SCOTUS to pass on same sex marriage?
posted at 10:01 am on December 1, 2012 by Jazz Shaw
While most of the nation’s attention has remained focused on the fiscal cliff, business as usual continues in the judicial branch. And for those who have been closely following the court battles over same sex marriage, Friday had been anticipated to be a big day. The highest court was supposedly set to announce whether they would be taking on as many as ten cases related to this subject. But, as Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog reports, the day wore on into late afternoon and resulted in precisely… nothing.
The Supreme Court, after taking most of the day to prepare new orders, took no action Friday on the ten same-sex marriage pleas now on the docket. It did agree to rule on whether taking a human gene out of the body for research is a process that can be patented…
The next opportunity for the Court to issue orders will be at 9:30 a.m. Monday. Nothing has ruled out the possibility that some actions on same-sex marriage could be announced at that time, although there is no indication that that will occur. It may be that the Court needs more time to decide what it wants to do next on any of the cases. If the Court has chosen to deny review of all of the cases, even that might not come out on Monday, since the chances are that there would be dissents from some of the denials, and it would take some time to prepare dissenting opinions. But denial of all of the cases is an extremely remote possibility anyway.
It’s important to remember that all of this is simply procedural work at this stage of events. There is no imminent decision forthcoming on the constitutionality of any laws. All the court is really doing at this point is essentially triage. They have been reviewing a large number of cases and determining which ones have sufficient merit and standing for them even to be heard, and then schedule a slot on the docket to hear arguments. Even if some of these cases are accepted, the next open slots to hear them are in March, so we shouldn’t be expecting any sort of ruling until well into the Spring of next year at least.
But will they take on any or all of these cases? I tend to agree with Denniston in thinking that this shouldn’t be taken as a sign that they’ll all be rejected. They probably wouldn’t have lasted this far through the review process if they completely lacked merit, and a notion to not hear them would likely face some stiff resistance from any members who are “spoiling for a fight” on either side of the question. And even the process of rejecting them would be time consuming. Also, the court hasn’t been shy about tackling controversial subjects, as recent history has shown us.
But some of the bigger questions which many of us have may still not be answered, even if the Supremes tackle all of them. Is the Defense of Marriage Act constitutional? In particular, it’s sections 2 and 3 of the law – and this is really the heart of the entire question – which are one of which is up for review. The text is as follows:
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
The primary argument is that the result of these two sections fly in the face of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. And while it’s unpopular to say so in conservative circles, it’s tough to argue that it doesn’t … if we are to accept that a marriage license is part of the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” of the individual states. But that’s where it gets tricky for people on both sides. Is marriage an “official institution” which should fall under the control and regulation of the government at any level? Or is it a strictly personal matter? And does the federal government really have the power to say anything about marriage, or is it something which should be left exclusively to the states as per the 10th amendment?
You may have your own strong feelings about it in either direction based on an emotional response to a hot button topic, but the legal complexities are daunting. These are the questions I’m hoping to hear answers to, and if they decide to make the call it will have implications that resonate for a very long time. And just for the record – in terms of personal preferences – yes.. I support gay marriage, but only as the much inferior, “best we can get” solution.
The government issues “licenses” for all manner of things which they really have no business regulating, and it’s frequently little more than a very thinly disguised excuse to levy another fee. For example, why do we have to purchase a hunting or fishing license? There’s almost a weak excuse for hunting licenses in terms of ensuring young hunters have received firearm safety training. But… fishing? If you are on public lands or waters, what is more fundamental than the right of people to gather their own food? The list of examples is rather lengthy.
Personally, I don’t see the government having any business being involved in the question of marriage, nor having the authority to issue a “license” for anyone to marry. And I believe the word should be excised from tax codes and every other law in the land. Of course, that’s far too much work for the government to do, so we’ll have to muddle on with what this court decides for now.
