The negative reactions to yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling have been interesting. They would be really amusing if they weren’t so repulsive.
The minority Supreme Court opinions were bizarre. Roberts said the decision was “an assault on democracy.” Thomas claimed in his opinion that “slaves didn’t lose their dignity because the government allowed them to be enslaved.” Scalia said he would “put my head in a bag,” and that “Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage.” To prove the latter point he said that we should “Ask any hippe.” He didn’t suggest where we should find one in 2015.
A local television station had the following leader promoting its upcoming evening news. “New dilemma for religious leaders as they try to balance their religious beliefs with this new law.” It isn’t, of course, a “new law,” and apparently they are unfamiliar with the principle of separation of church and state, and think that the Supreme Court ruling is going to force the Roman Catholic Church to perform marriage ceremonies in its churches for gay couples.
Quick note: that is not what the ruling will do.
This is an independent station whose evening news I don’t usually watch, but I tuned in to see if it would be as weird as the leader suggested. It was. They had a lengthy interview with the pastor of some unnamed but obviously fundamentalist church who explained to us that the Bible defined marriage, and that it was more than two thousand years older than the constitution.
Actually, it’s not, but this is a guy who undoubtedly thinks that man and dinosaurs roomed the Earth together just a few hundred years ago and that God created fossils for the express purpose of faking us out, so there’ no real point in arguing with him.
This is the same station who had weather reporter John Coleman, who was a complete fruitcake and a notorious climate change denier. His retirement did not provide sufficient impetus to persuade me to watch the station.
Speaking of fruitcakes, what about Ted Cruz, who said SC justices should be re-confirmed by election every 8 years? Dude, say anything you want to fire up your base of boneheads, but that ain't gonna happen.
ReplyDeleteActually, one of the the dissenting justices said there is a separation of church (religion) and state, so there is a way for religions to 'opt out', ie. not have to perform them if they don't want to.
All the ruling says is that you can't deny same sex marriages, aka the state/local governments can't. Those that belong to religions like the Roman Catholic church might have to look far and wide to find a liberal priest to marry them. Of they could go to the courthouse and do it and then try to have a church blessing (like what Prince Charles did).
Or they could sue the church and see what happens. I think that would fly like a lead balloon, but they are welcome to try. ANd surely someone will.
Not sure about the businesses that don;t want to cater to gays & marriages, etc. Do they not have the right to refuse service? Some state laws are interpreted to say no, they don't have that right. My first reaction to that is if they don't want to, the consumer will just find another business, word will get around that they are bigots and their business will likely suffer. Unless they get a bunch of KKK shoppers of course.
I don;t think that's something that the government should tell you what to do or not. Similiar to the SCOTUS case with the ACA a few years ago, when it was challenged on commerce grounds (the best chance to overturn it in my opinion).