Friday, June 26, 2015

On Today's SCOTUS Ruling

For those reading this in an archive some time in the future, in my piece on the Supreme Court becoming Trans-legislators last night (on the outside they look like Justices, but on the inside they feel they were born legislators), I predicted today's ruling, saying:
Tomorrow or Monday, I expect them to rule that gay marriage is the law of the land.  Right behind that, I expect freedom of religion to be rescinded, along with the freedom of conscience.   
Commenter Erin Pallete wrote:
I'm not really clear on how allowing two consenting adults to sign a legally-binding marriage contract wrecks the nation and naturally follows into repeal of the 1st Amendment. Aren't we FOR rights, FOR freedom, and FOR fewer laws?
As I've said before, the only privilege running a blog gets you is the ability to write a wall of text to a two sentence comment like that.  If I may...

To answer the direct question: Of course.  We're all in agreement that we want more rights more freedom, and fewer laws (although I'd like an example of just once in history where getting the involved resulted in fewer laws).  But that's only the beginning and way too incomplete.  The problems always arise where the rights of two people collide. 

Freedom of Religion (NOT freedom of worship, as the president loves to say) is the right to believe in whatever you wish and follow those beliefs.  Pure first amendment.  Let's leave out human sacrifice because that obviously violates a whole host of laws, but my standpoint as both a libertarian and Nazarene (as ISIS says) is that if you want to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Buddha or just believe in yourself, that's your choice.  Free will.  That's between you and God, at least as I perceive Him.  The line gets crossed if I say you have to believe what I do or else you go to jail or get otherwise destroyed (or if you do the same to me, of course).  That's taking someone else's freedom away.  

There was a story out of Georgia last week about a firefighter who gave a talk as a lay pastor (filling in) at his church where he affirmed the Biblical view of marriage and was fired over it.  From what I've heard, he didn't preach at work; no one claimed he was hostile to anyone at work, I never heard he even talked about it at work but he was fired.  The chaplain for Seal Team 6 was fired over taking a Biblical view, too.  That's a chaplain's job, isn't it?  And, of course, there are all of the cases where bakers or photographers or whatever were sued and are getting economically ruined for refusing to take part in a gay ceremony.  I've heard of gay people being fired for being gay; what's the difference?  Are people looking for equality or revenge?

This sounds like less rights, less freedom and more laws for everyone. Whenever anyone imposes their beliefs on other people, it's a problem.  

Are they going to start arresting Clergy for refusing to marry a gay couple?  At this point, that seems like a distinct possibility.  Will they get arrested when they teach on marriage from the Bible, Torah or Koran?  It seems possible.  By the way, if you say the Government would never arrest people based on what their religion says, how is the situation different from the Feds saying the Catholic church had to pay for abortions for their employees under Obamacare?    

Where is Freedom of Religion if your beliefs are mandated by the state?  Everyone is free to believe whatever they're ordered to?  Or else what?  There's way too big a chance for tyranny to grow here. 

So yeah, I'm completely in favor of more rights, more freedom and fewer laws for everyone.  And I think we'll be getting the complete opposite of that. 


  1. It's all about control.......

  2. How is this different from the Feds forcing the integration of lunch counters? Schools?

    How is this different from the Feds forcing landlords and hotels to rent to interracial couples?

    How is this different from making it impossible to put up signs "no Jews allowed?"

  3. When the local mosque refuses to host that wedding, I am gonna turn out in support.

    Just not sure what kind of cake to bring.

    Or what to wear, for that matter...

  4. We now have freedom of (approved) expression.
    We have not only the right, but are required to associate with everyone, including those we would rather not.
    We have freedom of religion, as long as we don't take it too far and actually attempt to live according to our beliefs.
    We have the right to (some places) own and (some places) bear government approved firearms, as long as we get and pay for permission, and abide by capricious, arbitrary rules.
    We are free from unreasonable search and siezure- until any DA or cop decides otherwise.
    We are free from slavery, yet the fruits of my labor for the first five months of the year belongs to the government...

  5. Thwere are multiple issues here: The issue of forcing everyone to approve of gay marriage and lifestyle and punishing those who do not. The "unintended" (or intended) consequence of opening up all of our constitutional rights to attack. Then there is the issue that concerns me most and that is our Supreme Court which has been stacked with anti-constitutional, anti-democratic liberals with the intent of doing exactly what you see them doing. One more liberal president in conjunction with a liberal congress and two maybe three more liberal justices will be appointed and then it's 'stick o fork in us we are done'.

  6. Wheelgun - you need someone an order of magnitude (or two) more eloquent than me to explain this, but a few thoughts.

    First, I think you don't believe me, but THIS IS NOT ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE. This is about potentially taking away an enumerated right in the constitution, first amendment freedom of religion, by regulating something that isn't mentioned at all. Marriage in the broad sense, not gay marriage. You may think this is an overstatement, it will never happen, but a handful of people I hear or read who have a really good historical perspective say it's virtually certain to happen. Again, how is it different from the Feds forcing a Catholic charity to violate their principles?

