Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

[Peter_Plato]

The problems with the argument from tradition are twofold: One, no one has as of yet explained how this decision *negates *the history of the marriage institution, and two, there is no set, universally-recognized arbiter of the traditional definition of marriage.

You are joking, right?

As to “one,” it would seem self-evident that the decision negates the history of the marriage institution by negating the fact that marriage has virtually always and everywhere been regarded as between one man and one woman. If that is not “negation,” I am not clear what you could possibly mean by the word.

And “two,” because there is no “…set, universally-recognized arbiter of the traditional definition of marriage,” (a dubious claim) you are willing to accept that a tie-breaking decision by a solitary judge should function as THE universally recognized arbiter AGAINST the traditional definition of marriage?

Besides, even if there wasn’t one "set, universally-recognized arbiter, the fact that it was universally arbitrated in virtually the same way in favour of a traditional view every time it has been down through all past history, speaks to the universal agreement of humanity with the traditional definition - well, except for the madness taking place in our day. A madness, which, of course, is understandable since elites in power today are known to be far more insane and bent on the destruction of the human race than in any other past time.

 

[Suudy]

The implication given is that its association to Naziism makes it invalid. Rather than explaining why it’s invalid, merely dropping Hitler into the mix saves one from having to do the heavy lifting of actually explaining why it was bad. It’s the epitome of intellectual laziness.

First, you are presuming the rationale for bringing up the example of Nazi Germany was primarily to incite an emotional response in an effort to shutdown conversation. And second, it would only be successful if the receiver of the argument actually let their emotion get involved. So, the invocation of “Godwin’s Law” to shutdown discussion is problems of presumption and emotion. Seems to me the problem is with people who invoke Godwin’s Law, rather than those who bring up Nazi examples.

So Wickard v. Filburn allowed the government to regulate economic activity. But, as marriage has the character of an economic activity, complete with tax benefits, etc., Obergefell v. Hodges in many ways put more economic power into the hands of the people by allowing more couples to take advantage of these benefits.

Only since the growth of the welfare state does marriage have anything whatsoever with economic activity. So the economic argument is only barely older than the “love” argument.

The point of the Wickard v. Filburn is that the USSC arbitrarily defined nearly any activity whatsoever as economic activity, granting a **huge/b] amount of power to the federal government.

The ideal has been the norm since classical antiquity. Men would go off to war, business, etc., and women would keep the home fires burning, so to speak.

Of course, “so to speak.” Though never was keeping the “home fires burning” an essential aspect of all marriages at all times. What was an essential aspect was a man and a woman. Küche and Kirche were not requirements, but were often present.

The problems with the argument from tradition are twofold: One, no one has as of yet explained how this decision *negates *

the history of the marriage institution, and two, there is no set, universally-recognized arbiter of the traditional definition of marriage.
I like Peter Plato’s answer. But there’s more. What “universally-recognized arbiter” of anything is recognized? But suddenly 5 judges are?**

 

[Suudy]

A madness, which, of course, is understandable since elites in power today are known to be far more insane and bent on the destruction of the human race than in any other past time.

Or, as Peter Kreeft has quoted, “there is no idea so strange that some philosopher has not seriously taught it.” These elites have their heads so far in the clouds and have filled their minds with idealist garbage, they ignore reality, and seriously consider queer ideas. Their bent toward the destruction of western civilization may not be intentional, but it certainly is based in their insane idealism.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

You are joking, right?

As to “one,” it would seem self-evident that the decision negates the history of the marriage institution by negating the fact that marriage has virtually always and everywhere been regarded as between one man and one woman. If that is not “negation,” I am not clear what you could possibly mean by the word.

It’s not even regarded that way through most of the Bible. Although, to be fair, the practice of polygamy and harem-keeping has ever been the province of Pharoahs, Kings, Sultans, etc. rather than the lower class.

And “two,” because there is no “…set, universally-recognized arbiter of the traditional definition of marriage,” (a dubious claim)

I welcome the name(s) of the arbiter(s).

you are willing to accept that a tie-breaking decision by a solitary judge should function as THE universally recognized arbiter AGAINST the traditional definition of marriage?

Well, the judges aren’t universally recognized, no? Their influence ends at the United States border; their ruling on the right to marriage isn’t binding when you go to Canada or Mexico. Indeed, as imparting the right to marriage only impacts, say, the five percent of Americans who are homosexual, where Americans comprise only about five percent of the world’s population, then how can it be “universal”?

Besides, even if there wasn’t one "set, universally-recognized arbiter, the fact that it was universally arbitrated in virtually the same way in favour of a traditional view every time it has been down through all past history, speaks to the universal agreement of humanity with the traditional definition - well, except for the madness taking place in our day.

As I said, for most of human history, the traditional view didn’t apply to the elites of society.

A madness, which, of course, is understandable since elites in power today are known to be far more insane and bent on the destruction of the human race than in any other past time.

“Are known”, huh?

 

[Darryl_Revok]

First, you are presuming the rationale for bringing up the example of Nazi Germany was primarily to incite an emotional response in an effort to shutdown conversation.

Not to shutdown conversation, but to avoid doing the intellectual heavy lifting required to elaborate such a comparison, is how I put it, I think.

