Fuckin' A.Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Best line in this thread, by far.
-Rob
Fuckin' A.
Best line in this thread, by far.
-Rob
I don't understand homosexuality or relate to it in any way. My personal view on marriage is that it is a covenant between a man and a woman.
That said, I agree 100% that marriage is a peronal matter and should be defined by individuals according to their beliefs and preferences and my views have nothing to do with someone else's views. It's none of the government's business. As long as there are protections in place for minors people should be allowed to marry whomever they wish.
I wish that it was simply a decision supporting personal liberty, but that isn't what underlies it at all in my opinion. Personal liberty is the least of the 5 majority Justices motivations in most cases unless it involves sex, abortion or marijuana. They are governmentniks who seek to expand the power of the federal government in every aspect of life possible-provided that said power is used in a way that they favor.
Personal liberty, and the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments are often not respected by the 4 dissenters in other contexts. It is a political, result oriented decision couched in constitutional language that accomplishes the equally important role of expanding the power of both the Court and the fed.
What CJ Roberts finds wrong in this decision, he wholeheartedly embraced in yesterday's Obamacare decision which is so constitutionally preposterous, that it is only topped by his first Obamacare opinion a couple of years ago. The most damaging part of yesterdays opinion is that a group of 5 unelected people simply by fiat said that the language of a federal statute doesn't mean what it explicitly says. The import of that rationale and it's impact in the future is staggering, and makes today's venture into political opinion-writing look tame.
At this point we have a Congress that enacts secret legislation, a president that acts by executive order in areas he is not permitted to, regulatory and enforcement agencies that act beyond the power of their statutory mandate and regulate beyond their statutory authority, untrammeled by the judicial branch as long as it advances the social agenda they prefer. The Republican party exists merely now to hope to usurp the power to dole out the goodies rather than actually change anything. Most labor under the hope that they can somehow convince both the media and liberals to like them. Every "compromise" and "bi-partisan" action by republicans is simply another notch in the completely effective incremental approach of the opposition. They never reverse anything or gain ground in any of these wonderful acts of bi-partisanship.
We have a party more than happy to make this happen, and another that is so cowardly and fearful that they will not act, even with a majority in both houses. There is little hope of this trend reversing. Several states are well past the point of ever electing statewide office holders who would do anything different, unless it is an even more liberal agenda than that of the party in power, as time passes this list of states grows.
On a happier note, today is Friday, as long as the Supreme Court says so.
Concur.
Wondering if Scalia is regretting his citation of "dicta" to leave the door open to some restrictions on the 2A:
"We Should Start Calling This Law SCOTUScare" And Scalia's 20 Other Epic Burns
Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
“It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
Glenn Reynolds
I should add that I believe the issue is different where offspring are concerned. This brings up considerations I don't know how this ruling will affect. Hopefully this will not lead to state-managed parenting rights, though I believe some on the left would welcome that. Children are not commodities, they are beings born of a heterosexual union at the basic level -- in all cases.
We already have state-managed parenting rights under divorce, unmarried parents, artificial insemination, and adoption cases. Bringing same-sex couples into the discussion doesn't significantly alter the problem. Child custody law is a nightmare, but it's not going to get any worse.
Regarding Kennedy's opinion -- I'm having a really hard time seeing how you draw the line here and don't include poly marriages under his logic. They've actually got more "traditional" history than homosexual unions. I'm not actually against that, either, as a died-in-the-wool whatever-between-consenting-adults libertarian. But somehow I don't think most of the people celebrating today would be in favor of the idea.
Glenn:
I often agree with you, and always find your posts thoughtful, but here I have to disagree in part. This decision is going to be used by the institutional left to smash anyone who disagrees with them--and they will be using the claim of "discrimination" (by which they mean "invidious discrimination") as their hammer.
And they won't carry through the same logic to firearms because they aren't interested in logic--they are interested in power. This is about fundamentally transforming America--NOT expanding our individual rights.
I do, however, very much agree with your last paragraph.
Oh god, my guns are going to be forced to gay marry each other! The prophecy has come true!
I already feel my heterosexual marriage to my wife waning. I'm worried by the end of the day I'm going to be married to some bro with no sense of style and forced to live with someone that wears a popped collar polo unironically.
My Colt 1903 and my S&W .38 Safety Hammerless already consider themselves to be life partners.
Me as well.
Reply With Quote