EDIT: Jazz – Thanks for pointing out that section three is the section up for review, not section 2, though I had wanted to include the text of that section for context. This has been corrected above.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Menendez – Looks like we don’t have the votes for that immigration bill after all
America in decline – Bars selling rubbing alcohol as “scotch”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Huh? All Bush did was restrict FEDERAL FUNDING for embryonic stem cell research outside of the existing lines. There was no restriction on embryonic stem cell research, itself, and any company or individual was free to continue and foot the bill for it – if it were such a great area for research.
What medical progress was stunted by Bush’s policy? What has come of embryonic stem cells thus far? If it was such a great area of research what happened to private funding of the research – to get a near monopoly on the technology?
Bush did a lot of stupid things but the embryonic stem cell research restrictions on federal funding wasn’t one of them.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM
LOL- Lawrence was about state’s rights. You do realize. The only reason the Lawrence law was wrong was that it singled out gays, but other than that Texas had every right to make laws that it wanted. And the Church can’t be protected. The church can’t even be protected against HHS, how is it going to be protected against another victim group. Gay marriage EXPANDS government power for that reason alone; it is anti-libertarian and anti-government.
Its the government’s business because you are using DOCTORS to do it. Doctors are licensed by the government. Want to commit suicide; do it on your own- don’t ask someone else. Do it before you get too incapicitated to do it yourself. Be a proactive idiot..
Wow you are ignorant. NOBODY made stem cell research illegal. Bush stopped federal funding for it. If it was a viable and scientific as everyone thinks then the capitalist way would have had private companies advancing it WITHOUT government funding. YOU REALLY ARE A LIBERAL….
Gay marriage… is asking the government to license and sanction a private relationship– This is exclusionary by nature. You do not have a right to a license.
Suicide- You have a right to kill yourself- do not drag someone else into it..
Stem Cell research.. Fund a private company. YOu do not have the right to tell me I have to pay for it.
melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM
Yet being anti-abortion would make me a “social con” and apparently I’m supposed to shut up, sit down, and vote GOP when told.
Bishop on April 1, 2013 at 11:04 AM
I wasn’t talking about the two candidates. I was talking about those who supported them.
Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Man,you are fast. Beat me to it.
Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 11:05 AM
He he.. I am a very fast typer, but not very accurate.. It is why sometimes my posts make no sense. :)
melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 11:06 AM
Wish it were that easy, BK.
Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 11:07 AM
lmao!
Ed Snyder on April 1, 2013 at 11:08 AM
Oh, that’s a softball. Here’s one right here, diving straight into my pocket under the pretext of religion. I’m sure I could think of a few more.
Also, please bear in mind that socialists are not my buddies. Choosing between Socialism and Theocracy is like choosing between tripper and AIDS – both are quite unpleasant but one is curable while the other isn’t.
Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 11:08 AM
If a GOP Presidential candidate endorses homosexual partnerships (misnamed same sex marriage) to have equal treatment with traditional marriage, that GOP candidate will lose. One part of the Reagan coalition, the social conservatives, will not go along and should not go along.
Phil Byler on April 1, 2013 at 11:09 AM
But you can’t see how, for those of us who AREN’T atheistic and DO think that an objective moral standard exists, think that its inclusion in ALL matters social is important?
Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Will you stop with the ridiculous and INSANE “Theocracy” stuff, already?
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 1, 2013 at 11:12 AM
Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 11:08 AM
If people like you were ever confronted with a real theocracy, you would Pi$$ yourself and beg for this faux theocracy back.
Go protest a Mosque and come back and tell us how that went.. mmmkay..
melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Fenris on April 1, 2013 at 11:13 AM
AND… so what ? So what if Doctors are involved ? I can only assume that you take issue either due to the hippocratic oath, or the fact that the desired outcome is a non-traditional outcome for health care – death.
Unfortunately for you, that assumes that “health” includes only physical health, not mental health from the suffering of illness that is not going away and IS going to result in death, and that “health” does not include any metric for quality of life.
Certainly the gov’t should have an interest here, but only in regulating the practice to protect people that don’t want to die or are not capable of making that decision, and to protect doctors who assist from being prosecuted.
