SCOTUS Gay Marriage Thread

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I don't know why you think this has anything to do with churches. Churches already had the ability to deny to perform weddings. What makes you think they've lost that?



There are lots of things a legislator might be in favor of that are unconstitutional or may become unconstitutional in the future. That's the way it works. What does a court clerk do? I'm sure they are against many things that come before the court. There is a compelling government interest in offering access to this. The remedy will be to replace you if your religious beliefs prevent you from fulfilling the duties of the job.

There are lots of things that are legal that schoolteachers are not required to promote. What makes you think they have to promote it?

There is so much FUD in your post that I cannot believe you really think all of that is true.

Lack of quotations on my part. I pulled this for an article. Sorry about that. Not my thoughts. I don't know if this will happen. And I hope not. I was just illustrating some of the thought process that is starting to percolate out there.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Was it a bad law in the books of many states? Sure.
But it was voted on by the people of the states. And most states were changing those laws. So, why did the feds have to step in? They didn't. But an overzealous group of judges felt they needed to legislate.

Checks and balances. If states don't like it, then amend the constitution. Otherwise, the Supreme Court has done their job and invalidated a law or set of laws which violates the equal protection clause.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Subby

Yeah they said the same about Jim Crow, too. Somehow I think that wouldn't have happened. Just a hunch.

Considering it was being legalized in most states already, you are not correct. Only 13 states are left with the law on the books. And those were falling by the wayside this year. Only 3 are standing up against the SCOTUS ruling today.
In 2004, Missouri passed an amendment banning same sex marriage. This year St. Louis allowed same sex people to marry. Change was happening fast. And at the right level.

Time to get your head out of the sand.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by digamma

So, we'll put you in the Huckabee camp of either needing a refresh on basic U.S. Civics or being willfully ignorant about how judicial review works? Fair?

As my 2 year old says, "So, ummm...."

[Tekneek]

Referring back to Loving v Virginia, I always found this quote that was taken from the original trial judge's decision quite disturbing:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

A Judge invoked religion to justify an anti-miscegenation law.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Considering it was being legalized in most states already, you are not correct. Only 13 states are left with the law on the books. And those were falling by the wayside this year. Only 3 are standing up against the SCOTUS ruling today.
In 2004, Missouri passed an amendment banning same sex marriage. This year St. Louis allowed same sex people to marry. Change was happening fast. And at the right level.

Time to get your head out of the sand.

Fast for you maybe. Not fast enough for people in the states where they were being denied equal protection under the law.

[tarcone]

States were doing their jobs. Laws were being changed at the state level. Where they were passed. With the support of the people of those states.

The due process of law was being followed. States were changing the laws about same sex marriage.

Change was here. The Supreme Court should not have gotten involved.

[tarcone]

I having a hard time with the protection statement. What needed to be protected? How is marrying someone protecting you Under the law?
No one was going to jail for marrying a person of the same sex. Is this based solely on child custody and inheritance? And we're those things being trampled by states?

What exactly is not being protected equally? Or did I answer my own questions?

[corbes]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I having a hard time with the protection statement. What needed to be protected? How is marrying someone protecting you Under the law?
No one was going to jail for marrying a person of the same sex. Is this based solely on child custody and inheritance? And we're those things being trampled by states?

What exactly is not being protected equally? Or did I answer my own questions?

Try the first 33 pages or so of this document.

[molson]

Originally Posted by tarcone

States were doing their jobs. Laws were being changed at the state level. Where they were passed. With the support of the people of those states.

.

Only about 13 states actually passed legislation legalizing gay marriage. The rest got there through the courts, either state or federal. My state banned gay marriage, but the ban was overturned by the 9th circuit. If the supreme court went the other way, the state ban would have been back in effect.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I having a hard time with the protection statement. What needed to be protected? How is marrying someone protecting you Under the law?
No one was going to jail for marrying a person of the same sex. Is this based solely on child custody and inheritance? And we're those things being trampled by states?