And second, it would only be successful if the receiver of the argument actually let their emotion get involved. So, the invocation of “Godwin’s Law” to shutdown discussion is problems of presumption and emotion. Seems to me the problem is with people who invoke Godwin’s Law, rather than those who bring up Nazi examples.

So your argument is that the association fallacy inherent in Godwins Law doesn’t apply if someone buys the argument?

Only since the growth of the welfare state does marriage have anything whatsoever with economic activity. So the economic argument is only barely older than the “love” argument.

For the entirety of human history, marriage was an economic transaction. The bride price and the dowry are far, *far *older than the concept of romantic love.

The point of the Wickard v. Filburn is that the USSC arbitrarily defined nearly any activity whatsoever as economic activity, granting a huge/b] amount of power to the federal government.

So, Obergefell v. Hodges has, in effect, devolved a measure of economic activity in re: marriage by widening the definition of marriage to include more parties than previously recognized by the government, then it, in a small way, counteracts part of Wickard v. Fillburn.

Of course, “so to speak.” Though never was keeping the “home fires burning” an essential aspect of all marriages at all times. What was an essential aspect was a man and a woman. Küche and Kirche were not requirements, but were often present.

As I said, the essential aspect of marriage was a man, a woman, and whatever the man paid the father.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Nonsense. The State has a vested interest in the next generation of society and making sure they are raised in the best possible situation. Recognizing marriage is a vested interest of the State to protect the rights of wives and children. Since there are no children from homosexual unions, there is no such thing as gay “marriage” and the State is under no requirement to recognize such.

The State has never demonstrated such an interest nor can it invent new criteria to apply to one class for the purpose of excluding it.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The difference is not in the products they sell. There is no such thing as a gay wedding cake or a straight wedding cake. A cake is an inanimate object without gender or sexual orientation. The difference is the sexual orientation of the customers and it is not legal to base a decision to refuse to sell a product on that difference.

It could be stated that the baker was not discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation (as evidenced by prior service to homosexuals) but rather against a behavior that cannot be supported on religious grounds.

In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity…and now sexual orientation. However, the introduction of morally significant religious criteria changes the analysis of discrimination.

Discrimination against harmful conduct that is religiously and morally objectionable is entirely rational, and in some cases necessary.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

It could be stated that the baker was not discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation (as evidenced by prior service to homosexuals) but rather against a behavior that cannot be supported on religious grounds.

In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity…and now sexual orientation. However, the introduction of morally significant religious criteria changes the analysis of discrimination.

Discrimination against harmful conduct that is religiously and morally objectionable is entirely rational, and in some cases necessary.

Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is still a legal problem because the sexual orientation of the customer is used to determine whether or not those religious beliefs are applied. In other words, anything goes for heterosexual customers and only homosexual customers are targeted.

 

[zz912]

The State has never demonstrated such an interest nor can it invent new criteria to apply to one class for the purpose of excluding it.

Ahem.

Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Ahem.

Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What a funny State we live under, eh? It has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination against the right to homosexual marriage yet no compelling interest in safeguarding the welfare of its posterity.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The State has never demonstrated such an interest nor can it invent new criteria to apply to one class for the purpose of excluding it.

The state demonstrated such an interest by promulgating laws concerning marriage and its integral connection to protecting the rights of offspring (new citizens) from those marriages.

If protecting the rights of the posterity arising from marriages was never the interest of the State, why did the State not seek to regulate friendships and assorted other “loving” or “committed” relationships between two adults in non-procreative “unions” before now?

It was never an issue until advocates for SSM made it an issue by seeking to rewrite what a marriage essentially is in order to be included in the non-existent interests that the State has never had in marriage.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is still a legal problem because the sexual orientation of the customer is used to determine whether or not those religious beliefs are applied. In other words, anything goes for heterosexual customers and only homosexual customers are targeted.

There is an appearance of being “targeted” because these particular homosexual customers went out of their way to load the gun, put it in the hands of the bakers, point it at themselves and then feign being targeted.

This must be the only case in history where NOT aiming or shooting, i.e., refusing to take part in a non-existent, not legally recognized, activity, constitutes “targeting.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

I welcome the name(s) of the arbiter(s).

Well, the judges aren’t universally recognized, no? Their influence ends at the United States border; their ruling on the right to marriage isn’t binding when you go to Canada or Mexico. Indeed, as imparting the right to marriage only impacts, say, the five percent of Americans who are homosexual, where Americans comprise only about five percent of the world’s population, then how can it be “universal”?

As I said, for most of human history, the traditional view didn’t apply to the elites of society.

“Are known”, huh?

Well, yes.

