Kasich on Gay Marriage - "We Have a SCOTUS Ruling ... Let's Move On"

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I have no problem if 2 dudes want to get married. But I still have problems with this decision. The constitution doesn't say anything about marriage IMO. That is beyond it's scope, as they say.

That being said, we have two choices:

1) Overturn the decision. This is bad. We should not break precedent IMO. Doing so sets up a back and forth where once you get a conservative majority they overturn all the liberal court's opinions, then 10 years later you get a liberal majority they overturn all the conservative opinions. And so on and so forth. Judicial precedent is a good thing

2) A constitutional amendment that says marriage is to be left up to the states.

Look if you cannot get #2 then you don't have any support for your decision anyway. Either drop it, or try to convince people of the merits of your beliefs. Either way, a presidential candidate does not need to be involved in the discussion whatsoever, since they actually aren't involved in the amendment process IIRC.

Lets concentrate on things that matter, IMO.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Too many on the right cannot separate the religious sacrament of marriage from the government's marriage certificate.

The Supreme Court made no ruling on the religious sacrament.  They only ruled that the governmental certificate must be open to all consenting adults.

It's no different than the Supreme Court ruling that states must provide car titles to lesbian car buyers.  Or hairdresser certifications to gay hairdressers.

 

[HonestJohn]

Let's be honest, John.  Five liberal judges decided that sexual preference is a protected right.  The 4 conservatives disagreed.

It's a liberal ruling that it appears some "conservatives" here agree with in principle.  You hold the literal liberal view of the ruling.

That's the only way *TO* look at it without ceding control over a religious sacrament to the hands of the government.  I don't want a politicians filthy hands on it.  Do you?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Let's be honest, John.  Five liberal judges decided that sexual preference is a protected right.  The 4 conservatives disagreed.

It's a liberal ruling that it appears some "conservatives" here agree with in principle.  You hold the literal liberal view of the ruling.

That's is absolute bunk.

Five Supreme Court Justices found that States cannot deny two consenting adults of sound minds and bodies whose lifestyle is not in any way illegal a license simply based on the general disapproval of another segment of the population.

It's what makes us a Republic. We protect the right of every individual to be treated equally with every other individual.

[jmyrlefuller]

Let's be honest, John.  Five liberal judges decided that sexual preference is a protected right.  The 4 conservatives disagreed.

It's a liberal ruling that it appears some "conservatives" here agree with in principle.  You hold the literal liberal view of the ruling.

And really, this goes back to over a decade ago, when many of the same justices voted in Lawrence v. Texas to declare the act of gay sex a sacred constitutional right and that considering it illegal didn't give homosexuals "dignity." This was a multi-step process to whittle away, bit by bit, any opposition to homosexuality, and it has been led the whole time by the one male member of the court who has never been married despite being in his 70s. Hmm.

Social media, of course, turbocharged the process, because it's easy to convince the masses that anything that feels right must be right.

[jmyrlefuller]

That's is absolute bunk.

Five Supreme Court Justices found that States cannot deny two consenting adults of sound minds and bodies whose lifestyle is not in any way illegal a license simply based on the general disapproval of another segment of the population.

It's what makes us a Republic. We protect the right of every individual to be treated equally with every other individual.

Let me point out that until 2003, it WAS illegal in many states, until the same court declared it legal (see above) and started this whole thing in motion.

[musiclady]

That's the only way *TO* look at it without ceding control over a religious sacrament to the hands of the government.  I don't want a politicians filthy hands on it.  Do you?

If they're state politicians and not USSC justices, yes.  At the very least the states should have the right to make this decision and not have the will of 5 Justices forced on us.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I think that society understanding what man and woman are, and what they are supposed to be, would make a huge improvement in our society's understanding of the world.

Have you somehow become confused on that subject these past thirteen years since same-sex marriage has been legal in the US?

[HonestJohn]

You are good with denying religious liberty though?  Bake that cake?  Sign that certificate.  Cater that perverse union.  Lose that job.  Submit!!!  Why?  Might I guess the reason:  That you personally agree with it.  You win.  Who cares the means or the cost to others?

What religious practices or beliefs are being infringed by baking a cake for a customer?  No one is preventing religious beliefs.  Nor is there any religious practice in Christianity that compels it's practitioners to not provide government certificates to gays/lesbians... or to not bake cakes for them... or not cater food for them, either.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

That's is absolute bunk.

Five Supreme Court Justices found that States cannot deny two consenting adults of sound minds and bodies whose lifestyle is not in any way illegal a license simply based on the general disapproval of another segment of the population.

It's what makes us a Republic. We protect the right of every individual to be treated equally with every other individual.

I do wonder how it stops for polygamists and such.

And even then do you arbitrarily draw the line somewhere? Do we have to recognize if 400 people declare themselves married?

Society has to draw a line somewhere no?

[Luis Gonzalez]

If they're state politicians and not USSC justices, yes.  At the very least the states should have the right to make this decision and not have the will of 5 Justices forced on us.

Same-sex marriage was legal in thirty-eight out of the fifty States at the time the Obergefell ruling came down.

Popular support had topped the 60% mark.

No one really cares about the issue any more.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I do wonder how it stops for polygamists and such.

And even then do you arbitrarily draw the line somewhere? Do we have to recognize if 400 people declare themselves married?

