I was just going to put an addendum to Leon’s post here which essentially endorsed his position:
For understandable reasons, most of my fellow front pagers at RedState are opposed to same sex marriage in principle, and are thus dismayed by today’s Supreme Court opinion in Obergefell. For reasons I have set forth before here, I’m in favor of same sex marriage in principle, but I am equally or more dismayed by what the Supreme Court has done today. Many, many shortsighted people who are in favor of same sex marriage are rejoicing at today’s ruling, either because they are unfamiliar with the inherent mischief in allowing the courts to decide policy arguments that are better left to the legislature or because (if they are liberals) they view this as a feature, not a bug.
…but there are apparently people lining up on both sides of the issue that feel the urge to yell at the pro-SSM conservative. So be it: but I’ve already flailed the skin off of one friend who got upset that I simultaneously favored SSM and wanted this case decided differently. I make precisely zero promises about being nicer to people who can’t tell me apart from those… people… on the Right who worked to get this particular 5-4 majority. Frankly, there are about five people on the planet who can pull my chain on this subject, and they’re all related to me by blood, marriage… and, well, my wife can always say what she likes to me, of course. Anyway. You get it, I’m sure.
Although I honestly don’t know why anybody’s bothering. The decision has, as they said, been made.
If gay people want to be married, they should do it like straight people, not make up their own version:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/26/most_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html
The decision has been made.
But they did not have the authority to make it.
They can go pound sand.
The SCOTUS’s action surely is a wicked thing in nearly every aspect, but I can’t see how you or others who wanted SSM achieved through democratic and constitutional means bare any responsibility. As Roberts said of the constitution, you “had nothing to do with this”.
I would like to point out that I don’t remember you ever talking about Religious Liberty in relation SSM until now. Please tell me I am wrong.
I have consistently called for conscience exemptions with regard to same-sex marriage since 2012. I resent, highly, any suggestion that I have not been forthcoming on this issue.
…Don’t. Just. Don’t.
Moe, I think a lot of emotions are running high at the moment.
–
Look the last thing Conservatives need to do is be at each other’s throats. Moe has a different opinion on the topic than I do, but he respects those that have a differing opinion.
–
We should be concerned about what those on the left are going to do, not bickering with each other.
Emotions probably are running high. Certainly *I* am touchy on this subject.
I haven’t seen you engaging in flamebaiting and then banning people for responding to the the baiting.
–
My concern is that religious conservatives are now going to systematically be targetted. It would certainly fit with the certain people on the left’s pattern of behavior.
I asked you to tell me I was wrong and you did. Thank you.
You are welcome.
Well anyone else want to predict how till Christians start getting targetted by left-wing radicals for staying true to their religious convictions…
–
Moe, I respectfully disagree with your position regarding SSM (I imagine we could compromise on civil unions); however I am in complete agreement with you that the Supreme Court decision is a outragous.
It has started already.
I eagerly await the hordes of homosexual couples arriving at local mosques to take their wedding vows.
Islamophobe!
Eh. I don’t have a dog in the religious side, but I wish it had been decided the other way ..
.
These “landmark rulings” tend to flash-freeze all the grudges in place until well after everyone alive for the decision has moldered … and sometimes even longer.
.
Much *much* better to punch this through Congress than to do it this way… The lawfare around this will go on for at least another century…
.
Mew
The Institution of Marriage has been in decline among the lower classes for a while. This ruling will not change that but it might make it worse.
The ironical part is .. if marriage is as meaningless as they say, then .. why the fight over it?
.
No, the battle is emotional, that’s why the battlespace makes no rational sense… and marriage is in decline because the value of being married – for the lower classes – has been destroyed.
.
Mew
There’s another point about doing it this way.
.
We can be pretty sure that Obama picked his noms, as he did all his others, on the basis of having a hold on them. Roberts is also pretty obviously following orders.
.
Three just needs one more to get a case heard, assuming Obama gives a flip. Why should he give a flip here? He isn’t particularly concerned about his base. Either he has personal sympathies, or he was paid extra to get something done. Which would mean this method gains something for someone. What could it be?
.
If this is a critical step, hindsight suggests that the whole point of the exercise could have been access to orphans, with no oversight and no questions asked.
.
Of course, it isn’t their fault, the Greek architecture made them pedos. We need to tear down our classically inspired architecture to stop child molestation.
We disagree regarding Roberts.
.
Obviously, Kagan was chosen as some combination payoff/reliable stooge ..
.
Sotomayor seems to have been chosen because she’s an idiot.
.
I wonder how much of Notorious RBG’s piss and vinegar at the idea of letting Obama pick her replacement comes from working with those two.
.
As for Roberts .. you really need to look at how the court works, and how the opinions are structured to see the game he’s playing .. it’s deep. For just one example, does the gay marriage decision interact with 2nd amendment cases?
.
Mew