Gay Marriage Ruling: What it feels like to be a Constitutionalist

[emilynghiem]

G.T. brought up in another thread a post that assumed I was sore over the Supreme Court ruling.

Normally G.T. tries very hard to understand and communicate with me when I express different views,
although there has been at least one previous msg that also misread my meaning and assumed I had "gone overboard with the intolerant right"

I would like to clarify what it feels like to support gay marriage, and agree that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, yet also believing it is equally unconstitutional for govt to establish and endorse gay marriage
by the SAME token. I see both beliefs, about gay marriage and traditional marriage, as equal for those people.
So it is like celebrating the win with friends on one side, while understanding the corrections needed for the bad call that is unfair to the other and not perfect either. Both sides are equal in my book, and both should win.

So this is what it feels like:

If you can imagine one or both of these cases:
A. a family you know is devastated that the murderer of their loved one has never been caught,
but finally after years of suffering, there is a conviction. And the family celebrates closure to their case.
But in that, the person convicted is not the guilty party who actually committed the murder, but
was someone the real murderer squealed on. So the case got closed, but the real murderer got away
and a person who was only partially responsible got the full death sentence so "somebody pays" in order for "justice to be served" but the case is not perfect. The person was involved but is not the murderer.

I would feel happy the family is relieved and has their sense of justice.
But at the same time I look to what corrections are in store in order to bring about real justice.
If the death sentence is changed to go after the culprit, this can offend the family who sees
the conviction as their sense of justice. So going against that is taking away their closure and peace.

That is one example of mixed feelings that are similar to how I feel

B. or the other way. A person is finally freed from prison so they and their loved ones are relieved
and "celebrating"

But the family of the murder victim, and a whole community of people who feel betrayed, now face a whole other long battle of whether the prosecution is going to go after the real murderer or if they are going to be left with nothing.

Whatever is being celebrated clearly does not include their experiences and feelings.

So on one hand, sure I totally sympathize with innocent people who finally are freed after
years of false imprisonment. I would celebrate too, the crying for joy, the whole works.

But I equally sympathize with the family of the victim who still need closure, and celebrating the victory causes additional pain to them because they feel "left out." If they say anything, they are often attacked for wanting justice, such as being badmouthed as "wanting revenge" and "being sick for wanting the death penalty".

Similar to gay marriage, I also respect both the beliefs for and against the death penalty,
and don't believe in judging or attacking anyone for their beliefs I treat as equal and separate.

I can totally relate to this pain of one side feeling betrayed and attacked for their position, and I would NOT want to push the victory of the other family in their faces!

So that is another way I might describe how this feels like.

I am not going to try to take out my personal misgivings out on people,
I do want BOTH sides to feel equally included and protected by law.

But I do resent this whole scenario where people of different beliefs
are forced into an imperfect situation, where a symbolic victory for one side means more grief for the other.

I believe the focus should be on a REAL solution that brings REAL justice that satisfies ALL interests.
And doesn't just symbolically side with one group over the other. I believe both beliefs in the
case of marriage laws should be recognized equally, and if people cannot agree, then it should be kept
personal and removed from govt jurisdiction that should be reserved for public policy where all the public agrees and is represented equally. If people have conflicting beliefs, as with marriage laws, that is a sign that this involves personal religious beliefs and thus does not belong in govt hands to decide. By the same token marriage should not be left to states votes to decide, neither does the federal court have authority to decide!

So that is a description of my views as a Constitutionalist who believes in Isonomy where people have equal political power. I believe that makes people equal, to respect the right to consent, dissent and to petition for redress of grievances until all conflicts and objections are resolved or people agree to drop it or separate out.

Consent of the governed is the basic standard of my beliefs,
and Constitutional inclusion for equal protection and representation.

So rulings like this that represent or favor one belief but exclude another
are not fully Constitutional and require further resolution to come up with a policy that is.

I celebrate with the people who needed to defend their beliefs from unconstitutional bans,
but by the VERY SAME TOKEN it was equally wrong for the court to assume authority to decide
for people. Both sides should be ordered to respect each other's views, and either write commonly agreed laws that accommodate all views equally or remove marriage and any related laws from the state that are imposing a bias in belief that other citizens are objecting to. The decision should still be with the people.

 

[G.T.]

G.T. brought up in another thread a post that assumed I was sore over the Supreme Court ruling.

Normally G.T. tries very hard to understand and communicate with me when I express different views,
although there has been at least one previous msg that also misread my meaning and assumed I had "gone overboard with the intolerant right"

I would like to clarify what it feels like to support gay marriage, and agree that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, yet also believing it is equally unconstitutional for govt to establish and endorse gay marriage
by the SAME token. I see both beliefs, about gay marriage and traditional marriage, as equal for those people.
So it is like celebrating the win with friends on one side, while understanding the corrections needed for the bad call that is unfair to the other and not perfect either. Both sides are equal in my book, and both should win.

