The Supreme Court Goes Totally, Fabulously, Gay

The gay community has once again shown that it’s magnanimous in victory.

Yes, #LoveWins. Tolerance is Beautiful isn’t it?

And yes, I called it, here and here.  I just didn’t make a bet on this particular court decision like I did for Burwell, but I knew it was inevitable.

How the Court got here is ultimately not that important.  In a 5 to 4 decision in the case, Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court determined that the 14th Amendment had always intended for gay marriage to be legal, and darn it, somehow we just missed the real intent of the drafters until now.

So like the Obamacare decision before it, the job of the Supreme Court is to pick a policy it likes, and then just come up with a justification for it afterwards.  Law, precedence, and of course the constitution are ultimately just props to justify doing what you want to do anyway.

So the court has no made up new law out of whole cloth, and we’ve no choice but to go along.  But does it even matter?

Gay Marriage only matters in the sense that the idea of it highlights how much of a joke the institution of marriage has become. Gays are getting the “right” to marry at a time when straights are abandoning the institution.

During the fifties and sixties when states were switching to no fault divorce, blue hairs, church ladies and the like decried no fault divorce claiming that it would weaken the institution of marriage. The kool kids shot back, “Hey, it doesn’t affect your marriage…chill (or however it was said in the late 50’s lingo).” But the blue hairs were right. It did weaken marriage. It’s the same thing with gay marriage. No, my personal marriage is not threatened by gay marriage, but the institution of marriage, already severely weakened, will weaken even further.

Nowadays people seem to have no conception of a societal institution, only how it affects the individual. Few gays will actually marry under this law (that was never the point anyway), but marriage gets weaker.

So what next?  On to alter marriage further.  Next up:  polygamy.  In a few years, I’m sure I’ll be reading with amusement how the Supreme Court determined that the Constitution always intended for polygamy to be legal.

 

 

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “The Supreme Court Goes Totally, Fabulously, Gay

  1. The SCOTUS decisions on the ACA and same-sex marriage leave me wondering how many of the conservatives who sat out the 2008 election (“There’s no difference between McCain and Obama!”) realize that they, in effect, voted for this. Giving Obama two Supreme Court picks virtually guaranteed these two decisions. My guess is that it’s not many. And I’m sure there are quite a few of them that are prepared to sit out the next election if the GOP doesn’t nominate someone who is ideologically pure enough.

    I’ll say this about the left’s push for “gay marriage”, they were brilliant in framing the issue. It went from a fringe issue, to a civil rights issue, to the ultimate ticket to being one of the cool kids. You were a nobody if you didn’t have a pink equal sign as your Facebook profile at one point. And now the rainbow is all the rage. The blending of politics, news media and pop culture to sell this issue made it, in my opinion, the most effective propaganda campaign in history. Look for it to be used again and again.

    As for the Supreme Court, their penchant for reverse-engineering their legal reasoning to fit an ideologically-derived decision isn’t necessarily new, but I expect it to become the rule now, rather than the exception. Laws, our government, even out rights, will be exactly what the people in power say they are, and nothing more. Our Constitution will become no more than a fiction our rulers will use as cover as they rule by decree.

    Like

    • I agree that the gay marriage campaign was masterful. First came the preparation of the battlefield, Will & Grace and then Modern Family. Then celebrities supporting it as a default position, then anyone not supporting it suddenly became a bigot, homophobe, and most interestingly, a closet case. Then, as you said, it was framed as a civil rights issue. Who can be against civil rights?

      But I think what really helped push it over the edge was the attacking of enemies, Brendan Eich gets fired for contributing to a pro marriage group a decade earlier, then photographers, bakers, and even pizza makers are attacked as the new Bull Connors. Once you start personally attacking your opponents, people shut up. I wouldn’t even want my employer to know what I think. I’ve gone from normal to Nazi in less than a decade just for having the same position I had a decade ago.

