KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I get this.

 

This is where I think that the individual states could have done a much better job of working out practical solutions for needs of their citizens instead of the one-size-fits-horribly answer that was illegitimate in its origin.

 

My heart goes out; it truly does.

The decision was no more illegitimate than Brown v Board of Education or Loving v Virginia. The USSC made a ruling on whether certain state laws infringe upon the Constitutional protections provided to ALL citizens. The case is no different than if a couple of states decided to restrict freedom of speech and the laws were then challenged via the judicial process.

[BrookValley.]

But can you understand that if I believe that God is supreme, that His ways are the ways that will result in the greatest good for me, my children, my nation, for humanity, how could I not grieve at yet. one. more. way. in which this nation, at this place and time, is thumbing its nose at God?!?  Yes, I understand that America is not a theocracy, but she has been blessed, and in turn the world has been a better place, as a fruit, a natural outworking of the Judeo-Christian principles that America was founded upon and by which most of the nation lived.  (And no, I'm not talking about some kind of global Manifest Destiny, I'm just talking about the benefits that naturally come from lives lived well.)

 

And lest you think it is just me, one person with this crazy viewpoint, there are more than a few people who are gay who chose to live celibate lives because they don't want to knowingly and willingly sin against God. 

 

Well, I kinda find it offensive to think that one needs to hold Judeo-Christian principles to live a life well lived, or that the positive things are exclusively Judeo-Christian. But I can set that aside, too. 

 

I do understand that your religion teaches that the acceptance of which you call a sin is somehow a sign of overall moral decline, yes, and why that might trouble you. What I do not understand is 1) how or why you think those Judeo-Christian principles made this country a better place, when we have moved forward and away from so many of those things that did exist in the time our country was founded (slavery, unequal treatment of women, poor treatment of children/child labor, to name a few), often justified by said Judeo-Christian principles, or 2) why, again, strengthening your freedom to believe how you choose, no matter how the majority might disagree, is a bad thing. 

[zoobie]

I would just remind people once again that Christianity isn't the only religion that considers homosexual relations a sin.

Of course not, but if we governed by one of the most popular of those religions, it would be --gasp-- Sharia law. It's only okay if you're governing based on very specific sects of Christianity.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I would just remind people once again that Christianity isn't the only religion that considers homosexual relations a sin.

 

Nor are all people who don't like homosexuality religious.

 

It's not as if gay people would be fully integrated and appreciated if only Christians would shut up.

While true, that tidbit isn't particularly relevant when discussing the organized opposition to gay marriage in the United States.

[livetoread]

Halftime Hope, do you think God would be pleased if the U.S. decided to legislate Christianity? Let's set aside that pesky constitution for a moment and pretend we can legislate what we want. Do you think God would approve if we set up laws that followed Christian views (meaning your Christian views)?

[BrookValley.]

I would just remind people once again that Christianity isn't the only religion that considers homosexual relations a sin.

 

Nor are all people who don't like homosexuality religious.

 

It's not as if gay people would be fully integrated and appreciated if only Christians would shut up.

 

I don't disagree with you on those points, but I would like to remind people that the majority of participants in this thread (and the majority disagree with Kim Davis and are quite accepting of LGBT persons and of legalizing gay marriage) are Christian. 

 

(A little fact that makes my little jaded heart a little less hard.)

[albeto.]

That's patronizing and uncalled for.   

 

And no, for some of us it is not going to be OK.  We are grieving that our country is normalizing something that God has labeled sin, and in essence, saying that humanity is wiser than He is.  You may not understand it, and I'm OK with that, but for some of us, that's our bottom line. 

 

You're grieving people getting access to equal rights under the law.

 

 

I have no sympathy for your grief, and can't understand why your god, if he's as worked up over this as you make it sound, hasn't stopped the tide turning in the xian community. It appears as if praying to him for guidance has no effect whatsoever. 

[Halftime Hope]

Halftime Hope, do you think God would be pleased if the U.S. decided to legislate Christianity? Let's set aside that pesky constitution for a moment and pretend we can legislate what we want. Do you think God would approve if we set up laws that followed Christian views (meaning your Christian views)?

 

I don't know.  Truly, I don't.  I do know that, historically, the one government that God set up was a relationship between himself and his people.  When later on the nation asked for a king, He said, essentially, "Why? You have me." 

 

There are many things I don't have answers for, and I don't expect to on this side of death.  Why did God single out "a chosen people?"  He say that his intention was to bless all the earth (all nations) through what He was going through the Hebrews, the ancient nation of Israel.  Why did He choose to work in that way?  I don't know.  But I know enough about God and who He is to know that I trust him. 

 

On a different note, regarding "that pesky Constitution", I think that following the Constitution, and not inventing new meanings and extensions that the founders surely must have meant, would serve us well. 

[albeto.]

But can you understand that if I believe that God is supreme, that His ways are the ways that will result in the greatest good for me, my children, my nation, for humanity, how could I not grieve at yet. one. more. way. in which this nation, at this place and time, is thumbing its nose at God?!?  Yes, I understand that America is not a theocracy, but she has been blessed, and in turn the world has been a better place, as a fruit, a natural outworking of the Judeo-Christian principles that America was founded upon and by which most of the nation lived.  (And no, I'm not talking about some kind of global Manifest Destiny, I'm just talking about the benefits that naturally come from lives lived well.)

 

Do you think it should matter if these beliefs correspond to reality? Do you think it should matter if history corroborate this belief, or if these claims are falsified in the world today? 

 

And lest you think it is just me, one person with this crazy viewpoint, there are more than a few people who are gay who chose to live celibate lives because they don't want to knowingly and willingly sin against God. 

 

Arguably, the practice of suppressing one's well-being for a belief that cannot be corroborated against reality, cannot be held accountable in any way, and cannot be explored until after one is dead, is nothing more than evidence of the power of mental conditioning. 

[LucyStoner]

I get this.

