Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: wigginhall on June 26, 2015, 03:43:36 PM
-
Those who have an interest in the US will note that the Supreme Court has ruled that same sex marriage is lawful in all 50 states, and cannot be barred. Up to yesterday, it was lawful in 37 states, but now the barring of it is declared unconstitutional. Interesting comment by Judge Kennedy:
“That is not to say the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children,” writes Kennedy, after pointing out the advantages for children of same-sex couples. “An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State.”
Also, in a reply to those arguments citing tradition:
“The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources,” writes Kennedy. “They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”
Well, as we say in Oldham: yay.
-
Jolly good. :)
-
There's gonna be some hard partying tonight in Tallahassee, and points west, well, some parts thereof. We're gonna have a good time, it's gonna be a rock 'n' roll night!
-
Those who have an interest in the US will note that the Supreme Court has ruled that same sex marriage is lawful in all 50 states, and cannot be barred. Up to yesterday, it was lawful in 37 states, but now the barring of it is declared unconstitutional. Interesting comment by Judge Kennedy:
“That is not to say the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children,” writes Kennedy, after pointing out the advantages for children of same-sex couples. “An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State.”
Also, in a reply to those arguments citing tradition:
“The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources,” writes Kennedy. “They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”
Well, as we say in Oldham: yay.
That ruling does not mean that it has to be made legal in all fifty states.
-
I think the final paragraph will become famous:
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
and family. In forming a marital union, two people become
something greater than once they were. As some of
the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death. It
would misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned
to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s
oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the
eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
-
An American friend tells me that weddings are already taking place in county clerk's offices. But what about bestiality? Will I be forced to marry a dog now?
-
A relief to have good news on a day which has generally been characterised by barbarity.
-
An American friend tells me that weddings are already taking place in county clerk's offices. But what about bestiality? Will I be forced to marry a dog now?
Only if you live in Dalmatia.
-
A relief to have good news on a day which has generally been characterised by barbarity.
Good news, questionable; barbarity, definitely not.
-
Well, America was founded by Freemasons, so it doesn't surprise me. The only thing that surprises me is that it didn't happen sooner. America always has been a basket case. What vexes me more is that it's happening in Europe, Europe having fallen into apostasy.
-
Hooray for apostasy - up with this sort of thing :D
-
A relief to have good news on a day which has generally been characterised by barbarity.
Good news, questionable; barbarity, definitely not.
How is the happiness of so many people "questionable" as good news, exactly?
-
A relief to have good news on a day which has generally been characterised by barbarity.
Good news, questionable; barbarity, definitely not.
Barbarity= Tunisia, Lyon, Kuwait.
Clicking on the news headlines and seeing all those people with the rainbow flags in the USA and knowing that there at least love has triumphed over religious bigotry is a blessed, blessed relief.
-
I think the final paragraph will become famous:
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
and family. In forming a marital union, two people become
something greater than once they were. As some of
the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death.
No true philosophical naturalist can possibly believe that.
-
http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/Rottenecards_49982641_67nd6hqqkc.png
-
That ruling does not mean that it has to be made legal in all fifty states.
I think it means it is legal in all 50 states.
-
A relief to have good news on a day which has generally been characterised by barbarity.
Seconded.
I was touched by the dignity of the American black community in response to some throwback shooting up churchgoers.
And now the US under Obama has equalised marriage laws.
On a day when the retards and the head choppers seem to dominate world news, the US quietly takes a step forward; one in the eye for bigots and racists the world over.
-
That ruling does not mean that it has to be made legal in all fifty states.
I think it means it is legal in all 50 states.
I suspect it means that (a) no state can prohibit same-sex marriage and (b) no state can discriminate in any way against a married same-sex couple from outside that state.
-
You will also get stalling going on. I've heard that in some parts of Texas, there are unexplained delays in arranging same-sex marriages, whereas straight people are sailing through. I guess it will be ironed out, as with desegregation, which was reluctantly accepted by some.
-
Still waiting to hear why Hopalong thinks that this is "questionable" as good news.
I suppose I'll just have to keep reminding him.
-
Still waiting to hear why Hopalong thinks that this is "questionable" as good news.
It's devalued his own marriage. He's not here because he's out getting a divorce.
-
Ahhhhhhh ....
-
A relief to have good news on a day which has generally been characterised by barbarity.
