Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupreme Court’s Big Gay Pandora’s Box - By Michael Tomasky
The idea that we should make gay marriage the law of the land and yet refuse to force businesses to follow that law is unjust and absurd.Everybodys up in arms about Mike Pence, Mike Pence, Mike Pence. My arms are up too. In fact I have anti-Pence cred going way back, to his chairmanship while in the House of the Republican Study Group, which played a key role in dragging the whole House GOP caucus hard to starboard. Indeed he was a protean figure in the lower chamber, a man ahead of his time, in whose breast dwelt deeply reactionary tendencies driven both by fiscal malevolence and alleged Biblical prophecy. There werent nearly as many of those in his day, so he was worth noticing, and to longtime Pence students, this law hes signed is as unsurprising as a thing can be.
But I suggest to you, friends and comrades, that we also concern ourselves with the Supreme Court here. The High Court started all this, with the Hobby Lobby decision, and its the court that is steering us into some potentially dark and dangerous waters here.
Consider this. As we all know, the court is set to release its decision on same-sex marriage, probably at the end of its term in June. Virtually everyone thinks that a five-justice majority is going to uphold a federal right for same-sexers to marry. That would consist, of course, of the courts four liberals plus Anthony Kennedy.
Okay, thats great, if it happens. But remember: This is the same court that just said that it is okay, on the basis of religious conscience, for businesses to discriminate against gay people and refuse to photograph or cater or be-flower their wedding ceremonies. (The court actually ruled that privately held corporations could discriminate, but I guess since corporations are people, the various red-state legislatures have extended the principle to smaller enterprises.) So if the court rules for same-sex marriage this June, it will have said, in the space of exactly one year: Same-sex marriage is the law of the land, but refusing to honor same-sex marriage is the law of the land, too!
more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/01/supreme-court-s-big-gay-pandora-s-box.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 726 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court’s Big Gay Pandora’s Box - By Michael Tomasky (Original Post)
DonViejo
Apr 2015
OP
marym625
(17,997 posts)1. Being a member of the LGBT community,
I am obviously incensed about the RFRA in Indiana. But we can't forget about the implications this has on women's rights. Thank you for bringing it up.
On a side note, I hope that SCOTUS does make marriage equality the law of the land and does it on June 25th. That would be wonderful!
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)2. This from article >>>
... and here is where I remind you that the next president will probably nominate three and maybe even four Supreme Court justices and yes you love Elizabeth Warren and yes youre down on Hillary but Warren isnt running and Clinton is and no shes not perfect but please just deal with it and if nothing else think about a liberal majority on the Supreme Court for the next 30 years and counting all right?we might get back to that understanding some jurisprudentially provident day.
yardwork
(61,719 posts)3. Yes. This is the crucial point. Presidents nominate Supreme Court justices.
I had no idea that Mike Pence was so extreme. Learning about his background is very eye-opening. Disappointing that Indiana elected him governor. Probably many of the voters had no idea about his beliefs, either. That's a big problem in the U.S. right now.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)4. Yep, far too many people IMO still think they are voting for old time republicans and
just robotically vote R, not realizing in many cases the new republicans are dangerous and intent on dragging this nation down and backward in so many ways.