Society has to draw a line somewhere no?

Societies have no rights, only people have rights.

If 400 people declare themselves married, what do you propose we do?

[musiclady]

Same-sex marriage was legal in thirty-eight out of the fifty States at the time the Obergefell ruling came down.

Popular support had topped the 60% mark.

No one really cares about the issue any more.

"No one" is not really accurate. 

I would guess that there was a time when popular support for slavery also topped the 60% mark and people didn't care about it.  Doesn't mean that it was right.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

If 400 people declare themselves married, what do you propose we do?

I'm asking you. Just curious. I don't care if gays get married, btw.

[HonestJohn]

That's crazy.  It's not handing control of a religious sacrament over to the government.  Lots of non religious people get married.  IT IS RECOGNIZING SCIENCE AND REALITY.  Mother and father join together and produce children.  Woman and woman cannot even technically join together short of purchasing a fake male part.  Men have to do it in an unnatural way.  What, are they going to give birth to a poopoo baby?  No.   Sperm and egg must join to make baby.  Male/female.  The more mommy and daddy stick together to raise their children for at least 18 years the more the government does not have to step in.  IT PROMOTES SMALLER GOVERNMENT.

The homos horn in to get benefits and forced approval for what?  For their orgasms?  Cuz there is no other state interest.  Lots of people share the emotion of love between them without having sex at all.  We don't hand them benefits.

Children are not a prerequisite for marriage.  Otherwise, barren women and sterile men would be barred from it.

[HonestJohn]

Societies have no rights, only people have rights.

If 400 people declare themselves married, what do you propose we do?

400 lipstick lesbians and a 'woman' trapped in a man's body.  Hmmm.

I'm in!

 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

400 lipstick lesbians and a 'woman' trapped in a man's body.  Hmmm.

I'm in!

 

Could be that or just a cynical attempt to reap whatever legal benefit, if any, being "married" provides.

It's a little bit of a ridiculous hypothetical, but lets say spousal benefits apply, then you 1000 people to declare themselves married to gain spousal benefits like health insurance. So now companies are required to give health insurance to 1000 people?

My point is this: society has to draw the line somewhere, even if it's arbitrary. Wouldn't you agree?

[ArneFufkin]

That's not what he said.  According to Kasich, if there is a SCOTUS ruling on anything, "let's move on."

Hell even Hillary isn't that wimpy.

The issue is to what extent any President can unilaterally change a SCOTUS ruling.  It's a "gotcha" question.

It's not part of the job description.

Kasich - and all the Pubbies vying for POTUS - should answer this stuff by clearly articulating his commitment to nominating jurists faithful to the Original Intent of the Constitution and let the Court do its job.

[musiclady]

That's a worn out one.  Children are not a prerequisite.  All marriages do not have to produce them.  But the reason the government has an interest in marriage is that most marriages do produce them.  That's the reason.  The issue is not whether all hetero marriages have them.  The issue is that ONLY hetero marriages can have them.  Adoption does not count.  Single people can adopt.  I am talking about society as these United States have always understood it -- family unit comes first.    It is the primary safe guard for raising the next generation without government controlling us cradle to grave.  Even LMNOPee people come into this world by means of one father and one mother.  The more society encourages the staying together of that unit, the better off even the LIMOPees are.  They start as a baby, too -- a heterosexual product.

Another great post.   

[Bigun]

What a principled fighter. He is sure to turn DC around get the country back on track.

Agreed! Can you perhaps give me some guidance as to just when court opinions magically turned into rulings?

[AnybodyButaDem]

That's is absolute bunk.

Five Supreme Court Justices found that States cannot deny two consenting adults of sound minds and bodies whose lifestyle is not in any way illegal a license simply based on the general disapproval of another segment of the population.

It's what makes us a Republic. We protect the right of every individual to be treated equally with every other individual.

It's bunk that the four most Conservative judges on SCOTUS disagree with your opinion on equal treatment under the law?  Hmm, I'm the idiot here?

  Tell me how this is bunk.  Just because you FEEL it is "bunk" doesn't make it so. 

[Bigun]

Reading through the individual responses on this thread has been a very enlightening exercise.  Glad I chose to do that.

[libertybele]

Actually I see the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage as unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution does it lay out provisions/rights or parameters for gay marriage or mention marriage in general.  It is the duty of the SCOTUS to make rulings as to Constitutional law.  They had no business ruling on this issue to begin with. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

"No one" is not really accurate. 

I would guess that there was a time when popular support for slavery also topped the 60% mark and people didn't care about it.  Doesn't mean that it was right.

Slavery was denying people freedom by using the weight of The State.

If there is a correlation between slavery and same-sex marriage is that there are people working hard at using the weight of The State to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry each other.

[AnybodyButaDem]

Actually I see the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage as unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution does it lay out provisions/rights or parameters for gay marriage or mention marriage in general.  It is the duty of the SCOTUS to make rulings as to Constitutional law.  They had no business ruling on this issue to begin with.

That was the primary point of Justice Scalia's stellar and spot-on dissent.

It's the conservative position as well, no matter what Jazzhead and Luis Gonzalez claim in terms of the liberal judges interpretation of what qualifies for constitutionally granted equal protection under the law.