Good news, questionable; barbarity, definitely not.
Why questionable?
-
after pointing out the advantages for children of same-sex couples.
"Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples"
The biological parents of the above children will still be unmarried, and so these children will still 'suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser'.
-
That ruling does not mean that it has to be made legal in all fifty states.
I think it means it is legal in all 50 states.
I suspect it means that (a) no state can prohibit same-sex marriage and (b) no state can discriminate in any way against a married same-sex couple from outside that state.
My thoughts exactly. This matter is not finished since federal & state laws are so complicated It's worth remembering that some ten years ago two women prison officers successfully argued that for them to be refused to carry out anal inspections of male prisoners amounted to illegal discrimination
-
after pointing out the advantages for children of same-sex couples.
"Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples"
The biological parents of the above children will still be unmarried, and so these children will still 'suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser'.
RUBBISH! Children are often no better off if their parents are married, ever heard of divorce? My 'born again' parents didn't get on for all of their 58 years of marriage, I remember begging them to divorce, but because of their flipping faith they didn't! >:(
-
The biological parents of the above children will still be unmarried, and so these children will still 'suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser'.
Why would there by any more stigma attached to being the children of gay parents than there is stigma attached to being adopted? Oh, I know, it's because of people like you who are so hard hearted and "Christian" you want to perpetuate the hate.
-
after pointing out the advantages for children of same-sex couples.
"Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples"
The biological parents of the above children will still be unmarried, and so these children will still 'suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser'.
RUBBISH! Children are often no better off if their parents are married, ever heard of divorce?
Any statistics on that.
Surely divorce is the cessation of marriage and what your parents had was more a bad marriage rather than a lack of a divorce.
-
But as I illustrated it isn't always sweetness and light if parents are married and stay together! It is the quality of the parents relationship with each other and with their children, which is important not whether they are married!
-
But as I illustrated it isn't always sweetness and light if parents are married and stay together! It is the quality of the parents relationship with each other and with their children, which is important not whether they are married!
Floo, you seem to believe that nurture is the only element in a child's development. I accept that I haven't studied Child Development in depth for 20+ years, but I believe that nurture is only one of such elements, nature being the other.
The general understanding would seem to be - not whether or not parents are married - but whether they are biological parents.
-
Ah, you made it back at last.
Any answer as to why yesterday's SCOTUS decision with regard to equal marriage across the whole of the US is 'questionable' as good news?
-
A relief to have good news on a day which has generally been characterised by barbarity.
Good news, questionable; barbarity, definitely not.
Why questionable?
Well, do you have any evidence to show that, on balance, the children in the guardianship of gay adults are no worse off in their overall emotional, psychological or even educational development than children in the guardianship of two heterosexual adult?
Over the years, there has been a lot of evidence produced by educationalists and child development experts that indicates that, on the whole, children who live with their biological parents have better developmental outcomes than those who live with one such parent. They also acknowledge that though children who lose a parent through death suffer in terms of their development, they do not do so as much as those who who never know one of their biological parents.
Notice that no-one denies that sometimes there are exceptions to these findings; we are, after all, humans not robots.
Currently, there is very little evidence, longitudinal or otherwise, to suggest that children under the guardianship of gay adults develop to the same degree as those under the guardianship of heterosexual adults.
-
Well, do you have any evidence to show that, on balance, the children in the guardianship of gay adults are no worse off in their overall emotional, psychological or even educational development than children in the guardianship of two heterosexual adult?
Yes. There is, to coin a phrase, a lot of it about.
Currently, there is very little evidence, longitudinal or otherwise, to suggest that children under the guardianship of gay adults develop to the same degree as those under the guardianship of heterosexual adults.
You won't have seen any of it, then. There's plenty, links to which I'll provide when I'm back on the PC. In the meantime, why come over all Helen Lovejoy and bring children into an issue which is about the right of two individuals of the same sex to marry? Marriage and procreation are separate and separable, and always have been.
-
Yes. There is, to coin a phrase, a lot of it about.
Is that simply a statement, or do you have any evidence for such longitudinal research?
You won't have seen any of it, then.
No, but that's not to say I haven't searched for it. What I have been able to find, seems to be 10 or less years old. That, in terms of child development, isn't longitudinal, though I'd also agree that it isn't merely short-term.