Otherwise, there is no earthly reason a DOCTOR should not be allowed to assist me if I so choose.
deadrody on April 1, 2013 at 11:14 AM
And embryonic stem cells have not lived up to the wonder medium that the left insisted they were when John Edwards was out there making the claim that it would lead to Christopher Reeve walking again.
Of course, it was all a proxy fight for abortion. Democrats are unwilling to say that they are in favor of killing children so they run these proxy wars like the “war on women” meme of November’s campaign.
Happy Nomad on April 1, 2013 at 11:17 AM
The politician who masterminded the gay marriage campaign in Holland says that ‘group marriage’ is now being discussed in the country.
Boris Dittrich, a former Dutch politician, gave a video interview about how he successfully introduced gay marriage.
He said, “there is now a discussion in the Netherlands that sometimes people want to marry with three people and maybe even more.
“But that’s the beginning of something completely new and that will take a lot of years I guess.”
He was speaking to a French gay news agency, and he revealed that he softened public opinion to gay marriage by first introducing registered partnerships.
He said, “we thought it might be psychologically better to first introduce registered partnerships”.
It was a good decision, he said, because people got used to legally recognised gay unions and called them gay marriages.
The next logical step was to introduce full gay marriage by law, he said. Now he admits there are discussions about marriage for more than two people.
Three-way relationships have already been recognised in Holland, under a “cohabitation agreement”.
In Brazil, a relationship of more than two people has been officially recognised.
In Canada schools have been encouraged to display posters which promote the acceptance of polygamy.
In Australia, a campaign group has formed to push for legal rights for ‘polyamorous’ relationships.
Here in Britain the Government is planning to redefine marriage and critics warn it will cause marriage to unravel…
Youtube scrubbed the video.
workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 11:18 AM
How does one “CURE” Socialism?
Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Okay so when does it change from being YOUR choice to being the DOCTOR’s choice. When does assisted suicide become the doctor deciding that your life has not value and you should be killed? And what if the population was okay with this law?
Doctors should not be in the business of killing or helping someone decide whether or not the value of their life is worth living, because that is what a doctor is essentially doing. Or are you okay with a healthy 20 year old going to a doctor and saying they want to die, and a doctor assisting in the suicide? And if not, then you are essentially saying a doctor can decide if YOUR life warrants death.
melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 11:18 AM
I’ve heard of the Protestant Reformation but where do we see Socialism evolving towards less restrictions on the rights of the individual?
Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 11:20 AM
Bloody revolution or being invaded, that’s my reading of history.
Fenris on April 1, 2013 at 11:22 AM
Gay marriage is about as big-government as a regular, heterosexual flavor. We clearly have no argument on the fact that the government should get out of marriage business altogether. However, I’ve never heard a troglocon, e.g. Huckabee or Santorum, to call for it.
To start with, medical licensing itself is unconstitutional. Also, your argument is prima facie stupid – I don’t need a doctor for euthanasia. Why can’t I ask my own loving wife, or a parent, to help me?
No theoretical research is viable without federal funding. Moreover, a company who started SCR with unapproved genetic line would be banned from all governmental contracts – a clause constitutionality of which is iffy at best. I work for Big Pharma, and am kinda versed on the issue.
Do you call liberal everyone who disagrees with you?
Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 11:23 AM
BTW, have you actually read the Hippocratic Oath..? If not, I suggest you do, because assisted suicide is in direct opposition of it. Of course, liberals have changed it to fit their agenda, so the part of not “killing anyone” or “not performing abortion” has been removed..
melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 11:23 AM
You nailed it perfectly.
Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 11:24 AM
It wasn’t so long ago that bleeding, lobotomies, and trepanning were methods used to combat various ailments; sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
Seems like a better plan would be to try not to contract the disease in the first place.
Bishop on April 1, 2013 at 11:25 AM
How about not being able to go after ObamaCare, which was the most unpopular Obama act of his presidency?
We weren’t able to mention it in the campaign, because Willard Romney is the Godfather of Obamacare.
portlandon on April 1, 2013 at 11:26 AM
About as soft as a nerf ball. The money that the Govt was going to spend on charity (not a constitutional role) was already being taken from us, Bush only sought to coordinate with faith-based charities at the local level. if nothing else, it would ensure greater % of funds directed at need rather than overhead if run solely by the govt. And you have fundamental disagreement that these funds get channeled thru FBOs? I have a fundamental problem with the Govt doing charity at all, period.