So this is what it feels like:

If you can imagine one or both of these cases:
A. a family you know is devastated that the murderer of their loved one has never been caught,
but finally after years of suffering, there is a conviction. And the family celebrates closure to their case.
But in that, the person convicted is not the guilty party who actually committed the murder, but
was someone the real murderer squealed on. So the case got closed, but the real murderer got away
and a person who was only partially responsible got the full death sentence so "somebody pays" in order for "justice to be served" but the case is not perfect. The person was involved but is not the murderer.

I would feel happy the family is relieved and has their sense of justice.
But at the same time I look to what corrections are in store in order to bring about real justice.
If the death sentence is changed to go after the culprit, this can offend the family who sees
the conviction as their sense of justice. So going against that is taking away their closure and peace.

That is one example of mixed feelings that are similar to how I feel

B. or the other way. A person is finally freed from prison so they and their loved ones are relieved
and "celebrating"

But the family of the murder victim, and a whole community of people who feel betrayed, now face a whole other long battle of whether the prosecution is going to go after the real murderer or if they are going to be left with nothing.

Whatever is being celebrated clearly does not include their experiences and feelings.

So on one hand, sure I totally sympathize with innocent people who finally are freed after
years of false imprisonment. I would celebrate too, the crying for joy, the whole works.

But I equally sympathize with the family of the victim who still need closure, and celebrating the victory causes additional pain to them because they feel "left out." If they say anything, they are often attacked for wanting justice, such as being badmouthed as "wanting revenge" and "being sick for wanting the death penalty".

Similar to gay marriage, I also respect both the beliefs for and against the death penalty,
and don't believe in judging or attacking anyone for their beliefs I treat as equal and separate.

I can totally relate to this pain of one side feeling betrayed and attacked for their position, and I would NOT want to push the victory of the other family in their faces!

So that is another way I might describe how this feels like.

I am not going to try to take out my personal misgivings out on people,
I do want BOTH sides to feel equally included and protected by law.

But I do resent this whole scenario where people of different beliefs
are forced into an imperfect situation, where a symbolic victory for one side means more grief for the other.

I believe the focus should be on a REAL solution that brings REAL justice that satisfies ALL interests.
And doesn't just symbolically side with one group over the other. I believe both beliefs in the
case of marriage laws should be recognized equally, and if people cannot agree, then it should be kept
personal and removed from govt jurisdiction that should be reserved for public policy where all the public agrees and is represented equally. If people have conflicting beliefs, as with marriage laws, that is a sign that this involves personal religious beliefs and thus does not belong in govt hands to decide. By the same token marriage should not be left to states votes to decide, neither does the federal court have authority to decide!

So that is a description of my views as a Constitutionalist who believes in Isonomy where people have equal political power. I believe that makes people equal, to respect the right to consent, dissent and to petition for redress of grievances until all conflicts and objections are resolved or people agree to drop it or separate out.

Consent of the governed is the basic standard of my beliefs,
and Constitutional inclusion for equal protection and representation.

So rulings like this that represent or favor one belief but exclude another
are not fully Constitutional and require further resolution to come up with a policy that is.

I celebrate with the people who needed to defend their beliefs from unconstitutional bans,
but by the VERY SAME TOKEN it was equally wrong for the court to assume authority to decide
for people. Both sides should be ordered to respect each other's views, and either write commonly agreed laws that accommodate all views equally or remove marriage and any related laws from the state that are imposing a bias in belief that other citizens are objecting to. The decision should still be with the people.

Umm...

Traditional marriage IS legal.
Gay marriage IS legal.

SO - it is only NOW, both views ARE recognized equally under the law.

NOONE LOSES, those who feel they lost something are merely DUMB.

Thats a hard truth.

They NOW have EQUALLY represented views, not a "leg up" as they had before.

STOP BEING DAFT. CUZ YOU ARE BEING DAFT.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I would like to clarify what it feels like to support gay marriage, and agree that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, yet also believing it is equally unconstitutional for govt to establish and endorse gay marriage."

There is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' a fact reaffirmed by yesterday's ruling.

Consequently, the government is neither 'establishing' nor 'endorsing' 'gay marriage,' because, again, there is no such thing.

There is only one marriage law in each of the 50 states, contract law that can accommodate same- or opposite-sex couples in a committed relationship recognized by the state.

 

[emilynghiem]

G.T. brought up in another thread a post that assumed I was sore over the Supreme Court ruling.

Normally G.T. tries very hard to understand and communicate with me when I express different views,
although there has been at least one previous msg that also misread my meaning and assumed I had "gone overboard with the intolerant right"

I would like to clarify what it feels like to support gay marriage, and agree that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, yet also believing it is equally unconstitutional for govt to establish and endorse gay marriage
by the SAME token. I see both beliefs, about gay marriage and traditional marriage, as equal for those people.
So it is like celebrating the win with friends on one side, while understanding the corrections needed for the bad call that is unfair to the other and not perfect either. Both sides are equal in my book, and both should win.