    As I said at the top of this whole essay, the problems come when the rights of two parties collide and the government has to declare someone's rights invalid. Of course I have to acknowledge if party A through the takes away party B's rights, party A benefits. Party A will probably be happy about it. B will probably be filled with resentment.

    Personally, I like 100% honesty in society. I would prefer the lunch counter post the "no Jews", or "no gays" sign so I know to never spend a single cent there. I have no use for PC mandating people never say what they truly believe. That's mandating lying.

    I think each of the examples you cite is different from the other, and all of them are different from what I was talking about. For example, the government is in charge of the public schools through a complex web of rules and supplying or withdrawing funds. Mandating what gets done in their own buildings makes sense. All of these things have been addressed in a hundred columns.

    As a small "L" libertarian, I do think the Feds overstepped in some cases. I do think businesses should be able to decide they don't want my money, just as I should be free to decide I don't want to spend money there. If we were a functioning market society that wouldn't matter. We'd just spend our money where they wanted our business and those who don't want our business would go out of business.

    I think John Roberts, a big-Government centrist if there ever was one, had a good statement: “If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,”

    When do we ever get more freedom by taking away someone's freedoms?

  7. I was going to answer Wheelgun, but Graybeard beat me to it. But I can't help still commenting.

    Let any business cater to whomever it wants and exclude whomever it wants, and let's all put on our big boy pants. The market will sort it out. You can't say, with a straight face, that there exists a majority of businesses that won't cater to blacks, interracial couples, or gays (even ones who claim to be married).

    And Erin Pallete? No one said before that two consenting adults could not sign a legally-binding marriage contract. Anyone can go to a lawyer and have any contract written up. Have fun! Live your life.

    What wrecks the nation is:
    a) What Graybeard said about freedom of religion's being wrecked. There WILL be legal persecution going in one direction based on this finding. Just as we have seen in Colorado, for example, with one set of people (those with religious objections) and NOT another set (those with politically based objections). A Christian went to 14 gay bakeries and asked for cakes with biblical quotes on them, and he was refused in all 14 cases. Government commission support for his appeal for equal protection under the law? Absolutely absent. The same will occur when churches refuse to marry a gay couple. And I can't believe it won't happen that some gay-only church will refuse to marry a heterosexual couple and get off scot-free. How is that about more freedom?

    b) Like it or not, traditional marriage turns out more adaptable and stable children, and thus, more adaptable and stable citizens. There are statistical studies that demonstrate it. If government has any business in marriage at all (and I don't think it does), it's business should be to encourage the form of the institution that has the best demonstrable results.

    c) An increase in laws that can be used to punish or persecute people, even if it's not about what's being alleged. In the Middle East now, if a muslim has a personal grievance against a Christian or just wants some of his stuff, he alleges a sharia violation. Do you honestly think that won't happen with this? How is that fewer laws?

    This is totally not about gay marriage. It's about adding legal weapons to the arsenal to punish people for not agreeing with a certain set of beliefs - legally, monetarily, and socially. At least be honest about that.

    Now, on the flip side of the coin, what you've gained are:
    a) Subjection to alimony.
    b) Subjection to child support.
    c) Subjection to community property laws.
    d) Probably more than I can think of right now.

    Good luck with that.

  8. I wonder if, in those schools where there currently are muslim students (Dearborn, MI for example) the students are prevented from praying during those times when some of their five daily prayers are commanded by the qu'ran? My bet is that it isn't, that those students are allowed to present their asses to the West (Mecca being in the East ;-) without penalty. Yet, a Christian student would be punished for sitting quietly at his desk with his hands together in prayer. A Jewish student would not be permitted to read the Torah quietly at his desk during study hall, but there would be screams of outrage, arrests, and law suits.

    muslims (if you've noticed, I refuse to capitalize when writing about islam) are allowed to stop traffic and completely occupy city streets and intersections in some cities during one (or more) of their daily prayer times. If Christians or Jews tried that, they would be arrested and jailed/fined (or both).

    There is no equality when it comes to religion. There is no equality anymore when it comes to race. There is no equality when it comes to gender. (If you are an actual female human and protest when someone like Jenner comes into a bathroom at work, displaying a set of balls and a penis, I imagine you could well be fired.)

    So. Speech is infringed, religion is infringed, gun ownership (in numerous ways) is infringed, and much of what was once known as the Bill of Rights is defunct, at the whim of government, gays, and feminists who claim you have raped them if they don't like the way you looked at them (but don't protest female sex slaves and the abuse of women by muslims).

    It's gone, folks. The America I grew up in during the fifties and sixties is a forlorn memory for those of us who lived it.

    I loved "trans-legislators", Graybeard. And if we protest their actions, we are racist-haters.

  9. Stop the world, I want to get off.