And your indignation on this is equal to our being forced to fund abortions and providing contraceptives? Idiot.
AH_C on April 1, 2013 at 11:27 AM
And as a socon, I have never been a big fan of Huck or Santy..
Except in the law, that is considered murder. You cannot consent to murder and call it suicide. Just like the guy in Germany consented to his own cannibalism; you cannot consent to it. So my advice is; if you want to kill yourself- do it yourself. And BTW, it is incredibly insensitive and selfish, to ask someone else to do it for you.
Ahhh so you are okay with big government if it benefits you… Got it.. You are okay with forcing people to pay for things they disagree with if you agree with. Kinda like what you are
And you call me a theocrat even though I am an agnostic socon.. So I guess we are even..
melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 11:28 AM
Support SSM under evolving morals is different the tolerating SSM under freedom and liberty for all.
tjexcite on April 1, 2013 at 11:28 AM
Why not? Once you change the definition of marriage from one man/ one woman. There is absolutely no reason why polygamy isn’t as “legitimate” as sodomy. For that matter, why have age of consent laws since that is as arbitrary a curb on feelings as limiting marriage to the normal definition. And why can’t one have sexual relations with his goat without society judging his feelings?
Pro-sodomy advocates scoff the slippery slope idea. But the reality is that they are a selfish lot that doesn’t understand the issue is about far more than legitimizing their deviant lifestyle choices.
Happy Nomad on April 1, 2013 at 11:28 AM
Funny you’d say that. I lived in the Middle East for over a decade. The place is chock full of theocracies, with Israel being the mildest of them – they just denied my wife the right to medical services and then threw her out of the country when she refused to convert to Judaism. I’m sure any neighboring country would just shoot her, so we’re still grateful.
Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 11:29 AM
How can you acknowledge THAT while at the same time assert that the system put in place by the Founders of THIS nation for addressing harmful legislative actions – Founders who were OVERWHELMINGLY Fundamentalist Christian in their worldview, and whose worldview INFORMED their idea of a proper social order supported by the laws of the land – would be better off if it were Socialistic?
It boggles the mind.
Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 11:31 AM
I’m going to try to help you get it.
hawkdriver on April 1, 2013 at 11:35 AM
So we are in the business of legislating sensitivity and selflessness now. I think you made my point. :)
Touche – I’ll own to it. Science and space exploration are about the only two places not explicitly designated by the Constitution where I’m willing to live with big-government intrusion. What can I say, I’m a bad libertarian.
As soon as you find a place where I called you a theocrat. Though admittedly, I’ve never heard of agnostic so-cons – isn’t it a contradiction in terms, sort of?
Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 11:35 AM
Gay sex use to be unlawful in this country. It was taught as such by the government…
Now that the persistence of the gays has worn down the government, those who still believe deep down what we were raised to believe, not just by religious institutions, but the government, our parents, friends and peers, nature… We are called bigots. It’s the mega race card actually… because it covers one with all the nastiness in one shot.
I have believed for a long time this is a done deal… SSM will eventually happen on a national scale. As will many of the things that they keep saying won’t follow SSM. Perhaps polygamy will rise to the top next, just because someone demands it.
These issues are like water finding the path of least resistance… and there is always such a path in our government today.
Entering our country should be a crime with deportation as it final outcome… Yeah….. right…. We see where that is headed.
The best thing to do now is hold your family close and find a few good friends. BTW… Some of them may be gay.
Sure you can resist publicly all you want… The next wave will be worse than the last and you’ll just be disappointed.
I’m not saying surrender… But pick your battles carefully… And hold on. Obama should’a lost. He won because he is selling the snake oil of what the everything goes mentality wants.
RalphyBoy on April 1, 2013 at 11:36 AM
For some reason, I had a hunch you were going to link to that.
Yeah, that one was a Killer, wasn’t it??