What exactly is not being protected equally? Or did I answer my own questions?

Just stop before you further embarrass yourself. Either you're being willfully obtuse or you aren't clever enough to understand the meaning of the term.

[Solecismic]

I have a hard time going with the "wait until my state does the right thing" argument. It would be a long wait in many places.

Two counties out of marriage business for good after Supreme Court ruling | AL.com

Included are many quotes from state officials indicating that their personal religious beliefs are more important than the rights of the people in their state.

This may be comforting to you, but to those who don't share their personal faith, it's horrifying. As it should be to anyone. Imagine if someone from a religion entirely different from yours had the power. Our Founding Fathers - both those who were religious and those who weren't - had no trouble imagining that horror.

[Subby]

Seriously man - you are embarrassing yourself. You are basically arguing for the dissolution of the Supreme Court because they handed down a decision with which you do not agree.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by tarcone

States were doing their jobs. Laws were being changed at the state level. Where they were passed. With the support of the people of those states.

The due process of law was being followed. States were changing the laws about same sex marriage.

Change was here. The Supreme Court should not have gotten involved.

Fuck the Constitution because ... uh... states were doing their jobs?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I have no issue with who marries who. I have an issue when the Feds start impinging on the states right to govern.
This is an emotional issue. But it was forced upon the land in the wrong way. This will cause more problems long term. It should have been done the right way. And had it, I imagine within a couple years you would have seen 90% of states legalizing it and within a couple years after that, every state.

It is not the judicial branches job to make law. And that's what they did.

Seriously, what do you think is the function of the Supreme Court? And have they ever made a decision/"law" that you thought was right or Consitutional?


BTW, you would have failed my Civics class... It is essential to understand majority rules vs minority rights and the role the Supreme Court.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by tarcone

States were doing their jobs. Laws were being changed at the state level. Where they were passed. With the support of the people of those states.

The due process of law was being followed. States were changing the laws about same sex marriage.

Change was here. The Supreme Court should not have gotten involved.

My other quips aside, you understand how cases get to the Supreme Court, right? They first get brought at the trial court level and then are appealed either to the highest state court or federal circuit court of appeals. The case is then appealed to the USSC, which can accept or deny hearing the case. The USSC doesn't just decide to get involved.

On your second question, corbes link provides all the details, but one of the cases before the court involved being recognized as a surviving spouse for a host of reasons, one involved a recognition of a two parent adoption (again important for a number of reasons and one involved overall recognition of the marriage within the new state.

[Brian Swartz]

So much going on here .

Originally Posted by ToddZilla

Brian - do you have any issues with the sexual nerves involved?

I do not know what you mean, and the way it's phrased I'm afraid to guess . Could you be more specific please?

On polygamy -- whether there is a serious group going in that direction is irrelevant, equal rights are equal rights. American opinion is sliding in the direction of it as well, though still with low approval but again, that shouldn't matter as a matter of law. Any and all marriages involving any number of people who are of legal standing to consent would be the logical outcome.

The objection has been raised that the issue here was a segment of the population was not allowed to marry. This is not true. The issue was, they were only allowed to marry those of the other gender. In other words, they could marry but were limited in who they could marry. If anyone can marry anyone -- well, that means exactly what it says. In my opinion, this would not significantly change things from where we are now.

Originally Posted by Tekneek

If SCOTUS finds a law to be unconstitutional, it does not matter what any state thinks about it. The U.S. Constitution supersedes all.

This is sadly true, in contrast to the intent of the founders. Hamilton would be disgusted as with many others. Of course they were wrong about many things. Regardless, those who are suggesting an organized resistance to the ruling are dead wrong IMO. It must be given the same respect as any other SCOTUS finding. Civil disobedience should be done the right way and only if absolutely necessary, with respect and openly, expecting to humbly pay the penalty of law for such action.

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I just can't believe that people think the government is going to outlaw their religion because they've ruled that the government has to treat people equally.

