Friday, June 26, 2015

SCOTUS Affirms Marriage Equality...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

From Declaration of Independence Preamble


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.

Preamble... United States Constitution


Yuppers, the majority decision legalizing marriage equality stands on firm ground. Further, a majority of Americans now accept (and or approve of) marriage equality.

Following is a roundup of articles:

Gay Marriage Backers Win Supreme Court Victory

Huckabee blasts SCOTUS "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court" vows to "resist and reject judicial tyranny"

Supreme Court rules gay couples nationwide have a right to marry

Antonin Scalia Dissent In Marriage Equality Case Is Even More Unhinged Than You'd Think

More at Memeorandum

Expect a huge backlash of condemnation from the strident religious right moralists. Even as many ignore the divorce rate within their own religious sects and the adulterous activity of large numbers of their own members. Oh, the hypocrisy!

40 comments:

  1. It is not government's job to decide who, or how many for that fact, can marry each other. This was a corr ct decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. Jerry. And I have yet to read one of the Republican candidates make anything close to a reasonable objection. Not that I think there is a reasonable objection to this to begin with!

      Delete
  2. Every single GOP candidate disagrees with the SCOTUS decision on marriage equality. The rest of America -- 60% agrees with it, even a majority of young conservatives agree with it. I'm betting some of the candidates secretly have no problem with the decision, but they absolutely MUST win the religious right vote in the primaries, therefore, they have to come out against equality. How are these candidates different from the people who were against interracial marriage? They too used the Bible to justify their resistance to that change.

    I feel sorry for people who feel threatened by citizens who wish to be treated equally under the law. That's what this ruling is about. Those who are religiously offended by marriage equality have the choice to avoid participating in those marriages, even when it affects their own relatives.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have completely and unequivocally given up on conservatism and republicans. The principles they quide my life, and many are rooted in classical liberalism, are not the principles of the present conservative/republican leadership or GOP candidates. I had hopes that the "right"
    would wake up to present realities and the
    necessity of realignment of their priorities to
    meet modern era challenges. But it is clear to me now that GOP/conservaties are far to reactionary for that to happen and to continue to hope the GOP will wake up is kind of like looking up a dead goats a*s.

    I'm done... As surely the GOP will be on the national level very soon.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To borrow a page from George Orwell, some religious beliefs are considered more equal than others. To underscore the hypocrisy beneath the issue of gay rights, please consider the following:

    Pastor shot three times in possible hate crime:

    “Rev. Augustus Sealy, 54, was placing flags in front of the Hartford First Church of the Nazarene to honor veterans for Memorial Day … According to a police incident report, a car slowed down as it approached Pastor Sealy, at which point a witness reported hearing five gunshots. “Some language used in the incident — and given where it was, in front of a church known to be accepting of our LGBT community — led us to have concern that this is a hate crime,” Deputy Police Chief Brian Foley said in an interview.”

    Minister arrested for trying to marry gay couple:

    In Alabama, a Minister was arrested for attempting to perform a same-sex marriage – just minutes after the gay couple received a marriage license. Originally ordered to post bond of $1,000 and serve 30 days in prison, the minister received a reduced sentence of six months unsupervised probation plus a $250 fine.

    So whose religious freedom is under attack here? The pastor and minister who support gay rights on religious grounds? Or the rightwing demagogues who reject gay rights on religious grounds? When you have two religious denominations on opposite sides of a controversy, which one has the right to impose its teachings and taboos on the general population and thereby reduce another denomination to inferior status?

    Neither, according to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, whose purpose is to impose a wall of separation between church and state. Yet, there are politicians who have little regard for constitutional law and the legal traditions of our country:

    Mike Huckabee: “Unconstitutional judicial tyranny.

    Bobby Jingo: “Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that.

    Ted Cruz: “The very definition of lawlessness."

    Jeb Bush: “I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision.

    If equality were subject to a popularity contest, or left up to states, we’d still have slavery. Government has a legal and moral obligation to ensure equality under law for all citizens, not merely the rabid and angry base.