Question for you. How again does this NEGATIVELY IMPACT YOU??
The Socialist policies that you seem to think are bad, BUT
NOT AS BAD! as Fundamentalist measures cost you how much
more than that pathetic link you provided??
Your extreme anti Religion mind set has rotted your brain,
CONGRATULATIONS.
ToddPA on April 1, 2013 at 11:38 AM
the israeli’s threw your wife out for refusing to convert yet they allow plenty of muslims to vote, live, be elected to office, etc w/o converting to judaism. sounds like relevant details are being held back. or your just full of crap.
chasdal on April 1, 2013 at 11:38 AM
I was thinking the same thing. Made no sense.
hawkdriver on April 1, 2013 at 11:40 AM
As further mentioned, embryonic stem cell reseach has yielded no advancement in the process. Any advancement has come through host stem cell research and development, wholy within the restrictions of prolife mandates.
gonnjos on April 1, 2013 at 11:41 AM
Yes, there’s some value in being able to at least SEE where it is headed. Better to have your eyes in your head and even though you’re both going to end up at the same place, you’ll be prepared for it.
” The wise man has his eyes in his head, but the fool walks in darkness; and yet I perceived that one fate comes to all of them.” Eccl. 2:14
Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 11:42 AM
The Founders never intended, or wanted, to legislate their morale. In their infinite wisdom, they envisioned that the people would follow the same moral guidelines until they become obsolete, and then for better or worse come up with new ones. If they hadn’t wished that, they would say so in the Bill of Rights, wouldn’t they?
As for Socialism, it was officially adopted as a governmental doctrine in 1913, when the Sixteenth Amendment was introduced.
Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Nope, just a personal opinion hence why I used the BTW..
Well at least you admit it. I don’t like the unholy(pardon the pun) between science and government. Yes, I know a lot of good things have been accomplished through that avenue, but now science has become very political because of it. When science becomes political it ceases to be science.
You called the agenda theocratic. There are a lot of atheist and agnostic socons. As I have said before many of us are reactionary. If you could guarantee that social issues stayed local i.e., marriage and abortion- you wouldn’t hear from us at all. We are quite content to let Massachusetts and California become liberal cesspools as long as they leave us to it in our own states. The problem is that Dems never do. They use the federal government and the judiciary to hammer us in other states until we are forced to fight back. A lot of us would be libertarians except big L libertarians live in a theorectical world where Dems don’t exist to make us pay for their social experiments and hammer us with judges and federal law. Non-religious socons basically just want to be left alone, but know that is not possible as long as their are robed tyrants ready to make Tennessee look like Massachusetts.
melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 11:43 AM
Didn’t “government” once fund studies to prove that one race was better than another based on certain physical traits?
Oh well, as long as government intrusion into science puts bread on the table.
Bishop on April 1, 2013 at 11:45 AM
Really??
That doesn’t jive with numerous complaints over the years of Israeli Government being reluctant to grant aliyah to converts…
http://forward.com/articles/155249/israel-slower-to-welcome-converts/?p=all
workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 11:45 AM
The Israeli health care system is based on citizens being required to buy insurance. Or you can pay out of pocket. Nothing to do with religion. So, I suspect the unmentioned detail is that he wanted free health care, and somebody said you can become a citizen by converting to Judaism and immigrating …is that still the law?
Fenris on April 1, 2013 at 11:45 AM
That one was the easiest to pinpoint. My particular beef is with euthanasia laws. Consider it a personal peeve, but I reject the idea of a governmental clerk taking my right to control my own life from me. At least Socialists don’t do that; even death panels are only applicable to those who cannot pay for their medical services.
Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 11:46 AM
chasdal on April 1, 2013 at 11:38 AM
Fenris on April 1, 2013 at 11:45 AM
Thanks, that part didn’t seem to pass the smell test, but I don’t know enough about Israel to dispute it. I did spend sometime in Egypt but never got to Israel.
melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 11:47 AM
At least Socialists don’t do that; even death panels are only applicable to those who cannot pay for their medical services.