As stated, I agree with you. I think it's ridiculous. But there are significant concerns that are not so ridiculous. Here's how it's progressed, in stages:

** Stage 1: With the modern understanding of separation of church and state, secular views are inherently superior to those of religious views as a matter of constitutional law. Ergo, the person of faith can exercise their religion anywhere they see fit, but they'd better keep it out of politics.

** Stage 2: This is where we are now. From politics to the professional. We know for example now that anywhere there are public accommodation laws on the books, a person of religious convictions that objects cannot be involved in any business involved in catering to weddings in any fashion. Photographers, bakers, wedding chapels, those who might operate venues used for weddings, etc. As Roberts mentioned in his dissent, this type of thing will almost certainly continue. He mentioned private adoption agencies and religious colleges, there are many other places where this will come in. At least at this point, the conscientious person of faith who won't participate in or support same-sex marriages will continue to be pushed out of a number of important avenues of business.

** Stage 3 would be the personal level. We aren't there yet, and at this point I'd agree with you I think it very unlikely to happen. The question is, does it really matter? If a religious person does not have free expression in the political arena and they don't have it the business arena, how can they truly be considered free to exercise their religion? This is what is gradually coming, and I don't think it's unreasonable at all.

This is not a woe-is-me, persecution-based pity party. As mentioned I believe this is going to be a great time of opportunity. But when equal protection under the law(government not discriminating) is expanded to mean equal protection by everyone(businesses/citizens can't discriminate either), then by nature those who object are going to be gradually pushed out of more and more areas if they can't or won't bow to the new orthodoxy. It's simply inevitable and things cannot be otherwhise.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I have a hard time going with the "wait until my state does the right thing" argument. It would be a long wait in many places.

Two counties out of marriage business for good after Supreme Court ruling | AL.com

Included are many quotes from state officials indicating that their personal religious beliefs are more important than the rights of the people in their state.

This may be comforting to you, but to those who don't share their personal faith, it's horrifying. As it should be to anyone. Imagine if someone from a religion entirely different from yours had the power. Our Founding Fathers - both those who were religious and those who weren't - had no trouble imagining that horror.

Seriously the answer to gay marriage is to stop issuing Marriage licenses, for both same sex and traditional couples? I hope they enjoy looking for new jobs then. If you don't like/personally against your new job responsibilties, you quit rather than stop everybody from getting married.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Hamilton would be disgusted as with many others.

With what, the concept of the constitution as the supreme law of the land or the concept of judicial review? Hamilton was on board with both, even before Marbury v. Madison.

[Brian Swartz]

The second part. As originally instituted, SCOTUS was not considered the final arbiter of the Constitution. They did have the power of judicial review but it was not an absolute power(for example, Jefferson's refusal to enforce the Alien & Sedition Acts because he didn't believe they were constitutional).

[BigPapi]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I have a hard time going with the "wait until my state does the right thing" argument. It would be a long wait in many places.

Two counties out of marriage business for good after Supreme Court ruling | AL.com

Included are many quotes from state officials indicating that their personal religious beliefs are more important than the rights of the people in their state.

This may be comforting to you, but to those who don't share their personal faith, it's horrifying. As it should be to anyone. Imagine if someone from a religion entirely different from yours had the power. Our Founding Fathers - both those who were religious and those who weren't - had no trouble imagining that horror.

Maybe you can elucidate on this further; I'm having trouble parsing the difference of having another's religious beliefs transferred unwillingly to oneself and having an unelected and unaccountable 9 person panel transfer their personal beliefs on another? That's why the Founding Father's intended for the people to vote on these matters. And please don't twist this into my disparaging the intent of the Supreme Court; this is about 5 individuals operating wholly outside the bounds of their authority.

The very scary truth here has nothing to do with Gay Marriage. It's a disturbing precedent that the Supreme Court is solidifying it's role from constitutional enforcer to groundbreaking activist.

