Rubbish! They collapsed because their politico-economic system was superseded by a better one. For example, the British Empire collapsed after WW2 not because it had suddenly become gay (homosexuality was still illegal and enforced then), but because the colonial economic system broke up.
The bottom line is that your constitution enshrines as a right the pursuit of happiness for all, and that's a great ideal so it's good to see the SC uphold it in this case.
The "pursuit of happiness" is part of a statement taken from the Declaration of Independence, it's not in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation of all U.S. law, not the Declaration of Independence.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts writing his opinion today on the courts 5-4 ruling to allow same sex marriage..... "If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it......Today%u2019s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today%u2019s majority claims......I do not doubt that my colleagues in the majority sincerely see in the Constitution a vision of liberty that happens to coincide with their own. But this sincerity is cause for concern, not comfort. What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture%u2019s conception of constitutional interpretation. Most Americans%u2014understandably%u2014will cheer or lament today%u2019s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority%u2019s claim of power portends."
I would like to hear Justice Roberts expand on how equal protection under the law is a "new" right. There is no definition of marriage in the constitution. At least Roberts put forth a professional legal argument contrasted by Scalia's child-like rant of the majority decision.
I would like to hear Justice Roberts expand on how equal protection under the law is a "new" right. There is no definition of marriage in the constitution. At least Roberts put forth a professional legal argument contrasted by Scalia's child-like rant of the majority decision.
The only reason the equal protection argument worked was due to the already unconstitutional extension of special privileges to straight married couples. Government involvement and favoritism toward marrieds as a means of social engineering and religious belief reinforcement provided the ultimate rationale for the SCOTUS ruling.
The only reason the equal protection argument worked was due to the already unconstitutional extension of special privileges to straight married couples. Government involvement and favoritism toward marrieds as a means of social engineering provided the ultimate rationale for the SCOTUS ruling.
Doesn't explain how this is a new right. Why is heterosexual marriage a special privilege?
Rubbish! They collapsed because their politico-economic system was superseded by a better one. For example, the British Empire collapsed after WW2 not because it had suddenly become gay (homosexuality was still illegal and enforced then), but because the colonial economic system broke up.
The bottom line is that your constitution enshrines as a right the pursuit of happiness for all, and that's a great ideal so it's good to see the SC uphold it in this case.
The "pursuit of happiness" is part of a statement taken from the Declaration of Independence, it's not in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation of all U.S. law, not the Declaration of Independence.
Yes but declared independence from tyranny and oppression only to do it to others.
I think he means that marriage conferred special rights or privileges to couples that were not available to single individuals, not that marriage itself was a special privilege. Surely there must be a history of case law on this question.
Regardless, I don't think Justice Roberts's opinion can stand up under the equal protection idea, once marriage privileges have been establised, "speciallly" or not.
Whoa. Hold on there, with the broad brush. Apple has categorized no one a bigot or anything remotely similar.
You're welcome to conflate your consumption habits with the 'morality' of the country from whence the product comes, but you might be being a tad hypocritical here. Are you sure you've never consumed Saudi oil or Chinese-made (including Apple's, since they're all assembled there) products?
Btw, does that mean Facebook, Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. should have 'better tricks up their sleeves' too? Or are you holding Apple to a different standard?
(Fixed a couple of typos).
The U.S. appears to be in a struggle between secularism and a morality based on Judeo Christian values. Of course so are other Western societies. The term marriage has been used for thousands of years to be between men and women. Nothing prevented anyone from using another term to achieve whatever rights were necessary. To lump gay ( yet another fine term coopted incidentally) marriage in with general marriage meant that a major reason for marriage, namely procreation, all of a sudden took on a different life. The vast majority of the world simply does not accept this, despite the views of our resident religious ethics expert and teacher. Apple has stated the platform is one where inclusiveness, acceptance, etc ... is what they value. The implication has always been that those who do not accept gay marriage are somehow bigots, since they are opposed to "equal rights" as though equal treatment is somehow a mathematical equation and are therefore not accepting of others, not open, etc ... and hence not really meant to be part of the Apple family until they see the light.