Um. You do realize that you have that backwards right? Socialism is *entirely* about committees controlling your life.
The death panels are *entirely* about making sure that “costs stay low by denying services to *everyone*” Not just “those that can’t pay”.
I’m not sure where you get your (backwards) ideas, but I’d bet it’s some communist whore of a teacher somewhere.
Vancomycin on April 1, 2013 at 11:51 AM
The term “free” is, like with Obamacare, a gross misnomer – I was taxed for it. Legally, converting to Judaism is not required if one is a spouse of an Israeli citizen – but at that time, Interior Ministry was controlled by the Jewish Orthodox party, and they have their own idea of how the laws work.
Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM
So what’s your problem with the social Conservatives? The Founders would be considered today ARCH-social conservatives.
Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM
And my only beef with implementing them is that in the socialist nations that have, things promptly went sour. Personally I firmly believe that euthanasia is an issue adults should be between themselves, their God(s), and their spouse.
Unfortunately the discussion is still tainted because its first major advocate in the USA happened to be a racist loon who was a darling daughter of both the KKK and the N@zis…
MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Yep!
Maybe his wife not being a tax paying Israeli Citizen was asking for gubmint paid healthcare?
The Israeli structure of citizenship excludes migrant workers from access to the public health care system. Documented migrant workers are insured with private insurers that provide much more limited coverage than the public system. Undocumented migrants lack regular access to health care and have access only to very limited services: life saving emergency medicine, pregnancy and well-baby follow up, and treatment for specific diseases such as tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases.
The Israeli Arab minority is covered by the National Health Insurance system.
workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 11:53 AM
Socialists absolutely have no beef with letting people euthanize themselves. Other times they can sense you’re leaning that way and sponsor a big purge. See Stalin and Pol Pot.
hawkdriver on April 1, 2013 at 11:53 AM
Just stop with this “getting marriage/government out of government/marriage” crap already. Unless you’re willing to let parents give away their 6 year old daughters in marriage, then government will always have at least one finger in, if not the whole fist.
(A little lesbian reference there to break up the Monday ho-hums).
Nutstuyu on April 1, 2013 at 11:54 AM
Answer me this.. Even if there are laws against suicide on the books- what is the government going to do to you after you take your own life? Jail you?
The restrictions are really against an alive person helping the person kill themselves. The problem with that is that legally it is murder not suicide. Suicide is someone killing themself. When an outside person helps, it becomes legal murder. It also then cost money to investigate because the police have to determine that the person “wanted” to die. Someone cannot legally consent to murder and you are again dealing with slippery slope arguments.. Every spouse murderer will claims that they “wanted to die.”
melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 11:54 AM
Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM
NO kiddin’. By the way, Happy National Atheists’ Day! Pslam 14:1
kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 11:56 AM
Sounds pretty much spot on
astonerii on April 1, 2013 at 11:56 AM
For starters, I beg not to insult my teachers. None of them was American, and they gave me a surprisingly good education that no American school, public or private, can hope to match these days.
Now, more to the point. It’s kinda hard to deny me medical services when I can go to a private practice and pay cash or, failing that, fly to another country and do the same.
Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 11:57 AM
Yeah, I’m choosing to not believe this one. Maybe they denied you health care (maybe) because you couldn’t pay or didn’t have insurance. I’m not believing there was a requirement to convert.
This happens a lot with anti-religious types. They try to ascribe the very dictatorial practices of Islam to all religious faiths to make them, what? As bad by guilt of association?
hawkdriver on April 1, 2013 at 11:57 AM
They can sense you leaning that way….ROFL
Bishop on April 1, 2013 at 11:59 AM
Yup. No need to impose any of those scary moooorrrraaaalllsss on anyone.
Nutstuyu on April 1, 2013 at 12:00 PM
Bishop on April 1, 2013 at 11:59 AM
Uncle Joe Stalin: “Boris, that entire village looks like they want to kill themselves. Let’s give them a hand.”/
kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 12:01 PM
Heh
Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 12:02 PM
” Yep, Uncle Joe.. They consented to our assisted suicide.”
melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Getting a yuck from the absolute King of Puns has made my day. My work here is complete.
hawkdriver on April 1, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Nothing in the physical universe is free of cost, so I agree with you on that. But anytime you give up power to the state, then you can expect the state to use that power in ways you will not like. There is no danger of America becoming a theocracy, but as you point out, we’re well on our way to socialism.