I find it mildly amusing- and slightly ironic, reading the accusations of some on this board that dissenters of this ruling can only be so
because of clear personal bias against the gay community. As judge Roberts put it:

"Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law,"

I concur further with his sentiments that this robs the states of the satisfaction of passing these laws of their own volition:

"Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today," Roberts wrote. "Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."

I'm almost afraid to ask: How may among us would still see justice in this law passing even if 60% of eligible voters in their state would vote against it? There's a word for that type of government folks.

[ISiddiqui]

Nope. It's about the interpretation of the Due Process Clause (Substantive Due Process doctrine in this case - the same doctrine used in Loving v. Virginia) and the Equal Protection clause as it applies to homosexuals wishing to get married. Not personal, Constitutional.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Subby

Seriously man - you are embarrassing yourself. You are basically arguing for the dissolution of the Supreme Court because they handed down a decision with which you do not agree.

Speaking of that....


Bobby Jindal wants to get rid of US Supreme Court - The Economic Times

Even Republican talking heads are shaking their heads at this one. He's pissed off at the Obamacare ruling too. He still thinks they can repeal Obamacare too. The Supreme Court is right there in the Constitution that Republicans keep waving in our faces-so your answer is to remove them from it? Seriously? I didn't think there was anybody crazier than Ted Cruz running for President. I stand corrected.

[molson]

I know the Supreme Court applied a higher level of equal protection scrutiny, but just applying classic rational basis scrutiny, the pro gay-marriage ban arguments always seemed to have some holes. What is the legitimate government interest in excluding gay people from marriage, and how is any legitimate interest related to these bans? The ones usually set forth in briefs before these courts - "The protection of marriage" and "the need to encourage responsible procreation" always seemed like a stretch.

Of course, in this thread, people seem to be arguing against the entire concept of judicial review and the rational basis test, which is why I posted that I thought it would be a better argument to stick to what Roberts wrote, but some are going WAY beyond that here.

I think the judicial branch in the U.S. is disproportionally powerful, and tend to be conservative on separation of powers issues, but I'm not sure what the the appellate courts are supposed to be doing at all if not interpreting statutes and evaluating their constitutionality.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The second part. As originally instituted, SCOTUS was not considered the final arbiter of the Constitution. They did have the power of judicial review but it was not an absolute power(for example, Jefferson's refusal to enforce the Alien & Sedition Acts because he didn't believe they were constitutional).

What makes you think this? Jefferson was, after all, against judicial review entirely. That's why Marbury v. Madison was decided in the way it was - Chief Justice John Marshall declared the act unconstitutional, but in doing so ruled for Madison (ie, Jefferson's Secretary of State).

Most of the Constitution writers believed in judicial review (most of them were Federalists - Jefferson was off in France at the time, remember). Statements were made by 15 delegates at the Constitutional Convention that the federal courts should have the power to review the constitutionality of laws, with only 2 delegates speaking opposed. And in Federalist #78, there is a reference to it as well:

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."
- Alexander Hamilton

In fact the opponents of ratification were the ones who objected to giving the Supreme Court such power...

"The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void."
- Robert Yates (Anti-Federalist politician and judge from the State of NY)

Indicating that everyone was aware of the power being giving to the courts over Constitutional interpretation.

So, I think you are quite mistaken here.

[digamma]

I'd argue this kind of review by the Supreme Court is exactly what our Constitution intended. We're protecting against tyranny of the majority, or stripping rights just because a majority of people want a desired outcome.

The interesting thing is there are provisions in the Constitution that allow for a sort of tyranny of the super-majority. This is in effect what Walker is talking about with a Constitutional amendment. But, absent that, it's the Supreme Court's job to judge whether laws violate the Constitution.

[Draft Dodger]

if our founding fathers had been told that 250 years later we would still be using their 18th century rules to apply to 21st century society...they would probably laugh so hard that their wigs would fall off.

