The gay marriage ruling
So, a few thoughts on the events of the past two days.
Anyone who thinks that 9 justices decided to overturn millenia of practice is wrong. Truthfully, it was one. Why do I say that? One knows that the justices on the left, Ginsburg, Sotamayor, Kagan, and Breyer have prejudged the case. (Two of which, Kagan, and Ginsburg, have preformed same sex marriages). On the right you have Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and sometimes Roberts. This leaves simply Justice Kennedy, who was expected, and turned out to be, the deciding vote. One man. Not 6 men and 3 women. One man. Speaking of liberty, of democracy in his decision to throw out the desires of millions of voters. For those who felt this was about equality, it wasn't. It was about the good justice being a hero, or pariah. Simple as that.
Many have said to me that all they want is equality. Well, that is settled. Right? Well, apparently not, as one of the leading voices of the alphabet groups, George Takei, mentioned that it isn't enough to have equality before the law. People need to change their perspective, churches need to change their doctrine. (not quotes) As Jim Nabors used to say." Surprise, surprise, surprise." So equality isn't enough. What is? Let me put some more thoughts down, on where this could go.
So now that there are no limits to who can marry whom, why shouldn't the state mandate that all cohabitants must register their union with the state, for tax, and contractual purposes. I mean if that is what it is about, then rather than let people cohabitate under the radar, put the penalty of law with it. That would be a natural next step, wouldn't it? Especially since the law will be used as a bat against all those who would prefer the traditional definition of marriage.
I wonder if those states that have started legislation to purge their statutes of marriage, weddings, etc, will be allowed to follow through? I suspect that those states that have deeply held traditions regarding marriage may see legislation banning marriage from the legal code. If so, then it is a win, right? I mean if marriage is separated from the law, then it doesn't fall under the 14th amendment, right?
I know that I sound bitter about this, and I know that I am supposed to be loving, as that is what a Christian should be. I have my own reasons for being a little blind to the compassion required for this. Hate me if you like, I have my network of people that I can count on for friendship. Maybe over time. I would love to see the intolerant tolerance brigades be satisfied that they have overturned the applecart. I will be the first to admit that I am wrong about this. I sadly suspect that I am right.
I bet that Justice Kennedy won't have to buy any drinks for quite a while.
Parting shot: Who is more racist, the one who shouts epithets constantly, or the one who says "you can't make it on your own, you need my help"?
Anyone who thinks that 9 justices decided to overturn millenia of practice is wrong. Truthfully, it was one. Why do I say that? One knows that the justices on the left, Ginsburg, Sotamayor, Kagan, and Breyer have prejudged the case. (Two of which, Kagan, and Ginsburg, have preformed same sex marriages). On the right you have Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and sometimes Roberts. This leaves simply Justice Kennedy, who was expected, and turned out to be, the deciding vote. One man. Not 6 men and 3 women. One man. Speaking of liberty, of democracy in his decision to throw out the desires of millions of voters. For those who felt this was about equality, it wasn't. It was about the good justice being a hero, or pariah. Simple as that.
Many have said to me that all they want is equality. Well, that is settled. Right? Well, apparently not, as one of the leading voices of the alphabet groups, George Takei, mentioned that it isn't enough to have equality before the law. People need to change their perspective, churches need to change their doctrine. (not quotes) As Jim Nabors used to say." Surprise, surprise, surprise." So equality isn't enough. What is? Let me put some more thoughts down, on where this could go.
So now that there are no limits to who can marry whom, why shouldn't the state mandate that all cohabitants must register their union with the state, for tax, and contractual purposes. I mean if that is what it is about, then rather than let people cohabitate under the radar, put the penalty of law with it. That would be a natural next step, wouldn't it? Especially since the law will be used as a bat against all those who would prefer the traditional definition of marriage.
I wonder if those states that have started legislation to purge their statutes of marriage, weddings, etc, will be allowed to follow through? I suspect that those states that have deeply held traditions regarding marriage may see legislation banning marriage from the legal code. If so, then it is a win, right? I mean if marriage is separated from the law, then it doesn't fall under the 14th amendment, right?
I know that I sound bitter about this, and I know that I am supposed to be loving, as that is what a Christian should be. I have my own reasons for being a little blind to the compassion required for this. Hate me if you like, I have my network of people that I can count on for friendship. Maybe over time. I would love to see the intolerant tolerance brigades be satisfied that they have overturned the applecart. I will be the first to admit that I am wrong about this. I sadly suspect that I am right.
I bet that Justice Kennedy won't have to buy any drinks for quite a while.
Parting shot: Who is more racist, the one who shouts epithets constantly, or the one who says "you can't make it on your own, you need my help"?
Comments
Post a Comment