So this is what it feels like:

If you can imagine one or both of these cases:
A. a family you know is devastated that the murderer of their loved one has never been caught,
but finally after years of suffering, there is a conviction. And the family celebrates closure to their case.
But in that, the person convicted is not the guilty party who actually committed the murder, but
was someone the real murderer squealed on. So the case got closed, but the real murderer got away
and a person who was only partially responsible got the full death sentence so "somebody pays" in order for "justice to be served" but the case is not perfect. The person was involved but is not the murderer.

I would feel happy the family is relieved and has their sense of justice.
But at the same time I look to what corrections are in store in order to bring about real justice.
If the death sentence is changed to go after the culprit, this can offend the family who sees
the conviction as their sense of justice. So going against that is taking away their closure and peace.

That is one example of mixed feelings that are similar to how I feel

B. or the other way. A person is finally freed from prison so they and their loved ones are relieved
and "celebrating"

But the family of the murder victim, and a whole community of people who feel betrayed, now face a whole other long battle of whether the prosecution is going to go after the real murderer or if they are going to be left with nothing.

Whatever is being celebrated clearly does not include their experiences and feelings.

So on one hand, sure I totally sympathize with innocent people who finally are freed after
years of false imprisonment. I would celebrate too, the crying for joy, the whole works.

But I equally sympathize with the family of the victim who still need closure, and celebrating the victory causes additional pain to them because they feel "left out." If they say anything, they are often attacked for wanting justice, such as being badmouthed as "wanting revenge" and "being sick for wanting the death penalty".

Similar to gay marriage, I also respect both the beliefs for and against the death penalty,
and don't believe in judging or attacking anyone for their beliefs I treat as equal and separate.

I can totally relate to this pain of one side feeling betrayed and attacked for their position, and I would NOT want to push the victory of the other family in their faces!

So that is another way I might describe how this feels like.

I am not going to try to take out my personal misgivings out on people,
I do want BOTH sides to feel equally included and protected by law.

But I do resent this whole scenario where people of different beliefs
are forced into an imperfect situation, where a symbolic victory for one side means more grief for the other.

I believe the focus should be on a REAL solution that brings REAL justice that satisfies ALL interests.
And doesn't just symbolically side with one group over the other. I believe both beliefs in the
case of marriage laws should be recognized equally, and if people cannot agree, then it should be kept
personal and removed from govt jurisdiction that should be reserved for public policy where all the public agrees and is represented equally. If people have conflicting beliefs, as with marriage laws, that is a sign that this involves personal religious beliefs and thus does not belong in govt hands to decide. By the same token marriage should not be left to states votes to decide, neither does the federal court have authority to decide!

So that is a description of my views as a Constitutionalist who believes in Isonomy where people have equal political power. I believe that makes people equal, to respect the right to consent, dissent and to petition for redress of grievances until all conflicts and objections are resolved or people agree to drop it or separate out.

Consent of the governed is the basic standard of my beliefs,
and Constitutional inclusion for equal protection and representation.

So rulings like this that represent or favor one belief but exclude another
are not fully Constitutional and require further resolution to come up with a policy that is.

I celebrate with the people who needed to defend their beliefs from unconstitutional bans,
but by the VERY SAME TOKEN it was equally wrong for the court to assume authority to decide
for people. Both sides should be ordered to respect each other's views, and either write commonly agreed laws that accommodate all views equally or remove marriage and any related laws from the state that are imposing a bias in belief that other citizens are objecting to. The decision should still be with the people.

Umm...

Traditional marriage IS legal.
Gay marriage IS legal.

SO - it is only NOW, both views ARE recognized equally under the law.

NOONE LOSES, those who feel they lost something are merely DUMB.

Thats a hard truth.

They NOW have EQUALLY represented views, not a "leg up" as they had before.

STOP BEING DAFT. CUZ YOU ARE BEING DAFT.

Hi G.T.
Both can be legal as religious practices
and kept OUT of the state so nobody has to endorse the other beliefs.

Just like Buddhism, Christianity, Islam etc. are all LEGAL to practice as religions,
but NONE should be endorsed and written out as contracts through the state.

Marriage is a personal decision belief and practice.
If we all AGREED on terms to manage this through the state, that's fine.
But if we disagree religiously, such as disagreeing on water baptisms or
open communions, NO we should NOT rely on going through Govt to
"sanctify" which group's practices are endorsed or not.

If people CANNOT agree, then by nature of involving beliefs,
it should be REMOVED from the state and just keep the civil/secular
wording, terms and process that ALL people AGREE are neutral enough to be public policy.
Anything seen as a religious faith-based bias, that not all people share,
should be kept private; similar to how atheists will sue to remove a Cross or Bible
from public institutions. If it isn't agreed upon due to differences in belief,
then people should have the right to remove it from public policy and funding.

Same with wanting to mandate health care through federal govt,
then finding out people have "conflicting beliefs about birth control,"
and having to go back and REMOVE references to that from public policies
so it doesn't impose on people's personal beliefs.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gay Marriage Ruling: What it feels like to be a Constitutionalist

Fuck that, be a grownup instead. They Founders would have approved.