The United Nations Council on Human Rights (July 10, 2015), for one, passed in this year’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights - by an increased majority: 29 in favor, 14 against, and 4 abstentions - the following resolution:

Excerpt

4.Reaffirms that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State;
5.Also reaffirms that States have the primary responsibility to promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all human beings, and stresses the fundamental importance of full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms of all family members;
6.Recognizes that the family, while respect for the rights of its members is ensured, is a strong force for social cohesion and integration, intergenerational solidarity and social development, and that the family plays a crucial role in the preservation of cultural identity, traditions, morals, heritage and the values system of society;
7.Conscious that families are sensitive to strain caused by social and economic changes, and expresses deep concern that conditions have worsened for many families owing to economic and financial crises, lack of job security, temporary employment and lack of regular income and gainful employment, as well as measures taken by Governments seeking to balance their budget by reducing social expenditure;
8.Recognizes that the family unit is facing increasing vulnerabilities;
9.Urges Member States to create a conducive environment to strengthen and support all families, recognizing that equality between women and men and respect for all the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all family members are essential to family well-being and to society at large, noting the importance of reconciliation of work and family life and recognizing the principle of shared parental responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child;
10.Underlines that the family has the primary responsibility for the nurturing and protection of children from infancy to adolescence, that the introduction of children to the culture, values and norms of their society begins in the family, and that in order to better ensure the full and harmonious development of their personality, children should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding, and, accordingly, all institutions of society should respect and support the efforts of parents and other caregivers to nurture and care for children in a family environment;
11.Urges States to take appropriate measures to ensure that a child is not separated from his or her parents against his or her will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such a separation is necessary for the best interests of the child, and also to ensure that in no case shall a child be separated from his or her parents on the basis of a disability of either the child or one or both of the parents;

ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/d_res_dec/A_HRC_29_L25.docx

Background:
c-fam.org/friday_fax/big-win-for-traditional-family-at-un-human-rights-council/

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The state demonstrated such an interest by promulgating laws concerning marriage and its integral connection to protecting the rights of offspring (new citizens) from those marriages.

If protecting the rights of the posterity arising from marriages was never the interest of the State, why did the State not seek to regulate friendships and assorted other “loving” or “committed” relationships between two adults in non-procreative “unions” before now?

It was never an issue until advocates for SSM made it an issue by seeking to rewrite what a marriage essentially is in order to be included in the non-existent interests that the State has never had in marriage.

That simply is not true. The State has never required that any heterosexual couple be capable of, intend to, or ever have children in order to obtain and retain a marriage license. In fact the state acknowledged during oral arguments that even asking such a question as part of the application process would be unconstitutional.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That simply is not true. The State has never required that any heterosexual couple be capable of, intend to, or ever have children in order to obtain and retain a marriage license. In fact the state acknowledged during oral arguments that even asking such a question as part of the application process would be unconstitutional.

So what? This does nothing to refute the notion that the state’s interest in marriage was grounded in its interest to protect any and all children (potential citizens) that arose from the marriage. The fact that some marriages do not produce offspring is irrelevant to the reason why the state has an interest in marriage because of its potential to produce potential citizens.

Heterosexual couples have the potential, grounded in fundamental biological reality, to create children, same sex couples do not.

Now, if you want to argue that the state, then, has no interest in sexual relationships which have inherently no potential to create children, you are welcome to make that argument. Obviously taking that option completely undermines your position, but you are welcome to do so.

 

[Laurent_LUG]

Of course…a small percentage of the population with a weird behavior and that makes it acceptable. Why not include pedophiles?

About pedophiles , are you serious
Everyone who support child molesting is 100% nuts in the brain !!!

 

[Laurent_LUG]

That doesn’t seem to be the attitude of most gays…

8 year old boy in the NY City Gay parade celebrating the Supreme Court decision…

Explain us , please

P.S.: Not all gays are pedophiles , and not all pedophiles are gay .

 

[Laurent_LUG]

Oh, please, St. Patrick’s day is a national holiday in Ireland (and was recognized there first as a religious holiday/feast), and although it has lost its religious roots (as Christmas and Easter have to some degree), that does not mean that St. Patrick’s day can be extorted into something that it is not, i.e., a day to celebrate one’s sexuality or endorse one’s sexuality. End of story.

Is the government aware of this, because they need to be notified?

p.s. I wonder what your thoughts are about Gay Pride parades (are they family friendly)?

True

 

[Laurent_LUG]

It could be stated that the baker was not discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation (as evidenced by prior service to homosexuals) but rather against a behavior that cannot be supported on religious grounds.

In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity…and now sexual orientation. However, the introduction of morally significant religious criteria changes the analysis of discrimination.

Discrimination against harmful conduct that is religiously and morally objectionable is entirely rational, and in some cases necessary.

Discrimination is a sin & crime at the same time , so …

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

So what? This does nothing to refute the notion that the state’s interest in marriage was grounded in its interest to protect any and all children (potential citizens) that arose from the marriage. The fact that some marriages do not produce offspring is irrelevant to the reason why the state has an interest in marriage because of its potential to produce potential citizens.

Heterosexual couples have the potential, grounded in fundamental biological reality, to create children, same sex couples do not.

Now, if you want to argue that the state, then, has no interest in sexual relationships which have inherently no potential to create children, you are welcome to make that argument. Obviously taking that option completely undermines your position, but you are welcome to do so.

Incorrect. The State was always neutral on whether or not marriage license applicants ever wanted, could have, or would have children. Another fact acknowledged by the State in oral arguments. Your narrative is a fiction invented by opponents of same-sex marriage with foundation in reality.