![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jun. 26th, 2015
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Of course states like Alabama, Kansas andf others will still try to wiggle around it, but they are running out of wiggle room fast.
Of course states like Alabama, Kansas andf others will still try to wiggle around it, but they are running out of wiggle room fast.
The law doesn't work like that.
Jun. 26th, 2015 03:30 pmI'm *highly* irritated afte reading all the BS coming from the anti marriage equality folks.
First off all the stuff about marriage being designed or set up by God.
Sorry, that is a tenet of your religion and as such *cannot* be a factor in *any* secular legal decision.
Second, there are *two* very different things referred to as "marriage. One is a something often down by a priest or other religious official and is often consided a sacrament by Christians.
Today's decision has *no* effect on that because it wasn't even *about* that.
Let me remind some folks that "gay marriages" were being performed by some *christian churcjhes 40 years ago. I attended a couple in the 1970s.
Their *church* considered them to be nmarried by *legally* they were not.
And that brings us to the *second* thing called "marriage". It's *legal* status. And has absolutely nothing to do with the religious kind of marriage. Yes, there's considerable overlap between the folks who are religiously married and those who are legally married. But that doesn't mean that one depends on the other.
The courts have *no* authoprity over the religious kind of marriage. But they are the *only* authoprity over the civil (lkegal) sort. Religions and religious tuypes need not apply.
Now, the next set of arguments are variously phrased as "judicial activism", "defying the will of the people", or "denying the democratic process".
These all depend on completely (and usually *deliberately) misunderstanding who the courts and legal system work.
The whole *point* of the Constitution (and amendments) is to set up things that are *not* subject to politics nor to "the will of the people". That's because the founders had lots of examples going clear back to the anmcient Greeks of what happens if you *don't say that there are things not subject to popular vote.
So unless you can amend the Constitution to sauy otherwise (and that's really hard *on purpose). If the Supreme Court rules on it, that's the end of it. And it is *not* denying voters rights. Because the decision is saying that the voters do not *have* the right to vote on this subject.
BTW, one of the things that pretty much guarantees a decision *against* you is if it is obvious that the law the SC is being asked to look at is based upon aniums with little or no other justification.
Reading the justifications for the "gay marriage" bans, and the arguments when thety were overturned (and especvialy the ranting today) makes it very clear that this *is* what's going on.
And the whole point of things like the Bill of Rights is to say that the majority can't vote to withold things from a minority just because they don't like them.
So a lot of folks ned to grow up and realize that you *don't* get to pass laws making your religious beliefs into legal restrictions.
And now the next phase in the war...
There have been a number of "religious freedom" arguments. And laws that claim to be for that.
Sorry, but your right to exercise your religion *ends* at the point you attempt to make someone else comply with your beliefs.
don't want to issue marriage licenses to gays? Don't get a job that involves marriage licenses.
Don't want to hand out birth control (or "morning after" pills)? Don't get a job as a pharmacist.
And BTW, there's actually evidence of organized efforts yo *get* people who are against those sorts of things into those sorts opf jobs specifically so they *could* deny various services to people.
And this "you can decide not to do your job if doing so violates your religious beliefs" is a *major* can of worms. Because *none* of these bills restrict it "gays".
Want a Christian Scientist caseworker deciding not to process your medical claims? It's *legal* under those laws!
First off all the stuff about marriage being designed or set up by God.
Sorry, that is a tenet of your religion and as such *cannot* be a factor in *any* secular legal decision.
Second, there are *two* very different things referred to as "marriage. One is a something often down by a priest or other religious official and is often consided a sacrament by Christians.
Today's decision has *no* effect on that because it wasn't even *about* that.
Let me remind some folks that "gay marriages" were being performed by some *christian churcjhes 40 years ago. I attended a couple in the 1970s.
Their *church* considered them to be nmarried by *legally* they were not.
And that brings us to the *second* thing called "marriage". It's *legal* status. And has absolutely nothing to do with the religious kind of marriage. Yes, there's considerable overlap between the folks who are religiously married and those who are legally married. But that doesn't mean that one depends on the other.
The courts have *no* authoprity over the religious kind of marriage. But they are the *only* authoprity over the civil (lkegal) sort. Religions and religious tuypes need not apply.
Now, the next set of arguments are variously phrased as "judicial activism", "defying the will of the people", or "denying the democratic process".
These all depend on completely (and usually *deliberately) misunderstanding who the courts and legal system work.
The whole *point* of the Constitution (and amendments) is to set up things that are *not* subject to politics nor to "the will of the people". That's because the founders had lots of examples going clear back to the anmcient Greeks of what happens if you *don't say that there are things not subject to popular vote.
So unless you can amend the Constitution to sauy otherwise (and that's really hard *on purpose). If the Supreme Court rules on it, that's the end of it. And it is *not* denying voters rights. Because the decision is saying that the voters do not *have* the right to vote on this subject.
BTW, one of the things that pretty much guarantees a decision *against* you is if it is obvious that the law the SC is being asked to look at is based upon aniums with little or no other justification.
Reading the justifications for the "gay marriage" bans, and the arguments when thety were overturned (and especvialy the ranting today) makes it very clear that this *is* what's going on.
And the whole point of things like the Bill of Rights is to say that the majority can't vote to withold things from a minority just because they don't like them.
So a lot of folks ned to grow up and realize that you *don't* get to pass laws making your religious beliefs into legal restrictions.
And now the next phase in the war...
There have been a number of "religious freedom" arguments. And laws that claim to be for that.
Sorry, but your right to exercise your religion *ends* at the point you attempt to make someone else comply with your beliefs.
don't want to issue marriage licenses to gays? Don't get a job that involves marriage licenses.
Don't want to hand out birth control (or "morning after" pills)? Don't get a job as a pharmacist.
And BTW, there's actually evidence of organized efforts yo *get* people who are against those sorts of things into those sorts opf jobs specifically so they *could* deny various services to people.
And this "you can decide not to do your job if doing so violates your religious beliefs" is a *major* can of worms. Because *none* of these bills restrict it "gays".
Want a Christian Scientist caseworker deciding not to process your medical claims? It's *legal* under those laws!