[JPhillips]

Brian: How can you say religion is not allowed in politics? It's a major discussion in every campaign.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

what long term problems do you think this will create? i am having problems imagining any.

The only thing Ive read that even made sense is: (Though I wouldnt call this a problem )

Bearing ArmsSCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity - Bearing Arms



I do think there will eventually be a "protected class discrimination" challenge against Religions who refuse to marry same sex couples. A Catholic Priest can choose not to marry a non Catholic, without violating protected class (freedom of religion) because the specific nature of the protected class is the basis of the affiliation's existence. However if the right of refusal is a protected class other than religious affiliation , I.E. sexual orientation, I think in time it will be challenged in the courts. I'm not sure how I feel that will or should be resolved I just think it will be challenged eventually.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by BigPapi

And please don't twist this into my disaparaging the purpose of Supreme Court; this is about 5 individuals operating wholly outside the bounds of their authority.

This is getting silly, come on people! I have power points if needed!

Outside the bounds? So your problem is with Roberts taking up this (non) case?

Is it possible for 100% of voters to pass a state constitutional amendment and yet be dismissed by the Supreme Court? (Hint: segregation) And why just states? Why can't a county pass laws that are outside the bounds of the Judical Branch?

So, the problem can't be the Supreme Court can declare voter driven legislation unconstitutional, right? So what is it?

Where you could be arguing this is on the "new" interpretation and excessive use of the equal protection clause. It would at least a nuanced argument.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

So much going on here .
** Stage 2: This is where we are now. From politics to the professional. We know for example now that anywhere there are public accommodation laws on the books, a person of religious convictions that objects cannot be involved in any business involved in catering to weddings in any fashion. Photographers, bakers, wedding chapels, those who might operate venues used for weddings, etc. As Roberts mentioned in his dissent, this type of thing will almost certainly continue. He mentioned private adoption agencies and religious colleges, there are many other places where this will come in. At least at this point, the conscientious person of faith who won't participate in or support same-sex marriages will continue to be pushed out of a number of important avenues of business.

So now we care about freedom to operate a business how we want. Last I checked Christians were behind a lot of the Blue Laws. I can't buy a car on Sunday in Illinois. When I lived in Minnesota I couldn't buy booze on Sundays either. Every state has their share of these laws which were motivated by religion.

There are laws that ban adult establishments from being operated near a place of worship (strip clubs, porn stores, etc). These businesses are constantly being targeted by religious groups. Christians pushed hard for obscenity prosecutions when Bush was in power and we saw a huge rise in that. Medical centers are fought tooth and nail if they provide legal abortions. Pharmaceutical companies are hindered in putting contraceptives on the market. I could go on and on and not even touch on the tax exempt status and other financial benefits that give distinct business advantages.

So drop the "pushed out of a number of business avenues" bullshit. It makes you guys look like massive hypocrites.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What makes you think this? Jefferson was, after all, against judicial review entirely. That's why Marbury v. Madison was decided in the way it was - Chief Justice John Marshall declared the act unconstitutional, but in doing so ruled for Madison (ie, Jefferson's Secretary of State).

Most of the Constitution writers believed in judicial review (most of them were Federalists - Jefferson was off in France at the time, remember). Statements were made by 15 delegates at the Constitutional Convention that the federal courts should have the power to review the constitutionality of laws, with only 2 delegates speaking opposed. And in Federalist #78, there is a reference to it as well:

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."
- Alexander Hamilton

In fact the opponents of ratification were the ones who objected to giving the Supreme Court such power...

"The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void."
- Robert Yates (Anti-Federalist politician and judge from the State of NY)

Indicating that everyone was aware of the power being giving to the courts over Constitutional interpretation.

So, I think you are quite mistaken here.

+1

Thank you. A+

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I hope someday you will repair things with your brother too. It is very hard to find common grounds or "safe" topics we can talk about more so now that the ruling has gone into effect.

