Laws were passed in many states prohibiting one group (A) from having access to a particular right or a privilege. That means another group (B) had a privilege not available to group A. Thus, group B enjoyed a special privilege. When group A is permitted to enjoy the same right or privilege previously granted exclusively to group B, one can ONLY conclude that group A was granted equal access.
The Supreme Court's decision was that such laws which prevented group A from accessing the same, that is equal, special privilege as group B are inherently Un-Constitutional. They did not create laws, they ruled on the Constitutionality of laws passed by various states which were specifically designed to deny group A from receiving the special treatment of group B.
I think most would agree that you have the right to continue being closed minded and the right to try to pass on your closed mind to your children. You have the right to be wrong.
July 25, 2015 at 10:19 a.m.
They are not special and they don't see themselves as such. YOU have set that mark. YOU set up the straw man. They've been getting "special" treatment. That "special" treatment has come in the form of discrimination in jobs, housing, education and social acceptance. They have only sought and now have finally been granted equal treatment under the law, not special treatment and certainly not the kind of "special" they've been getting.
Your Bible does not make US law and, in fact, often runs in conflict with our laws and democracy in general. Thus, it is irrelevant to the discussion.They're not special in the eyes of the and neither are you. BTW, my post noted the Christian concepts of tolerance and love (...thy neighbor as thyself...)--not reverence. You might remember a guy named Jesus who allegedly preached on those subjects. Consider tolerance to be what you and your intolerant views been granted by this board.
July 24, 2015 at 1:12 p.m.
Discrimination is not a value to be taught to young people. It is not an American value. It is in direct conflict with the guarantees in our Constitution and it doesn't even comport with the Christian concepts of tolerance or love. It is never right. Doesn't matter if you're talking about gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or being left-handed. It's wrong. You keep trying to justify a desire to discriminate and it doesn't fly.
It appears you've not met many gay people. The couples I know married for the same reasons as straight couples and live their lives in the same manner. There is no difference whatsoever. They go to work, some raise families, they take vacations, they save for retirement, they know they'll get old and seek the comfort of a long term relationship, some will endure the pains of divorce...it's all pretty mundane and average. That's equality.
There are all sorts of extreme examples of both hetero and homosexual couples, but in both cases, the vast majority of folks get married to settle their lives with a person they love and expect to spend the rest of their lives with.
July 24, 2015 at 10:27 a.m.
It takes a pretty far stretch to a) suggest any relationship between healthcare and marriage equality and b) the idea that gays were given a special privilege. The point is that gays were being un-Constitutionally denied a basic privilege and that privilege has been conveyed to make the availability of the privilege EQUAL. Not special.
One of the several state laws invalidated in the ruling was an anti gay marriage law in Ohio. Those states asked for Supreme Court review after losing lower court decisions. Clearly, no new law was created. The Court took the opportunity to review other lower courts' and state supreme courts' decisions invalidating every state law prohibiting equality presented to them.
July 23, 2015 at 12:03 a.m.
Lots of shots completely missing the basket here. The point is that it doesn't matter why a person is gay or straight. This is a matter of law, not morality or biological science. Gay Americans are Americans and are thus equally entitled to the benefits of protection under the laws of America. Gays have been legally marrying in various states for a decade or more in the U.S. and other countries around the globe. All the predictions of societal decline and devaluation of the "...sanctity of marriage..." have been proven false, empty and baseless nonsense. The proverbial stamping of some people's feet to say they won't perform a ceremony or bake a cake for gays is a childish reaction that I believe will fade with time as the next generation comes of age in a world where tolerance and reason prevail over discrimination.
July 19, 2015 at 10:07 a.m.
No new law was created. The Court's primary role is to determine the Constutionality of laws passed by Congress and to assure that state laws do not violate the rights of citizens guaranteed by the precepts of the U.S. Constitution.
Let' s take another controversial and related decision as an example. In Lawrence vs Texas, a case involving a Texas sodomy law, the majority found that not only did the law go too far in criminalizing private adult consensual behavior, but that sodomy was ONLY criminal between same sex couples. Sodomy performed by opposite sex couples was legal according to the law. If the behavior is considered illegal, it is illegal in all cases, not just some. The law was declared unConstitutional.
