Marriage, Equality, Laws

I love to hear thoughts, opinions, points, debate, and would like to offer the one's I liked best, that made sense to me.

Daniel Greenbaum

I'm reading the OBERGEFELL v. HODGES decision (i.e. same sex marriage) just handed down by Scotus this morning. Before anyone jumps into this conversation I would request that you ask yourself the following questions: 1. Have you read the actual decision(even the actual summary)? 2. Do you understand constitutional law even a small amount? 3. Are you a bigot? and

4. Why the heck is marriage anyone's business besides the people getting married?

With that said, my take is that both sides have very valid arguments. While I am in favor of same-sex marriage, I also believe that it should come from the states-- the elected officials of those states-- not from these Justices (however, wise they may be). This is an unfortunate piece of "bench legislation," since it does not spell out how the states are supposed to enact marriage protections. In fact, Ohio has made it clear that they will make marriage for same sex couples difficult to achieve (i.e. through regs, etc.)

The decision is remarkably well written and does a great deal of justice (no pun intended) to the arguments on both sides of this case (and the overall debate raging in this nation). I was especially pleased to see the Court making the distinction between "marriage" and the values underlying marriage. By bringing out those distinctions, it becomes clearer that preventing same sex couples from marriage denies them the ability to execute deeply held values, and is not-- as so many surface opponents like to jibe-- about "eroding marriage" or morals or whatever nonsense hate mongers like to spread.

So for those reasons, good for Scotus.

My lingering concern is how this will impact the establishment and exercises clauses of the First Amendment: If a Church or social hall or photographer chooses to exercise their right to religion and NOT support any same sex marriage, will they be able to be targeted under this case? In the past, same sex couples have won lawsuits under such facts. That seems to be a violation of the first amendment.

Ultimately, the decision is the fair and equitable one, and yet Scalia's dissent is also important: this should have come from the state or federal legislatures, not from SCOTUS.

However, sometimes the bench has to see where the country is moving and make a decision based on that. Many of their decisions were based upon morality as well as law, and strict adherence to law sometimes has handicapped them.

I celebrate this decision with all same sex couples-- friends, family and those unknown to me-- and I hope we can move forward into a wonderful new USA, whatever that will look like. (Hint: nothing is going to change for anyone else.)

Daniel Ferszt

My previous post was directed at what I believe to be a blatant judicial overreach by SCOTUS, and the unravelling of States Rights. On this post, I will discuss the ramifications, if any, of the same-sex marriage ruling.

My religion does not condone or even permit homosexual relations (Judaism does not consider it a sin to be gay, only “the act”). This is not a problem for me, because I’m not gay; however, I understand what it’s like to love someone, and the desire to share your life with someone you love. Furthermore, I also recognize that this is America, and I’m fairly “libertarian” (whatever that means anymore) on most issues. I also have had, and continue to have, many friends that are gay, and I empathize with any struggles they’ve had thus far.

That being said, I still believe that it’s important that certain questions are answered regarding what is now “the law of the land.” I have seen people smeared for asking these questions, being called “bigoted” and “intolerant.” But, if there was suddenly a law declared by the SCOTUS stating that we were all getting free houses this week, would you run around saying, “Yeah! I’m getting a house!” or would you ask questions: Why am I getting a house? Who’s paying for the house? Are there higher taxes involved? Is it a new house, or will I be stuck with repairs? What if I own an apartment building, condo, or duplex? And so on.

Same goes here. I have questions:

Will religious institutions be protected? I know many wonderful Rabbis who have made it their life’s mission to help others. However, they will not preside over a same sex marriage, because their (our) religion does not permit them to do so. This has nothing to do with hate or bigotry; it has to do with acting in the guidelines of their (our) faith. Will they be protected? Will there be lawsuits? Will their tax exempt statuses be pulled? There are no promises here.

To expound on the first question, what about businesses? For example, I think what happened to that Christian bakery was a travesty. It’s one thing to deny someone service on the grounds that they’re gay, but it’s another to say, “Hey, I can bake you a birthday cake, but I cannot bake a cake for your wedding, because my religion does not allow it.” Will they be protected? Will there be lawsuits?

Until last week, the definition of marriage was regarded by society as a union between a man and a woman – now, there is no real clear definition. If four adults claim to love each other and want to be married, there is (now) absolutely no reason why they should not be able to. The same goes with incest. I don’t believe that there’s a threat of pedophilia, because children are protected by the age of consent. But, what if someone wants to marry a cow? Sure, it can be argued that an animal cannot consent, however, as a friend of mine pointed out, “But a cow can consent to being slaughtered and eaten? If a cow could talk, I’m sure he would convey that he’d much rather I marry it than kill it.”

There are other questions, but this post can only go on for so long. Like my last post on the SCOTUS, I only ask that everyone – straight, gay, Jewish, Christian, Atheist, or whatever – sit back, and ponder these questions honestly. I think you will find they all deserve answers.

Elsa Rebekah Monterroso

I will RESPECT other's views, I DO NOT need to accept them. RESPECT IS RESPECT. Therefore, I will state my respect to those who hold opposing views to mine, nonetheless I expect the same respect when I state mine. Torah does not change. I won't change. I will Love my neighbor, as I love myself. I Just don't have to tolerate opposite views. "tolerance" is not always a way out.

Rodgers Ogada

Nairobi, Kenya

My opinion is, if you are strong, speak up for the weak; if you are rich, speak up for the poor; if you are cisgender, speak up for the transgender; if you are white, speak up for other races; if you are human; speak up for other species....be a voice for the voiceless...I am not attacking anyone's freedom of expression, I am just saying that if my needs are secure, it is petty to place my interests alongside those whose needs aren't.

-Kiprop Kimutai.

My thoughts,

To Each Their Own,

To Thine Own Self Be True,

Respect Others,

Know Yourself,

Open Communication,

Love Yourself,
Be The Light,
Inspire,
Uplift,
Positive Energy All Around,

Coach Yulia