I do not see where I was confusing consumption habits with the origin of anything. I never talked about the morality of Saudi Arabia, China, etc ... I was simply saying that Apple as a company sells all over the world and its CEO should not be using his position to further a morality that much of its potential client base rejects.
I only recently received an excellent media player which I bought directly from mainland China. I don't lose any sleep over that except for the setting up process which has been long but fun.
I do not see the CEO's of those other companies you mentioned promoting their personal agendas from the company office. I suspect that it has not gone unnoticed just how far Mr. Cook has gone in doing that. The problem we seem to be having is that you seem not to think that this issue is powerful enough to hurt Apple by alienating people with deeply held opposing views. If, in fact, you are wrong then Mr. Cook will have done the company, though perhaps not the gay community, a great disservice. That is really the point I was trying to make.
I think he means that marriage conferred special rights or privileges to couples that were not available to single individuals, not that marriage itself was a special privilege. Surely there must be a history of case law on this question.
Regardless, I don't think Justifce Roberts's opinion can stand up under the equal protection idea, once marriage privileges have been establised, "speciallly" or not.
Are you talking about taxation issues? If so, that could also apply to corporations and other entities.
The U.S. appears to be in a struggle between secularism and a morality based on Judeo Christian values. Of course so are other Western societies. The term marriage has been used for thousands of years to be between men and women. Nothing prevented anyone from using another term to achieve whatever rights were necessary. To lump gay ( yet another fine term coopted incidentally) marriage in with general marriage meant that a major reason for marriage, namely procreation, all of a sudden took on a different life.
Marriage wasn't always a religious event for those thousands of years. If I'm not mistaken the involvement of Christian churches in weddings (specifically getting married at the church) dates to around the 1600s, possibly a bit earlier (revising my earlier estimate). A lot of its traditions involve property transfer and politics, as you can see with the father giving away the bride. I think it's a little silly to get too focused on the religious aspect of it when religious institutions typically just adopt these things to expand their influence.
Are you talking about taxation issues? If so, that could also apply to corporations and other entities.
Ask Spam again. He abandoned the topic. I only have a vague idea of the rights, beyond tax breaks, that are conferred on marrieds, like inheritance, deathbed visitation, parental and SS benefits.
Ask Spam again. He abandoned the topic. I only have a vague idea of the rights, beyond tax breaks, that are conferred on marrieds, like inheritance, deathbed visitation, parental and SS benefits.
Marriage wasn't always a religious event for those thousands of years. If I'm not mistaken the involvement of Christian churches in weddings (specifically getting married at the church) dates to around the 1600s, possibly a bit earlier (revising my earlier estimate). A lot of its traditions involve property transfer and politics, as you can see with the father giving away the bride. I think it's a little silly to get too focused on the religious aspect of it when religious institutions typically just adopt these things to expand their influence.
I wasn't focusing on the religious aspect, but in any case marriage far predates the 1600's even in many religions. As far as I know there has never been a society, until recently in Holland and now the U.S., that considered relations between men or between women as marriage. I have never understood why people want to have the same institution for both unions. While they have many aspects in common there are some very obvious ones which are different. However, given the self-centered, whatever makes you happy attitude of our society ( for all types of people) it is not surprising that this redefinition has taken place.
I did not intend for this to be a debate over the issue of (same sex) marriage but rather the appropriateness of a CEO pursuing a personal agenda from a company position. The whole conversation is becoming confusing.
As for religious institutions and their expansionist ways I assume they have their own reasons for bringing their beliefs to others. Seems to me that is built in to most religions and isn't done for negative reasons. Of course if one views religions as nothing more than science fiction then any missionary zeal would be viewed in a less than positive light.
I wasn't focusing on the religious aspect, but in any case marriage far predates the 1600's even in many religions. As far as I know there has never been a society, until recently in Holland and now the U.S., that considered relations between men or between women as marriage...
