McConnell: Congress can't roll back gay marriage decision

[Bigun]

Welcome to John Roberts’ America, Where Words Mean Nothing

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s lament last week that “words no longer have meaning” got me to thinking. I don’t claim to know Chief Justice John Roberts’ motivations in deciding in favor of Obamacare, but I do know that his deconstruction of the meaning of language is increasingly commonplace in our culture. Could his willingness to bend the meaning of the word “states” indicate something larger than what’s happening to the law? Could it actually be a sign of a major cultural shift in the country?

Welcome to postmodern America. For decades now, we have been living in a culture where the meaning of words is stretched almost beyond recognition. “Metanarratives” ring truer than actual facts. Self-prescribed identities trump everything, including nature. A white woman can blithely claim she is black, but when challenged, the only thing she can muster in her defense is irritable confusion and a declaration of how she “identifies.” A man announces he’s a woman and is celebrated as a hero.

Chief Justice Roberts may have had legal and political reasons for ignoring the common usage of words, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that, like so many others in our culture, he felt that being a stickler for a word’s actual meaning was just pedantic, a trivial matter when compared to the importance of some larger cause—in his case, delivering what he thought Congress really intended.

And why should we blame him? After all, if the prevailing wisdom says that a person’s gender or race is what he or she says it is, then why fuss over the meaning of the word “states”? Words mean what we say they mean, right?

For quite some time our intellectual classes have told us that truth lies only in the interpretation of language. Under the spell of postmodernist philosophers like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, our scholars have been deconstructing language and society for decades. The result is that today many people don’t care what others think a given word means.

But there is a problem. If white literally means black, which used to be dismissed as a kind of joke, then who’s to say that anything, including what Rachel Dolezal or Bruce Jenner believe, is true? What and who is to separate reality from delusion? If reality is truly relative, then Dolezal’s parents’ word about her white identity is just as good as Rachel’s. The whole debate is nonsensical, and yet our media took it quite seriously.

All of which explains the current obsession with political symbolism. No matter what you may think of the Confederate battle flag, there is something weird about our fixation on it. You’d almost think that the flag itself marched into that Charleston church and killed those innocent worshippers. Yes, it’s a symbol of racial hatred, and for that reason alone it should not be displayed in ways that give offense. But surely we would be deluding ourselves if we were to think that banning every Confederate flag would somehow eliminate racial hatred in America.

The same is true for same-sex marriages. The Supreme Court may believe that all states must recognize it as a constitutional right, but that will not change how a majority of Americans involved in traditional marriages will see the “truth” of their own unions. An enduring reality will survive no matter how much courts or intellectuals try to change it.

Reality is not a Rorschach test. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar. We may think that we can change the meaning of words and institutions at will, but in the long run an undertow of reality brings us back to earth.

Friedrich Nietzsche, the philosopher of the “will to power,” once said, “All things are subject to interpretation [and] whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”

So true. Last week the Supreme Court chose power over truth—and the meaning of words—twice.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/05/welcome-to-john-roberts-america-where-words-mean-nothing/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

[truth_seeker]

Moral values ARE American values.

There is no true liberty without a moral construct, and if you carry libertarianism to its logical conclusion, you have anarchy.

Take away the structure, and you're left with chaos.

All based on the opinion of a "literalist" interpretation to the Bible, a position held by ONLY about 30% of Christians.

Essentially what we are being told is that the nation's civil laws MUST reflect the religious beliefs of evangelical fundamentalist Christians, but may not reflect the position of more moderate Christians.

(I already know the first rejoinder is "then they aren't true Christians")

[MACVSOG68]

I understand that homosexual marriage is no big deal to you, MAC, but as a reflection of the complete disintegration of the fabric of American values, it IS a big deal to a lot of us.

As far as relating it to your 'list of political goals,'  I'm not sure that your individual laissez faire opinion is what should be driving the debate.  I think, rather, that the moral destruction of America is something that needs to be part of the debate, and I, for one, am thankful that there are at least some of our Republican candidates who have the courage to go against the bullying of the left and talk about the subject like adults.

I think, at least somewhere deep down, you understand that leftist bullying is a problem in this country.

I just don't think you recognize that that's what they've done to get their way on this particular subject.

