As I write, another federal court has ruled the wicked, perverted Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. While I have not seen the opinion, just out now, I can raise at least five good arguments why it could not pass Constitutional muster. Take for example the Due Process and Equal Protection guarantees. What is good for some is good for all, and if some want to define marriage as "between one man and one woman," they demand strict scrutiny in their claims. It is akin to claims about the existence of God: fantastic claims demand extraordinary proof. Now that we know that we have a presidential candidate whose grandpa had more than one wife, we learn how glibly Mitt Romney can go along with DOMA-pushers, although the law should be called the Offense to Marriage Equality Act (OTOME). His support of heterosexuals-only marriage is mostly to curry the favor his base -- and I do mean base. Stick around, Mitt may etch another sketch.
Want to bet Justice Scalia is salivating to slather DOMA with dogmatic sanctity, just as he has with many other social issues, perhaps betraying in his nastiness and tight-assed opinions his conservative brand of Catholicism. The New Majority will do precisely what was done in Bush v. Gore: Sweep aside a century of precedent and a hands-off policy toward the States in election conducting, thereby annointing GWB as Pope of the U.S.A. (And yes, I know that Bush was an evangelical, nominally, but the new coalition of evangelicals, whether you call them "evangeliCatholics" or "Cathevangelicals," these two extremist religions fit hand and glove when the chips are down in social issues.) SCOTUS probably won't get the issue soon, but we can easily predict the yea's and nay's. Scalito will go along with fellow Catholic Scalia; Roberts will pull back from his Obamacare centrist position to reassure Big Business he is still a conservative, and Clarence, if he can take enough time off from his porno collection, will follow Scalito in following Scalia.
That leaves the other Catholic on the fence. If anyone can figure Kennedy out, please email me privately. I have wondered for years. Oh, and Scalia in an interview said that several states had anti-sodomy laws for years before the Court struck them down. As far as he is concerned having anti-sodomy [read: anti-gay] laws in place and fully sanctioned by the Constitution is a "no brainer." That would come easy for Scalia, who lets the Vatican do his thinking for him, and who never fails to eschew self-recusal even when a corporation having business before the court goes to lunch with this ideologue.
I prefer to go with the label "religiofascists" or "Christian Taliban" myself. Protestant or Catholic, there's an mean-spirited, totalitarian mean streak in these people, who want to force their beliefs and their will on the rest of the world, believing that they are doing "God's work."
What's particularly baffling is how Scalia has cited pro-slavery laws as defense for his anti-gay position. How he can blatantly ignore the civil rights violation being done here is beyond me.
I wonder how the Supreme Court became so catholic. There are non-catholic judges in this country....
Scalia has revealed himself to be especially bigoted.
I look forward to the Supreme Court addressing Measure 8 and DOMA like a child watches a scary movie, hand over the eyes with fingers divided to look through them. Which is how I viewed the recent election, which came out pretty good, I'd say.
Post mortems on the elections gives nothing but hope. Unmarried women gave their votes to Obama. This is part of the same social group that is young and most likely to live alone. "Traditional marriage" is beginning to look ridiculous since the majority don't bother to marry anymore. Those that do find their way to the divorce courts in large numbers. It is a myth that women need men. Not anymore. It's time we started paying women an equal wage as well.
It amazes me that we still take the Vatican seriously. For some reason we still place a high value of authority on the sayings of a man who sits on a throne, wearing a dress, a pointy hat and bling, and who hangs around with only (and supposedly celibate) men who also wear dresses and bling, and love incense. That we consider this body an authority on marriage (or anything moral, considering the Church's failure on so many human rights issues) borders on hysterical.
Oh, but I'm not being respectful...
Go, guy! Makes you think one of the Pops got it into his head that if you impose celibacy on the priesthood you'll end up with a bunch of masturbators and, as it turns out, child molesters. If you know the history of the Church as well as its dogma, you know that it is not just the Nones who are "married to Christ"; so are the clergy. That is what the bling symbolizes (that is, the ring bling). That is what the celibacy is all about. But guess what? An apostate None a few years ago revealed that a significant percentage of European priests were secretly married, and then there is that wonderful Gael Garcia Bernal movie, Padre Amaro, telling of a priest who gets a congregant pregnant, then becomes the agent of her death when she bleeds out after an illegal abortion gone tragically wrong. Is THIS the blood of "our savior" "Jesus Christ"?
The blood of Christ is the blood of the millions of innocent men, women and children whose lives have been stolen or destroyed in the pursuit of saving their immortal souls. It wasn't until 306 C.E. that clergy were forbidden from marrying, a fact which didn't prevent them from screwing around, prompting Pope Benedict VIII to forbid descendents of priests from inheriting property in 1018 C.E. There's the real reason priests are required to remain celibate -- so that the Church can horde money, land and treasure.
The fact that the RCC exists today, is a sign that history is not taught and not considered important. Anyone who knows even part of the history of the RCC, even if they believe in the christian god, cannot believe that the catholic hierarchy in any way represents their god or carries his message. I have no doubt that, if they could get away with it, the RCC would call for a counter reformation again. Their lies continue, their attempts to increase power continue, and their hold on ignorant and hateful minds continue.
At the risk of raising the specter of Rush Limbaugh, I must say ditto! The blood began to run even before the RCC was born, in pre-Nicean times, when Constantine got rid of the bishops who were followers of Arius. That is, they accepted his "heresy" of believing (and preaching) that if Jesus was divine, He could never have "become flesh," not by Mary, not by anyone. I think their number was in the 70s. The other bishops agreed with Constantine and signed the Nicean Creed. The blood was let during the Crusades, during the Witch Hunts, during the Inquisition, during the decimation of the Cathari and the Knights Templar. During the Nazi holocaust, by which time they learned to let blood by proxy.
No argument from me! By the way, strong work on the Minnesota vote! Next referendum: To start a state sponsored dating / matchmaker site for LGBT Minnesotans. To encourage the best of the best to marry and settle down in their home state, avoiding a brain drain to friendlier places.
And congrats to you, Daniel, on passing the referendum in Washington! Nine states (plus D.C.) down, forty-nine to go! I'm a tad disappointed that the DFL isn't making marriage equality in Minnesota a priority this term, but considering the state of our economy, it's not too surprising. However, I do think that everyone is going to be looking to SCOTUS in a couple of weeks to see what they decide to do with DOMA and Proposition 8. We may not even need to bother overturning those laws banning same-sex marriage once they declare such laws unconstitutional! A better course of action might be convincing Scalia to retire early...
Can youn please obtain a video of Scalia romping naked with 5 nubile young men? And publish it on youtube, NOW!
Or even better, a video of Scalia romping naked with Thomas.
Perish the thought! What group would want to claim Scalia, particularly one of the sexual minorities?