What is new on the Gay Marriage front?

[smokeshadow]

The SC added Friday to it's calendar. They could also extend the session into July, but have rarely done so. There are only 7 cases left on it's docket, so it would be doubtful that this session will extend past Monday

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen..._another_day_to_issue_rulings_to_its_calendar

 

[scream4ever]

Also of note, it's very unusual for the Supreme Court to release opinions on a Friday (the last time this happened was at the end of the session in 2010). There are several reasons to think they're planning to release the decision in Obergefell then:

-It's the anniversary of the rulings being handed down in Windsor v United States and Lawrence v Texas

-It would be perfect timing since it's the start of Pride weekend

-It would give county officials enough time over the weekend to prepare to issue licenses on Monday. Some of course will begin the moment the ruling is handed down, while others will drag it out until all the "housekeeping" work is finished, which shouldn't stretch past the end of July

 

[hotatlboi]

Scotusblog is guessing that the Obamacare case will be released on Friday and the marriage case Monday. It's really anyone's guess at this point though.

 

[frankfrank]

SCOTUS, please give us a favorable ruling before the weekend. May the celebrations at this weekend's PRIDE events begin!

 

[Kulindahr]

Not accurate.

While it is true that opposition to slavery came largely from northern Christians, their interpretation of Christianity was NOT traditional. The abolitionists were radical liberals who were calling for a new kind of morality, and a new interpretation of scripture.

The bible is an extremely self-contradictory document, and can therefore be used to justify any behavior whatsoever. Of course both sides invoked the bible in support of their cause. But the south defended the traditional (and, frankly, obvious) biblical support for slavery. Theirs was the moral high ground during the war.

There is not a single passage in the bible condemning slavery. Not one. There are myriad expressions of support. It is well to remember that this is a bronze age document, and expresses a bronze age understanding of morality.

Yes, accurate. Early Christianity was anti-slavery because it was considered self-evident that claiming to own that which was made in the image of God was blasphemous. That died out when the church went imperial. The abolitionists were merely reviving the obvious conclusion of primitive Christianity; some used the same arguments, e.g. that all humans had already been bought by the blood of Christ, so no perishable coin could be offered for them without insulting the blood of Christ.

There is no "obvious" biblical support for slavery, there is only tolerance -- and there is none at all for the sort of institution the South was running. That travesty had to be read into the scriptures by changing the meanings of words or at best being ignorant of them.


BTW, the Bible is only self-contradictory if you chop it into pieces and refuse to treat it as a whole, akin to chopping a mystery novel into pieces and claiming that it is contradictory -- when obviously the final solution of the mystery is the actual one, not all the prior attempts. In fact, one has to throw out a huge portion of the Bible in order to make it seem contradictory -- almost all of the Prophets, and substantial portions of the Gospels and of Paul, all of which expound repeatedly that principle trumps regulations -- just as an example there is the oft-repeated condemnation of ancient Israel for following the Law and its details while completely missing the point it was supposed to teach, namely mercy and faithfulness (often summed up as "lovingkindness" or "steadfast love"). By the time Jesus came and condemned various parties for using the details of the Law to avoid its spirit, i.e. mercy and love, that was well established.

 

[Kulindahr]

Also of note, it's very unusual for the Supreme Court to release opinions on a Friday (the last time this happened was at the end of the session in 2010). There are several reasons to think they're planning to release the decision in Obergefell then:

-It's the anniversary of the rulings being handed down in Windsor v United States and Lawrence v Texas

-It would be perfect timing since it's the start of Pride weekend

-It would give county officials enough time over the weekend to prepare to issue licenses on Monday. Some of course will begin the moment the ruling is handed down, while others will drag it out until all the "housekeeping" work is finished, which shouldn't stretch past the end of July

That would be elegant. So the question is whether Roberts has an eye toward the history books, and would like that elegance attributed to his court.

 

[hotatlboi]

That would be elegant. So the question is whether Roberts has an eye toward the history books, and would like that elegance attributed to his court.

I do not believe Roberts will join the majority.

