Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage To Be Law Of The Land

dscott8 wrote:
It doesn't matter what it says. In the USA, the Constitution trumps anybody's holy book.

In theory. In reality, a president that doesn´t invoke god or venture into religion occasionally would probably be considered an atheist aberration, regardless if s/he was atheist or not.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/55f33486 ... Gay+Voices

Just thought I'd share this. Funny, in a sad way.

Tenshinai wrote:

dscott8 wrote:
It doesn't matter what it says. In the USA, the Constitution trumps anybody's holy book.

In theory. In reality, a president that doesn´t invoke god or venture into religion occasionally would probably be considered an atheist aberration, regardless if s/he was atheist or not.

So? We've had openly stated atheists as PMs, not worth mentioning here.

But for them, it is. We see that with cases like the Davis lady, and the support she got from the republican contenders, along with other religious issues like the recent case requiring a judge to order the removal of the 10 commandments from state property, as that showed a failure to separate church and state. In addition, approx 70% of americans qualify as religious as of this year, according to Pew, and for Aussies, ~60% or less, and in NZ, less than 50% have a religion. in fact, here almost 45% are officially of no religion, and its thought that by 2018 to 2020, no religion will be the biggest part of our population. Religion is still a large part of American politics and the thought process of those above 25 or so/ in positions of power and respect, and they lead the way a large percentage of america thinks.


So, if you want an easy way to sway a large portion of the older and more likely to vote population, who also happen to be the ones who are more likely to do something about spreading the word of your electability, you make out that you are the most god fearing candidate, and that your opponent is not. Its an easy attack point, with about the largest return you can get. As a result, Not being religious would be a very big problem for the US President.

Daryl wrote:[
So? We've had openly stated atheists as PMs, not worth mentioning here.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:What does it say?

HTM

Annachie wrote:Deuteronomy 17 12 pretty much says it all really.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

It says obey the judges or be put to death.

Annachie wrote:Deuteronomy 17 12 pretty much says it all really.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Sure, obey the judges. What Law might those judges administer, Annachie? Considering these words are from Moses after he gave the Israelites the Law, you have distilled the issues surrounding the county clerk to their essence.

The entire issues with said clerk revolves about this point: to follow what she considers an immoral law or find a moral response to her situation. Those are the options before her. Regardless of what I think is her moral course, she did not face any dilemma prior the SC decision. After that decision the clerk faces further limits on how she might act in accordance with her conscience.

Effectively changing the Constitution alters our sovereignty; our ability to live life as we see fit consistent with our conscience and the law. Having the SC interpret the Constitution to effect significant change allows the governmental body furthest removed from popular election to make those significant changes which impact everyone's sovereignty.

Those sorts of sweeping changes are best done in ways that involve as many of the citizens as possible. That way the results will have broad support. Changing things in this way simply crystalizes opposing views. That makes it difficult to ever really resolve.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote: What does it say.

Annachie wrote:Deuteronomy 17 12 pretty much says it all really.
It says obey judges or be put to death.
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk[/quote]

Tenshinai wrote:

dscott8 wrote:
It doesn't matter what it says. In the USA, the Constitution trumps anybody's holy book.

In theory. In reality, a president that doesn´t invoke god or venture into religion occasionally would probably be considered an atheist aberration, regardless if s/he was atheist or not.

There's a big difference between a politician expressing personal faith and one who wants to use an elected position to force their beliefs on others and limit people's rights. Which is the crux of the Kim Davis case.

dscott8 wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:
In theory. In reality, a president that doesn´t invoke god or venture into religion occasionally would probably be considered an atheist aberration, regardless if s/he was atheist or not.

There's a big difference between a politician expressing personal faith and one who wants to use an elected position to force their beliefs on others and limit people's rights. Which is the crux of the Kim Davis case.

Exactly. Had she refused herself and delegated one or more of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licences, it would have been a matter of personal conscience. In that case, I would have had no problem with her actions. It is everyone's right to believe what they want.

However, that is not what she did. She expressly instructed her deputies to refuse to issue marriage licences to same sex couples. By doing that, she effectively attempted to impose her personal belief system as the official policy of Rowan County's government. THAT is religious tyranny, not an attempt to fight for religious freedom, whatever conservatives might claim.

Daryl wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:
In theory. In reality, a president that doesn´t invoke god or venture into religion occasionally would probably be considered an atheist aberration, regardless if s/he was atheist or not.

So? We've had openly stated atheists as PMs, not worth mentioning here.

You misunderstand. My point was that while officially, USA has ensured freedom of religion, in reality, there isn´t really such a thing, and even less still is there freedom FROM religion.

I mean, just look at how fake "rumours" claimed Obama to be a moslem, and how that was used to power a mudslinging campaign.

In a nation that was actually true to the claimed freedom of religion, noone would bat an eyelash at such an "accusation", as it wouldn´t even BE an accusation at all.

As long as religious affiliation, or "worse" the absence of it, can be used as a cheapskate attack on anyone, USA does not, de facto, have religious freedom.

PeterZ wrote:Sure, obey the judges. What Law might those judges administer, Annachie? Considering these words are from Moses after he gave the Israelites the Law, you have distilled the issues surrounding the county clerk to their essence.

The entire issues with said clerk revolves about this point: to follow what she considers an immoral law or find a moral response to her situation. Those are the options before her. Regardless of what I think is her moral course, she did not face any dilemma prior the SC decision. After that decision the clerk faces further limits on how she might act in accordance with her conscience.

Effectively changing the Constitution alters our sovereignty; our ability to live life as we see fit consistent with our conscience and the law. Having the SC interpret the Constitution to effect significant change allows the governmental body furthest removed from popular election to make those significant changes which impact everyone's sovereignty.

Those sorts of sweeping changes are best done in ways that involve as many of the citizens as possible. That way the results will have broad support. Changing things in this way simply crystalizes opposing views. That makes it difficult to ever really resolve.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote: What does it say.

Annachie wrote:Deuteronomy 17 12 pretty much says it all really.
It says obey judges or be put to death.
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

[/quote]

I have a question, did you react the same way when the SCOTUS made the Hobby Lobby ruling a while back, or the 'corporations are persons' ruling before that?

The US Constitution does guarantee equal treatment under the law for everyone, and since the government is in fact in the business of regulating and enforcing contracts (including civil marriage contracts), I think that its Obergefell ruling was indeed based on a sound constitutionalist interpretation of the US Constitution.

The SCOTUS did not, in fact, establish a new right or enact a new law. It identified an existing right and used existing constitutional principles to rule that the aforementioned preexisting right must apply to everyone. That is ALL it did.

With the 'corporations are persons' ruling - which is a conservative darling, by the way - it went far beyond that. Nowhere in the US Constitution are corporations accorded personhood, yet that was the SCOTUS' finding. In that case it did in fact establish and enact an entirely original 'right'. To date I still have not heard a single conservative complain about that ruling.