Fenris on April 1, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Yeah, sort of. If you fail, you can be charged and prosecuted for an attempted murder. I’m not sure if the option was ever used, though, but I don’t know many gays who were jailed in Texas, either.
I don’t give a flying rat’s anus about the slippery slope, or about the police difficulties. They are cheap-ass excuses from people who want to legislate Christian morals. I want to be able to consent to my own murder – in writing, and in presence of a qualified attorney and/or governmental clerk, if necessary – and, you’d have to trust me on that, I have a very compelling reason to wish for such option. And naturally, I don’t want whoever is being so kind as to assist me to be prosecuted for being kind to me.
Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 12:03 PM
Not buying it. The Israelis are currently treating wounded Syrians. I know a Lebanese Muslim women whose family was saved by Israeli doctors – in Israel. No one demanded or even asked that they “convert to Judaism.”
rrpjr on April 1, 2013 at 12:04 PM
And it’s odd that such people have no problems with “gay theocracies” on the public dole and in the public schools:
“Bozell: Gay and Godless on the Public-School Stage”
“In this deconstruction of the Bible, God first creates two gay couples, Adam and Steve and Mabel and Jane. These four are expelled from Eden and end up on Noah’s ark, where Steve invents infidelity by having an affair with a rhinoceros.”
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2013/03/29/bozell-gay-and-godless-on-the-public-school-stage
whatcat on April 1, 2013 at 12:05 PM
It’s a wonder that in our sports-crazed society, the GOP doesn’t look to sports analogies to help their messaging.
For instance, in baseball, a battery is the combination of the pitcher and catcher currently on the field. It is always one pitcher and one catcher, never two pitchers, never two catchers, never one pitcher and one shortstop. If any other combination than one pitcher and one catcher is used, it is not longer a battery.
This shouldn’t be that hard, folks.
Nutstuyu on April 1, 2013 at 12:05 PM
And I’m choosing not to give a fock about your opinion. You sure have a lot of experience with Israeli religious authorities, don’t you?
Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 12:06 PM
Nutstuyu on April 1, 2013 at 12:05 PM
Also, an extension cord, with the same gender plug on each end, has no benefit to it.
kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 12:07 PM
I don’t know, they can be fun for some things… :)
Nutstuyu on April 1, 2013 at 12:08 PM
I know you don’t care about the slippery slope, but you know it does exist.. Furthermore, not wanting the government to sanction murder even murder that is CONSENTED TO is not just Christian morals. I don’t find someone who wants their wife to kill them any different from the ignoramous who wanted the guy to kill him and eat him. The government should not sanction that behavior. If you want to do it on you own, by yourself- fine- But it is behavior the government should discourage and definitely not encourage. A government clerk licensing you to kill yourself is government sanctioning of the act. The problem is you want what you want and you don’t care what the bigger ramifications for society are. Freedom does not include the right to murder which is what anyone “helping” you off yourself would be guilty of.
melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 12:09 PM
Nutstuyu on April 1, 2013 at 12:08 PM
LOL!
kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 12:10 PM
I have found that people are quite okay with slippery slopes and government getting into their business if they agree with the government on the issue.
I love my little sister, but she tried to tell me that the slippery slope is a fallacy. When I explained that it isn’t and used Lawrence v. Texas as an example where Scalia said it would lead to gay marriage and within FOUR months it did. Her response was- “but yeah I agree with THAT slippery slope.”
melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 12:12 PM
+1. Him and that peabrain wailing about “Christian Sharia”. 100x so if either one of them are women.
MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 12:12 PM
sodomy — lubricant — slippery slope — ewww!
Nutstuyu on April 1, 2013 at 12:13 PM
Actually, it was Bush who was the first to fund stem cell research IIRC.