    I could never trust any of the above candidates to protect my rights and freedoms. IMO, they are ALL a bunch of opportunistic and dangerous hacks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (O)ct... bashing Jindal for his unusual, non-WASP surname seems beneath you. I've seen plenty of that from the Right against Obama....

      (Even Shaw does a form of this xenophobic bashing... calling Jindal by a form of his name he does not use. Which is just like right wing talk radio calling Obama "Hussein" all the time.)

      unless.... it is your phone auto correct giving you hell. That can be excused.

      Delete
    2. Dmarks,
      It was Siri’s fault. You see, in Germany, electronic devices must have a commanding male Teutonic voice – sort of like a Prussian drill sergeant -- or else no one pays attention. Unfortunately, Apple put Siri in my iPhone – a squeaky petulant little thing that pouts if you don’t accord her the attention she demands. This is what happened: I forgot to buy flowers for Siri’s birthday.

      So Siri decided to take it out on Bobby “an-overzealous-patriot-who-advocates-hostility” Jindal.

      Delete
  5. And guess who said this:

    "“This morning, love triumphed in the highest court in our land. Equality triumphed, and America triumphed.”

    Someone who gets it. If you said Hilary Clinton, you are right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That aside I still do not trust her.

      Delete
    2. Trust her not to do what? Clinton is a conservative democrat. I think progressives have more of a reason to distrust her than conservatives. As a fiscal conservative, I would think that you would hope that some of Bill's policies have rubbed off on her since he balanced the budget.

      Delete
    3. What exactly are you afraid she may do?

      JMJ

      Delete
    4. Afraid, Jersey? The HRC administration is likely to be even less transparent than BHO's, and the security state will just grow.

      Do you have reason to except something better on this from Hillary?

      Delete
  6. If you call running 8 years of solid deficits "balance", Jerry (source: US Treasury). But really, compared to the last 15 years, the economy that Bill 'n' Newt reigned over looks better and better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Clinton deficits have NOT a thing to do with marriage equality dmarks.

      But since you took the liberty of bring them up; here is some Fact Check data for you.

      Delete
    2. I checked it against the US Treasury already, but thank you. Yes. it is off topic.

      Delete
    3. Why if the US Treasury supports your claim it seems reasonable, at least to a reasonable person (since you injected the off topic subject in the first place) that you would provide a live link to the specific data to which you reference. Make it easy for us to peruse thedata without having to search for it. Just my opinion, perhaps not that of others.

      Delete
    4. As the one who was the second to bring up this subject here, I would be glad to provide a live link if needed... and requested. But I felt that lengthy comments would make the off topic-ness worse.

      Jerry is correct that there is a "US Budget" (in quotes) that is incomplete (my word) as not every expenditure "shows up" (his words). The treasury figures, which I will link to if needed, show the complete budget, which isn't cooked up to look better by leaving off some of the spending. Like the definition of war, the government isn't content to use the most obvious meanings.

      Because the most honest look at every budget takes into account all money coming in, going out.

      I will accept the claim that Bill Clinton had very low deficits... unusually so, compared to others. And that is commendable, and a claim that doesn't require us to use incomplete "books".

      Delete
    5. Hillary, as blank slate to imagine as the best of Bill... or something else. .. might be a good future topic.

      Delete
  7. Clinton did balance the budget. There was a budget surplus. You are looking at the debt, not the deficit. As I am sure you know, there are expenditures that go into the debt but do not show up in the official U.S. Budget. You have made this point before. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. You are simply being partisan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I looked at the deficit, actually, year by year, month by month. The debt, is. of course, the overall accumulation of this. My "partisan" source is the US Treasury Department, part of the Obama Administration for several years now. If I were a really partisan, I would have chosen a different source. While Clinton never ran a surplus, of course, his successors were much worse. and GHWB comes out bad too. As does Reagan.

      I know this will probably not get posted. I will not whine :)

      Delete
    2. http://origin.factcheck.org/Images/image/FederalDeficit(1).jpg

      Must be looking at different graph.

