This is partially directed towards Gideon since these decisions were made pretty much on his birthday.
So the Supreme Court ruled against the Defence of Marriage Act and against California's proposition 8 calling them unconstitutional citing the 5th Amendment. So, Gideon now you know your father's opinion on this matter. "DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "
Here is the 5th Amendment:
Now I just read that three times and I see now how it applies. The plaintiff was charged by the IRS taxes that she wouldn't be charged had the federal acknowledged her deceased wife's will giving her full ownership. Therefore if she failed to pay them it would have become a criminal case.
Proposition 8 apparently violated the 14th Amendment
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The phrase "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" was the ammunition for the majority comprised of
Chief Justice John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan while Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor.
So 5 people can strike down a law voted on by 51% of the California voters, to be sure, a lot more than 5.
It's interesting that the 4 dissenters against striking down Proposition 8 was different than the 4 dissenters against striking down DOMA.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented against striking down DOMA
Anyway, my comments:
The plaintiffs that fought Proposition 8 are essentially trying to silence their own consciences by getting legal endorsement for immoral behavior, either that or just collecting a paycheck, regardless of the ramifications of their legal action.
The two messages fighting this law are:
1) it is normal for men to be romantically attracted to other men, or for women to be romantically attracted to other women.
2) it is psychologically damaging for anyone to deny her/himself of whatever he/she is attracted to.
Now regarding 1, I sincerely believe that the vast majority of people don't have these attractions. Some of those that do were in fact born with them, nothing they could have done would have changed them. Others create the feelings within themselves by entertaining the false idea that they are normal. Of course the issue is a little more complicated then that.
Regarding 2 we should add to the list of attractions violence, drugs (including alcohol), stealing, lying, any sexual attraction outside of a monogamous relationship (to include pornography) and even healthy attractions like hard work, exercise, humor, whatever it may be. My point is that rational human beings have the ability to evaluate each attraction to choose whether to act on it or not. Being attracted to something doesn't constitute that action or behavior being moral.
A little caviat, I empathize with people who view the issue of same-sex marriage as the equivalent to interracial marriage, racial equality, women's suffrage. To me it is beyond absurd that there was ever a law preventing people of different skin colors from being married, preventing people of color or women from voting, etc.
But the bottom line is none of those actions are immoral, but any sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage is. It's that simple. That's a basic truth that can't be voted on. And that is a truth that I will always defend.
So the Supreme Court ruled against the Defence of Marriage Act and against California's proposition 8 calling them unconstitutional citing the 5th Amendment. So, Gideon now you know your father's opinion on this matter. "DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "
Here is the 5th Amendment:
Now I just read that three times and I see now how it applies. The plaintiff was charged by the IRS taxes that she wouldn't be charged had the federal acknowledged her deceased wife's will giving her full ownership. Therefore if she failed to pay them it would have become a criminal case.
Proposition 8 apparently violated the 14th Amendment
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The phrase "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" was the ammunition for the majority comprised of
Chief Justice John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan while Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor.
So 5 people can strike down a law voted on by 51% of the California voters, to be sure, a lot more than 5.
It's interesting that the 4 dissenters against striking down Proposition 8 was different than the 4 dissenters against striking down DOMA.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented against striking down DOMA
Anyway, my comments:
The plaintiffs that fought Proposition 8 are essentially trying to silence their own consciences by getting legal endorsement for immoral behavior, either that or just collecting a paycheck, regardless of the ramifications of their legal action.
The two messages fighting this law are:
1) it is normal for men to be romantically attracted to other men, or for women to be romantically attracted to other women.
2) it is psychologically damaging for anyone to deny her/himself of whatever he/she is attracted to.
Now regarding 1, I sincerely believe that the vast majority of people don't have these attractions. Some of those that do were in fact born with them, nothing they could have done would have changed them. Others create the feelings within themselves by entertaining the false idea that they are normal. Of course the issue is a little more complicated then that.
Regarding 2 we should add to the list of attractions violence, drugs (including alcohol), stealing, lying, any sexual attraction outside of a monogamous relationship (to include pornography) and even healthy attractions like hard work, exercise, humor, whatever it may be. My point is that rational human beings have the ability to evaluate each attraction to choose whether to act on it or not. Being attracted to something doesn't constitute that action or behavior being moral.
A little caviat, I empathize with people who view the issue of same-sex marriage as the equivalent to interracial marriage, racial equality, women's suffrage. To me it is beyond absurd that there was ever a law preventing people of different skin colors from being married, preventing people of color or women from voting, etc.
But the bottom line is none of those actions are immoral, but any sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage is. It's that simple. That's a basic truth that can't be voted on. And that is a truth that I will always defend.
I say good. I liked reading that.
ReplyDelete