He joined Scalia's plurality opinion in Kerry v Din which was basically a rant about how there is no fundamental liberty interest in marriage.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...nin-scalia-and-the-limits-of-marriage/396137/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...ay_have_revealed_their_marriage_equality.html

Kinda hard to see how that would square with having a fundamental right to marriage.

 

[eddielee]

I can think of no legal reason why the Supreme Court would not come out in favour of gay marriage. I anticipate that gay marriage will be made legal in all 50 states. I also anticipate anti-gay marriage people going bezerk, which I will enjoy.

 

[hotatlboi]

I can think of no legal reason why the Supreme Court would not come out in favour of gay marriage. I anticipate that gay marriage will be made legal in all 50 states. I also anticipate anti-gay marriage people going bezerk, which I will enjoy.

I believe marriage will be won nationally but the only real question is whether the ruling is a broad one focused on fundamental rights, or just a technical one in which Kennedy somehow gets us there without really going all in on the right to marriage the way the 4 liberals would.

 

[Kulindahr]

I do not believe Roberts will join the majority.

He joined Scalia's plurality opinion in Kerry v Din which was basically a rant about how there is no fundamental liberty interest in marriage.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...nin-scalia-and-the-limits-of-marriage/396137/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...ay_have_revealed_their_marriage_equality.html

Kinda hard to see how that would square with having a fundamental right to marriage.

I guess he would have to vote for it to have it be counted as a legacy, huh?

If only I could do Jedi mind tricks . . . . .

 

[T-Rexx]

I do not believe Roberts will join the majority.

I agree. I think it's going to be another 5-4.

As I have said many times here, I view that as problematic.

Yes, accurate. Early Christianity was anti-slavery because it was considered self-evident that claiming to own that which was made in the image of God was blasphemous.

Self-evident to whom? Until the 19th century, Christians were the most prolific slave owners and sellers in the world.

It wasn't self-evident to Christians for 1,800 years

Please cite a single passage of the bible or from any of the writings of early Christianity that condemns slavery. If early Christians were so anti-slavery, why did they not ever say so? And why did they praise it so enthusiastically?

You are imposing your own modern understanding of morality on bronze and iron age people. Their world was very, very, very different from yours.

There is no "obvious" biblical support for slavery, there is only tolerance

See post #2334 above.

 

[hotatlboi]

I agree. I think it's going to be another 5-4.

As I have said many times here, I view that as problematic.

Ultimately I do not believe it will be that problematic. 5-4 decisions are not good on issues that remain very divisive after the Court rules, like Citizens United, or abortion, because they can galvanize opposition in the hopes that a future, slightly altered Court could reverse them.

Marriage equality is not really in that category imo. It has already reached 60+% support and is on track to just keep going up from there. I think we could easily be at 70-80% in a few more years. Only the hardcore religious nuts will remain opposed. There is virtually zero chance a future Court would reverse it assuming the ruling is broadly in favor of equality.

It will not even really factor at all in this years Republican primary which is a first. The GOP establishment is eager to bury the issue and never speak of it again because they know hate is now a losing issue for them.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Self-evident to whom? Until the 19th century, Christians were the most prolific slave owners and sellers in the world.

It wasn't self-evident to Christians for 1,800 years

Please cite a single passage of the bible or from any of the writings of early Christianity that condemns slavery. If early Christians were so anti-slavery, why did they not ever say so? And why did they praise it so enthusiastically?
See post #2334 above.

Assuming you actually mean early christianity and not just the Old Testament, here you go.