In the meantime, why come over all Helen Lovejoy and bring children into an issue which is about the right of two individuals of the same sex to marry? Marriage and procreation are separate and separable, and always have been.
Shakes, in your usual fashion, you pick up on a response to a different poster (Floo in this case) and then try to make a totally irrelevant critical point to that response. Lest you had missed several other posts that refer to children and their parents, wiggi quotes the US judge 's comment about children in the OP
“That is not to say the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children,” writes Kennedy, after pointing out the advantages for children of same-sex couples. “An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State.”
In Reply #23, Spud says
"Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples"
The biological parents of the above children will still be unmarried, and so these children will still 'suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser'.
- again quoting Kennedy followed by a critique of the quote.
Two posts later, Floo states - in response to Spud:
RUBBISH! Children are often no better off if their parents are married, ever heard of divorce? My 'born again' parents didn't get on for all of their 58 years of marriage, I remember begging them to divorce, but because of their flipping faith they didn't! >:(
a statement that is based on her own experience and generalises from a spoecific case. That is not to say that all children from all heterosexual couples enjoy a perfect childhood, but the research does sem to be that Floo's experience is not the norm.
In the next post, jeremy responds to Spud's post, followed by HB responding to Floo's post.
Reply #28 is Floo's
But as I illustrated it isn't always sweetness and light if parents are married and stay together! It is the quality of the parents relationship with each other and with their children, which is important not whether they are married!
, whilst Reply #29 is my response to that post.
I then picked up on an earlier Floo post (Reply #22) which I hadn't previously noticed, to which you responded with Reply #32. Is there any reason why you didn't refer to 'Helen Lovejoy' earlier in the discussion when children were first mentioned and Floo, for instance, tried to generalise from her specific situation?
Could it be that, so long as children were simply being treated as the pawns/hostages to fortune in this 'game', you were happy to let it slide, but as soon as a serious attempt to argue for their prior rights - be that over those of heterosexual or homosexual people - was put forward, you couldn't stomach it?
-
But as I illustrated it isn't always sweetness and light if parents are married and stay together! It is the quality of the parents relationship with each other and with their children, which is important not whether they are married!
Floo, you seem to believe that nurture is the only element in a child's development. I accept that I haven't studied Child Development in depth for 20+ years, but I believe that nurture is only one of such elements, nature being the other.
The general understanding would seem to be - not whether or not parents are married - but whether they are biological parents.
I have two adopted sons. The first was removed from his biological parents having been totally screwed up and abused by them. The second son was abandoned by his biological parents on the day he was born (telling everyone he was dead) because he had Down's syndrome. It is the quality of parenting, biological or not, that matters most.
-
Lest you had missed several other posts that refer to children and their parents, wiggi quotes the US judge 's comment about children in the OP
I guess we all fell into a trap. Bigots tried to claim stuff about the children of various kinds of marriage when, in fact, the quality of outcomes for the children is a separate issue as to whether the parents are allowed to get married. The issue of what happens to the children is a red herring designed to deflect our attention. People can get married and not have children. They can also stay unmarried and have children.
If you really want to make the ability to raise children in the best possible setting a qualification for being allowed to marry, you will be forced to take some really nasty decisions. Is this a step you want to take?
-
Lest you had missed several other posts that refer to children and their parents, wiggi quotes the US judge 's comment about children in the OP
I guess we all fell into a trap. Bigots tried to claim stuff about the children of various kinds of marriage when, in fact, the quality of outcomes for the children is a separate issue as to whether the parents are allowed to get married. The issue of what happens to the children is a red herring designed to deflect our attention. People can get married and not have children. They can also stay unmarried and have children.
Yet the whole topic was introduced by the Supreme Court Judge in his explanation. As such, the validity of his suggestion that the decision they had made provided 'advantages for children of same-sex couples' - is open to debate. The issue of children is there from the very opening post.
That isn't a trap, set by bigots. That seems to have been a central element of the Court's decision.
-
That seems to have been a central element of the Court's decision.
How could it have been? The decision went the wrong way for the bigots who think that the quality of upbringing for the putative children matters. Either that, or the court found there is no evidence that having gay parents damages children. Either way, you are screwed.