      This formula seems to work so I expect to see it repeated over and over.
      \

      Like

  2. Once again you surprise me. Knowing you to lean agnostic/atheist. ..I was sure this was one issue we’d agree on. I figured that since you wouldn’t have the religion backed argument against gay marriage and you sometimes lean towards libertarianism. ..that,well..the blog you wrote would have been totally different. ..

    While I can understand the religious argument against I still dont accept it as the end all be all..its not like any religious follower, with the exception of isis militants, follow every word of scripture ..so i personally find this reason for rejection tl be retaded..

    But I did think the libertarian in you would have been against a government that would refuse basic rights to people it felt was ‘icky’. I mean when you get down to it and remove religion its the ‘ick’ factor that drives most,if not all ‘con’ of this issue.

    Allowing more people tax benefits of marriage? C’mon,isnt that alone enough for an anti tax repub or a libertarian to be whole heartedly for gay marriage?

    A government who allows consenting adults the right t decide their partners ? Holy crap if that isnt a libertarian benchmark what is?

    The protection marriage gives to spouse not to be forced to testify against their spouse,the protection of spousal medical rights,or any and all other spousal rights? Wtf? When did giving rights to people and taking government intrusion away become a liberal only position?

    Marriage all throughout time has simply been a contract between two parties. Its been used to seal treaties,end wars,expand territories,increase wealth, protection etc.. the idea of actually loving the person is relatively new on the ‘reason for marriage’ timeline.. I simply can’t see the validity of any argument against. .which brings me back to its just the ick factor that’s the problem here..

    .shrug. i dont know.. i think scotus said gays are people to and as people are entitled to the same rights as everyone else..why this is something earth shattering I’ll never know..

    Btw the polygamy argument is moot becuz people arent born polygamists..

    Like

    • Sorry, I would have replied to this sooner but I was on vacation that turned into an illness; a sickcation I suppose… so it’s been a while since I’ve put much effort into blog maintenance.

      I no longer am surprised that you are surprised by my opinions. Even though my opinion about gay marriage has been pretty much the same since it first became an issue, and that we had debated it on multiple occasions years ago, and since everything I’ve written about it on this blog has been in opposition; you still find yourself surprised that I opposed it.

      I’m just a bundle of wonderment.

      On the religious case opposing gay marriage, I largely agree with you that although I understand it, it’s also pretty much irrelevant to public policy issues. “The Bible says…” might have been an effective argument in the public square in 1955, but less so from then on and virtually none in 2015. And frankly, that was the largest public section of the opposition to gay marriage. There is a secular case opposing gay marriage (actually multiple secular cases) but I can’t recall a major political figure putting much effort into making that case. From the secular angle, the passion wasn’t there. On the other hand, the argument was always irrelevant. The mood and feeling was what was important. Modern Family was the best “argument” for gay marriage. Show an imaginary gay couple with a child’ “hey, they’re just like us!”

      Argument over.

      The view of the left, you, and now the Supreme Court is that this was a civil rights issue. Basically you think that a basic, fundamental right is being denied one class of people simply because of who they are. And that’s why you’ll eventually be supporting polygamy. If SCOTUS’s decision says that “gays are people and deserve the same rights as everyone else” then it seems that the exact same court decision will be used to say that someone who wants to marry someone else, or multiple someone’s, regardless of…well anything; is perfectly OK. Marriage doesn’t mean anything except what we say it is, and who are we to tell people who love each other that they can’t marry? That will violate their civil rights!

      Like gay marriage, there is a secular case against polygamy too, but I imagine those arguments will be about as effective on the public square as the gay marriage arguments were.

      Like

      • First, sorry you got sick on your vacation. .that really sucks but gives you an excuse to take another asap..lol

        I dont have a view on polygamy per se because i simply dont care what consenting adults do in their bedroom and my surprise is that you do ..and while you want a small un intrusive govt,you would rather that govt actually get involved in ones bedroom habits..which harms you in no way..whatever your neighbor does to get their freak on,doesnt affect you one bit..and you wont give your voice to give them legal rights to that freak-on, yet you would stand shoulder to shoulder with another neighbor who wanted to stockpile weapons when strangely that absolutely affects your and your family’s safety. .