 

This is where I think that the individual states could have done a much better job of working out practical solutions for needs of their citizens instead of the one-size-fits-horribly answer that was illegitimate in its origin.

 

My heart goes out; it truly does.

How would you suggest the states, subject to the whims of local culture and biased electorates, remedy that without court mandate? KY was one of the states where my brother and his husband would have been most vulnerable. The SCOTUS ruling protects families like his in states like Kentucky where laws not only barred marriage but didn't recognize defacto unions and discriminated in child custody and adoption cases. I know of a couple from Kentucky where the long estranged parents did get roughly half of the gay couple's assets because the lifetime partner was not seen as next of kin. Mind you, all of that was money the couple had earned together, not a dime had come from the deceased partner's family of origin who'd disowned him. They contested the will sucessfully. You can't split a farm with someone who refused to even see you existed. The surviving partner sold and moved out of state, unable to take his partner's ashes with him. This tragedy has played out time and time again.

 

If the court had not acted in 1967 and we waited until a majority of people in all states supported interracial marriage, we would have criminalized interracial marriage in some states until into the 1990s. There's a reason civil rights can not be a matter of majority votes.

[zoobie]

I don't know. Truly, I don't. I do know that, historically, the one government that God set up was a relationship between himself and his people. When later on the nation asked for a king, He said, essentially, "Why? You have me."

 

There are many things I don't have answers for, and I don't expect to on this side of death. Why did God single out "a chosen people?" He say that his intention was to bless all the earth (all nations) through what He was going through the Hebrews, the ancient nation of Israel. Why did He choose to work in that way? I don't know. But I know enough about God and who He is to know that I trust him.

 

On a different note, regarding "that pesky Constitution", I think that following the Constitution, and not inventing new meanings and extensions that the founders surely must have meant, would serve us well.

Ohhhh. So go back to when black people counted for 3/5 of a person, and women and non-landowning males could not vote?

[BrookValley.]

But there are also Christians who do not chose to live celibate lives yet don't feel they are knowingly and willingly sinning against God. Your belief shouldn't trump theirs. There are those who are Christian and gay who have also grieved for humanity and what they felt was a "thumbing their nose" at God because they refused to give others the rights, respect, love, and kindness they deserved.

 

I definitely believe His ways will result in the greatest good my family and for my children. That is why when my dd told us she was gay, she was still welcomed and loved the same as always. She is not judged or made to feel less in our home and family and that is most definitely best for her. Going through all of this has also brought her closer to her faith and God so I have zero doubt we've handled it the right way and she is who God made her to be.

 

I just want to be sappy (i.e., really out of character :laugh: ) for a minute and let you know how much I appreciate your posts and your stories about your obvious acceptance and love for your daughter. It truly makes me a little less bitter. It's really this kind of thing that gives me hope, even more than Supreme Court decisions. 

[BrookValley.]

I don't know.  Truly, I don't.  I do know that, historically, the one government that God set up was a relationship between himself and his people.  When later on the nation asked for a king, He said, essentially, "Why? You have me." 

 

There are many things I don't have answers for, and I don't expect to on this side of death.  Why did God single out "a chosen people?"  He say that his intention was to bless all the earth (all nations) through what He was going through the Hebrews, the ancient nation of Israel.  Why did He choose to work in that way?  I don't know.  But I know enough about God and who He is to know that I trust him. 

 

On a different note, regarding "that pesky Constitution", I think that following the Constitution, and not inventing new meanings and extensions that the founders surely must have meant, would serve us well. 

 

OMG! what "new meanings and extensions" are those?! The founding fathers, while not perfect, were pretty frickin' spot on. They knew society would change, that our country was not founded in a vacuum or destined to be static. They recognized their imperfections, and accounted for it. Hence the constitution. It's kinda cool. 

 

Why is progress so scary? I ask in sincerity. People I love and respect have told me they cling to their "conservative" ways because the thought of changing things is frightening, but they cannot articulate why. I want to know why. 

[Truscifi]

I don't know.  Truly, I don't.  I do know that, historically, the one government that God set up was a relationship between himself and his people.  When later on the nation asked for a king, He said, essentially, "Why? You have me." 

 

There are many things I don't have answers for, and I don't expect to on this side of death.  Why did God single out "a chosen people?"  He say that his intention was to bless all the earth (all nations) through what He was going through the Hebrews, the ancient nation of Israel.  Why did He choose to work in that way?  I don't know.  But I know enough about God and who He is to know that I trust him. 

 

On a different note, regarding "that pesky Constitution", I think that following the Constitution, and not inventing new meanings and extensions that the founders surely must have meant, would serve us well. 

 

I see how the changes in our society could cause you grief and make you fearful for the future. I disagree in pretty much every way, but I recognize that it is a real grief and fear for you.

 

But the bolded is where you lose me. I am very thankful that we as a society have grown and evolved, that we have come to value people equally regardless of race, gender, orientation, religion, etc. Or at least that we are trying to. This idea that we should stick to tradition and just remain static just boggles my mind.

[*Lulu*]

Others said it better than I.

[Halftime Hope]

Well, I kinda find it offensive to think that one needs to hold Judeo-Christian principles to live a life well lived, or that the positive things are exclusively Judeo-Christian. But I can set that aside, too. 

 

I do understand that your religion teaches that the acceptance of which you call a sin is somehow a sign of overall moral decline, yes, and why that might trouble you. What I do not understand is 1) how or why you think those Judeo-Christian principles made this country a better place, when we have moved forward and away from so many of those things that did exist in the time our country was founded (slavery, unequal treatment of women, poor treatment of children/child labor, to name a few), often justified by said Judeo-Christian principles, or 2) why, again, strengthening your freedom to believe how you choose, no matter how the majority might disagree, is a bad thing. 

 

And while some people justified slavery by twisting scripture and claiming a Christian basis, the Africans selling their own were under no such delusions.  Slavery happened because humans are humans, not because some humans are Christians. 