The problem I see is that as I've mentioned up-thread, there are far more moral issues that are bringing down our Nation than two people of the same sex who happen to love each other.  I voted for a ban on same-sex marriage in my state, but since that time, both the public and the courts have seen it differently.  And I also know that even if by some strange set of circumstances, the SCOTUS decision were to be reversed, that the moral decline of our Country would not be turned around.  Nor do I think issues like the economy, jobs, spending, debt, energy and national security are just "my list". 

But yes, I despise the left and its bullying tactics.  Some on the right do the same thing though.

[musiclady]

All based on the opinion of a "literalist" interpretation to the Bible, a position held by ONLY about 30% of Christians.

Essentially what we are being told is that the nation's civil laws MUST reflect the religious beliefs of evangelical fundamentalist Christians, but may not reflect the position of more moderate Christians.

(I already know the first rejoinder is "then they aren't true Christians")

You're making the bizarre assumption that the only people who are moral are Christians.

Bizarre.

[musiclady]

The problem I see is that as I've mentioned up-thread, there are far more moral issues that are bringing down our Nation than two people of the same sex who happen to love each other.  I voted for a ban on same-sex marriage in my state, but since that time, both the public and the courts have seen it differently.  And I also know that even if by some strange set of circumstances, the SCOTUS decision were to be reversed, that the moral decline of our Country would not be turned around.  Nor do I think issues like the economy, jobs, spending, debt, energy and national security are just "my list". 

But yes, I despise the left and its bullying tactics.  Some on the right do the same thing though.

The problem is that the bullies on the left are in charge, and they're winning.

The polls you so revere are proof  of that.

[MACVSOG68]

The problem is that the bullies on the left are in charge, and they're winning.

The polls you so revere are proof  of that.

Musiclady, can't you say anything without sarcasm?  I don't revere polls, but I don't deny them either.  I wouldn't vote for someone who didn't support my positions.  Why shouldn't the politicians at least pay some attention to what people want?  Isn't that what representative government is all about?  Shouldn't government be responsible and accountable to the people? 

[musiclady]

Musiclady, can't you say anything without sarcasm?  I don't revere polls, but I don't deny them either.  I wouldn't vote for someone who didn't support my positions.  Why shouldn't the politicians at least pay some attention to what people want?  Isn't that what representative government is all about?  Shouldn't government be responsible and accountable to the people?

Oh, for heaven's sake.  Be tough enough to handle a little mild sarcasm, will you?

You talk about the polls incessantly and use them to defend the positions that you argue.  All the time.

Stop being so stinking sensitive that you can't handle the word 'revere' without whining.

(I HATE whining. )

[Luis Gonzalez]

You're making the bizarre assumption that the only people who are moral are Christians.

Bizarre.

No, what's bizarre was your equating consensual sex between adults to murder and theft.

[MACVSOG68]

Oh, for heaven's sake.  Be tough enough to handle a little mild sarcasm, will you?

You talk about the polls incessantly and use them to defend the positions that you argue.  All the time.

Stop being so stinking sensitive that you can't handle the word 'revere' without whining.

(I HATE whining. )

You HATE a lot.  But that's okay.  Incessant condescension isn't a family value.

When someone points out what they believe Americans want, I do go to the polling to see if they're right.  If it bothers you so much, as it seems to bother many here, don't respond to me.  I know gay marriage is being blamed by some as the focal point of every evil in America today, but that's simply nonsense.  We had a plethora of moral issues before the same-sex marriage issue really took root, and we'll continue well after this brouhaha is over.  And they are doing a lot more damage to this Country than SSM. 

And for heaven's sake, quit whining about my use of the polls.    Nighty-nite.   

[Luis Gonzalez]

Moral values ARE American values.

There is no true liberty without a moral construct, and if you carry libertarianism to its logical conclusion, you have anarchy.

Take away the structure, and you're left with chaos.

Jus as if you carry religious morality to its logical conclusion you have tyranny.

We are a country that was built on individualism and individual liberty. Society has no rights, only individuals have rights. Your rights under the First Amwndment are all individual rights.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Welcome to John Roberts’ America, Where Words Mean Nothing

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s lament last week that “words no longer have meaning” got me to thinking. I don’t claim to know Chief Justice John Roberts’ motivations in deciding in favor of Obamacare, but I do know that his deconstruction of the meaning of language is increasingly commonplace in our culture. Could his willingness to bend the meaning of the word “states” indicate something larger than what’s happening to the law? Could it actually be a sign of a major cultural shift in the country?

