CATO Institute discussion on gay marriage

From the CATO Institute's CATO Connects discusses the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.

 

Suggested Reading on gay marriage reactions.

Charles C.W. Cooke responds to the preposterous notion that churches that will not perform gay marriage have their tax exempt status revoked.  It's ironic that those who would do anything possible to separate church and state to keep religion out of politics are evidently gung ho to have the state invade the sanctity of the church.  Hypocrisy maybe?

Ted Cruz on the other hand has gone the Bobby Jindal route and suggested that if you don't like the law you can ignore it. Dumb, dumb, dumb. That's the kind of thinking that leads to criminal activity - drugs, murder, theft, illegal immigration. It also seems like quite the double standard - obey these laws that we like, ignore these that we detest. I'll say it again, dumb - both logically and politically.

Stephen Crowder ruminates - on gay marriage, what's up with Hypocrite Hillary?

Rand Paul separates not just gay marriage but all marriage from government entirely. Quite well. He's being consistent  with his own principles.  It's not enough to sway me to support his candidacy, but it is exceptionally well put and convincing.

Finally, The Federalist contains reactions from numerous people, and is worth reading.

Summarizing SCOTUS

Two Must Reads on Legal Insurrection, William A. Jacobsen's legal take on recent SCOTUS actions:

1. The Obamacare subsidies decision

2. The gay marriage decision

The latter is more of a summary of opinion of the justices (so far) but still worth the read.

SCOTUS lets down the Constitution in favor of constituency

There is a problem here BUT...

Let's not have a cow about gay marriage, there is a more important issue at stake in light of the Supreme Court's decision on the subject.  Firstly, no one is forcing you to get married to a gay person.  No one is forcing your church to officiate a gay marriage (yet at least) even if it goes against your church's or temple's or mosque's teachings.  No one is going to make you or your children attend gay weddings.  Is it an ideal ruling?  Far from it, but the real issue, is that this is supposed to be a conservative leaning court by a count of 5-4 justices.  Clearly, it isn't.

At least Chief Justice Roberts did not sell out on this issue by putting opinion before the Constitution:

"This court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent. Roberts read a summary of his dissent from the bench, the first time he has done so in nearly 10 years as chief justice.

"If you are among the many Americans - of whatever sexual orientation - who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision," Roberts said. "But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

With the original decision to allow for Obamacare's constitutionality and the more recent upholding of the constitutionality of the federal tax credits portion of the ACA, the Supreme Court is not a conservative body.  That should frighten conservatives - a lot. It becomes even more imperative to ensure that a Republican wins office in 2016 so the erosion of the tenets of the Constitution is stopped.  Liberals and progressives will continue poke holes in the levy protecting the Constitution until America is no longer what it was, or what it is ultimately capable of being.  You take your eye off that levy and your mind off of its importance and the country is doomed.

Perhaps you believe that outcome is inevitable anyway.  That would make you part of the problem, because America was not founded on defeatism, nor did it grow under that premise as much as it did not grow under the welfare state mentality.  Unless you want to follow in the footsteps of Greece - from enlightened democracy, to entitled socialists on the brink of economic collapse - wake up and take pride (no pun on gay marriage intended) in your country.

NOTE:  As an aside on how I feel about gay marriage, see this post (if you care).

The problem with the court's decision is the 10th amendment and the notion of states' rights.   Every state already had a position and legislation on the matter already (pro or con).  That's good.  By homogenizing the law nationally, you are taking away the idea of multiple laboratories.  I call it the 50 Experiments Theorem.  The more variability among the states in terms of policy, the more like there are outcomes that will thrive.  The less that legislation is nationalized the more chance (in fact 50 times more) there is that a successful legislative formula(s) will be found.

It's on of the greatest unheralded advantages the United States has over other so many other nations who have centralization as their governing philosophy. And the Supreme Court is enabling those who wish to purposefully or inadvertently abolish that competitive advantage. It's quite sad to see.  This is what a liberal court has allowed for decades and its effects, even if reversed will take decades to recede.

Thoughts on gay marriage

What do I think of gay marriage? Tricky question.

Well, I'm not gay, although I do have a few gay friends.  I do not condone their choices.  And while I do not agree with their choices, I do not condemn them either.  If I did they would not be friends after all. But I do not believe it is my place to condemn them.

From a biblical standpoint there are a few differing thoughts.  First and foremost is the idea of love the sinner, hate the sin.  Beyond that, there's Old Testament vs. New Testament views.  Soddom and Gomorrah vs. those in glass houses should not cast stones.  I choose not to cast stones because I am far from perfect myself.  People are engaging in consensual activities, which are not harming others and they are adults.  We have free will and they have made their individual choices.  I say respect that, even if you disagree with their choices. If you believe that God has an issue with their choices, let him deal with them.  I believe in God and I would not presume to speak for Him.

Which brings me to my next perspective - a societal one.  Should homosexual people be allowed to marry? I suppose in some states there is enough support that it is reasonable to legislate it to be legal.  I'm fine with it as a state-level local decision.  If two people want to marry, whom I do not know, what business is it of mine? The answer is none.  Chances are, I'll never see them.

But there are limits to that.

I do not want my church, or any church or temple or mosque, to be forced to conduct marriage ceremonies outside of their belief system.  There are plenty of churches that will perform the ceremony, go to one of them.  That's a Bill of Rights issue as much as forcing people to buy healthcare is. But it can happen.  The more you federalize everything, the more likely it is that it will happen.

If some states are not comfortable with it, do not force them to legalize it.  Homosexuals are not rooted to a location. People can move to or from states with which they agree or disagree.  It happens all the time.  Most states already allow gay marriage.

I do not want a liberal legislature to enforce a curriculum on children (it can and will happen);

...The Liberals’ only official response has been to launch a $1.8 million summer ad campaign that pro-family groups say deceptively whitewashes the controversial aspects of the curriculum, which introduces homosexuality in Grade 3, masturbation in Grade 6, oral and anal sex in Grade 7, and teaches that there are six genders rather than two sexes.

If I am expected to keep my nose out of homosexuals' affairs (pardon the pun) then they should respect my decision to keep their affairs out of my children's classrooms just as my church's decision to not perform gay wedding ceremonies.  

Most homosexual people (that I know at least) have a sense of decorum and an understanding of the idea that coming out of the closet does not mean invading everyone else's closets.  They are not inclined to push their lifestyle onto others or into our faces, to say it more clearly.  But it is always the brazen few who will push for the sake of pushing that end up being the cause-celeb and get their way by pushing the envelop too far.

So, do I condone gay marriage? No.  But do I think it should be legal?  In some places, sure. But not everywhere.  In the end, it's really not my business if people want to marry, and to be honest I think its misguided to consider it one of the most pressing issues facing America today.  It doesn't belong in the Top 10 even. Even the recent Supreme Court ruling has wider ramifications than the gay marriage issue of its ruling.