 

Don't forget that the long fight to abolish slavery, at least in England, was led by devout Christians, and it was based on their understanding and application of Christianity's moral principles.  I don't know as much about the fight on this side of the pond, but one example is that the Christian college I attended was founded by people who had connections to the underground railroad, and a much revered abolitionist is buried and memorialized on the college's campus.  

 

For many of the early to middle years of this republic, the church and organizations spun off from the church were the de facto social service agencies and reform groups that addressed many of the social problems of the time, usually under names like The Society for This or for That. 

[LucyStoner]

And while some people justified slavery by twisting scripture and claiming a Christian basis, the Africans selling their own were under no such delusions. Slavery happened because humans are humans, not because some humans are Christians.

 

Don't forget that the long fight to abolish slavery, at least in England, was led by devout Christians, and it was based on their understanding and application of Christianity's moral principles. I don't know as much about the fight on this side of the pond, but one example is that the Christian college I attended was founded by people who had connections to the underground railroad, and a much revered abolitionist is buried and memorialized on the college's campus.

 

For many of the early to middle years of this republic, the church and organizations spun off from the church were the de facto social service agencies and reform groups that addressed many of the social problems of the time, usually under names like The Society for This or for That.

Churches played a huge role in the United States in pushing for the end of slavery and to stop the spread of slavery. Everyone from kindly well spoken ministers like Henry Ward Beecher to on fire with a holy rage holy warriors like John Brown all had objections to slavery firmly rooted in their faith.

 

Churches also played a huge role in justifying, excusing and minimizing the horrors of slavery. The church leadership in the south was almost universally pro-slavery and a sizable number of church leaders in the north were often apathetic and not overly concerned with slavery.

 

There was no singular church opinion on slavery and for much of American history the majority opinion in churches was not an abolitionist or pro Civil Rights one.

[Greta]

Why is progress so scary? I ask in sincerity. People I love and respect have told me they cling to their "conservative" ways because the thought of changing things is frightening, but they cannot articulate why. I want to know why.

It seems to me that conservatives tend to idealize and romanticize the past, while liberals (myself included) tend to idealize and romanticize the future.

 

It's entirely possible that my political views were formed at least in part by the fact that I watched way too much Star Trek as a kid. ;)

[Halftime Hope]

Ohhhh. So go back to when black people counted for 3/5 of a person, and women and non-landowning males could not vote?

 

editing -- not finished...

[livetoread]

I don't know. Truly, I don't. I do know that, historically, the one government that God set up was a relationship between himself and his people. When later on the nation asked for a king, He said, essentially, "Why? You have me."

 

There are many things I don't have answers for, and I don't expect to on this side of death. Why did God single out "a chosen people?" He say that his intention was to bless all the earth (all nations) through what He was going through the Hebrews, the ancient nation of Israel. Why did He choose to work in that way? I don't know. But I know enough about God and who He is to know that I trust him.

 

On a different note, regarding "that pesky Constitution", I think that following the Constitution, and not inventing new meanings and extensions that the founders surely must have meant, would serve us well.

Thanks for answering Halftime. It helps me understand better where you are coming from.

[albeto.]

Gosh. I wish I could multi-quote.  Argggh.   

 

Where do the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution specify any of these things???? 

 

The Three-Fifths Compromise, is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution, reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

(more here)

 

 

Originally, each state determined who was eligible to vote. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only free male adult property owners (of any ethnicity) to vote. Women could vote in New Jersey (provided they could meet the property requirement) and in some local jurisdictions in other northern states. Freed slaves could vote in four states. Initially, men without property and women were largely prohibited from voting. It wasn't until 1870 that the constitution was amended to include voting rights to men regardless of race or previous enslavement throughout the US. An amendment to include women in all states was ratified in 1920.

(more here)

 

 

One can see the foreshadowing of what the Founding Fathers knew to be true--at least some of them (enough of them to vote for keeping the words in the D of I)--in their language, that "all men are created equal."  They knew that at some point, slavery would have to be addressed.  But in the meantime, the more pressing thing was for the nation to gain its independence from Britian.  Are you aware that the first American Abolitionist society was founded in 1775 in Pennsylvania and or that Vermont's Consitution enacted a partial ban on slavery in 1777. 

 

All of this was going on at the same time, not in a vacuum.

 

 

So if the framers of the Constitution recognized evolution of law was inevitable, why hang onto the standards of the past when sexual orientation was completely overlooked? Why should LGBTQ rights be exempt from keeping up with the needs of society? Why should their needs be exempt from recognizing some groups require specific attention in order to access the very civil rights they are offered under the law, as we have a history of doing? 

[BrookValley.]

And while some people justified slavery by twisting scripture and claiming a Christian basis, the Africans selling their own were under no such delusions.  Slavery happened because humans are humans, not because some humans are Christians. 

 

Don't forget that the long fight to abolish slavery, at least in England, was led by devout Christians, and it was based on their understanding and application of Christianity's moral principles.  I don't know as much about the fight on this side of the pond, but one example is that the Christian college I attended was founded by people who had connections to the underground railroad, and a much revered abolitionist is buried and memorialized on the college's campus.  

 

For many of the early to middle years of this republic, the church and organizations spun off from the church were the de facto social service agencies and reform groups that addressed many of the social problems of the time, usually under names like The Society for This or for That. 

 

Never said, nor would I say, that slavery happened because some humans were Christians. Never said Christians were not involved in the abolitionist movement. Don't mistake me for being anti-Christian; it's not true, and it's irrelevant to the point. 

 

What church? Define devout Christian. The country was then, as it is now, kinda diverse when it came to religion. I doubt your particular flavor of Christianity has a whole lot in common with the Quaker church, for example, which was quite active in the abolitionist movement in the early days of the U.S. My local Quaker meeting is very open and affirming of LGBT persons, and has performed marriage ceremonies for quite awhile now--very long-standing social justice stance.  

[elegantlion]

I see how the changes in our society could cause you grief and make you fearful for the future. I disagree in pretty much every way, but I recognize that it is a real grief and fear for you.