Welcome to postmodern America. For decades now, we have been living in a culture where the meaning of words is stretched almost beyond recognition. “Metanarratives” ring truer than actual facts. Self-prescribed identities trump everything, including nature. A white woman can blithely claim she is black, but when challenged, the only thing she can muster in her defense is irritable confusion and a declaration of how she “identifies.” A man announces he’s a woman and is celebrated as a hero.

Chief Justice Roberts may have had legal and political reasons for ignoring the common usage of words, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that, like so many others in our culture, he felt that being a stickler for a word’s actual meaning was just pedantic, a trivial matter when compared to the importance of some larger cause—in his case, delivering what he thought Congress really intended.

And why should we blame him? After all, if the prevailing wisdom says that a person’s gender or race is what he or she says it is, then why fuss over the meaning of the word “states”? Words mean what we say they mean, right?

For quite some time our intellectual classes have told us that truth lies only in the interpretation of language. Under the spell of postmodernist philosophers like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, our scholars have been deconstructing language and society for decades. The result is that today many people don’t care what others think a given word means.

But there is a problem. If white literally means black, which used to be dismissed as a kind of joke, then who’s to say that anything, including what Rachel Dolezal or Bruce Jenner believe, is true? What and who is to separate reality from delusion? If reality is truly relative, then Dolezal’s parents’ word about her white identity is just as good as Rachel’s. The whole debate is nonsensical, and yet our media took it quite seriously.

All of which explains the current obsession with political symbolism. No matter what you may think of the Confederate battle flag, there is something weird about our fixation on it. You’d almost think that the flag itself marched into that Charleston church and killed those innocent worshippers. Yes, it’s a symbol of racial hatred, and for that reason alone it should not be displayed in ways that give offense. But surely we would be deluding ourselves if we were to think that banning every Confederate flag would somehow eliminate racial hatred in America.

The same is true for same-sex marriages. The Supreme Court may believe that all states must recognize it as a constitutional right, but that will not change how a majority of Americans involved in traditional marriages will see the “truth” of their own unions. An enduring reality will survive no matter how much courts or intellectuals try to change it.

Reality is not a Rorschach test. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar. We may think that we can change the meaning of words and institutions at will, but in the long run an undertow of reality brings us back to earth.

Friedrich Nietzsche, the philosopher of the “will to power,” once said, “All things are subject to interpretation [and] whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”

So true. Last week the Supreme Court chose power over truth—and the meaning of words—twice.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/05/welcome-to-john-roberts-america-where-words-mean-nothing/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

Are you serious?

Joh  Roberts has twice made the argument that if people want laws changed they need to vote people that will change those laws into Congress.

You want a SCOTUS that both lacks judicial review powers AND has them when it suits your purposes.

Why John Roberts' ObamaCare decision is a conservative one

By Noah Millman

Yesterday, for the second time, the Supreme Court declined to overturn the health care law that was the signature legislative achievement of President Obama's first term. In a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court determined that, notwithstanding the wording of the law, Congress plainly did not intend to exclude those enrolled in federal health insurance exchanges from federal subsidies. It said the law should be interpreted in light of Congress' intent rather than according to the strict letter of the statute.

Conservative activists will undoubtedly be surprised and outraged — surprised that Roberts proved "unreliable" once again, and outraged at his decision to go against the plain meaning of the statute. But inasmuch as they are surprised and outraged, this reflects a basic misunderstanding of what the court is, and does.

The popular image of the court's function is to limit the power of government, with conservatives and liberals taking different views on where those limits should be drawn strictly and where loosely (and libertarians saying they should be drawn strictly everywhere). But this is obviously impossible, because the court is itself a part of our system of government. According to the court a unique charism to discern the true meaning of the Constitution, and a unique appreciation for the limits it imposes, is to treat the justices as precisely the philosopher kings that conservatives in other contexts purport to abhor.

The difficulty with having the Supreme Court strike down legislation produced by a democratically elected majority cannot be answered by reference to the sanctity of the Constitution. (After all, all branches of government are guided by this document, which, by the way, does not enumerate among the court's powers the right to strike down legislation.) Nor can it be answered by reference to some hermeneutical rule (originalism, or strict construction, or anything else) that places the court above suspicion — because suspicion is, itself, a social and political matter, not a matter of objective fact.