You haven't answered my question. Do you think the ability to bring up the potential children should be one of the criteria for allowing marriage? If you really think the answer to this is yes, you'd better be prepared to stop poor people from getting married. If there's one thing that strongly correlates to a child's ability to develop to the best of their potential, it's being born to middle class parents.
Are you going to ban poor people from getting married? Yes or no?
-
That seems to have been a central element of the Court's decision.
How could it have been? The decision went the wrong way for the bigots who think that the quality of upbringing for the putative children matters. Either that, or the court found there is no evidence that having gay parents damages children. Either way, you are screwed.
I would disagree; decisions by Supreme Courts are just as liable to being made using limited or incorrect information as any other decisions.
You haven't answered my question. Do you think the ability to bring up the potential children should be one of the criteria for allowing marriage? If you really think the answer to this is yes, you'd better be prepared to stop poor people from getting married. If there's one thing that strongly correlates to a child's ability to develop to the best of their potential, it's being born to middle class parents.
Before I answer this, can you explain why you didn't challenge any of the other posters who referenced children in this context before my post.
-
decisions by Supreme Courts are just as liable to being made using limited or incorrect information as any other decisions.
Really? I mean really??
Their decisions are in the same mould as decisions made by people who parade their ignorance on the myriad of "reality" shows on TV.
Really, You believe that?
-
The Supreme Court tends to use the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, which (I think) has been used in desegregation and the over-turning of the bans on inter-racial marriage. The 14th basically states that all groups must be treated equally, and that even includes illegal aliens (I think).
Anyway, to say that the SC might use the wrong information, well, sure, but that is a post-modern nightmare, since everything might be wrong, so where do we begin? US law tends to look to the Constitution, and of course, it might be incorrectly interpreted, but that probably will itself get corrected.
-
Really? I mean really??
Their decisions are in the same mould as decisions made by people who parade their ignorance on the myriad of "reality" shows on TV.
Really, You believe that?
I understand that even Supreme Court decisions have been successfully challenged in the past. As for your automatic comparison of SC judgements with reality TV judgements shows how weak your own argument is. There are many layers of complexity between the two and to jump from one extreme to the other, as you have, simply highlights the paucity of your argumentation.
-
Really? I mean really??
Their decisions are in the same mould as decisions made by people who parade their ignorance on the myriad of "reality" shows on TV.
Really, You believe that?
I understand that even Supreme Court decisions have been successfully challenged in the past. As for your automatic comparison of SC judgements with reality TV judgements shows how weak your own argument is. There are many layers of complexity between the two and to jump from one extreme to the other, as you have, simply highlights the paucity of your argumentation.
as any other decisions.
Or rather it shows your rather weak use of language - and instead of fessing up you decide to deflect by attacking me.
-
One thing that puzzles me is that the US is a secular state, and religion is seen as private, and in fact, is not allowed in public life. Why then the outrage from the right wing about ssm? They are still perfectly able to have their own religious and moral notions about marriage. I suppose that secular law and religious codes have seemed to run close together, whereas now they are diverging dramatically. Otherwise, I don't get it.
-
One thing that puzzles me is that the US is a secular state, and religion is seen as private, and in fact, is not allowed in public life. Why then the outrage from the right wing about ssm? They are still perfectly able to have their own religious and moral notions about marriage. I suppose that secular law and religious codes have seemed to run close together, whereas now they are diverging dramatically. Otherwise, I don't get it.
The issue here is of the judicial branch of the federal government telling individual state governments what they can and cannot do. It goes beyond SSM.
-
One thing that puzzles me is that the US is a secular state, and religion is seen as private, and in fact, is not allowed in public life. Why then the outrage from the right wing about ssm? They are still perfectly able to have their own religious and moral notions about marriage. I suppose that secular law and religious codes have seemed to run close together, whereas now they are diverging dramatically. Otherwise, I don't get it.
The issue here is of the judicial branch of the federal government telling individual state governments what they can and cannot do. It goes beyond SSM.
But it has always done that. For example, various bans on inter-racial marriage were ended by the famous 'Loving vs Virginia' case, which invalidated such laws. Some of the southern states did try to stall on this, but in the end, I think they all complied. Ditto with desegregation, where 'Brown v Board of Education' declared that various 'separate but equal' education systems in different states were unconstitutional.