 

But the bolded is where you lose me. I am very thankful that we as a society have grown and evolved, that we have come to value people equally regardless of race, gender, orientation, religion, etc. Or at least that we are trying to. This idea that we should stick to tradition and just remain static just boggles my mind.

 

Yes, I am glad that blacks and women can vote, at least for one issue. 

 

I'm currently reading an article on slavery in south Texas before the Civil War. The author (a historian) examines the reason for a proslavery mindset. Some of arguments reminded me of this thread. 

 

One of the fears outlines includes a fear that "empacipation would lead to a black political majority in some statesthat would ultimately lead to the passage and enforcement of laws 'calculated to oppress and enslave the white minority.' "

 

I hear the argument that the homosexual agenda is going to be the downfall of society, same argument, that  hetero people will become the "enslaved minority."  Those same-sex couples that desire marriage equality are only asking for the same rights as they sit at the table. They are not asking to kick everyone else to the kiddie table. 

[Mergath]

:( Some of the most vocal critics of Kim Davis in this thread are Christians.

I'm sorry. Believe me when I say that in my mind, your god and the god of the anti-equality crowd are totally different dudes and it's only the latter I have ceased to have respect for.

 

And I'll end it there, because I'm past the point where I can comment without rage in this thread.

[Ravin]

And I guess that is where I differ from Kim Davis. And I have the privilege to do so. /sarcasm/

 

No, seriously, I have the ability financially to walk away from my job and eat peanut butter and beans until I find a new one. I have the education needed to find a new job, and the luxury of time and privacy to consider the situation. And I have you guys. I doubt she has any of those. /sarcasm still on./

Unlike someone serving in the military, Kim Davis can resign at will. She can easily avoid compromising her religious beliefs by doing so. She is not being compelled to violate them because she has this option.

[zoobie]

"Only traditional, Biblical marriage should be legal in the United States."

-but not the part where women are 12 or 13

-but not the part where women are traded as property

-but not the part where the only way out, no matter the abuse or depravity, is death

-but not the part about women having no consent or education or place outside the home

-go ahead and skip the part about having as many kids as humanly possible because the Duggars have made that all weird

-oh and no marrying brothers, having multiple wives, or any kind of restrictions on interfaith or interracial marriage because that would be downright backwards.

 

So what exactly is this utopian, traditional, Biblical marriage? When did it exist?

 

And now we are harkening back to the good old days of the original Constitution. Let's go back to the original document.

-but wait, votes for women. Ok, leave that in.

-3/5 what? I guess that would make us look racist. Ok, let's change that and emancipate everyone.

-oh, I probably don't want another 3 term president. Especially now!

-AND, most importantly, let's rewrite history to base all this on the Bible! Oh, KJV of course! And all the nice, white men are all Christians with no slaves and no mistresses!

 

Again. When was this magical, utopian time where people (but not The Gayz) had equal rights and everything was based on Christianity?

[mommaduck]

It seems to me that conservatives tend to idealize and romanticize the past, while liberals (myself included) tend to idealize and romanticize the future.

 

It's entirely possible that my political views were formed at least in part by the fact that I watched way too much Star Trek as a kid. ;)

 

I find irony in the fact that I was raised in the military by a die hard trekkie...and they would be abhorred by my stances now. Uhm, raised in it ;) May have fought some battles with being a fundamentalist, but also had my being a TCK and other factors bouncing around in my head contradicting me, no matter how much I tried to silence it.

 

I agree that there is a lot of idealising and romanticising going on. You can't just cherry pick the facts or you don't have an accurate picture. There is the good, the bad, and the ugly. And, yes, I so wish I could continue to romanticise the past. I love history and historical clothing and...the list goes on. But the cold, hard facts give context and perspective. There was a lot of ugly and the pretty was based on the select few that were elite.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

"Only traditional, Biblical marriage should be legal in the United States."

-but not the part where women are 12 or 13

-but not the part where women are traded as property

-but not the part where the only way out, no matter the abuse or depravity, is death

-but not the part about women having no consent or education or place outside the home

-go ahead and skip the part about having as many kids as humanly possible because the Duggars have made that all weird

-oh and no marrying brothers, having multiple wives, or any kind of restrictions on interfaith or interracial marriage because that would be downright backwards.

 

So what exactly is this utopian, traditional, Biblical marriage? When did it exist?

 

And now we are harkening back to the good old days of the original Constitution. Let's go back to the original document.

-but wait, votes for women. Ok, leave that in.

-3/5 what? I guess that would make us look racist. Ok, let's change that and emancipate everyone.

-oh, I probably don't want another 3 term president. Especially now!

-AND, most importantly, let's rewrite history to base all this on the Bible! Oh, KJV of course! And all the nice, white men are all Christians with no slaves and no mistresses!

 

Again. When was this magical, utopian time where people (but not The Gayz) had equal rights and everything was based on Christianity?

I am not sure. I wonder if it was before or after we were cheating Native Americans out of their lands and killing them if they resisted?

[zoobie]

I am not sure. I wonder if it was before or after we were cheating Native Americans out of their lands and killing them if they resisted?

Shhh, hush now. We've taken all that out of the history books. They're all on white horses, carrying Gideon's Bibles and shoeboxes of goodies now. No harm done.

[Ravin]

This is a very true point that I had not thought of, but I believe you are correct. Everyone would expect them to show. Everyone would expect them to be all Pro Kim rah-rah, but that is getting old. But to show up and be against Kim, now that is new news!

It reminds me of how AL Qaeda has spoken out against the extreme tactics of Daesh (AKA Islamic State).

[Halftime Hope]

The Three-Fifths Compromise, is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution, reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

(more here)

 

 

Originally, each state determined who was eligible to vote. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only free male adult property owners (of any ethnicity) to vote. Women could vote in New Jersey (provided they could meet the property requirement) and in some local jurisdictions in other northern states. Freed slaves could vote in four states. Initially, men without property and women were largely prohibited from voting. It wasn't until 1870 that the constitution was amended to include voting rights to men regardless of race or previous enslavement throughout the US. An amendment to include women in all states was ratified in 1920.