Rather, the counter-majoritarian difficulty can only be answered pragmatically, by reference to the proper functioning of the government. There are a variety of possible such defenses, some more conservative (e.g., Madison's defense of the separation of powers) and some more liberal (such as John Hart Ely's hermeneutic of democratic inclusion). But they all boil down to this: We want the government to work this way and that requires that we have a court that plays this role.

So: How should we look at King v. Burwell from that perspective?

Critics say that if Congress wanted to amend the law to cure this apparent error in the text, it has the power to do so — so there's no reason for the court to step in. In fact, by doing so, the court is usurping legislative prerogative. But, by the same token, if Congress is unhappy with how the court has interpreted its intent, and truly wished there to be no federal subsidies, it has the power to write an explicit exclusion into the law, which the court would unquestionably honor. If we presume that Congress is functioning normally, then the stakes for this case are exceptionally low, and it hardly matters how the court decides.

The stakes are significant only because Congress is not functioning normally. Nobody believes that, if the court ruled that the subsidies were illegal, Congress would quickly set to work remedying its error. The practical consequence of the court ruling for the plaintiffs would have been to create chaos, and what legislation might emerge from that chaos is anybody's guess.

What might be the justification for ushering in that chaos? The only justification advanced is a rigid rule: Words mean what they mean, and the court's job is simply to enforce that fact. But there is ample evidence that this is not the case — prima facie, that the people who voted for the law in question don't think their words meant what the plaintiffs say they mean. And to say that the court should simply ignore these considerations is to treat a particular hermeneutic as more fundamental than the court's functional purpose under the Constitution.

All of the foregoing is reflected in Justice Roberts' ruling. That ruling is liberal in its construction of the law precisely because it is cognizant of the court's proper role in the Constitutional design — and hence is conservative about exercising the powers at the court's disposal.

Noah Millman is a senior editor and featured blogger at The American Conservative. His work has appeared in First Things, Commentary, The New York Times Book Review, and on The Economist's online blogs. He is also a screenwriter and filmmaker. Before embarking on a second career as a writer, Millman worked for 16 years in finance. He lives in Brooklyn with his wife and son.

[truth_seeker]

Jus as if you carry religious morality to its logical conclusion you have tyranny.

We are a country that was built on individualism and individual liberty. Society has no rights, only individuals have rights. Your rights under the First Amwndment are all individual rights.

That brings to mind the tyranny of Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector, puritan, after which the English people wanted the King and royalty back after all.
My guess is that English experience played a role in our founders, some deists, who wanted religion held separate from the state. And for very good reason.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That brings to mind the tyranny of Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector, puritan, after which the English people wanted the King and royalty back after all.
My guess is that English experience played a role in our founders, some deists, who wanted religion held separate from the state. And for very good reason.

Thomas Jefferson, a man of many achievements, has only three of them inscribed on his tombstone:

Here was buried
Thomas Jefferson
Author of the Declaration of American Independence
of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom
& Father of the University of Virginia

As much as I love the Declaration of Independence, this is what I believe was his greatest work

An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom
Enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia
January 16, 1786

Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of wor[l]dly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgement; and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation such act will be an infringement of natural right.

[Paladin]

(1) Polls, is it? Then why don't these polls matter to the proSSM advocates?

Did you know that  just 3 American States voted in favour of Gay Marriage (Maine , Maryland and Washington) while 31 States voted against it .

In 31 States , the American People  went to the polls and voted against gay marriage by way of Referendum

.

http://www.freebiesireland.com/Articles/183/politics/USA-31-States-voted-against-gay-marriage-3-voted-in-favour-1-in-4-Americans-want-to-leave-Union./l4458593/

That's a pretty clear indication of how the people feel about the issue. Not that it matters. 6 black robed political appointees know better in this land where government is "of the people, by the people, for the people.".

(2) Recommended reading: An opinion piece by one of my favorite bloggers regarding the decline of (oh, the horror!) moral standards here in the good ole USA. Incorporates more than just SSM and recalls to mind John Adam's wise dictum

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/no-america-is-not-a-great-nation/

(3) MACVSOG68, knock off the ad hominem arguments and the school yard threats:

But in the future take a swing at me and I'll swing right back.

(page 2)

[musiclady]

You HATE a lot.  But that's okay.  Incessant condescension isn't a family value.