So it was with these bans on same sex marriage. They violate the founding principles of equality under the law inherent in the Constitution. States cannot pass laws which violate our founding principles. Our Constitution is rife with protections to prevent the "majority" (in the broadest sense) from ganging up on the "minority". Remember that our Founders grew up in an environment where royalty and nobility had political and economic powers which regular folks did not and they sought to definititively level the playing field.
Individual states' are not the United States of America and their state Constitutions MUST comport with and assure the same basic rights outlined in the U.S. Constitution.
On your other point, same sex couples have been adopting children for a generation. Research consistently shows that children need love and protection. Their psyches care less about the gender than about the love. Research also shows gay couples raise hetero children as often as hetero couples. Is it better to have a man and woman as parents? Perhaps, but more than 50% of hetero marriages end in divorce with far too many children being raised by single parents. Is one father or one mother better than two?
July 17, 2015 at 8:54 a.m.
By your reasoning, then, gay children could sue their hetero parents for subjecting them to that lifestyle, right? This is a ruling one would expect conservatives to cheer. Where states and the federal government had been deeply involved in marriage (i.e. deciding who could and who could not marry), the High Court's decision takes government out of people's personal lives. Conservatives always say this means more freedom for Americans. Seems a bit hypocritical to want government involvement in so personal an issue. BTW, when did you decide to be straight? Was it after experimenting with the alternatives or were you just born that way the way some folks are born a twin or left-handed or gay? I'm old enough to remember conservatives being very concerned about JFK's Catholism. They railed that the President would do the bidding of and be more concerned with the Pope than with our Constitution and our country. The irony (and hypocrisy) of conservatives now demanding our nation follow the Pope and disregard the Constituional guarantee of equality for all citizens puts them closer in line with fundamentalist Islam than with American laws. When taking the Biblical view of marriage, folks should be aware that polygamy is sanctioned in the Bible as well as slavery and the complete subjugation of a woman's human and civil rights. To say nothing about the bans on the eating of pork or shell fish. There is much in culture, knowledge and civilization in general which has changed over the last 2000+ years. It's well past time to stop the blind adherence to some of the irrelevance of antiquity.
July 14, 2015 at 3:21 p.m.
DACountryboyYour views clearly reflect your religious beliefs and that's fine. But, again, we are a secular nation governed by laws that guarantee equality irrespective of any one religion or another's beliefs which might otherwise hinder our personal legal freedoms. That's what made the formation of the USA unique in the first place. Our Founders shunned both royalty and religion to create something new for the American people. The Supreme Court's decision affirms that our Constitution is our country's guide book, not any group's religious texts.
July 12, 2015 at 8:53 a.m.
Let's first remember that our laws derive from the Constitution, not the Bible, Quran or Torah. Those books represent the values of a largely illiterate desert people from 2000+ years ago and we've already jettisoned many of the beliefs from those times, e.g. Slavery. Following religious texts instead of the Constitution is the same as Sharia. Seems odd that conservatives would be promoting such a thing. Our Constitution guarantees ALL citizens ALL the legal benefits of being an American. Not selectively, not for some, but ALL. The court recognized that we had an ingrained system of discrimination against some citizens' civil rights and that was corrected. Whether marriage started as a religious rite is irrelevant both to our secular laws and to modern society. Marriage in America is a legal contract involving children, property, inheritance, medical decisions and much more, so it must be dealt with as a legal issue. We in America have already made a substantial change to the concept of traditional and Biblical marriage via "community property" laws granting rights to wives not granted in traditional marriage. Lastly, by declaring these latest states' same-sex marriage bans unConstititional, there were more than 40 states legally compelled to allow same sex marriages. It would be irresponsible for the court to allow some states to void a marriage legal in another state. Our Constitution does not allow entities to pass laws which codify discrimination regardless of how badly folks want to discriminate.
July 11, 2015 at 5:37 p.m.
Life in prison would accomplish the same thing without state sponsored murder.
December 26, 2012 at 9:34 a.m.