(more here)

 

 

 

 

So if the framers of the Constitution recognized evolution of law was inevitable, why hang onto the standards of the past when sexual orientation was completely overlooked? Why should LGBTQ rights be exempt from keeping up with the needs of society? Why should their needs be exempt from recognizing some groups require specific attention in order to access the very civil rights they are offered under the law, as we have a history of doing? 

 

Because there is a difference between Amendments to the Constitution which are done through legislative action--which is the correct place for changes to be made to the Constitution--and legislation by judicial fiat. 

 

I had gone to look up the details mentioned by the previous poster and ended up getting waylaid by a family member who needed me -- real life is so inconvenient. ;-)

 

It really stinks when one's memory begins to be slow (or non-existant) on data retrieval.  And with that, I'm going to bow out for the night.  Sorry I haven't been able to get to several of the posters that quoted me. 

[LucyStoner]

Halftime mom, the 14th amendment passed by the legislative process. Attempts to repeal it (much wanted by southern states and even some in the Wilson administration) never went anywhere. It is the 14th amendment that was the basis for the Loving and the Obergefell rulings. I'm not sure how that constitutes a judicial fiat. Equal protection under the law means equal. Not anything more or less.

[poppy]

More on the 14th...The equal protection clause reads:

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

It was ratified in 1868, and was written largely to counter the "Black Codes", state laws  in former Confederate state designed to bring a return to slavery-like conditions.  "Freedman" (anyone who was black) could be whipped or imprisoned and put to hard labor if they were caught without an employer's note in public, and they were forbidden from owning property, voting, testifying in court, owning a weapon, gathering in public, and so on. 

 

The 14th amendment was controversial, of course, but it did become law of the land through the Congress and it did become part of our constitution.   States  can't make a law that discriminates against a portion of its citizens. The federal government can't either, which is why DOMA was short-lived.   All citizens are protected by the Constitution no matter which state they live in. And it's the Supreme Court's role to determine what that protection looks like. So striking down ssm bans isn't "legislating" so much as reviewing laws that have been passed to see if they are constitutional.

 

[Greta]

I find irony in the fact that I was raised in the military by a die hard trekkie...and they would be abhorred by my stances now. Uhm, raised in it ;) May have fought some battles with being a fundamentalist, but also had my being a TCK and other factors bouncing around in my head contradicting me, no matter how much I tried to silence it.

 

I agree that there is a lot of idealising and romanticising going on. You can't just cherry pick the facts or you don't have an accurate picture. There is the good, the bad, and the ugly. And, yes, I so wish I could continue to romanticise the past. I love history and historical clothing and...the list goes on. But the cold, hard facts give context and perspective. There was a lot of ugly and the pretty was based on the select few that were elite.

The older I get, the more I seem to enjoy and appreciate history. So I do understand, now, the tendency to romanticize it, because I do it some myself. Particularly, in my case, Medieval Europe. I love reading about it, love imagining it. But I know enough about it to know that I'm glad to be in this century. :) Yes, there were good things about the past. I was recently reading Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South and there's a passage in that book where the main character, Margaret Hale, throws herself between an angry mob and the man that they're after, because she trusts that they would never harm a lady. Can you imagine doing that today? Ha! Her gender protected her. Must have been nice. BUT would lower-class, poor women have enjoyed that same protection? And at what cost did that protection come? Human history has always been complicated, always been beautiful and ugly at the same time, because humans are complicated, beautiful, and ugly.

 

I know I'm off topic, so I'll wrap it up. But you mentioned historical clothing, and that's been a "thing" of mine lately. Not that I own any, but just browsing through images online, reading articles about how women dressed in whatever century. I don't know why, but I find it really fun and interesting.

[zoobie]

Because there is a difference between Amendments to the Constitution which are done through legislative action--which is the correct place for changes to be made to the Constitution--and legislation by judicial fiat.

 

I had gone to look up the details mentioned by the previous poster and ended up getting waylaid by a family member who needed me -- real life is so inconvenient. ;-)

 

It really stinks when one's memory begins to be slow (or non-existant) on data retrieval. And with that, I'm going to bow out for the night. Sorry I haven't been able to get to several of the posters that quoted me.

You want to remove the judiciary altogether from the checks and balances design? That throws off the Constitution as well.

[justasque]

Because there is a difference between Amendments to the Constitution which are done through legislative action--which is the correct place for changes to be made to the Constitution--and legislation by judicial fiat. 

 

I had gone to look up the details mentioned by the previous poster and ended up getting waylaid by a family member who needed me -- real life is so inconvenient. ;-)

 

It really stinks when one's memory begins to be slow (or non-existant) on data retrieval.  And with that, I'm going to bow out for the night.  Sorry I haven't been able to get to several of the posters that quoted me. 

Halftime, I have heard this argument about "legislation by judicial fiat", and "legislating from the bench", and so on, but I do not understand it.  

 

I am NOT a politics or history expert - not by a long shot.  My basic understanding is that the congress can pass any law they like, whether it's constitutional or not.  For example, they can pass a law that says people with blue eyes can't eat cupcakes in public.  It's an outrageous law, but there is nothing stopping them from passing it if for some reason there's a huge public outcry against blue-eyed public cupcake eating.  The "check" is that a blue-eyed person who is arrested for eating cupcakes can sue, and if it makes it up to the Supreme Court and they decide to take the case, the court may strike down the law on the basis that blue-eyed people have the right to the pursuit of happiness, which most definitely includes eating the cupcakes of their choice in the public square.  (Nowadays, of course, people are savvy, so the Blue-Eyed Cupcake Eaters of America (BECEA) will find the most squeaky-clean, all-American, articulate blue-eyed people to challenge the law by holding a blue-eyed cupcake-eating protest in an iconic public setting.)