When someone points out what they believe Americans want, I do go to the polling to see if they're right.  If it bothers you so much, as it seems to bother many here, don't respond to me.  I know gay marriage is being blamed by some as the focal point of every evil in America today, but that's simply nonsense.  We had a plethora of moral issues before the same-sex marriage issue really took root, and we'll continue well after this brouhaha is over.  And they are doing a lot more damage to this Country than SSM. 

And for heaven's sake, quit whining about my use of the polls.    Nighty-nite.

What a funny thing to wake up to, MAC.  There is no hatred in anything I say (other than for the radical left, of course, and I even try to guard that), but your defense of your own hyper-sensitivity is once again, notable.

You love polls.  You depend on polls.

And you're hyper-sensitive about any comments that point out your dependence on other people's opinions for your own. 

It doesn't bother me that much that you need polls to defend yourself.  It more amuses me.

I thought we were having an adult conversation, until you started your silly whining, which, once again, amused me.

And I did have a good night.  Hope you did too!   

[musiclady]

Jus as if you carry religious morality to its logical conclusion you have tyranny.

We are a country that was built on individualism and individual liberty. Society has no rights, only individuals have rights. Your rights under the First Amwndment are all individual rights.

And, of course, no one here has ever argued for tyranny.

Setting up a straw dog argument doesn't further your case, Luis.

The Founders knew that freedom with no moral construct would result in the end of the Republic.  And that's what's happening right now. 

Our individual rights are being eroded by the tyranny of the radical left, whose cause includes, but is not confined to, the erosion of our morality.

Interesting personal side-note......   I just got back from an overseas trip that included a visit to my grandparents' birthplace where the government and the church were one entity.

It's why they came here to America.  To be free.

The idea that I'm arguing on behalf of religious tyranny is so absurd that it doesn't even deserve comment.

[MACVSOG68]

(1) Polls, is it? Then why don't these polls matter to the proSSM advocates?
 .

http://www.freebiesireland.com/Articles/183/politics/USA-31-States-voted-against-gay-marriage-3-voted-in-favour-1-in-4-Americans-want-to-leave-Union./l4458593/

That's a pretty clear indication of how the people feel about the issue. Not that it matters. 6 black robed political appointees know better in this land where government is "of the people, by the people, for the people.".

I was one of those who voted for my state to ban SSM a few years ago.  I find the thought of two guys doing their thing repulsive.  But I also recognize that they, along with heterosexual couples have a right to privacy.  I also recognize that since those votes, the people in general have come to accept SSM.  I guess for one thing, it hasn't ruined any heterosexual marriages that I'm familiar with.  And in any case, it doesn't matter what a state law says, the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it includes the 14th Amendment which forbids unequal application of the law and requires due process. 

(2) Recommended reading: An opinion piece by one of my favorite bloggers regarding the decline of (oh, the horror!) moral standards here in the good ole USA. Incorporates more than just SSM and recalls to mind John Adam's wise dictum 

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/no-america-is-not-a-great-nation/

I also see a tremendous decline in the moral substance of this Country.  Fewer and fewer marriages, children engaging in sex at earlier ages, married couples stepping out on each other, more out-of-wedlock births, divorces, child abuse, increases in drugs, increases in sexually transmitted diseases, more and more violent games, more and more sexually and violence oriented movies and music.  So when it comes to two same-sex people who want to spend their lives together, I realize we have far greater moral problems to deal with.

(3) MACVSOG68, knock off the ad hominem arguments and the school yard threats: 

But in the future take a swing at me and I'll swing right back.
(page 2)

   It is what it is.  Take it for what you think it's worth Paladin. 

[MACVSOG68]

What a funny thing to wake up to, MAC.  There is no hatred in anything I say (other than for the radical left, of course, and I even try to guard that), but your defense of your own hyper-sensitivity is once again, notable.

You love polls.  You depend on polls.

And you're hyper-sensitive about any comments that point out your dependence on other people's opinions for your own. 

It doesn't bother me that much that you need polls to defend yourself.  It more amuses me.

I thought we were having an adult conversation, until you started your silly whining, which, once again, amused me.

And I did have a good night.  Hope you did too!   

I had a great night after the US women trounced Japan!  Go USA 

If anyone is obsessed with polls ML, it seems to be you.  We have been discussing what America believes about gay marriage.  Do you not think the polls should be a consideration absent any other evidence?  When told the polls were wrong I asked for any evidence to the contrary?  There was none offered.  There are a number of posters here who truly fear seeing a change in attitudes among the voting population.  So when they see it, they just deny it.  It's fine, but it doesn't add a lot to their argument.