I'm very pleased that we have been able to reach some kind of common ground here between the two of us, along with a number of others. I hope that spirit continues, and spreads as the furor from these events dies down, though I'm sure it won't ever completely go away.

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

I'm sorry to hear about your relationship with your brothers significant other

Thank you much sir.

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

how do we know what Gods truth really is?

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

We can look at what Jesus said and emulate it. Love your neighbors. Pray for them.

The above crystallize the core of what you said I think. It requires a somewhat lengthy response but I'll try to keep it reasonable . Elsewhere you referred to 'contractions' meaning contradictions I'll assume. I do not believe there are any of significance. Context is of course important. I'll get to these points.

To begin with, let me note respectfully that your two statements above, while expressing a commonly held view, contradict each other. If we can't know what God's truth really is, then loving neighbors and praying for others is included in that. On the other hand, if we can know, then the many other statements of Jesus also have to be included in that. The first option available to use in assessing Christianity is simply to reject it. If the Bible is not reliable, we simply throw it out.

If we don't choose that option, the second choice is whether or not it is relevant. I might believe that a dictionary or a cookbook is reliable, for example, but I'm not likely to find theological truth there and I'd be a fool to try . Does the Bible claim that it is relevant in terms of knowing the truth about Jesus and how God wants to relate to mankind, if He does? Indeed it does. We are told that it is God-breathed and profitable, that it can't be broken, Peter affirms that some writings of Paul are Scripture, we are told it came by God's will not the will of man, the various writers are constantly quoting each other, the phrases 'the Word of the Lord' and 'the Word of God' are constantly used to describe it, etc.

Some years ago, during the Rob Bell flare-up if you are at all familiar with it, I began to question many things. Mr. Bell was an evangelical hero of sorts in my neck of the woods. I had always been taught the historical-grammatical method of interpreting the Bible but I had never really questioned it, even during my decade in 'the wilderness' when I rejected God completely. I went back and looked at how Jesus treated the Bible. After all he could have easily just said 'this was a bunch of nonsense' or 'stop taking it too seriously' or 'it's just there to make this or that point'. The account of his temptation by Satan is extremely striking and really illustrates the key points here.

Jesus is alone in the wilderness and hungry when Satan comes to him. The first test it to command stones to becomes loaves of bread, and relieve his hunger. Jesus can respond any way he wants here. There is nothing for him to illustrate to anyone, because there is isn't anyone around. Jesus often used Scripture to demonstrate to Jews who thought themselves experts in it, using the parts which a particular sect found the most valuable, meeting them on their own ground so to speak. But there's none of that here, there's no audience and therefore no reason at all for him to use it -- unless he viewed it as an authority. Yet his answer is striking in it's simplicity. 'It is written'. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Consider that after eating nothing for 40 days, Jesus considers the words of God, which he quotes, as more import than bodily sustenance.

Satan definitely gets the point, because he tries the trick that worked with Eve next. He accurately quotes two different verses, telling Jesus to throw himself down from the temple, because 'He will command his angels concerning you', and 'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone'. Satan does not mis-state these verses. That is exactly what they say. Furthermore, based on them Satan is absolutely right. They do say that Jesus won't come to harm, as he is under God's protection and that of the angels. Jesus here demonstrates the importance of context, another point you were quite right to bring up. He models here the principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture, which by the way is usually what is gotten wrong when people go for simplistic, apparent contradictions in attacking the coherency of the Bible. He says simply, 'Again it is written, 'you shall not put the Lord your God to the test'". Oftentimes a general principle must be clarified by other verses on the subject. We interpret Scripture with Scripture to obtain clarity, another reason why it is important to be familiar with the whole counsel of God.