Isn't it the JOB of the Supreme Court to examine laws and determine if they are constitutional or not?  And if they decide the law is not, and therefore they strike it down, doesn't that change the law in some way, by making the part that is struck down invalid/unenforceable?  Even if the law is very popular, like some of the racial segregation laws?  (Was Loving legislating from the bench?  Was Brown?  What about Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned Bowers v. Hardwick?)

 

I guess I am asking - could you explain "legislating from the bench" and how it differs from the ordinary duties of the court?  I hear this position a lot, on the issue we're currently discussing as well as others, and I want to understand it more.

 

[Halftime Hope]

Unlike someone serving in the military, Kim Davis can resign at will. She can easily avoid compromising her religious beliefs by doing so. She is not being compelled to violate them because she has this option.

 

Agreed.  And that is why I have not expressed support for the position she has staked out nor the actions she has taken.  But I"m not going to throw her under the bus either, since I'm not there and I don't know what all has gone on. 

[MSNative]

Halftime, I have heard this argument about "legislation by judicial fiat", and "legislating from the bench", and so on, but I do not understand it.

 

I am NOT a politics or history expert - not by a long shot. My basic understanding is that the congress can pass any law they like, whether it's constitutional or not. For example, they can pass a law that says people with blue eyes can't eat cupcakes in public. It's an outrageous law, but there is nothing stopping them from passing it if for some reason there's a huge public outcry against blue-eyed public cupcake eating. The "check" is that a blue-eyed person who is arrested for eating cupcakes can sue, and if it makes it up to the Supreme Court and they decide to take the case, the court may strike down the law on the basis that blue-eyed people have the right to the pursuit of happiness, which most definitely includes eating the cupcakes of their choice in the public square. (Nowadays, of course, people are savvy, so the Blue-Eyed Cupcake Eaters of America (BECEA) will find the most squeaky-clean, all-American, articulate blue-eyed people to challenge the law by holding a blue-eyed cupcake-eating protest in an iconic public setting.)

Isn't it the JOB of the Supreme Court to examine laws and determine if they are constitutional or not? And if they decide the law is not, and therefore they strike it down, doesn't that change the law in some way, by making the part that is struck down invalid/unenforceable? Even if the law is very popular, like some of the racial segregation laws? (Was Loving legislating from the bench? Was Brown? What about Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned Bowers v. Hardwick?)

 

I guess I am asking - could you explain "legislating from the bench" and how it differs from the ordinary duties of the court? I hear this position a lot, on the issue we're currently discussing as well as others, and I want to understand it more.

 

This is from a conservative think tank so the analysis will come from that point of view. I think it is a good resource though because it clearly details the reasons why they believe the court overstepped its bounds.

 

http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/rule-of-law/judicial-activism

[Halftime Hope]

nm

 

[Haiku]

Because there is a difference between Amendments to the Constitution which are done through legislative action--which is the correct place for changes to be made to the Constitution--and legislation by judicial fiat. 

 

It is the job of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution. In what way are the justices overstepping their bounds when they do just that?

 

SCOTUS has made rulings I disagree with. But our government is set up so that the judicial branch has a function. I can't proclaim that their decisions are illegitimate just because I happen to disagree with them. SCOTUS has a job to do, and they do it.

[MSNative]

It is the job of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution. In what way are the justices overstepping their bounds when they do just that?

 

SCOTUS has made rulings I disagree with. But our government is set up so that the judicial branch has a function. I can't proclaim that their decisions are illegitimate just because I happen to disagree with them. SCOTUS has a job to do, and they do it.

Deciding what is and what isn't Constitutional is not black and white. There are lots of penumbra and emanations that arise when trying to determine that. Look at Bush v Gore. Lots of people thought and continue to think that SCOTUS improperly and illegitimately decided an election. Of course, I can declare it illegitimate but that doesn't amount to anything. It is still the law of the land.

[Haiku]

It is still the law of the land.

 

Yes. If we say it is the job of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution, then we have to let them do that. Not all people in all times will be pleased with the result, but either we allow SCOTUS to do its job, or we don't. We can't halfway it. No one said it would be easy. But it has to be done.

[albeto.]

Because there is a difference between Amendments to the Constitution which are done through legislative action--which is the correct place for changes to be made to the Constitution--and legislation by judicial fiat. 

 

This is illogical. It's already been mentioned that this is precisely the function of the judiciary system. To decide law doesn't "count" unless it's in the Constitution is absurd and cannot be supported with legal arguments or historical precedent. That would mean the Hobby Lobby case doesn't count, and those who are appalled by the ruling should have the right to ignore it. But we don't, because that's not how law in the United States works. And that's what it all comes down to - people who don't agree want an excuse to ignore it. This amounts to nothing more than the Sour Grapes Defense. Earlier someone said they wish conservative people would just go away. I don't share that sentiment, but I will be happy when their period of processing the loss of unjustified privilege is over. I find it so utterly offensive, and to talk about it like grief, like someone inspirational and wonderful has died, is completely cold-hearted. The thing is, when conversations are held hostage by religious belief, and reason is simply ignored when it does not conform to and rationalize a personal belief, there's nothing to do but wait it out and let them move on. 

 

I'm so grateful we live in a land where civil law is divorced from religious law, and I suspect when the xian population becomes the minority and no longer stand on tradition and convention, they will finally recognize the genius of this, too. The rights of all people should be preserved, and that's just what we should hope from SCOTUS, even when we don't agree with any one, particular ruling.

 

I had gone to look up the details mentioned by the previous poster and ended up getting waylaid by a family member who needed me -- real life is so inconvenient. ;-)

 

Family first.

 

Always.

 

:)

[MSNative]

Yes. If we say it is the job of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution, then we have to let them do that. Not all people in all times will be pleased with the result, but either we allow SCOTUS to do its job, or we don't. We can't halfway it. No one said it would be easy. But it has to be done.