Allow me to clarify something for you.  Instead of turning a debate from the subject to me, why not for once argue the issue.  If you think a poll is wrong, point out why.  Get away from such stupid charges about the strengths and weaknesses of my opinions.  They matter not a whit in debates like this.  Only the evidence and conclusions I present. 

Try it.  It will be different.  And you may grow to like that debate style.

Later. 

[musiclady]

I had a great night after the US women trounced Japan!  Go USA 

If anyone is obsessed with polls ML, it seems to be you.  We have been discussing what America believes about gay marriage.  Do you not think the polls should be a consideration absent any other evidence?  When told the polls were wrong I asked for any evidence to the contrary?  There was none offered.  There are a number of posters here who truly fear seeing a change in attitudes among the voting population.  So when they see it, they just deny it.  It's fine, but it doesn't add a lot to their argument.

Allow me to clarify something for you.  Instead of turning a debate from the subject to me, why not for once argue the issue.  If you think a poll is wrong, point out why.  Get away from such stupid charges about the strengths and weaknesses of my opinions.  They matter not a whit in debates like this.  Only the evidence and conclusions I present. 

Try it.  It will be different.  And you may grow to like that debate style.

Later.

GREAT game.  I love it when the team I'm rooting for takes control and never loses it.  They did America PROUD!

For the record.....I'm not going to go point by point to refute the points you've tried to make here because you are clearly very sensitive and the only one on this forum for whom I feel I need to walk on eggshells because you will be offended, and it takes too much work to try to avoid the things that set you off.

I have been debating this issue rationally, as I always do, and if you can't take a little gentle sarcasm about your need to defend yourself with polls, then it's just not worth the bother to engage with you.  There are plenty of people on this forum who can deal with a little razzing, and there's plenty of hardcore slugging that goes on that I'm not ever involved in which people seem to survive.

I think it's best for me not to try to engage with you in debate of this issue because I pretty much know where you stand (with the polls), and you pretty much know where I stand on moral issues and their importance to the survival of this once great Republic, and it's just not worth it for me to be worrying every time we discuss something that I'll say something that will offend your singularly tender sensibilities.

Also......I don't need to defend your strange personal attacks here (hatred?? c'mon, man!) because everyone on this forum knows they're not accurate, so....

Peace.

[musiclady]

No, what's bizarre was your equating consensual sex between adults to murder and theft.

That has nothing to do with my response to truth_seeker, who has a problem with equating any form of morality with evangelical Christian tyranny......... which actually IS bizarre.

And you're reaching so hard to make an argument against me here that it just makes you look dumb, Luis.

And I know you're not.

The left has argued against 'legislating morality' for decades, while ignoring the fact that many of our laws involve morality.

That was my point, and you knew it.

You're not dumb.

[Bigun]

Are you serious?

Joh  Roberts has twice made the argument that if people want laws changed they need to vote people that will change those laws into Congress.

You want a SCOTUS that both lacks judicial review powers AND has them when it suits your purposes.

NOT true Luis! But if they are going to engage in Judicial review regardless of the fact that they are nowhere granted that power then they ought to do it correctly instead of making it up as they go like they are currently doing!

[Luis Gonzalez]

NOT true Luis! But if they are going to engage in Judicial review regardless of the fact that they are nowhere granted that power then they ought to do it correctly instead of making it up as they go like they are currently doing!

And you of course, gets to decide what is an what isn't correct, all of it according to your agenda.

God, Mother Theresa, Kreskin and Judge Wapner all rolled into one.

[MACVSOG68]

GREAT game.  I love it when the team I'm rooting for takes control and never loses it.  They did America PROUD!

For the record.....I'm not going to go point by point to refute the points you've tried to make here because you are clearly very sensitive and the only one on this forum for whom I feel I need to walk on eggshells because you will be offended, and it takes too much work to try to avoid the things that set you off.

The only thing that sets me off Musiclady, is turning the debate from the issue to me.  My motives, intelligence or dependencies are irrelevant.  If I bring up a poll, show me were its weaknesses are; leave me out of it.  We'll get along fine.

