Marriage Equality

Seriously

 

Understandably, as an uber-Conservative, I can see where Scalia seems "embarrassing" with his opinions.

But political leanings aside, he is, first and foremost, he may be the strictest constructivist that we've ever - or will ever - see on the SCOTUS. And from that perspective, he is both a brilliant and invaluable member of the Court. While it often leads him opposite and seemingly extreme positions from most liberal ideals / causes, his points and positions are rarely anything less than legally sound, well-reasoned, entirely valid and logically unassailable.

Ginsburg is his liberal counterpart, and I feel the same about her as you do Scalia. Oddly, the two are very close, and often name each as their best friend / most trusted contemporary (and their families often vacation together, which just speaks to their personal affinity for one another).

And I predict that history will judge both Ginaburg and Scalia as two of the best and most influential justices to have ever served.

I get what you're saying, Un, and don't blame you for feeling that way. And you might not like how he argues, what he says or how he handles himself, but you'll play hell in showing him to be less than a necessary and Titan-like figure on the Court, and if not now, then maybe of all-time.

 

While most liberals may disagree, on this or any other issue, whenever the federal government takes autonomy from the states - which is what this is - it can be construed as a "threat to democracy".

It matters if you think that the states have all of the power, and give it to the Feds...or the Feds have it, and the states are only guven what the Feds allow.

I can tell you what the Constituition says on the matter, but you already know that.

 

I really like him.

 

No it does not.

 

I happen to agree with the great Frank Reynolds here:

 

For what it's worth, I don't think Ginsburg will be that influential, but Scalia strikes me as a curmudgeon who is about 75 past his ideological sell by date. Plus, I find his inflexibility a weakness rather than a strength in terms of his complete inability to consider and evolve, for a lack of a better term, on his ideas. I can't see him being seen as anything other than an anachronism who tried to impede certain aspects of necessary social change and was either a speed bump or a detriment in doing so. He is undeniably brilliant and capable, though.

 

Coincidentally, I am going to a same sex wedding in Cincinnati tomorrow. Interesting timing.

 

Siblings, absolutely not. There is genetic problems in their children, and that alone should keep that from happening (legally).

Polygamy is too often a case where there is coercion in the marriage, but in reality, if it is three consenting adults, I don't know.

 

Definitely. That celebration just got amped up a bit I'd guess.

 

If they're consenting adults they should be free to enter into any contract that they want.

 

I'm not going to interfere in what consenting adults agree to do, its none of my business. As long as it doesn't have an affect outside the group.

 

It would be very interesting to see, outside of radical religious sects (which are the only ones that practice this), what the divorce rate would be among polygamists.

 

I'll stick by the position I've always had on this issue. The government should have never been in the business of defining marriage in the first place. It's just a blatant cash grab. The fact people that claim to be in favor of smaller government are bemoaning this decision is high comedy.

 

Some of my Christians friends seem downright depressed on FB today. It's hilarious that they somehow think this affects them in any way shape or form.

 

It is the end of the USA, didn't you get the memo? Between atheism and gay marriage, you would expect to see Lot entering the country looking for one good person.

 

The strange thing is there's not much anger, everyone is just crying in front of the TV with a box of tissues eating a tub of ice cream.

 

See, I've always heard that point, but we allow people with diseases like Huntingdon's Disease reproduce, and the chance of passing on that genetic disorder (50% chance) is inordinately higher than the chance of a genetic defect with sibling relations. I just don't see there being solid ground in any (insert specific anti-marriage) agenda.

 

If you didn't see this coming, you are ignorant, a moron, or live under a rock.

The lone concern I have of all of this is the potential down-the-line fall-out for pastors who refuse to do same-sex marriages and non-profits who do not want to employ same-sex people. And that mainly comes from one of the questions asked during the actual SCOTUS hearing.

 

Not really. There are compelling public policy reasons for those prohibitions. They'll easily withstand any legal challenges.