Krauthammer on which way the gay marriage wind is blowing
On the significance of the DOMA decision, Charles Krauthammer says exactly what I was thinking, only he says it better.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
On the significance of the DOMA decision, Charles Krauthammer says exactly what I was thinking, only he says it better.
If the Supreme Court attempts to force states to recognize gay marriage, I wonder if states will get out of the marriage business. I am sure they can fashion legislation that provides benefits to families, in essence redefining marriage to be about the children not the adults–the proper definition of marriage in my view.
“Next case – Kennedy & Co. go all the way.”
One suspects that Kennedy went all the way decades ago.
Krauthammer has nailed the consequence of Justice Kennedy’s rationale in the equal protection clause.
Nor will states get out of the marriage business, instead it will be churches who will be given the choice of getting out of the marriage business or complying with state law.
Nor will a liberal Court majority accept that forcing religions to either perform gay marriages or cease marrying couples is a violation of the 1st amendment. The Court will simply declare a strict constructionist view of the first amendment. That there has been no law made “respecting an establishment of religion”. That mandatory recognition of gay marriage is simply eliminating discrimination.
wait till they get hit by the marriage penalty
IRS is expecting 400-700 million more
and given they earn more than others, it may be even higher.
The solution to the real SSM constitutional problem – which is the disparity accorded the 1st vs. 14th amendments in the courts and the “popular sentiment’ – has been bandied about in threads for a decade that I’m aware of.
To wit: get the state out of the “marriage business”.
Insofar as the tax class is concerned, recognition of contractual obligations between two individuals (traditionally called “marriage”) would fall under a nuptial contracts heading of some sort.
Or if you prefer, all unions recognized by the state for tax related purposes would be civil unions.
During the entire decade that this has been bandied about, there’s also been a recognition that it’s simply not gonna happen.
Why?
Because no politician would survive the electoral fallout from proposing it, or supporting it.
…maybe now? – I doubt it.
But the idiot black-robed ravens in the Court have forced the issue, regardless of your interpretation of the legal arguments of either side.
1st or 14th? Which “wins”?
If you’re not religious, you probably don’t truly understand the reasons …the emotions …underlying how truly dangerous this is. And I’m not going over it in detail again.
But the three major Western religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – all regard homosexual behavior as doctrinally a sin. The faithful have no choice in the matter. It is written. It is a foundational matter.
Pigs will, indeed, fly first.
(Those denominations that reject the word, are regarded as fallen. Period. They have no standing. None. My gawd, there are denominations that have priests/pastors that are agnostic or worse. Why anyone would think those could be broadly representative of anything resembling faith beggars logic.)
The closer the denomination or faith is to what is called the inerrancy or infallibility doctrine (i.e., of the written word as the literal word of G_d …as example, Islam regards it as a deadly sin to insult the Koran), the more determined they are to reject homosexual behavior as acceptable.
There is no compromise. You might as well require the faithful to renounce their faith, or faith itself.
Believers will not accept that.
How violently they reject that will depend upon how threatened they feel.
No one should be under the hugely mistaken belief that people will not fight …take up arms, and battle to the death …over their religious beliefs.
The State will not win. It never has. It never will.
The attempts at co-opting faith, by substituting a humanist substitute, are doomed to failure. If the Soviets couldn’t do it, no one could.
We will dismantle a State like that piece by piece, and brick by brick first. There is no new place we can go to, to escape.
We will fight.
Those “enclaves” that Victor Davis Hanson writes about at NRO? – They will afford the elites even less protection than the villas the Roman elites hid behind.
Rome fell.
We can too.
More and more people are talking in non-moderate tones. I wonder if that is a sign of the times.
As an alaternative to “getting out of the marriage business,” states could “get out of the benefits business.” If states offered no benefits to married couples, there would be no discrimination against couples who were not allowed to marry legally.