There have been dozens. Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt, ancient Assyria, ancient Rome. India had same sex marriages long before the Jewish faith even existed. The people who complain about redefining marriage need to realize that the version they grew up with is the redefinition.
Even in modern times, it isn't just Holland and America. Some 18-21 countries already legally recognize marriage rights. America is just slow to catch on.
I wasn't focusing on the religious aspect, but in any case marriage far predates the 1600's even in many religions. As far as I know there has never been a society, until recently in Holland and now the U.S., that considered relations between men or between women as marriage.
Twenty countries have approved the freedom to marry for same-sex couples nationwide (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, France, Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand, Britain, Luxembourg, Finland and Ireland), while Mexico allows the freedom to marry regionally and has court-directed provisions enabling same-sex couples to share in the freedom to marry. In Slovenia, Parliament approved a marriage bill in March 2015 and is headed to the president's desk. Many other countries provide some protections for such couples.
I wasn't focusing on the religious aspect, but in any case marriage far predates the 1600's even in many religions. As far as I know there has never been a society, until recently in Holland and now the U.S., that considered relations between men or between women as marriage. I have never understood why people want to have the same institution for both unions. While they have many aspects in common there are some very obvious ones which are different. However, given the self-centered, whatever makes you happy attitude of our society ( for all types of people) it is not surprising that this redefinition has taken place.
There are legalities tied to marriage relating to transfer of wealth, child custody, and a number of other things. If it was up to churches with no codified basis or recognition in common law, it wouldn't be important. The issue of what you call it is also unimportant. The word marriage has been assigned various meanings from a transactional standpoint.
My only reason for direct mention of Christianity was that Judeo Christian influence is cited with much greater frequency in the US. I don't look down on them or anything of that sort. I merely find it ridiculous to use any institutionalized religion as a reference for the legal system.
Quote:
I did not intend for this to be a debate over the issue of (same sex) marriage but rather the appropriateness of a CEO pursuing a personal agenda from a company position. The whole conversation is becoming confusing.
I didn't realize that. I would have just left it. As for Cook though, there are many possible reasons for his actions, one of which may be support of his employees.
Quote:
As for religious institutions and their expansionist ways I assume they have their own reasons for bringing their beliefs to others. Seems to me that is built in to most religions and isn't done for negative reasons. Of course if one views religions as nothing more than science fiction then any missionary zeal would be viewed in a less than positive light.
That is precisely how I view all of them. It doesn't mean I hate them, ridicule them, or don't want to interact with anyone who belongs to whatever religion. There are many of them with differing belief systems. It's easier for them to coexist when they don't meddle in state matters.
I yearn for the old days when 'practising your religion' meant taking the moral high road on your own personal affairs. Now 'practising your religion' just means opening a business, loudly pointing out the perceived sins of other people, kicking up a fuss and generally seeing how much you can get away with. Then playing the 'persecution' card when you get called out on it.
Selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple does not make you a participant in their marriage any more than selling a gun to someone makes you a participant in a murder they later commit. If gay nurses can manage to wipe the backsides of every senile, religious bigot in aged care then Christians can bake a wedding cake.
It's important that companies, including Apple, back gay rights reform. Gay rights are human rights. Businesses employs humans so it's in their interest to support human rights.
Comments
The "pursuit of happiness" is part of a statement taken from the Declaration of Independence, it's not in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation of all U.S. law, not the Declaration of Independence.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts writing his opinion today on the courts 5-4 ruling to allow same sex marriage..... "If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it......Today%u2019s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today%u2019s majority claims......I do not doubt that my colleagues in the majority sincerely see in the Constitution a vision of liberty that happens to coincide with their own. But this sincerity is cause for concern, not comfort. What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture%u2019s conception of constitutional interpretation. Most Americans%u2014understandably%u2014will cheer or lament today%u2019s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority%u2019s claim of power portends."
I would like to hear Justice Roberts expand on how equal protection under the law is a "new" right. There is no definition of marriage in the constitution. At least Roberts put forth a professional legal argument contrasted by Scalia's child-like rant of the majority decision.
