUS decides the constitutionality of the law. They did not make the law in the first place. They are the final arbiter if a law is constitutional.
Every future case about marriage equality will be based on SCOTUS rulings.
The relief for the Scott v Sanford was the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendment. It made the decision moot.
The Legislature cannot appeal Marriage Equality and neither can the States.
What they can do is seek an Amendment to the Constitution about marriage. 2/3 of both Houses would need to agree to a proposed amendment. Another way is for the States to have a Convention of States.
If the amendment is adopted by both Houses or the States it goes before the electorate for a vote and there are time limits to the vote.
I do not expect this will happen.
Correct. They are NOT "the law of the land". They only assess existing law. At least...that is all they are supposed to do.
Thanx for reiterating my point...with details even. Cool.
IMO...the right way to do it would be: If a law is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court...things just go back to the way it was before the law that was struck down...not become some way it had never been before. Then the Legislative Branch can go from there with any follow-up.
When I started reading the first article I was agreeing with the law. By the end and after reading other articles I realized the law was bad.
I am all in favor about not mandating a statement of faith and requiring chapel attendance. But the new law opens the door for too many things. Going in people know what these colleges believe and teach. A person that knows that, enrolls, and then gets offended should not be able to sue or claim discrimination.
I don't understand why anyone, devout Christian or not would want to attend these schools. If I was in a hiring position I would throw the resume out as soon as I saw the school name.
Back in the 50's Blacks had the right to sit at their section of the counter also. What was all the fuss about?
Stop comparing it it to the civil rights era. That's just a crutch. Excellent article explaining the truth behind such comparisons:
Quote:
When our country began to grant full civil rights to black Americans, the moral statement we made was that African-Americans must be treated as the human beings they are.
When we gave marriage rights to same-sex couples, the moral statement we made was that homoeroticism was worthy of moral celebration.
There are some who, like our vice president, think gay marriage is morally equivalent to historic civil rights victories for African-Americans. The effect of this is to say that the belief that African-Americans are human, and should be treated as such, is ethically equivalent to the belief that same-sex erotic activities are worthy of moral celebration.
That’s obviously wrong—to understate things badly again.
Regardless of one’s views on marriage or homosexuality, civil rights and gay rights cannot rationally be viewed as occupying the same level of moral import. To suggest that they do is to err at the deepest level of human ethical reasoning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