Statements like these by Jesus assume that it can be known what the Bible means. That is a teaching that is simply inescapable throughout the New Testament especially. Jesus says to Nicodemus, 'are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?'. He says to the Pharisees, 'go and learn what this means' pointing them back to what they should have already known. He warns against false teachers, as does Paul in the book of Acts. And in Galatians. And in his instructions to Timothy. And multiple other places. Jesus again does so in Revelation. Jude refers to the need to 'contend for the faith delivered once for all to the saints'. You can't contend for something that cannot be known. Paul's striking warning in Galatians 1 that anyone who teaches another Christ 'let him be eternally condemned' is echoed in the epistles by John. Peter also gives similar warnings in 2 Peter 2. It is just a constant drumbeat, and one that makes absolutely no sense apart from the implication that the Bible indeed can be understood.

We always must be careful only to be sure where the Bible is clearly so as well. As I mentioned before, I don't know what heaven's like. If someone has a different view of end times, or worship style, or mode of baptism, or what a church structure should look like, or whether they believe in observing the Sabbath, etc. I definitely encourage everyone and aim myself to follow the concept of 'not wrong, just different'. I hope to only be dogmatic in areas where the Bible is clearly and unmistakably so. Even within that, I would only wish to be contentious on those matters which affect the core of the gospel, again based on the example and instruction of the New Testament writers. Paul confronted Peter publicly in front of the Galatians for muddying such waters, but that kind of thing just doesn't happen apart from a gospel issue. Wherever there is room to disagree, I aim to respectfully and graciously do so and not be an unnecessary obstacle to anyone.

That's how I see the Bible.

[bob]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

The only thing Ive read that even made sense is: (Though I wouldnt call this a problem )

Bearing ArmsSCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity - Bearing Arms



I do think there will eventually be a "protected class discrimination" challenge against Religions who refuse to marry same sex couples. A Catholic Priest can choose not to marry a non Catholic, without violating protected class (freedom of religion) because the specific nature of the protected class is the basis of the affiliation's existence. However if the right of refusal is a protected class other than religious affiliation , I.E. sexual orientation, I think in time it will be challenged in the courts. I'm not sure how I feel that will or should be resolved I just think it will be challenged eventually.

Couldn't you argue that by wanting a gay marriage you aren't religion x and therefore not eligible for a wedding by religion x's officiants and using their facilities?

[RainMaker]

"Stop restricting our avenues of business" says the group that mails in thousands of letters to the government demanding CBS be fined for making a sex joke on Two and a Half Men.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Or they infringed upon states rights.

And you really can't compare this to slavery can you, Cuervo?

I'm not in this case, actually. More the integration of southern colleges and schools.

American Experience.Eyes on the Prize.The Story of the Movement | PBS

"Supreme Court or no Supreme Court, we are going to maintain segregated schools down in Dixie."

—U. S. Senator James Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by corbes

Try the first 33 pages or so of this document.

i wish life was like school where everyone had to read the source material before you discussed it in class. would save a lot of time dealing with ignorance.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'm not in this case, actually. More the integration of southern colleges and schools.

American Experience.Eyes on the Prize.The Story of the Movement | PBS



—U. S. Senator James Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi

He was saying that around the same time the Red Menace was threatening Europe with hostile takeover so more people could enjoy slave labor under the Soviets.

[Toddzilla]

Damn "sexual nerves" reference went right out the window

[BigPapi]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

This is getting silly, come on people! I have power points if needed!

Outside the bounds? So your problem is with Roberts taking up this (non) case?

Is it possible for 100% of voters to pass a state constitutional amendment and yet be dismissed by the Supreme Court? (Hint: segregation) And why just states? Why can't a county pass laws that are outside the bounds of the Judical Branch?

So, the problem can't be the Supreme Court can declare voter driven legislation unconstitutional, right? So what is it?

Where you could be arguing this is on the "new" interpretation and excessive use of the equal protection clause. It would at least a nuanced argument.

Where's the "voter driven legislation that's unconstitutional" here; Cart before the horse and all that....To be clear: for all the states that had yet to weigh in, Roberts (and myself) are saying there is no longer an option....But, hey- since they are all idiots anyway- let's go ahead and skip that bothersome process.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

"Stop restricting our avenues of business" says the group that mails in thousands of letters to the government demanding CBS be fined for making a sex joke on Two and a Half Men.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

if our founding fathers had been told that 250 years later we would still be using their 18th century rules to apply to 21st century society...they would probably laugh so hard that their wigs would fall off.

