(September 5, 2015 at 2:43 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: ChadWooters
No law was actually passed. SCOTUS rulings are NOT the law. The Constitution of the United Sates is the law. Instead what we have is 5 black robes finding a right to habitual sodomy in a document that says exactly nothing about marriage period. You're a hypocritical anti-Christian bigot who justifies tyranny in pursuit of your progressive utopia.
No, what you have is 5 black robes finding it unconstitutional for the government to offer rights and benefits to one group but not another. They're not granting rights to anyone; they're saying that when legislation grants rights, everyone must have equal access to them.
Besides, no matter what you do there will always be people doing butt stuff.
If we're going with the legalization of Sodomy, it was actually legalized in 2003. The vote wasn't 5-4, it was 6-3 in the case of Lawrence v. Texas. It determined that anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional.
Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 (this year) on the other hand determined that denying gay couples the right to get married (regardless of their desire or intent to have sexual relations) is unconstituional.
Marriage is not a religious institution, no matter how much Christians want it to be. The concept both pre-dates their religion, and has been a staple of many cultures for a long time. I'm an Atheist, and I'm married. I didn't get married so that I could have sex. Or even so that I could have children. (Having sex while not being married isn't against the law either). I got married to make a commitment to my husband, and so that he would make a commitment to me. And so that we would have the legal rights that we have bestowed upon us. Just like many gay couples wish.
Christians view gays as 'immoral' (much in the same way they view Atheists). They think anything that is immoral should be illegal. However, who determines what is moral and what is immoral? Christianity is on a slow decline. Eventually Atheism will become more acceptable. Then perhaps one day Christianity will be viewed as immoral. Should Atheists then argue that Christianity should be outlawed? I'm sure that the Christians answer would be 'no.' I'm sure they would have an excuse for how Christianity isn't immoral, despite their treatment of homosexuals and other various groups. They expect people to uphold their values, while not being upheld to the values of others themselves. Or perhaps if not Atheism, then perhaps Islam. Islam is one of the fastest growing nations. If our laws were to be based upon Islam, many Christians would not be happy (aside from their shared view on Homosexuality)
The Religious folks who see this as tyranny fail to understand that the Supreme Court determines only which laws are constitutional and which laws are not. Laws that outlaw same sex marriage are unconstitutional. They violate the 'separate but equal' clause of the 14th amendment. Therefore, Same Sex Marriage does not require legislation in order to be legalized. The states had no right in the first place to outlaw it. A system of checks and balances are required for our system of government to work. States can't pass laws that violate the constitution. That's something that the Republicans running for President don't seem to understand. It's quite disturbing to think that those running for office don't know how things work.
Gays have a right to get married. Kim Davis deprived couples of that right. Some are comparing her to Rosa Parks. She isn't Rosa Parks in this scenario. She was James Blake. But instead of just trying to do her job like Blake claims he was, she was refusing to do her job. If James Blake had refused to allow Rosa Parks to sit wherever she liked on his bus after Browder v. Gayle, he'd have been ordered to follow the law, or he would have been fired. Kim Davis cannot be fired because she's an elected official. Therefore the judge had only two options: Fine her, or jail her. The judge did not feel that a fine would convince her to uphold her duty to the law, so he put her in jail.
