The right is wrong. Supreme Court decision has *nothing* to do with religion.

[pinto]

They are going to try and hammer today's ruling into a religious issue. And will likely garner support from their base on that false point. SCOTUS applies to civil, legal and constitutional rights. That's the role of the Supreme Court. They are a civil, legal and constitutional component of our tri-partite democracy.

[AtheistCrusader]

1. That's the problem.

The right wing conservatives will rail on all day long about the evil Iranian theocracy, but they don't even see what they are doing when they claim issues like this as their exclusive property.

Maximum cognitive dissonance achieved, and it seems to be their natural state.

[longship]

2. Yep! I am afraid you are correct.

But the deal is... They have always framed their argument, either explicitly or sotto voce, in religious terms. Just like in the Loving case, it is the only argument they seem to have have.

That's probably because within today's GOP, theocratic roots are both deep and wide. You know, "This is a Christian country!"

They are not going to stop fighting this. Expect a constitutional amendment bill fairly quickly.

R&K

[trotsky]

3. The thing is, it doesn't really matter what you think.

To them, it has everything to do with religion. That's the problem. That's been the problem for a very, very long time.

[cbayer]

4. Was listening to it all morning on the radio.

This religious freedom vs. GLBT rights is a bogus and horrible argument. There are many religious people that fully support civil rights.

They should call themselves what they really are - religiously based bigots.

[skepticscott]

5. The decision is not religiously based

But stop trying to pretend that the ongoing opposition to same-sex marriage isn't motivated by religion.

[Heddi]

6. Three bigots at work today were actually *CRYING*

because they just knew their hate-mongering preachers at their hate-mongering churches were going to immediately be thrown in jail (their words, their fears) because they refused to perform same-sex marriages. They just knew it to be true. From their lips, all day, were these tales of preachers being rounded up and thrown in jail, churches being closed, burned down, Christians being put in jail. This was very much their fear, and one of them even heard of it happening! Already! A friend had gotten a text from another friend and that friend had heard from someone that a pastor at another church somewhere was arrested and put in jail for not performing a same-sex marriage and that their church was going to be closed down.

I felt really sorry for these women. Then I remembered that their fears were absolute bullshit and I felt less bad for them and more bad for the rest of the planet for having to share air with these morons.

[AlbertCat]

7. They'll enjoy their persecution complex immensely!

It gives them another reason to think they are oh so special. Like being apprehensive about going to church because of racially motivated murders.

Persecution envy.....

Is that a clinical condition? It should be it's so delusional.

[AlbertCat]

8. *nothing* to do with religion.

I'm not sure this is entirely true.

Since the ONLY opposition left against homosexuality is religion. There are no more social or medical or scientific oppositions.

The ENTIRE opposition is religion based. So the very fact the Supreme Court (and other courts) even heard these cases is because of religion. The decisions are another proof that this is not a country with laws based on religion. That religion has not the power to enable the state or people of any kind to treat other people as 2nd class citizens.

The inevitable and ensuing refusals to uphold the law will also be totally religious based as well.

[pinto]

9. Disagree. SCOTUS heard the cases, as far as I know, on civil, constitutional grounds as presented.

My "nothing to do with religion" point is just that. The ruling has no affect on religious groups at all - it's a civil finding. No more nor less.

Yeah, the opposition is and will continue to be religion based. As will the media hoopla surrounding the whole thing. Religion will remain a backdrop for the issue. Yet the standing of the court will remain the law. I think Kennedy, surprisingly, made a clear civil argument in his majority statement.

[AlbertCat]

10. And MY point was...

religion is the reason it got to them in the 1st place.

The entire opposition is religious based..... so how can religion have *nothing* to do with it?

[pinto]

11. Maybe I was unclear or used hyperbole unclearly.

Was speaking to the ruling after the fact, i.e. it's real time effect. Not the process that resulted in the case being heard. Was speaking to what we both see as likely - the right framing the decision in religious terms. I hope some voices on the left and in the media will help short circuit that meme.

It's not "an attack on religion". That's what I was speaking to. I think we're on the same page.

(aside) pinto, not a big fan of hyperbole goes there...

[AlbertCat]

12. Not sure it was hyperbole....

..... I would have worded it the same way probably.

But you know how conservatives (and not so conservative religious folk) will suddenly become dense and pedantic about each letter used in such a statement.


The "It's not an attack on religion"... but a civil matter... is right on the money. The Gov needs to get out of the marriage business and just issue the legal part of the agreement and call it "civil unions" or "legal partnerships" or some less religious-sounding word. Let religions have the word "marriage"....but know that it's only the secular legal part that makes it viable in the eyes of the state. The eyes of the lord is all theirs.

[pinto]

13. Yeah, parse, parse, parse. In religious terms it's an unfortunate cousin of Jesuit tradition.

Jesuit tradition is about questioning. But pedantic nihilism is pointless.

Agree 100% on the separation of church and state standard. It's essential and a part of our federal system.