Elvis Obama
VIP Member
- Nov 2, 2015
- 852
- 140
- 70
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. As to what gets that gov't seal of approval, and what's the govt's business in the first place, well that's debatable across the board. Whatever cases the SC chooses to take on get the thumbs up/down treatment.If they decline cases all they're really saying is that they will accept the lower courts ruling. In all these cases they put the interests of one group ahead of another. It must be frustrating to consistently be on the side that gets thwarted.For me it's absolute. No prayer in school, no religious symbols in courts, no "official" religion.The first amendment explicitly protects both the freedom of and the freedom from religion:"There is no constitutional basis or historical basis for the ruling. It was a political and ideologically based ruling."
Yeah, that's how it works. It took us even longer than that to recognize that LGBT rights to marriage are protected, just as it is for straights. By coming to that realization we have further perfected the rights granted in the constitution. Supposedly.
It's all politically and ideologically motivated. Precedent is great until it doesn't exist and we really, really want to do something and then we just create the precedent. Originalists! Riiight.
Dear Elvis Obama I would say the right to marriage is protected under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not directly under the Constitution.
Even the Right to Life is spelled out more specifically in founding documents,
but the meaning of Right to Life is not agreed upon enough to enforce it as many rightwing believe.
So if the "Right to Life" is under question by the Left, when it has more written history.
Why are the "right to marriage" and "right to health care" elevated to Constitutional rights,
while principles that ARE in writing (such as the Right to bear arms and the Right to life)
get struck down and ignored as if nonexistent and "optional"
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
Don't establish (or endorse) a religion = freedom from religion.
Don't prohibit a religion = freedom of religion.
This kind of nitpicking, legalistic sophistry is pointless. Our courts have proven over and over again that the simplest of phrases can be twisted to mean whatever the so-called jurists want it to mean. Yes, there is an explicit right to life mentioned in the constitution. Wanna kill babies anyway? Just say they're not people. Wanna carpet bomb some folks? Declare war! Then it's perfectly OK. Succeed in getting sympatico judges appointed to the SC and abortion will be found to be murder. Does that mean that it is? Does that mean that it matters? No one, the day after the SC changes the balance of their collective mind on abortion, will change their own opinion. States which are hostile to abortion will do everything within their purview to make it practically impossible to obtain, the law be damned. No one cares about constitutionality. All anyone cares about is "their side", and getting to claim victory for "their side".
But what constitutes endorsement? The anti-religious group thinks any public prayer or or expression religious expression or even the Ten Commandments engraved on a work of art constitutes endorsement of religion. The rest of us see that as our constitutional right to practice our religion. So which is it?
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute;"
- JFK
Dear Elvis Obama to be absolutely consistent
what about these beliefs:
1. beliefs in capital punishment vs. beliefs in restitution and rehabilitation
2. beliefs in traditional marriage vs. same sex marriage and benefits
3. beliefs in putting the life of the child before the rights of the woman not to have free choice criminalized
4. beliefs about drugs being the choice of the individual not the govt
5. beliefs about health care being controlled through govt not individuals
If a vote is split 50/50 between half the group believing in traditional marriage only and the other half believing in same sex marriage and benefits, which do you go with?
Do you allow one group to get endorsed by govt while the other is excluded? Or do you tell both groups to keep their beliefs about marriage out of govt, and only keep govt in charge of neutral policies that both sides agree accommodate them equally without endorsing either sides' beliefs or biases.
Are you consistent with all beliefs, or just religious beliefs you oppose?