The only reason the equal protection argument worked was due to the already unconstitutional extension of special privileges to straight married couples. Government involvement and favoritism toward marrieds as a means of social engineering and religious belief reinforcement provided the ultimate rationale for the SCOTUS ruling.
The only reason the equal protection argument worked was due to the already unconstitutional extension of special privileges to straight married couples. Government involvement and favoritism toward marrieds as a means of social engineering provided the ultimate rationale for the SCOTUS ruling.
Doesn't explain how this is a new right. Why is heterosexual marriage a special privilege?
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-Right.htm
Yes but declared independence from tyranny and oppression only to do it to others.
Eh?
I think he means that marriage conferred special rights or privileges to couples that were not available to single individuals, not that marriage itself was a special privilege. Surely there must be a history of case law on this question.
Regardless, I don't think Justice Roberts's opinion can stand up under the equal protection idea, once marriage privileges have been establised, "speciallly" or not.
What part of American history don't you know?
The U.S. appears to be in a struggle between secularism and a morality based on Judeo Christian values. Of course so are other Western societies. The term marriage has been used for thousands of years to be between men and women. Nothing prevented anyone from using another term to achieve whatever rights were necessary. To lump gay ( yet another fine term coopted incidentally) marriage in with general marriage meant that a major reason for marriage, namely procreation, all of a sudden took on a different life. The vast majority of the world simply does not accept this, despite the views of our resident religious ethics expert and teacher. Apple has stated the platform is one where inclusiveness, acceptance, etc ... is what they value. The implication has always been that those who do not accept gay marriage are somehow bigots, since they are opposed to "equal rights" as though equal treatment is somehow a mathematical equation and are therefore not accepting of others, not open, etc ... and hence not really meant to be part of the Apple family until they see the light.
I do not see where I was confusing consumption habits with the origin of anything. I never talked about the morality of Saudi Arabia, China, etc ... I was simply saying that Apple as a company sells all over the world and its CEO should not be using his position to further a morality that much of its potential client base rejects.
I only recently received an excellent media player which I bought directly from mainland China. I don't lose any sleep over that except for the setting up process which has been long but fun.
I do not see the CEO's of those other companies you mentioned promoting their personal agendas from the company office. I suspect that it has not gone unnoticed just how far Mr. Cook has gone in doing that. The problem we seem to be having is that you seem not to think that this issue is powerful enough to hurt Apple by alienating people with deeply held opposing views. If, in fact, you are wrong then Mr. Cook will have done the company, though perhaps not the gay community, a great disservice. That is really the point I was trying to make.
I think he means that marriage conferred special rights or privileges to couples that were not available to single individuals, not that marriage itself was a special privilege. Surely there must be a history of case law on this question.
Regardless, I don't think Justifce Roberts's opinion can stand up under the equal protection idea, once marriage privileges have been establised, "speciallly" or not.
Are you talking about taxation issues? If so, that could also apply to corporations and other entities.
The U.S. appears to be in a struggle between secularism and a morality based on Judeo Christian values. Of course so are other Western societies. The term marriage has been used for thousands of years to be between men and women. Nothing prevented anyone from using another term to achieve whatever rights were necessary. To lump gay ( yet another fine term coopted incidentally) marriage in with general marriage meant that a major reason for marriage, namely procreation, all of a sudden took on a different life.
Marriage wasn't always a religious event for those thousands of years. If I'm not mistaken the involvement of Christian churches in weddings (specifically getting married at the church) dates to around the 1600s, possibly a bit earlier (revising my earlier estimate). A lot of its traditions involve property transfer and politics, as you can see with the father giving away the bride. I think it's a little silly to get too focused on the religious aspect of it when religious institutions typically just adopt these things to expand their influence.
Ask Spam again. He abandoned the topic. I only have a vague idea of the rights, beyond tax breaks, that are conferred on marrieds, like inheritance, deathbed visitation, parental and SS benefits.