I agree. But I think it is right for citizens to examine those rulings. If enough citizens believe that SCOTUS got it wrong, then they can try to amend the Constitution or have their legislators draft another law that might address what SCOTUS didn't accept as constitutional in the first one.

I know some have proposed retention elections for justices and no longer having lifetime appointments. I see both sides of this. I do think that a long but finite term (say 15-20 years) for a Justice could be a good thing. It would still allow them to act free from concern of political repercussions.

[Greta]

It is the job of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution. In what way are the justices overstepping their bounds when they do just that?

 

SCOTUS has made rulings I disagree with. But our government is set up so that the judicial branch has a function. I can't proclaim that their decisions are illegitimate just because I happen to disagree with them. SCOTUS has a job to do, and they do it.

Just a few days after the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, SCOTUS made another ruling which I find not just disappointing but deeply disturbing: Glossip v. Gross. That ruling was in direct contradiction to what I believe as a Christian, and my understanding of the constitutional rights of US Citizens. I think SCOTUS did a really lousy, in fact shameful, job that day. But I would never argue that it wasn't their right to hear the case. That's how our government was set up. Sometimes it works better than others, but that is in fact the system that the founders designed.

[Halftime Hope]

And how America differs in operation on Judeo-Christian principals than most of the Western World?

 

Is Judeo-Christian code for "not Muslim"? Or it is just a figure of speech?

 

 

Zoobie, I don't know how to best answer this.  You either truly don't have the context and knowledge to know what this term means in a historical context, or you're being argumentative, or throwing out a red herring, or ?? something else.

 

So assuming the best--that you are honestly asking for information:

 

No, it is not code for "not Muslim."  Islam is not even a consideration.  Islam arrived on the scene far later in history (thousands of years) than ancient Hebrew law, law which was God-given and reflected his character and attributes.  Some of The Law was unchangeable and could be generalized to all nations, all times.  (Principally, the (abridged version of) The Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not murder, lie, steal, etc. Thou shalt honor God, not have other Gods, honor your father and mother, and so on.)  Other parts of the law were highly specific for the age and geography in which it was written, things like dietary and hygiene commandments and so on.  And then there was law enacted by religious leaders which was more akin to the burdensome regulations issued by bureaucracies in the US. 

 

That is the "Judeo"  part, the law stemming from the tradition that included Judah (the name of one of the sons of Abraham and therefore of one of the tribes within the Hebrew nation /Judea (the region)/Jew/Jewish (referring to the race of people or their religion or nationality.)

 

Some of us see Christianity, at least in the area of laws and moral guidelines, as an heir to the Hebraic law.  Yet it was a law that was perfected and completed by Jesus Christ, when He summed it up as "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself." So, Christian law is an "heir" in a manner of speaking, to Judaic law.

 

Back to the founding of America and to tracing why we are based on Judeo-Christian principles and laws.  The "Christian" part comes into play, in part, as British Common Law had several periods of development in which it was influenced by either church jurisprudence which was closely tied to government, through the Normans, or later by canon law.  Thus, British Law has been influenced by the Judeo tradition mentioned above.  More notably, culturally, Britain was a Christian nation.

 

We see the Judeo-Christian influence any time we look at the founding fathers' (and others') influential writings and public discussions at the time of the development of this nation, and it is particularly vividly illustrated when one looks at the early artifacts from the founding of the nation--buildings, monuments, etc.--and the quotes and inscriptions on them.  Just one example:  the inscription on the Liberty Bell, "Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof,"  is a quote from Leviticus, one of the books of the Torah, the first 5 books of the Old Testament -- revered by Jews and Christians alike.

 

There is some very good, balanced, back and forth discussion on the term "Judeo-Christian" here:  http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-does-judeo-christian-mean.html   

 

To the best of my knowledge, the early thinkers and the Founding Fathers who shaped America were not drawing on Islamic tradition, although I may stand corrected.  Certainly the founding fathers were not repeatedly quoting and referencing the Quran.  That is not to disparage or diminish the scholars and scientists within the Islamic tradition; it's just that Islam was not a factor in the particular geo-political-religious roots of this nation. 

[Ipsey]

And that's what you believe.

 

Exactly. 

 

And allowing gay people to be married to gay people lets them follow their hearts and consciences (and belief?).

 

Allowing straight people to be married to straight people lets them follow their hearts and consciences (and belief?) as well.

 

Disallowing either one of them to happen because of the fears and biases of the other is unjust and not an American ideal.

 

That's how we show respect for humanity and belief in the US.

 

I'm sorry for your fear that everything is on the way to doom--but it's not because of gay marriage. I'd like for you to point out in your holy book where you see that. The Bible says that the Christian deity is coming to destroy and punish eternally (or unto destruction) everyone who doesn't cow properly, and I don't see that this is specifically related to gay marriage. Presumably people like you will go on to eternally bliss forever. See, isn't that ok? Isn't that perfection in the end? Fear not! Your god is going to get us and the icky gays, right? You win! Why don't you just let them have their joy for now instead of driving them further away from your supposed loving deity? 

 

I find it strange how the genocide of millions doesn't bring immediate judgment of your god, but letting people love and protect their families and children outrages a deity to destroy the world. Clearly different values in play here.

[Ipsey]

Zoobie, I don't know how to best answer this.  You either truly don't have the context and knowledge to know what this term means in a historical context, or you're being argumentative, or throwing out a red herring, or ?? something else.

 

So assuming the best--that you are honestly asking for information:

 

No, it is not code for "not Muslim."  Islam is not even a consideration.  Islam arrived on the scene far later in history (thousands of years) than ancient Hebrew law, law which was God-given and reflected his character and attributes.  Some of The Law was unchangeable and could be generalized to all nations, all times.  (Principally, the (abridged version of) The Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not murder, lie, steal, etc. Thou shalt honor God, not have other Gods, honor your father and mother, and so on.)  Other parts of the law were highly specific for the age and geography in which it was written, things like dietary and hygiene commandments and so on.  And then there was law enacted by religious leaders which was more akin to the burdensome regulations issued by bureaucracies in the US. 

