Supreme Court strikes down same-sex marriage bans

[Michchamp]

Interesting that "recency" can be conveniently applied when it's helpful to minimize invective language.

It can't, I mentioned it because I had no idea who the people she was calling names were. I should've been clearer there.

 

[tinselwolverine]

who were the "Separationists?" Maybe they deserved to be called those names, and she wasn't that far off. I dunno. This squabble was a while ago.

Just to clarify, the one responding with the profanity was the Separationist, Madelyn Murray O'Hair. She was responding to a letter that was forwarded to her from the California chapter of her society, written by one John Lauritsen of New York, apparently. It would appear that the society's headquarters were in Austin TX.

I don't know what Lauritsen wrote; based on her response one might infer that Lauritsen might have been himself an Atheist and may have been encouraging her organization to adopt Marxism as well (or possibly cock sucking Marxism, or even cock sucking misogynist Marxism).

I don't know whether Lauritsen's letter was profanity laced or not.

That said, her response is not necessarily a whole lot different than the remarks one might expect to see on politics boards in the interwebs.

 

[byco42]

Wow ... this is ISIS-like in philosophy. No wonder Opus Dei is in the headlines every day as a "right-wing," "radical" organization.

 

[Michchamp]

Wow ... this is ISIS-like in philosophy. No wonder Opus Dei is in the headlines every day as a "right-wing," "radical" organization.

well, that's nice.

okay, Opus Dei is not a great comparison to those crazed abortion-clinic bombing fundies, who make Catholicism seem pretty reasonable by comparison.

 

[Michchamp]

Just to clarify, the one responding with the profanity was the Separationist, Madelyn Murray O'Hair. She was responding to a letter that was forwarded to her from the California chapter of her society, written by one John Lauritsen of New York, apparently. It would appear that the society's headquarters were in Austin TX.

I don't know what Lauritsen wrote; based on her response one might infer that Lauritsen might have been himself an Atheist and may have been encouraging her organization to adopt Marxism as well (or possibly cock sucking Marxism, or even cock sucking misogynist Marxism).

I don't know whether Lauritsen's letter was profanity laced or not.

That said, her response is not necessarily a whole lot different than the remarks one might expect to see on politics boards in the interwebs.

I see now from a bing search that Separationists referred to the cause of the initial movement (separation from church and state). You could support that and not be an atheist (although it was not likely); atheism as a movement came later.

 

[tinselwolverine]

It can't, I mentioned it because I had no idea who the people she was calling names were. I should've been clearer there.

I'm thinking Lauritsen may, in his letter, have indicated that he thought the Separationist movement might benefit from changing its leader to one with different genitalia instead...although I doubt he was implying that Madelyn should go all "Chaz Bono..."

He possibly was even suggesting that she relinquish leadership to him, and that gender was consideration in that perspective...

 

[Gulo Blue]

well, that's nice.

okay, Opus Dei is not a great comparison to those crazed abortion-clinic bombing fundies, who make Catholicism seem pretty reasonable by comparison.

Everybody knows they hire albinos that can't be traced back to them if they want to get into more violent stuff.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I'm thinking Lauritsen may, in his letter, have indicated that he thought the Separationist movement might benefit from changing its leader to one with different genitalia instead...although I doubt he was implying that Madelyn should go all "Chaz Bono..."

He possibly was even suggesting that she relinquish leadership to him, and that gender was consideration in that perspective...

Okay...this is likely the John Lauretsin O'Hair is responding to, an early gay rights activist - so maybe that clues us in a little bit as to why she might call him a cock sucker and imply that he's a pedophile.

Also, she was murdered in 1995 - I had forgotten about that.

 

[Michchamp]

Okay...this is likely the John Lauretsin O'Hair is responding to, an early gay rights activist - so maybe that clues us in a little bit as to why she might call him a cock sucker and imply that he's a pedophile.

Also, she was murdered in 1995 - I had forgotten about that.

yeah, I remember reading that so many people hated her, the local cops basically did nothing.

not very christian of them.

