task0778
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #81
Consider this from Justice Kennedy's majority opinion:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression."
Notice what he says: "At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression." Of course, that's his opinion, which I believe is not shared by all the other justices on the Court. Nor apparently by every poster on this thread, which BTW is totally cool. I don't know how to codify or delineate how and when the exercise of someone's civil rights when it comes to discrimination should override someone else's religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage. Maybe they'll throw it back to the states and allow each one to decide the issue based on the circumstances of each case. As long as each party's rights and views are treated in an unbiased and unprejudiced manner, the SCOTUS might decide to stay out of the fray.
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression."
Notice what he says: "At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression." Of course, that's his opinion, which I believe is not shared by all the other justices on the Court. Nor apparently by every poster on this thread, which BTW is totally cool. I don't know how to codify or delineate how and when the exercise of someone's civil rights when it comes to discrimination should override someone else's religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage. Maybe they'll throw it back to the states and allow each one to decide the issue based on the circumstances of each case. As long as each party's rights and views are treated in an unbiased and unprejudiced manner, the SCOTUS might decide to stay out of the fray.