 

That is the "Judeo"  part, the law stemming from the tradition that included Judah (the name of one of the sons of Abraham and therefore of one of the tribes within the Hebrew nation /Judea (the region)/Jew/Jewish (referring to the race of people or their religion or nationality.)

 

Some of us see Christianity, at least in the area of laws and moral guidelines, as an heir to the Hebraic law.  Yet it was a law that was perfected and completed by Jesus Christ, when He summed it up as "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself." So, Christian law is an "heir" in a manner of speaking, to Judaic law.

 

Back to the founding of America and to tracing why we are based on Judeo-Christian principles and laws.  The "Christian" part comes into play, in part, as British Common Law had several periods of development in which it was influenced by either church jurisprudence which was closely tied to government, through the Normans, or later by canon law.  Thus, British Law has been influenced by the Judeo tradition mentioned above.  More notably, culturally, Britain was a Christian nation.

 

We see the Judeo-Christian influence any time we look at the founding fathers' (and others') influential writings and public discussions at the time of the development of this nation, and it is particularly vividly illustrated when one looks at the early artifacts from the founding of the nation--buildings, monuments, etc.--and the quotes and inscriptions on them.  Just one example:  the inscription on the Liberty Bell, "Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof,"  is a quote from Leviticus, one of the books of the Torah, the first 5 books of the Old Testament -- revered by Jews and Christians alike.

 

There is some very good, balanced, back and forth discussion on the term "Judeo-Christian" here:  http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-does-judeo-christian-mean.html   

 

To the best of my knowledge, the early thinkers and the Founding Fathers who shaped America were not drawing on Islamic tradition, although I may stand corrected.  Certainly the founding fathers were not repeatedly quoting and referencing the Quran.  That is not to disparage or diminish the scholars and scientists within the Islamic tradition; it's just that the Islam was not a factor in the particular geo-political-religious roots of this nation. 

 

 

Here are a series of quotes from our Founding Fathers who insisted that they were not building a Christian nation, and some of whom were quite down on Christianity.

 

http://www.americaisachristiannation.com/

 

You might say that in some respects they used cultural Christianity as a uniting point (such as on the Liberty bell--in a quote that doesn't even refer to a deity), but as the founding basis of our nation, I think they would be appalled at this statement today. 

 

 

[poppy]

Zoobie, I don't know how to best answer this. You either truly don't have the context and knowledge to know what this term means in a historical context, or you're being argumentative, or throwing out a red herring, or ?? something else.

 

So assuming the best--that you are honestly asking for information:

 

No, it is not code for "not Muslim." Islam is not even a consideration. Islam arrived on the scene far later in history (thousands of years) than ancient Hebrew law, law which was God-given and reflected his character and attributes. Some of The Law was unchangeable and could be generalized to all nations, all times. (Principally, the (abridged version of) The Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not murder, lie, steal, etc. Thou shalt honor God, not have other Gods, honor your father and mother, and so on.) Other parts of the law were highly specific for the age and geography in which it was written, things like dietary and hygiene commandments and so on. And then there was law enacted by religious leaders which was more akin to the burdensome regulations issued by bureaucracies in the US.

 

That is the "Judeo" part, the law stemming from the tradition that included Judah (the name of one of the sons of Abraham and therefore of one of the tribes within the Hebrew nation /Judea (the region)/Jew/Jewish (referring to the race of people or their religion or nationality.)

 

Some of us see Christianity, at least in the area of laws and moral guidelines, as an heir to the Hebraic law. Yet it was a law that was perfected and completed by Jesus Christ, when He summed it up as "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself." So, Christian law is an "heir" in a manner of speaking, to Judaic law.

 

Back to the founding of America and to tracing why we are based on Judeo-Christian principles and laws. The "Christian" part comes into play, in part, as British Common Law had several periods of development in which it was influenced by either church jurisprudence which was closely tied to government, through the Normans, or later by canon law. Thus, British Law has been influenced by the Judeo tradition mentioned above. More notably, culturally, Britain was a Christian nation.

 

We see the Judeo-Christian influence any time we look at the founding fathers' (and others') influential writings and public discussions at the time of the development of this nation, and it is particularly vividly illustrated when one looks at the early artifacts from the founding of the nation--buildings, monuments, etc.--and the quotes and inscriptions on them. Just one example: the inscription on the Liberty Bell, "Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof," is a quote from Leviticus, one of the books of the Torah, the first 5 books of the Old Testament -- revered by Jews and Christians alike.

 

There is some very good, balanced, back and forth discussion on the term "Judeo-Christian" here: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-does-judeo-christian-mean.html

 

To the best of my knowledge, the early thinkers and the Founding Fathers who shaped America were not drawing on Islamic tradition, although I may stand corrected. Certainly the founding fathers were not repeatedly quoting and referencing the Quran. That is not to disparage or diminish the scholars and scientists within the Islamic tradition; it's just that the Islam was not a factor in the particular geo-political-religious roots of this nation.

The founding fathers were very openly Enlightenment thinkers, the generation of the Age of Reason. while they were certainly influenced by the history you speak of, they very deliberately did NOT set up America a as a Christian nation.

[Halftime Hope]

Just a few days after the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, SCOTUS made another ruling which I find not just disappointing but deeply disturbing: Glossip v. Gross. That ruling was in direct contradiction to what I believe as a Christian, and my understanding of the constitutional rights of US Citizens. I think SCOTUS did a really lousy, in fact shameful, job that day. But I would never argue that it wasn't their right to hear the case. That's how our government was set up. Sometimes it works better than others, but that is in fact the system that the founders designed.

 

No, that's not factually correct.  The judiciary did not become the final arbiters until Marbury vs. Madison in 1803.  It was a huge controversy at the time, as some who disagreed with John Marshall foresaw the ramifications if the judiciary was strengthened in such a manner that it could act above the law. 

 

Here's a relatively simple but thorough explanation:  http://www.ushistory.org/us/20e.asp