 

[Michchamp]

also not very christian:

"In the same Playboy interview, O'Hair gave a long list of incidents of harassment, intimidation, and even death threats against her and her family for her views. ... She stated that she left Baltimore because of persecution from Baltimore residents, including receipt of mail containing photos smeared with feces, the strangulation of her son Jon Garth's pet kitten and the stoning of her home by neighborhood residents, which she believed had caused her father's fatal heart attack."​

 

[Michchamp]

Everybody knows they hire albinos that can't be traced back to them if they want to get into more violent stuff.

oh.

 

[byco42]

Some of Kennedys "wisdom" on the record:

The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.

If marriage is a "fundamental right" why are their any restrictions or stipulations? Answer: it's NOT a "fundamental right." There are restrictions that have been arbitrarily altered by five people. But this language has opened up the possibility for further reform based on the CONTRADICTORY statement (below) in the same opinion.

The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.

The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.

Will a "better informed opinion" recognize that there can be multiple spouses, siblings, in-laws, petitioning for that "fundamental right?"

Finally, the First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.

This guy is a Supreme Court Justice? Will Catholic schools be able to denounce same-sex marriage as inherently sinful? Will Catholic Social Services be able to refuse same-sex couples who want to adopt? (some have already closed because they were ordered to by lower courts) What about homilies? Will pastors be able to preach against same-sex "marriage?" Because if same-sex "marriage" is a "fundamental right," how can any of this be tolerated?

 

[Michchamp]

Madelein Murray O'Hair's combativeness probably didn't really matter, in the end though.

Even if you're a nicer atheist than she was, Christians will be un-Christian to you when you attack their goal of implementing a theocracy in the United States.

 

[Michchamp]

Some of Kennedys "wisdom" on the record:

The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.

If marriage is a "fundamental right" why are their any restrictions or stipulations? Answer: it's NOT a "fundamental right." There are restrictions that have been arbitrarily altered by five people. But this language has opened up the possibility for further reform based on the CONTRADICTORY statement (below) in the same opinion.

The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.

The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.

Will a "better informed opinion" recognize that there can be multiple spouses, siblings, in-laws, petitioning for that "fundamental right?"

Finally, the First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.

This guy is a Supreme Court Justice? Will Catholic schools be able to denounce same-sex marriage as inherently sinful? Will Catholic Social Services be able to refuse same-sex couples who want to adopt? (some have already closed because they were ordered to by lower courts) What about homilies? Will pastors be able to preach against same-sex "marriage?" Because if same-sex "marriage" is a "fundamental right," how can any of this be tolerated?

get real. regardless of what you think of the outcome, the writing and reasoning in Scalia's dissent make Kennedy's opinion look like it was written by Socrates, Thomas Jefferson, Einstein, and Oliver Wendell Holmes rolled into one.

 

[Michchamp]

Some of Kennedys "wisdom" on the record:

The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.

If marriage is a "fundamental right" why are their any restrictions or stipulations? Answer: it's NOT a "fundamental right." There are restrictions that have been arbitrarily altered by five people. But this language has opened up the possibility for further reform based on the CONTRADICTORY statement (below) in the same opinion.

The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.

The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.

Will a "better informed opinion" recognize that there can be multiple spouses, siblings, in-laws, petitioning for that "fundamental right?"

Finally, the First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.

This guy is a Supreme Court Justice? Will Catholic schools be able to denounce same-sex marriage as inherently sinful? Will Catholic Social Services be able to refuse same-sex couples who want to adopt? (some have already closed because they were ordered to by lower courts) What about homilies? Will pastors be able to preach against same-sex "marriage?" Because if same-sex "marriage" is a "fundamental right," how can any of this be tolerated?

this post is hyperbole, slippery slope, and conjecture rebadged as "legal reasoning"

 

[tinselwolverine]

I see now from a bing search that Separationists referred to the cause of the initial movement (separation from church and state). You could support that and not be an atheist (although it was not likely); atheism as a movement came later.

The organization that Murray-O'Hair founded has been re-named American Atheist.

I called there and talked to their PR guy Nick, to find out if in fact the John Lauritsen she was responding to was (is, he's still with us and in his 70s) was indeed the early gay rights activist whose bio I linked to.

He couldn't confirm that, but he was aware of the letter and said it was "regrettable," and he had heard, in fact, that in correspondences between two, whether that Lauritsen is the gay activist or not, Murray-O'Hair perceived him to be something of a chauvinist.