        Not that im anti gun..far from it..(which that opinion and my very pro death penalty opinion gets my liberal card nicked now and again haha)..

        Anyway, its simply hard to square the circle when it comes to two ‘personal freedom’ arguments. .

        But as i said earlier. ..ppl are not born polygamist…so the legal arguments for polygamy dont match up with the argument against gays who are born that way, and like skin color shouldnt prevent two people from marrying. ..neither should the sex of who they love. .

        Good talking to you anyway…feel better 🙂

        Like

      • You got it wrong and I can’t help but suspect that it’s intentional.

        “I dont have a view on polygamy per se because i simply dont care what consenting adults do in their bedroom and my surprise is that you do ..and while you want a small un intrusive govt,you would rather that govt actually get involved in ones bedroom habits..which harms you in no way..whatever your neighbor does to get their freak on,doesnt affect you one bit..and you wont give your voice to give them legal rights to that freak-on…”

        Nothing about anything I wrote was about what “consenting adults do in their bedroom.” If, at any point in my post, I ever described personal bedroom habits as fodder for public policy, please point that out.

        “But as i said earlier. ..ppl are not born polygamist…so the legal arguments for polygamy dont match up with the argument against gays who are born that way, and like skin color shouldnt prevent two people from marrying. ..neither should the sex of who they love. .”

        You had mentioned that before that people are not born as polygamists. So? I mean, I’m not sure why that’s a significant point. The legal argument for gay marriage isn’t about being born that way. Would you say that should determine whether gays should be allowed to marry each other or not? Based on being born that way? I don’t think “born that way” carries much legal weight, although it could possibly make for a catchy pop song. I’ve no doubt that Obergefell v. Hodges will be the basis for future marriage claims of polygamy, incest, and other wacky versions of marriage. If you can dream it, it will probably be covered under Obergefell. Anyway, I don’t need to prove my case now; time will do it for me.

        Like

      • ‘Modern Family was the best “argument” for gay marriage. Show an imaginary gay couple with a child’ “hey, they’re just like us!”’

        I wwanted to address this separately. ..Ive never watched modern family but get the gist of the show…i dont know what if anything it had to do with gay acceptance. .but I’m a little bothered by your ‘hey,they’re just like us’ comment. ..maybe im wrong,its been known to happen occasionally lol,but i detect a little…i dont know,.snark maybe…?

        My comment is this tho. ..yes, they are just like us… thats the whole reason why they shouldn’t be banned from marriage or anything else we arent banned from for that matter. .

        Do you not agree that they are in fact just like you or I? Or do you think them somehow lesser in some way?

        Like

      • I think the proper phrasing of this should be, are gay marriages just like straight marriages?

        I would have to say no. Not even close.

        First, gay marriages with children are basically single parent families. Two daddies or two mommies do not equal a mother and father. Children in gay marriage families are not really better off than if they were in a single parent household because they are still missing a mother or a father. Doubling up on one or the other is meaningless.
        Secondly, gay marriages are not very stable. Studies in Western Europe, where the gay marriage thing has been around for a while, show that male/male couples are twice as likely to divorce than straight couples, and female/female couples are 2 to 3 times more likely than straights.

        Third, gay marriages don’t resemble anything like …well a marriage. A study found that in it’s sample, none of the long term male partners in a relationship over 5 years was faithful. For long term female partners it’s a totally different dynamic; they stop having sex. “Lesbian Bed death” it’s called. Another study only a third of lesbians in relationships of 2 years or longer had sex once a week or more frequently. If they’re not going to have sex, why even be lesbian?

        Fourth, the dynamics and idiosyncrasies of a male-female relationship just are not like a male-male or female-female relationship. Although all (hetro) marriages are a mystery in some respects to those outside of the marriage, gay relationships are totally devoid of the dynamics that make a marriage. Hence, Modern Family, which shows a gay married couple with a kid that are basically stand ins for a straight married couple. They are like us but they are not real.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s