      Delete
    3. dmarks, you don't get to make up your own definitions. Deficit refers to the budget even though it does not include all expenditures. The deficit is not, I repeat for those a little hard of hearing, not the year to year difference in the debt...even though you would like to define it as such.

      Delete
    4. Okay then. Jerry gets the last word.

      Good point well made Jerry.

      Delete
  8. LOL! dmarks denies the Clinton surplus, while attempting to give Newt half the credit. In regards to the Clinton tax increases that lead to the surplus, Gingrich said "I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession. It might take 1 and a half or 2 years, but it will happen".

    But instead of a recession we got an economic expansion. Someone who opposed the Clinton tax plan AND predicted a recession gets zero credit for it my book. My book be a work of non fiction. dmarks' book is obviously a work of fiction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad Jerry got the last word instead of the above fiction writer.

      Delete
    2. I quoted Gingrich accurately. Those were his actual words, not fiction. In any case, I've made the same point Jerry did in the past and dmarks was not glad then. This is just more of Mr. Marks grudge matching old bones agenda.

      Delete
    3. That's it Dervish. Do not post to this thread again, It will not be released.

      Delete
    4. dmarks, refrain from inciting the beast, okay. Because if you try to post another bait comment IT will not be released either.

      Delete
    5. That particular discussion was between me and Jerry. RN jumped in with sound, level-headed comments. Then someone else dived in with a personal, not rational agenda... even after RN declared that this side topic was closed. The lowering of the tone was quite noticable... and, probably intended.

      Is it too much to hope for better, more mature behavior?

      Delete
    6. I released your response dmarks because it carries truth, it is relatively benign, and I do not believe it is intended as a bait comment.

      NOW, it is time to close, once and for all, THIS line of discussion on this thread.

      BTW dmarks, your closing question , Is it too much to hope for better, more mature behavior?, is most appropriate and the blogosphere and these boards would be must more enjoyable, sensible, rational, and productive if ALL would aspire to achieving such mature behavior.

      Delete
    7. dmarks: ...even after RN declared that this side topic was closed.

      Wrong. The time stamp on my comment is Sun Jun 28, 08:21:00 PM EDT. The time stamp on RN's comment (the one where he says "Okay then. Jerry gets the last word") is Sun Jun 28, 09:39:00 PM EDT. This is more than an hour after I made my comment. As for "maturity", I don't know how mature it is to claim a factual and accurate quote has been fabricated.

      Anyway, I decided to comment again even though RN forbade me because he said "I released your response dmarks because it carries truth"... but saying 9:39pm came BEFORE 8:21pm carries no truth at all. Unless RN believes time was running backward last Sunday night.

      Delete
    8. Thread is now CLOSED to ALL for further comments on this goddamned off topic line of discussion,

      Got it Dervish? And NO, do NOT respond.

      Delete
  9. I have the last word on this off topic diversion.

    1) Clinton and Gingrich actually both deserve credit.

    2) Clinton was a centrist and pragmatist.

    3) Clinton and Gingrich both enjoyed the "game."

    4) Congress holds the purse strings.

    5) The country was by far better off fiscally during those years.

    6) Bottom line... Clinton left office with a balanced budget.

    Now, back to post subject with future comments.

    ReplyDelete
  10. We have a massive amount of agreement on "post subject". Is a principled objection even possible?

    ReplyDelete
  11. If by "principled objections" you mean constitutional objections, I would assume that they were brought up to the Court and rejected. There are religious objections, but then churches are free not to marry gays.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Constitutional objections, Jerry. Or anything not ridiculous. I've seen many arguments against the decision since I asked this question yesterday. All ridiculous. Most demanding considerations other than US law, other than what is in the Constitution.

      I've given up. Donkeys will fly.

      Delete
    2. I've given up. Donkeys will fly. Apparently as...

      Elephants go THUD.

      Delete
    3. In this case, RN.... for sure.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.