Ask Spam again. He abandoned the topic. I only have a vague idea of the rights, beyond tax breaks, that are conferred on marrieds, like inheritance, deathbed visitation, parental and SS benefits.
I basically did.
I wasn't focusing on the religious aspect, but in any case marriage far predates the 1600's even in many religions. As far as I know there has never been a society, until recently in Holland and now the U.S., that considered relations between men or between women as marriage. I have never understood why people want to have the same institution for both unions. While they have many aspects in common there are some very obvious ones which are different. However, given the self-centered, whatever makes you happy attitude of our society ( for all types of people) it is not surprising that this redefinition has taken place.
I did not intend for this to be a debate over the issue of (same sex) marriage but rather the appropriateness of a CEO pursuing a personal agenda from a company position. The whole conversation is becoming confusing.
As for religious institutions and their expansionist ways I assume they have their own reasons for bringing their beliefs to others. Seems to me that is built in to most religions and isn't done for negative reasons. Of course if one views religions as nothing more than science fiction then any missionary zeal would be viewed in a less than positive light.
I wasn't focusing on the religious aspect, but in any case marriage far predates the 1600's even in many religions. As far as I know there has never been a society, until recently in Holland and now the U.S., that considered relations between men or between women as marriage...
There have been dozens. Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt, ancient Assyria, ancient Rome. India had same sex marriages long before the Jewish faith even existed. The people who complain about redefining marriage need to realize that the version they grew up with is the redefinition.
Even in modern times, it isn't just Holland and America. Some 18-21 countries already legally recognize marriage rights. America is just slow to catch on.
Edit, typed Rome twice.
Twenty countries have approved the freedom to marry for same-sex couples nationwide (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, France, Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand, Britain, Luxembourg, Finland and Ireland), while Mexico allows the freedom to marry regionally and has court-directed provisions enabling same-sex couples to share in the freedom to marry. In Slovenia, Parliament approved a marriage bill in March 2015 and is headed to the president's desk. Many other countries provide some protections for such couples.
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/landscape/entry/c/international
And civil unions are allowed in more than those.
I wasn't focusing on the religious aspect, but in any case marriage far predates the 1600's even in many religions. As far as I know there has never been a society, until recently in Holland and now the U.S., that considered relations between men or between women as marriage. I have never understood why people want to have the same institution for both unions. While they have many aspects in common there are some very obvious ones which are different. However, given the self-centered, whatever makes you happy attitude of our society ( for all types of people) it is not surprising that this redefinition has taken place.
There are legalities tied to marriage relating to transfer of wealth, child custody, and a number of other things. If it was up to churches with no codified basis or recognition in common law, it wouldn't be important. The issue of what you call it is also unimportant. The word marriage has been assigned various meanings from a transactional standpoint.
My only reason for direct mention of Christianity was that Judeo Christian influence is cited with much greater frequency in the US. I don't look down on them or anything of that sort. I merely find it ridiculous to use any institutionalized religion as a reference for the legal system.
I didn't realize that. I would have just left it. As for Cook though, there are many possible reasons for his actions, one of which may be support of his employees.
That is precisely how I view all of them. It doesn't mean I hate them, ridicule them, or don't want to interact with anyone who belongs to whatever religion. There are many of them with differing belief systems. It's easier for them to coexist when they don't meddle in state matters.
What part of American history don't you know?
Explain this: "only to do it to others"
I don't recall the US taxing expats who have fled to other countries, spurring them to rebel.
I yearn for the old days when 'practising your religion' meant taking the moral high road on your own personal affairs. Now 'practising your religion' just means opening a business, loudly pointing out the perceived sins of other people, kicking up a fuss and generally seeing how much you can get away with. Then playing the 'persecution' card when you get called out on it.
Selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple does not make you a participant in their marriage any more than selling a gun to someone makes you a participant in a murder they later commit. If gay nurses can manage to wipe the backsides of every senile, religious bigot in aged care then Christians can bake a wedding cake.
It's important that companies, including Apple, back gay rights reform. Gay rights are human rights. Businesses employs humans so it's in their interest to support human rights.