TURN THE OTHER CHEEK
The examples that follow confirm this reading. "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other
also" (Matt. 5:39b). You are probably imagining a blow with the right fist. But such a blow would fall on the left
cheek. To hit the right cheek with a fist would require the left hand. But the left hand could be used only for
unclean tasks; at Qumran, a Jewish religious community of Jesus' day, to gesture with the left hand meant
exclusion from the meeting and penance for ten days. To grasp this you must physically try it: how would you
hit the other's right cheek with your right hand? If you have tried it, you will know: the only feasible blow is a
backhand.
The backhand was not a blow to injure, but to insult, humiliate, degrade. It was not administered to an
equal, but to an inferior. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; Romans, Jews. The
whole point of the blow was to force someone who was out of line back into place.
Notice Jesus' audience: "If anyone strikes you." These are people used to being thus degraded. He is saying
to them, "Re-fuse to accept this kind of treatment anymore. If they backhand you, turn the other cheek." (Now
you really need to physically enact this to see the problem.) By turning the cheek, the servant makes it
impossible for the master to use the backhand again: his nose is in the way. And anyway, it's like telling a joke
twice; if it didn't work the first time, it simply won't work. The left cheek now offers a perfect target for a blow
with the right fist; but only equals fought with fists, as we know from Jewish sources, and the last thing the
master wishes to do is to establish this underling's equality. This act of defiance renders the master incapable
of asserting his dominance in this relationship. He can have the slave beaten, but he can no longer cow him.
By turning the cheek, then, the "inferior" is saying: "I'm a human being, just like you. I refuse to be humiliated
any longer. I am your equal. I am a child of God. I won't take it anymore."
Such defiance is no way to avoid trouble. Meek acquiescence is what the master wants. Such "cheeky"
behavior may call down a flogging, or worse. But the point has been made. The Powers That Be have lost
their power to make people submit. And when large numbers begin behaving thus (and Jesus was addressing
a crowd), you have a social revolution on your hands.
In that world of honor and shaming, the "superior" has been rendered impotent to instill shame in a
subordinate. He has been stripped of his power to dehumanize the other. As Gandhi taught, "The first principle
of nonviolent action is that of non-cooperation with everything humiliating."
How different this is from the usual view that this passage teaches us to turn the other cheek so our
batterer can simply clobber us again! How often that interpretation has been fed to battered wives and
children. And it was never what Jesus intended in the least. To such victims he advises, "Stand up for
yourselves, defy your masters, assert your humanity; but don't answer the oppressor in kind. Find a new, third
way that is neither cowardly submission nor violent reprisal."

If you're wondering who edited the original meaning, blame King James.

http://www.cpt.org/files/BN - Jesus' Third Way.pdf

 

[Kulindahr]

Self-evident to whom? Until the 19th century, Christians were the most prolific slave owners and sellers in the world.

It wasn't self-evident to Christians for 1,800 years

Please cite a single passage of the bible or from any of the writings of early Christianity that condemns slavery. If early Christians were so anti-slavery, why did they not ever say so? And why did they praise it so enthusiastically?

You are imposing your own modern understanding of morality on bronze and iron age people. Their world was very, very, very different from yours.



See post #2334 above.

Gregory of Nyssa is probably the best known voice against slavery, but hardly the first. He argued against it on several grounds: that man was given authority over the animals, but not over other men; that no price could be put on that made in the image of God; that since God had not made slaves of all men, for a man to make a slave of another was to claim to be higher than God. Other church Fathers had similar views, some -- notably St. Eligius in the sixth century -- spending immense wealth to buy and free slaves. Origen held that since the Jews freed slaves after six years, Christians were bound to be at least as generous.

So, no, I'm not "imposing" any view, I'm stating what I learned from the Church Fathers.


As for your list of passages referring to slavery, none endorse it; they tolerate it. And the institution in the Old Testament was not what came to be in the late Middle Ages after Muslims and Christians agreed to stop enslaving each other, at which point, having discovered how easy it was to get slaves from Africa, it became for the first time a matter of skin color.

 

[Kulindahr]

Assuming you actually mean early christianity and not just the Old Testament, here you go.

