Gay Marriage and The Law

[edwest2]

But the reality is, the gay marriage agenda is not satisfied with an honest appraisal of same sex relationships and a concordant civil union. It wants everything that the word “marriage” entails. It wants society’s false admission that it is the same thing as marriage, when it is not.

Anything less than buying the whole lie is now discrimination or bigotry. At the agenda and policy making level, it’s not really about recognizing the good that exists in these relationships, it’s about destroying religion.

If it weren’t about destroying religion, we would have the “lesser legal vehicles” you refer to. But that’s not enough.
The irony is that since these rights are based on a lie, they will surely fall given enough time and the wrong leadership in this country.

You can’t build a house on quicksand and then be amazed when it crumbles.

You are right.

Ed

 

[Midwest88]

I can’t wait till SCOTUS votes on group marriages and marriages to inanimate objects. All you have to do is to pull up Chief Justice Kennedy’s fortune cookie piece and you’re good to go.

 

[Thorolfr]

I can’t wait till SCOTUS votes on group marriages and marriages to inanimate objects. All you have to do is to pull up Chief Justice Kennedy’s fortune cookie piece and you’re good to go.

The number of people who want to marry inanimate objects is probably so infinitesimally small, that a case about this will probably never make it to SCOTUS.

 

[neophyte]

That’s a widely held fiction. The truth is that an unjust, unconstitutional decision is not binding on anyone - yes, refusing to abide by it will cause considerable discomfort but that doesn’t change the nonbonding nature of the ruling. The Executive and Legislative branches are free to ignore it, yes there would be considerable political fallout but, again, that doesn’t change the nature of relationship between the branches of government. And actions can be taken to put the Court back on track to reverse the decision at a later date; yes, it takes time but that doesn’t change the nature of the Court.

 

[Rau]

That’s a widely held fiction. The truth is that an unjust, unconstitutional decision is not binding on anyone - yes, refusing to abide by it will cause considerable discomfort but that doesn’t change the nonbonding nature of the ruling. The Executive and Legislative branches are free to ignore it, yes there would be considerable political fallout but, again, that doesn’t change the nature of relationship between the branches of government. And actions can be taken to put the Court back on track to reverse the decision at a later date; yes, it takes time but that doesn’t change the nature of the Court.

It’s generally the case that legislators and government leaders are committed to the rule of law. They are in general loathe to propose rejection of the decision of the highest court in the land, even when they disagree with its determinations on legal or other grounds. And if legislators opted to ignore the court, would we not expect any number of lower ranked “operatives” to be just as likely to reject or ignore legislation struck down by the court? Anarchy and mayhem can result. Of course, if the bulk of “the voting people” get behind the dissenters, the problem may be worked out…

SSM was absent from the books because it had barely entered the consciousness of most people until recent times, and had one taken a poll, it would have been widely rejected as incongruous. In some countries, the legislative definition of marriage did not even mention the requirement for opposite sexes - not through any intent to see the issue as irrelevant, but since the idea that marriage could be anything else never entered the minds of the legislators. Its nature and intent was self-evident.

However, the views of the masses have moved, and I think it is dubious that the legal position can be wound back in advance of the minds and hearts of the people wanting that.

 

[neophyte]

It’s generally the case that legislators and government leaders are committed to the rule of law. They are in general loathe to propose rejection of the decision of the highest court in the land, even when they disagree with its determinations on legal or other grounds. And if legislators opted to ignore the court, would we not expect any number of lower ranked “operatives” to be just as likely to reject or ignore legislation struck down by the court? Anarchy and mayhem can result. Of course, if the bulk of “the voting people” get behind the dissenters, the problem may be worked out…

SSM was absent from the books because it had barely entered the consciousness of most people until recent times, and had one taken a poll, it would have been widely rejected as incongruous. In some countries, the legislative definition of marriage did not even mention the requirement for opposite sexes - not through any intent to see the issue as irrelevant, but since the idea that marriage could be anything else never entered the minds of the legislators. Its nature and intent was self-evident.

However, the views of the masses have moved, and I think it is dubious that the legal position can be wound back in advance of the minds and hearts of the people wanting that.

This doesn’t really contradict what I said.