If the right wing are seriously going to criticize this practice, that would be a hefty challenge to the constitution. It also suggests that they would not themselves use the Supreme Court for their own ends - is that likely? After all, Bush was elected against Gore, because of a Supreme Court decision that the Florida count in favour of Bush was valid and did not require a recount.
-
A problem, when looking at the USA, is our perspective.
We are accustomed to the idea that lower levels of government can only do what Parliament allows them to do. In the USA lower levels of government can do what they like unless the Constitution, and constitutionally derived law, restricts it. The Supreme Court's primary role is to determine whether there is such restriction.
We consider the president of the USA to be the most powerful man on the planet. His actual, internal, political power is but a shadow of that of the UK prime minister.
As for religion, it seems to have become the practice of the president, at inauguration, to place his right hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.
Oh yes, and a secular nation which prints "In God we trust" on its currency.
-
A problem, when looking at the USA, is our perspective.
We are accustomed to the idea that lower levels of government can only do what Parliament allows them to do. In the USA lower levels of government can do what they like unless the Constitution, and constitutionally derived law, restricts it. The Supreme Court's primary role is to determine whether there is such restriction.
We consider the president of the USA to be the most powerful man on the planet. His actual, internal, political power is but a shadow of that of the UK prime minister.
As for religion, it seems to have become the practice of the president, at inauguration, to place his right hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.
Sure, but the point is that the Supreme court have ruled that a ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional so the states are required to fall into line, just as they have been in the past for similar equality based rulings where individual states had claimed the right to discriminate.
-
Or rather it shows your rather weak use of language - and instead of fessing up you decide to deflect by attacking me.
If you want to believe that, it doesn't overly bother me.
-
A problem, when looking at the USA, is our perspective.
We are accustomed to the idea that lower levels of government can only do what Parliament allows them to do. In the USA lower levels of government can do what they like unless the Constitution, and constitutionally derived law, restricts it. The Supreme Court's primary role is to determine whether there is such restriction.
We consider the president of the USA to be the most powerful man on the planet. His actual, internal, political power is but a shadow of that of the UK prime minister.
As for religion, it seems to have become the practice of the president, at inauguration, to place his right hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.
Sure, but the point is that the Supreme court have ruled that a ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional so the states are required to fall into line, just as they have been in the past for similar equality based rulings where individual states had claimed the right to discriminate.
In the USA lower levels of government can do what they like unless the Constitution, and constitutionally derived law, restricts it.
Where do we disagree?
-
A problem, when looking at the USA, is our perspective.
We are accustomed to the idea that lower levels of government can only do what Parliament allows them to do. In the USA lower levels of government can do what they like unless the Constitution, and constitutionally derived law, restricts it. The Supreme Court's primary role is to determine whether there is such restriction.
We consider the president of the USA to be the most powerful man on the planet. His actual, internal, political power is but a shadow of that of the UK prime minister.
As for religion, it seems to have become the practice of the president, at inauguration, to place his right hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.
Sure, but the point is that the Supreme court have ruled that a ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional so the states are required to fall into line, just as they have been in the past for similar equality based rulings where individual states had claimed the right to discriminate.
In the USA lower levels of government can do what they like unless the Constitution, and constitutionally derived law, restricts it.
Where do we disagree?
Oops - my mistake. Meant to post this in reply to Humph's comment that:
'The issue here is of the judicial branch of the federal government telling individual state governments what they can and cannot do. It goes beyond SSM.'
I think we are in agreement, recognising when the constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme court, may over-ride the normal primacy of the individual states. Humph seems to fail to understand this.
-
The right wing tends to shout 'states' rights' when the Supreme Court goes against them, but oddly, will invoke it to push their own positions. See Bush v. Gore.
-
The right wing tends to shout 'states' rights' when the Supreme Court goes against them, but oddly, will invoke it to push their own positions. See Bush v. Gore.
Didn't Gore invoke the courts claiming that the count had been flawed?
-
The right wing tends to shout 'states' rights' when the Supreme Court goes against them, but oddly, will invoke it to push their own positions. See Bush v. Gore.
Didn't Gore invoke the courts claiming that the count had been flawed?
They both submitted arguments to the court.
-
An interesting development - the US Episcopal Church has accepted equal marriage rites, although I think individual clergy will be able to refuse to carry them out for gays/lesbians.
-
Yes, but they've been semi-pagan for a while now.
-
Good for them.