TURN THE OTHER CHEEK
The examples that follow confirm this reading. "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other
also" (Matt. 5:39b). You are probably imagining a blow with the right fist. But such a blow would fall on the left
cheek. To hit the right cheek with a fist would require the left hand. But the left hand could be used only for
unclean tasks; at Qumran, a Jewish religious community of Jesus' day, to gesture with the left hand meant
exclusion from the meeting and penance for ten days. To grasp this you must physically try it: how would you
hit the other's right cheek with your right hand? If you have tried it, you will know: the only feasible blow is a
backhand.
The backhand was not a blow to injure, but to insult, humiliate, degrade. It was not administered to an
equal, but to an inferior. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; Romans, Jews. The
whole point of the blow was to force someone who was out of line back into place.
Notice Jesus' audience: "If anyone strikes you." These are people used to being thus degraded. He is saying
to them, "Re-fuse to accept this kind of treatment anymore. If they backhand you, turn the other cheek." (Now
you really need to physically enact this to see the problem.) By turning the cheek, the servant makes it
impossible for the master to use the backhand again: his nose is in the way. And anyway, it's like telling a joke
twice; if it didn't work the first time, it simply won't work. The left cheek now offers a perfect target for a blow
with the right fist; but only equals fought with fists, as we know from Jewish sources, and the last thing the
master wishes to do is to establish this underling's equality. This act of defiance renders the master incapable
of asserting his dominance in this relationship. He can have the slave beaten, but he can no longer cow him.
By turning the cheek, then, the "inferior" is saying: "I'm a human being, just like you. I refuse to be humiliated
any longer. I am your equal. I am a child of God. I won't take it anymore."
Such defiance is no way to avoid trouble. Meek acquiescence is what the master wants. Such "cheeky"
behavior may call down a flogging, or worse. But the point has been made. The Powers That Be have lost
their power to make people submit. And when large numbers begin behaving thus (and Jesus was addressing
a crowd), you have a social revolution on your hands.
In that world of honor and shaming, the "superior" has been rendered impotent to instill shame in a
subordinate. He has been stripped of his power to dehumanize the other. As Gandhi taught, "The first principle
of nonviolent action is that of non-cooperation with everything humiliating."
How different this is from the usual view that this passage teaches us to turn the other cheek so our
batterer can simply clobber us again! How often that interpretation has been fed to battered wives and
children. And it was never what Jesus intended in the least. To such victims he advises, "Stand up for
yourselves, defy your masters, assert your humanity; but don't answer the oppressor in kind. Find a new, third
way that is neither cowardly submission nor violent reprisal."

If you're wondering who edited the original meaning, blame King James.

http://www.cpt.org/files/BN - Jesus' Third Way.pdf

That's an excellent read! I remember being troubled by the standard translation of some of the passages addressed, because the words had to be stretched to mean what the old KJV had them meaning -- now I see why!

 

[hotatlboi]

No decision in the marriage case today however the ACA ruling is in.

The Justices uphold the federal subsidies in a 6-3 decision by the Chief Justice.

 

[chrisrobin]

No decision in the marriage case today however the ACA ruling is in.

The Justices uphold the federal subsidies in a 6-3 decision by the Chief Justice.

I just heard on my radio from the Jebster that if he is elected president, he would repeal the ACA based on a "serious violation of Separation of Powers." In your dreams, Jeb.

 

[TX-Beau]

I just heard on my radio from the Jebster that if he is elected president, he would repeal the ACA based on a "serious violation of Separation of Powers." In your dreams, Jeb.

Oh that is funny, so a sitting President is going to repeal legislation passed by congress because of a violation of the Separation of Powers!



More proof you can tell the right any old bullshit you like and they'll just blindly follow.

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder if Ben is his lawyer?

 

[frankfrank]

Tomorrow is the last chance for them to issue a ruling before Pride Weekend (in some places). Let's hope it goes well.

Also good to see Kennedy actually becoming a "swing vote" again, after a number of years where he seemed to usually side with Scalia, Thomas, etc. - I think his ruling on Obamacare bodes well for the other major ruling yet to come.

I hope similarly that coming ruling is AT LEAST 6-3, that should settle it once and for all, because I don't think any number of Republicans can put the public acceptance genie back in the bottle.

 

[thewiz]

I plan to be at the Supreme Court at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow; hope the ruling comes at 10 or I'll have to head over to Eastern Market and stuff myself with seafood salad!