Marriage: A victory today for those who love liberty.

Marriage is far removed from liberty

- - - Updated - - -

Good for them, as long as they aren't trying to "marry" anyone underaged.

 

You'll have to explain what evidence you speak of....

If you're referring to the people who are still locked in paranoia here, the easiest way to enlighten them is to get them to read the report on torture that was recently released. Basically, it showed that the whole Gitmo mess and the renditions had no positive effect on safety here.

Supposedly, although he was very much a sexist.

Again, I've already covered this. If you don't understand it at this point, you probably never will. You clearly don't respect much about freedom of choice, since your primary objective seems to involve getting everyone to submit to Allah.

 

People fired from their jobs and even getting kicked out of the military because they disagree with the gay propaganda. Is that your idea of equality? Sergeant Phillip Monk was reprimanded and eventually fired after many years of service in the Air Force because he refused to agree with his superior on "gay marriage". So who's imposing on who? It's your gay movement that's imposing their views on all people. It's tyranny of the minority, don't pretend you don't see this!

 

Well, people who love this decision don't care about the Constitution or the country.

As Roberts writes, correctly:

There was never any question how the liberal judges would vote. They do not consider constitutional law as a matter of their job.

 

Employers are free to terminate employees for any reason they see fit. Just as many people have probably been fired for BEING gay and other reasons that seem to be without merit. As for the military that is a special case as there are a litany of rules and regs that our fighting men and women agree to be bound to as a condition of their voluntary service. The military is not a democracy.

We are all equal under the law, as explicitly stated in the 14th Amendment and recently affirmed by the USSC. That is my idea of equality.

Again, the military is a special case but I doubt an airman would be discharged for disagreeing with his commander on a social issue.

What do you mean by "my gay movement?"

 

It is a misuse of the amendment. Marriage licenses were in the interest of the 'legitimate State purpose' in the first place for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with the recent gay agenda. It was never considered discrimination because marriage has never been anything but between a man and a woman historically. That is generally understood.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate.

 

We can start with the Qur'an, which is an eternal miracle for mankind.

Are you suggesting that all this "won't somebody think of the children" nonsense is due to 9/11? I think it's much more a case of America's puritanical roots.

We have to be leery towards Westerns when they accuse other cultures of being sexist; just like we have to be careful towards Easterners when they accuse Western women of being promiscuous.

Yes, but you never gave us arguments that stemmed from pure rationalism. Do you thus admit that there are somethings that are suprarational?

(Btw, Allah is the Arabic word for God. It's not English.)

 

So what? How is it any of your business how consenting adults wish to arrange their lives?

 

As long as their rights and freedoms don't trample on the rights and freedoms of others, then there is no harm.

 

Agreed. So I ask again -- why do you care that polygamists want theirs too?

 

So now you're defending employers who fire people for not going along with politically correct ideology. Then you're no different from those you accuse of discrimination and who might have fired employees for other reasons.

That was TWO YEARS AGO! Two years before the Supreme Court ruling. Since when does military professionalism and loyalty to the country, depend on what one thinks about sexuality and marriage?!

Look this case up and you won't doubt it anymore.

 

You're right. This is not about the Constitution or equality. Roberts is right, but too bad he didn't do the right thing in the healthcare subsidies decision.

 

I am not defending anything, simply stating a fact. If my boss at the pot store fires me for wearing my "I HATE OBAMA" t-shirt, he has every right to do so.

I have accused no one of discrimination. Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

You were the one who brought it up.

 

Religious texts don't serve as proof of the divine. They are proof of the existence of their respective religion.

Usually, when people use the phrase above, they're referring to our dysfunctional sex laws and censorship of sex and profanity. If that's what you're referring to, then I would agree. I had thought you were alluding to things like the surveillance state.

Perhaps, but if you promote a culture that keeps women covered from head to toe and blocked from economic and social mobility, that's indisputably sexist.

If, by suprarational, you mean beyond our current understanding, yes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue them in a rational manner.

To truly understand most aspects of life requires rational analysis. Even human emotions have a rhyme and reason to them -- which is mostly examined by things like psychology and psychiatry.

 

Not if we consider these texts in a matter whereby the only conclusion would be that said text could only be from the Divine.

Sure, but there must be limits, in the sense that a culture must promote its people to dress modestly. This of course doesn't make sense in the West because of the importance of freedom. We both have different goals, and different means of achieving these goals.

In any event, these topic always seem to be tainted by preconceived notions of what a society should be. For instance, Westerners automatically assume a woman who covers herself is obviously oppressed. Easterners think Westerners are animals for their extremely lax attitudes towards fornication. Both of these false narratives are based on mere projection.

Yes, we can (and should) pursue them in a rational manner. But we shouldn't except to completely tame them through reason, and that goes for both Love and God.

 

What a misleading thread title.

I thought maybe Obama resigned or that Congress was actually doing their job and had written up articles of impeachment on Obama.

Keep the joke thread titles for April 1st.

 

It's only a victory for the 5 judges and 1.8% of the population.

 

You are freer today than you were prior to the USSC's correct ruling.

- - - Updated - - -

You are freer today because of it. It is a victory for all Americans.

 

Wouldn't that be up to the church?

 

That would seem to be a rather difficult conclusion to make.

I have nothing against allowing women to cover themselves up. What I do have a problem with is forcing all women to wear the head-to-toe garments. It should be a matter of choice.

To be fair, I'm also against the banning of these garments as well. I believe France has banned headscarves, so that would be an example of the other extreme that I'm also against.

Fair enough, I can't really argue much with that.

 

Indeed. This ruling in no way effects religious organizations or their ability to discriminate to their hearts' content. It simply affirms that the government​ can't do it.

 

Who do you think you are telling others how to dress???

"gawd" does not make the laws here.

 

Your media and corporations are constantly telling people how to dress.

 

There is nothing wrong with a dress code at your job. But when you're on your own time, you have the right to dress as you choose.

 

Neither of which are the government.