So I looked up Pagan Press, and found a phone number to a Calamus book store in Boston, that carries the gay rights activist's books.

The guy at the book store also couldn't verify that that Lauritsen is the one whom Murray O'Hair was addressing, but said "yeah, in all probability is."

"Who would know?"

"John would."

So he suggested I send him the inquiry at the e-mail contact at Pagan Press.

So I sent this:

Hi, John;

I have an academic question for you - are you the John Lauritsen that Madeline Murray O'Hair responded to on May 20, 1976 with profanity laced homophobic tirade in response to a correspondence you sent to the California Chapter of her seperationist organization that had been been forwarded to her, that is linked to beneath here?

http://www.discord.org/~lippard/Lauritsen-OHair.pdf

If so, could you be so good as to provide me the text of your correspondence that she would have been responding to?

Thank your for your attention and assistance.

Jeff

So we'll see what, if anything, comes back.

 

[Spartanmack]

maybe in the US they're not as extreme, but they're basically as Right Wing as you can get in the Catholic church internationally, no?

also, maybe I'm attributing actions of a few members to the whole; I assumed they were in lock-step organizationally like the Jesuits, but maybe they're more like a college frat, where you have the drunk guy, the stoner, the ladies man, the slob, the preppy guy, etc. and they're all connected in name only.

I don't know, but I don't think they're much different overseas. I think views on OD are mostly based on rumor and misinformation from sources like the Da Vinci code. I came across this by googling "Opus Dei view on homsexuality"

http://experienceswithopusdei.blogspot.com/2009/07/gay-magazine-interview-with-opus-dei.html

Didn't read the whole thing, but I doubt he takes a hard right turn after saying this...

"You must never discriminate against someone because all people have the same dignity so you must not discriminate against anyone on the basis of who they are, what they are or what they do. Obviously if they commit crimes like murder you put them in prison because they are dangerous."

"But the Catholic church believes that some actions are sinful, for example sex outside of marriage or between two men but this is not discriminating against the people because it has this idea that sex was for marriage, marriage is for a man and a woman, for them to stay together for the rest of their lives and procreate and so on. This is an idea shared by many not just Catholics."

Surprising me slightly, he adds: "It doesn't say the homosexual orientation is sinful," "but" he carefully adds that "homosexual sex acts are sinful as are heterosexual acts outside of marriage. But the church doesn't have a problem with sinners, its in the business of helping sinners."

 

[byco42]

get real. regardless of what you think of the outcome, the writing and reasoning in Scalia's dissent make Kennedy's opinion look like it was written by Socrates, Thomas Jefferson, Einstein, and Oliver Wendell Holmes rolled into one.

Kennedy's is a muddled and convoluted attempt to defend the indefensible and testimonial that SCOTUS never should have agreed to hear this case.

Scalia's dissent identifies the true relevance of this decision.

 

[Michchamp]

Kennedy's is a muddled and convoluted attempt to defend the indefensible and testimonial that SCOTUS never should have agreed to hear this case.

Scalia's dissent identifies the true relevance of this decision.

how exactly should the Supreme Court not have agreed to take this case?

like I responded to jdilco on the other forum there, it's more or less exactly the sort of petition they should agree to hear... you have a right being denied to some citizens and granted to others based on their state of residence, that affects federal tax policy, among other things.

hear that shit! adjudicate it wisely. let justice be done.

 

[turok]

Most if not all Christian faiths that we see today were the result of their founders rejecting, dissenting, and objecting to the rule of the Pope and the Vatican/Holy See. There were also many "false" and "anti" Popes during the Middle Ages as well, but I admittedly have not spent any time (yet) reading about or researching them, but I imagine that it is possible that they exerted some influence on causing these former RC "spinoffs"

It seems to me that these "false"if not outright blasphemous Christian faiths should be subject to the same faith-based opposition/considerations that agnostics, athiests, pagans, Wiccans, homosexuals, and the like. Why should a company owned by a faithful and practicing Roman Catholic(s) do business with or provide services for these "heretics?"

After all they in particular should know better, or have been taught that their Christian faith was the result of someone believing that he or she could do better, if not even be far piously superior to the RCC?