Considering that there is an option for the creation of a Constitutional Convention next to the Amendments, they probably figured we'd have rewritten the whole thing by now, not enshrined it.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Brian: How can you say religion is not allowed in politics? It's a major discussion in every campaign

It is a major discussion in every campaign. That isn't what I meant. Separation of church and state has been taken to mean that a law can have a secular purpose but it cannot have a religious purpose(Lemon v. Kurtzman, etc.). If so, then by definition politics is an arena which is pro-secular and anti-religion. It does not mean that religion can't be discussed, but that secular reasoning is given prominence over it as a matter of constitutional law.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

What makes you think this?

I stand corrected on this point. There are other of Hamilton's statement that seem to conflict with this, but regardless after considering it I think you are right. Thank you for this, it's always good to learn something new .

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

Last I checked Christians were behind a lot of the Blue Laws. I can't buy a car on Sunday in Illinois. When I lived in Minnesota I couldn't buy booze on Sundays either. Every state has their share of these laws which were motivated by religion.

This is a good point, but there is a fundamental difference you are missing here. Blue Laws and similar restrictions lay out limitations on how a business can operate. They tell a business what they can't do. In the situation I'm talking about, a business is told what they must do. There have always been laws requiring businesses to operate within certain parameters, but telling businesses they have to do something even when it violates their religious beliefs is a much newer and different thing.

[BillJasper]

I can't win in court, I can't win a Constitutional convention, so my obvious recourse is to tear down the court as much as possible. I wonder how some of these people actually get elected?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It does not mean that religion can't be discussed, but that secular reasoning is given prominence over it as a matter of constitutional law.

Makes sense, since we are a nation of many different religions. I bet you'd be highly pissed if some obscure piece of the Quran was made law.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Considering that there is an option for the creation of a Constitutional Convention next to the Amendments, they probably figured we'd have rewritten the whole thing by now, not enshrined it.

Speaking of Thomas Jefferson, he would have been fine with a new Constitution every 20 years (well, that's probably because he wasn't there for the writing of the original one and he wanted a few things changed).

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

"Stop restricting our avenues of business" says the group that mails in thousands of letters to the government demanding CBS be fined for making a sex joke on Two and a Half Men.

The thing here is, the 'group' to which you refer share some aspects in common with all groups. Namely, that it isn't some monolithic entity in which all people ask reasonably and agree in lock-step groupthink.

Perhaps this isn't the case, but I bet I could find some members of a group that you identify with, if I knew you well enough of course, whose actions and sayings you might not want to completely own. That wouldn't in any way make you a hypocrite.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Makes sense, since we are a nation of many different religions. I bet you'd be highly pissed if some obscure piece of the Quran was made law.

Not if it had the required support. Even if I was upset, I sure wouldn't call it unfair. I say it makes a lot more sense to have an even playing field. All the current system does is make secularism the dominant force. It doesn't, and couldn't ever possible, maintain the impossible goal of neutrality.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This is a good point, but there is a fundamental difference you are missing here. Blue Laws and similar restrictions lay out limitations on how a business can operate. They tell a business what they can't do. In the situation I'm talking about, a business is told what they must do. There have always been laws requiring businesses to operate within certain parameters, but telling businesses they have to do something even when it violates their religious beliefs is a much newer and different thing.

See Brown v Board of Education.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Not if it had the required support. Even if I was upset, I sure wouldn't call it unfair. I say it makes a lot more sense to have an even playing field. All the current system does is make secularism the dominant force. It doesn't, and couldn't ever possible, maintain the impossible goal of neutrality.

Nonsense. Laws all over the country are essentially Christian in nature, even when they put a non-religious varnish on them.