I have been debating this issue rationally, as I always do, and if you can't take a little gentle sarcasm about your need to defend yourself with polls, then it's just not worth the bother to engage with you.  There are plenty of people on this forum who can deal with a little razzing, and there's plenty of hardcore slugging that goes on that I'm not ever involved in which people seem to survive.

I think it's best for me not to try to engage with you in debate of this issue because I pretty much know where you stand (with the polls), and you pretty much know where I stand on moral issues and their importance to the survival of this once great Republic, and it's just not worth it for me to be worrying every time we discuss something that I'll say something that will offend your singularly tender sensibilities.

Well that's where you err here.  Looking at polls and having concerns about the moral decline of our Nation are not mutually exclusive.  If you think I don't have concerns about the decline in morality, you haven't been reading my posts.  Here's one from this thread:

I also see a tremendous decline in the moral substance of this Country.  Fewer and fewer marriages, children engaging in sex at earlier ages, married couples stepping out on each other, more out-of-wedlock births, divorces, child abuse, increases in drugs, increases in sexually transmitted diseases, more and more violent games, more and more sexually and violence oriented movies and music.  So when it comes to two same-sex people who want to spend their lives together, I realize we have far greater moral problems to deal with.

With all of that going on, why would I want our GOP candidates to focus on a gay-marriage decision by the Court that is now the law of the land, especially when most Americans agree with it?

That's my motivation, and the argument should be against the points I made, not me.  I do sense that some here are afraid that their maybe these polls are reflecting that Americans are no longer interested in going after their favorite whipping boy, SSM.  After all no one here has condemned the polls showing most Americans favor the right to guns, or favor limited abortions, or feel most of Obama's policies have failed.  It's just this one.  Hmmm.   

Also......I don't need to defend your strange personal attacks here (hatred?? c'mon, man!) because everyone on this forum knows they're not accurate, so....

Peace.

LOL.  You said it; I just agreed with you.  As you said to me, don't be so sensitive. 

Have a good day.

[truth_seeker]

That has nothing to do with my response to truth_seeker, who has a problem with equating any form of morality with evangelical Christian tyranny......... which actually IS bizarre.

Your system elevated Josh Duggar to an authority level, to speak on behalf of evangelical Christianity's "popes and potentates," about morality, family values, marriage and homosexuality.

I find that bizarre. Plenty of others do, too.

In the olde world people fought wars lasting decades, over religion. When they got to America, they got off on almost the same foot.

However by the time the founding documents were written, religion was taken away from absolute power alongside the state.

Neither Benny Hinn or Michelle Bachmann's husband can "heal" the gays. Most people now days believe they were made that way by God.

If one reads the Bible literally, the earth is 6,000 years old and in early days people lived for hundreds of years. Fortunately a majority of Christians do NOT read the Bible literally.

The Bible was used to justify slavery in America. Therefore the Bible is not infallible, as a source for morality.

[musiclady]

Your system elevated Josh Duggar to an authority level, to speak on behalf of evangelical Christianity's "popes and potentates," about morality, family values, marriage and homosexuality.

I find that bizarre. Plenty of others do, too.

In the olde world people fought wars lasting decades, over religion. When they got to America, they got off on almost the same foot.

However by the time the founding documents were written, religion was taken away from absolute power alongside the state.

Neither Benny Hinn or Michelle Bachmann's husband can "heal" the gays. Most people now days believe they were made that way by God.

If one reads the Bible literally, the earth is 6,000 years old and in early days people lived for hundreds of years. Fortunately a majority of Christians do NOT read the Bible literally.

The Bible was used to justify slavery in America. Therefore the Bible is not infallible, as a source for morality.

As I said previously, my grandparents came to America to escape the very kinds of things you accuse me of supporting.  The idea that I am asking for some sort of religious tyranny is just weird.

And dead wrong.

In addition, you have brought into the discussion a number of completely irrelevant personal feelings of yours (many of which are not based in fact, btw) that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

But to my original point to you.  You insinuated that the only people in the world who try to live moral lives are Evangelical Christians, and that everyone calling for moral constructs for society is some kind of wacko.  My point is that there are moral laws which our Founding Fathers recognized (and, in case you don't know it, Ben Franklin wasn't much of a fundamentalist), and which, if lived by, will allow for a stronger, and more just America.  There are many people outside conservative Christianity who recognize the need to live by a moral code outside of one's own desires.

That's what I've been talking about here.