But thats a good meme. A lot of people fell for that one.
Mimzey on April 1, 2013 at 12:15 PM
Drudge:
Schadenfreude on April 1, 2013 at 12:15 PM
I suspect eating the business end of a Chiappa Triple Barrel would work to that end just fine. Not complicated at all.
whatcat on April 1, 2013 at 12:16 PM
It’s a very short trip, you know, from the government choosing to “encourage” or “discourage” certain individual behavior patterns from the government doing same with private businesses. Wind turbines are, after all, so much cleaner and healthier than coal stations, so we have to encourage them!
In a free society, a personal consent of a mentally-capable adult must be the ultimate decider, regardless of what government chooses to “sanction”. The clerk would be there not to “approve” of the act, but to ensure my mental clarity and my free will – same service that public notaries do today to the public every day.
Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 12:16 PM
“Freedom Without Responsibility” a favorite meme of the Tin Foil Hat Brigade.
Because, after all, morality and ethics are sooo tiresome and passe./
kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 12:18 PM
That’s one messy way to get there. I’d also prefer to be buried in one piece, not as a confetti bag.
Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 12:18 PM
Your story as given doesn’t make sense.
No forced conversions to Judaism of Israeli Arabs.
No forced conversions to Judaism of Christians.
If you and your wife were migrants then denial of healthcare coverage is written in the law regardless of religious affiliation.
workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 12:21 PM
Exactly. It was Bush who followed the science. It was the Left that was “fundamentalist” in its rage to promote abortion through the back door of embryonic stem cell research.
rrpjr on April 1, 2013 at 12:22 PM
I’m with you there, if you want to take your own life and want or need assistance doing it then it IS your life. If there is someone who can help then that should be an option for anyone who is of sound mind.
But having a government involved, meh. They will simply want their cut, then start spending that cut on some bullshiite scheme, and eventually trying to “streamline” the process to provide more revenue. That’s the slippery slope.
Bishop on April 1, 2013 at 12:22 PM
Bishop on April 1, 2013 at 12:22 PM
Soylent Green is people.
kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 12:25 PM
Not nearly enough. But I do have a ton of experience with folks that exaggerate to make points here.
Can you link to this policy?
hawkdriver on April 1, 2013 at 12:25 PM
It was actually the Republican Congress who blocked the funding. Bill Clinton had an opportunity to unblock the funding in 1999 but chose to defer the decision to GWB.
Gosh, who would’ve thought I’d miss Slick Willy in just 13 years…
Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 12:25 PM
Lawrence v. Texas is also cited by “polygamist/polyamory” activists. In this case, it was rejected by the court only because the guy didn’t bring it up as a rationale in his original trial:
Appeals seek polygamy right
By Pamela Manson The Salt Lake Tribune
A very slippery slope indeed.
whatcat on April 1, 2013 at 12:26 PM
The reason government might need to be involved is to preclude a police investigation, in case dirty play is suspected. Said clerk could as well be a policeman, or an officer of the court.
Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 12:27 PM
Carbon monoxide. Pipe exhaust into your car and take a nap.
Not that complicated.
Mimzey on April 1, 2013 at 12:28 PM
LOL– You are putting a lot of faith and power in the government’s hands.
melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 12:29 PM
I don’t think it would really matter a lot to you. Being dead kinda has a way of calming people down about such things.
whatcat on April 1, 2013 at 12:30 PM
I agree.. How hard is it to kill yourself? Even if you have a fatal debilitating disease; there is a point before you are incapaticated that you can off yourself.
melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 12:30 PM
You’re changing the topic.
Your criticism and slander was at Bush.
Mimzey on April 1, 2013 at 12:30 PM
Mimzey on April 1, 2013 at 12:28 PM
I had a friend do exactly that…3 days before his wife’s brithday, and left behind a boy in Jr. High and one in High School.
Suicide is painless..for you.
kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 12:30 PM
It’s amazing how often the name matches the person to utter perfection.
Schadenfreude on April 1, 2013 at 12:32 PM
So it wasn’t Bush.
rrpjr on April 1, 2013 at 12:33 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »