Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Interesting Take On Obergefell v. Hodges


Please take a few moments to read and to consider the following excerpt from The trouble with the ‘dignity’ of same-sex marriage, which recently appeared in the Washington Post (emphases mine):
...[Justice] Kennedy’s moving language was more than just aspirational thoughts on dignity. He found a right to marriage based not on the status of the couples as homosexuals but rather on the right of everyone to the “dignity” of marriage. The uncertain implications of that right should be a concern not just for conservatives but also for civil libertarians. While Obergefell clearly increases the liberty of a historically oppressed people, the reasoning behind it, if not carefully defined, could prove parasitic or invasive to other rights. Beware the law of unintended constitutional consequences.

[...]

...[I]t is not clear what a right to dignity portends....Some of us have long argued for precisely that result, but the use of a dignity right as a vehicle presents a new, unexpected element, since it may exist in tension with the right to free speech or free exercise of religion.

[...]

With the emergence of this new right, we must now determine how it is balanced against other rights and how far it extends. For example, it is clearly undignified for a gay couple to be denied a wedding cake with a homosexual theme. Yet for a Christian or Muslim baker, it might also feel undignified to be forced to prepare an image celebrating same-sex marriage. Should the right to dignity trump free speech or free exercise?

Other groups outside the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community could invoke this precedent, since the reasoning does not concern a protected sexual-orientation class but rather a citizen’s right to dignity. Could employees challenge workplace dress codes as intruding upon their right to “define and express their identity”? Could those subject to college admissions preferences raise claims that race or gender classifications deny their individual effort to “define and express their identity”? Kennedy’s approach has only deepened the uncertainty over how courts will handle such cases.

Some of the greatest attacks on dignity are often found in the exercise of free speech....
Read the entire essay HERE.

The words "a right to dignity" sound good. But as the law or the land and as a legal precedent? The interpretation thereof might indeed lead to terrible consequences.

Do you trust the courts to respect your dignity if your exercise of freedom of expression violates the perceived dignity of someone else?

And isn't "a right to dignity" dangerously close to the establishment of The Thought Police?

123 comments:

  1. A supposed "right to dignity" is a recent, and irrelevant construct. Obergefell was ruled correctly based strictly upon the equal protection enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment. "Dignity" has an emotional, not legal basis...and has no place in our system of jurisprudence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CI,
      I have to disagree with something in your comment.

      The ruling wasn't based strictly upon the equal protection enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment. I know that you see the ruling that way, but Justice Kennedy has inserted other language which will likely be used to curtail freedoms. That is the point of this post, CI, not whether or not one agrees with SCOTUS's new definition of marriage.

      I do find it interesting that Loving vs. Virginia was used as one basis for the Obergefell decision. Back when the Loving ruling was issued, nobody even dreamed that the decision would be used for anything but combating racial discrimination.

      In fact, I seem to recall that Hubert Humphrey specifically stated something about the Loving ruling not ever applying to homosexuals. My memory could be faulty on this matter of Hubert Humphrey, but there was a staunch supporter of the Civil Rights Acts who did specifically state such opposition to homosexual rights. Maybe you know who that was?

      Delete
    2. I stated that the ruling was correctly based [as in Constitutionally] on the relevant clauses of the 14th. I agree that Kennedy's majority opinion did not find for the defendants strictly upon it. What I was getting at, is that the entire harangue regarding "dignity" was irrelevant and unnecessary. It's not about agreeing with the majority opinion...it's about agreeing with the Constitutional justification.

      Instead of continually carving out exemptions and special privileges, if we would simply agree that the citizen has the right to dispense with one's labor as one sees fit [public accommodation-wise], there wouldn't be any prognostications of what 'freedoms' could allegedly be curtailed by result of the Obergefell ruling.

      Legal precedent most often comes into play on later cases...where the original cases had no direct subject relationship. Reliance on the Loving case is no different.

      I'm not aware of Humphrey commenting on the Loving case.

      Delete
    3. CI,
      Well, you did type in ruled correctly based strictly. You can see why I find that a bit ambiguous.

      Anyway, the idea that the citizen has the right to dispense with one's labor as one sees fit. But didn't that ship sail off long ago into the sunset? When has the SCOTUS ruled that way -- with that language?

      Legal precedent most often comes into play on later cases...where the original cases had no direct subject relationship. Reliance on the Loving case is no different.

      Yes! And not always with a good result, either.

      I know that I read something about the Civil Rights Act never applying to homosexual rights. And now the Civil Rights Act does so.

      Delete
    4. It probably is ambiguous, let me re-phrase: the majority opinion would have been correctly adjudicated solely on the basis of the equal protection and enforcement clauses of the 14th Amendment.......the rambling opinion on vague concepts of dignity were unnecessary.

      Somebody likely did say something in regards to the Civil Rights Act and homosexuality. But was it legislation or a court? Or was it somebody merely weighing with an opinion. Again, by virtue of the 14th, the Civil Rights Act is also unnecessary with regards to this ruling. One could make a cogent argument for such, but I don't see the need.

      Delete
    5. I mean to add as well, that Kennedy's remarks regarding religious freedom, in his majority opinion...will also be used at a later date, should a case of that nature come through the courts.

      Delete
    6. CI,
      I am aware of his remarks about religious freedom, but, IMO, there will have to be multiple court battles over that because the push is already on to force businesses and organizations to bow to the gay agenda.

      Meanwhile, hasn't the destruction of some small businesses already occurred (Sweet Cakes Bakery, for example)? It costs big bucks to navigate the courts system.

      Of course, there was also the Hobby Lobby decision. Since that time, haven't RFRA's come under scrutiny and attack?

      Delete
    7. Yep...no different than any other ruling. But all of this is said in light of the historical bowing to the Christian agenda.

      Delete
    8. So because Kennedy ruled your way, you excuse his appeal to dignity which he used to buttress his argument, as if Loving wasn't enough.
      Which four other Supremes felt wasn't.
      "historical bowing to the Christian agenda."
      Wow.

      Delete
    9. Ed,
      It seems that those who like the way the Oberfell decision went aren't much concerned about the points that Jonathan Turley made in the linked essay.

      It also seems that at least some those who don't like the way the Oberfell decision went choose not to delve into what Turley is saying.

      You make an excellent point: the Loving decision should have been grounds enough for the Obergefell ruling without Justice Kennedy's grinding away yet again about " the right to dignity."

      Defining the word dignity is subjective and nebulous; defining a Constitutional right shouldn't be that way at all! Especially with micro-aggressions as one of the new "causes" worthy of combat. Sheesh.

      Delete
    10. Ed, why do you force yourself to frame responses in such a way? Aren't you better than that? Kindly point out where I've "excused" the appeal to dignity.....I've done quite the opposite...stating that reliance on the Equal Protection Enforcement tenets of the 14th Amendment were quite enough. So, in fact, I've taken the exact position you just did [with different foundations], without needing to rely on emotion-driven pap like "because you don't like the ruling......"

      Delete
    11. Once again, just because YOU think that Kennedy made his case without the "dignity" construct, he didn't think dignity was irrelevant to his ruling, or he wouldn't have brought it up.
      Without the dignity appeal available to him, would he have found Loving enough?

      Delete
    12. Yep....and the 14th Amendment.

      So...you're not then going to show where I "excused" his remarks of dignity.

      Delete
    13. No I'm not. Perhaps excuse is not the word, but I think it fits.
      You do not recognize (give weight to) his reliance on that nonsense.
      You say he could have done without it. He didn't try to do without it.

      Delete
    14. You're exactly correct...I don't give it any weight...at least not in the manner you do. I discard it as irrelevant and unnecessary. That means my assessment of the ruling, based also on the 14th Amendment...is entirely just....to me.

      Delete
    15. Ed,
      Without the dignity appeal available to him, would he have found Loving enough?

      That's an excellent question.

      Why does Justice Kennedy, time after time, try to establish, via court decree, a new right -- namely, the right to dignity?

      To me, that so-called right smacks of "social justice" and "the common good," terms so often used as wedges for gradually bringing about a totalitarian state.

      From this web page:

      "I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the [legal] safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." Fredrich August von Hayek

      "In this book [Rules for Radicals] we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace.... This means revolution.'" Saul Alinsky

      “'To be a leader means to be able to move the masses.' Hitler’s aim was first to move the masses and then, having pried them loose from their traditional loyalties and moralities, to impose upon them (with the hypnotized consent of the majority) a new authoritarian order of his own devising." Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited

      Delete
    16. CI,
      I understand your position although I don't agree with it. What you deem irrelevant today may well come back to bite us in the future -- like the fine print in contracts. We shall see.

      Delete
    17. PS to CI: Does the end justify the means?

      Delete
    18. It depends on how your defining the 'means'. Your placing a lot of stock in Kennedy's 'appeal to dignity'.....but you do know his words do not actually establish a right....right? A right must be defined and codified. What Kennedy uttered was in the vein of saying...."you have a right to drive a car". But it's not really a right.

      And where exactly was the interest in rights and dignity when our fellow Americans were persecuted and prosecuted for their sexual orientation? There's much pearl clutching occurring since the 26th of June....but precious little before that. Did those ends justify the means?

      Delete
    19. CI,
      Good grief! I'm not putting a lot of stock in the words. After all, I did not write the essay, did I? A supporter of same-sex marriage did. I think that point is significant. You don't think so?

      But I do really think that this may come back to curtail some Americans' freedoms and to stir up further unrest as the wrestling to define "a right to dignity" ensues.

      If you disagreed with the SCOTUS ruling, wouldn't you be a bit concerned about Justice Kennedy's words?

      As for persecuting and prosecuting gays, I didn't do any or that -- nor have I ever advocated doing so.

      Gotta go to work. If I remember to do so later, I will post a link to another essay which I read -- on the topic of "the right to dignity," that is.

      Delete
    20. I think it's fair to say that you've been more concerned with Kennedy's remarks on 'dignity' than the enforcement portion of the Equal Protection clause of the 4th Amendment....am I wrong?

      You may have never treated anyone any the lesser.....but we maintained an institutional system that did exactly that....towards our own citizens. Or as Beamish would say...against "faggots" and "uppity homosexuals". Because he's classy like that.

      I'll read the essay when you post it....but you do understand what I was getting at, regarding actual rights?

      Delete
    21. CI:" You're placing a lot of stock in Kennedy's 'appeal to dignity'.....but you do know his words do not actually establish a right....right? "
      The words of a Supreme carry a lot of weight in arguments down the road on other cases.
      And indicate his faulty rationale. Once again, if there is no right to dignity, does it not scare you that a Supreme thinks there is? And said so? An official interpreter of our Bill of Rights?
      So, if four justices I admire find against gay marriage, four justices I see as political hacks find for it, and one other "decides" demonstrating his lack of understanding of basic rights as enumerated in our Constitution, does that not give pause for concern as to the legitimacy of the ruling?

      Delete
    22. No Ed.....it does not give me pause, because per the 14th Amendment, this case was adjudicated correctly. When you self analyse your position....does it not give you pause that the Justices you happen to admire, share your political leanings........while the others, you consider "political hacks". Is there not perhaps, some bias in your position?

      Majority opinions do have weight in future rulings.....as do minority rulings. Neither codifies nor concerns a 'right'. You've more than once, framed a response to me with "because I 'liked' the ruling"......and since I think poorly of that tactic (since I've provided the Consitutional basis for my position) I haven't responded in kind; but your narrative continues to strike me as you simply "not liking" the ruling.

      Delete
    23. 2nd paragraph should read "confers" rather than "concerns". I can't type on my phone with the grace and skill of a teenager.....

      Delete
    24. BTW.....does this mean you stand firm behind the tenets of Scalia and Thomas's unorthodox dissenting opinions?

      Delete
    25. You expressed at my blog that you would haw preferred that 50 states had approved of the result. Of course, the majority of states that allowed "gay marriage" did so by judicial fiat also.
      What I don't like about this is how it was done.
      Judicial tyranny.
      We are repeating ourselves.
      Scalia and Thomas's opinions, while unorthodox , don't carry the weight of a majority opinion.

      Delete
    26. I still do. Allow me to amplify my meaning. I truly wish that the citizens and legislatures of all 50 states would strive toward - and vote for - the maximum liberty for the citizenry; that they would act on their own volition, to overturn and remove arbitrary prohibitions that deny the rights, liberties and privileges that are enjoyed by most citizens.....to some citizens. Arbitrary legislation and code that stands without a rational basis.

      But much like the Loving ruling, it took SCOTUS to rule on the issue....another example of "judicial fiat" if you're being logically consistent.

      Delete
    27. Actually, our Constitution was heavily influenced by "Natural Law".
      If homosexual marriage was "natural" it would be far more prevalent in history and today.
      Inter-racial marriage bans were a fairly recent constructs and opposed Natural Law.
      So Loving was reasonable in recognizing a "right" that had been abrogated.
      " maximum liberty for the citizenry" to vote the way you want.
      The liberty of the citizenry to decide for themselves has been abrogated (sorry for using that word twice).
      If society voted for "gay marriage" I'd feel a lot better about it than by judicial fiat.

      Delete
    28. Actually, our Constitution was heavily influenced by "Natural Law".
      If homosexual marriage was "natural" it would be far more prevalent in history and today.
      Inter-racial marriage bans were a fairly recent constructs and opposed Natural Law.
      So Loving was reasonable in recognizing a "right" that had been abrogated.
      " maximum liberty for the citizenry" to vote the way you want.
      The liberty of the citizenry to decide for themselves has been abrogated (sorry for using that word twice).
      If society voted for "gay marriage" I'd feel a lot better about it than by judicial fiat.

      Delete
    29. If homosexual marriage was "natural"....

      Marriage being a construct of man and society, I'm not sure this helps your argument. Nor the fact that marriage has indeed evolved multiple time throughout history, even unto the past century.

      So Loving was reasonable in recognizing a "right" that had been abrogated.

      Marriage is, under law, a contract. The contract has been unequally enforced until Obergefell.

      " maximum liberty for the citizenry" to vote the way you want....

      Except to arbitrarily restrict the consensual actions of your fellow citizen, without even rational basis. Unless of course.....thats what you support....

      If merely voting for what makes us feel good, is the prime directive, why do we need the Constitution?

      Delete
    30. "Marriage being a construct of man and society", therein being our dividing point.
      But suppose it is. Then society doesn't get to choose to construct it the way society wants in your view.
      In your view, a fundamental right to constructing a contract contrary to society's wishes must exist. So the society's right to construct this marriage is short circuited by a man in a robe.
      And if marriage is only a contract, we have lots of laws limiting contracts.
      I'm missing where I said "feels good."

      Delete
    31. We will have to remain divided on your first point.

      Voting on the basis of "feeling good" is the only logically reason I can find to arbitrarily restrict the consensual actions of your fellow citizen, without even rational basis. I didn't say that you said it. I'm trying to draw some sort of logic line with what you typed. I'm sure that it can be couched in more favorable terms, including verbiage such as 'deeply held beliefs', 'tradition', etc...but in the end, it merely makes one feel good about having their world view legislated. I suppose I'm similar in a fashion, except I have no vested interest in either way the ruling may have gone.

      We do have laws limiting contracts.....which by and large are premised on some level of rational basis. You seem to think that our society can Constitutionally, vote to deny liberty sans rational basis.

      Don't you think that the proper role of the court [or more rhetorically, a "man in a robe"] is to ensure that society doesn't arbitrarily and un-Constitutionally restrict the liberty of citizens? Or again.....do we simply not need a Constitution...and simply rule by mob vote?

      Delete
  2. CI,
    You won't agree with all of , but note this portion:

    Sen. Barry Goldwater, who had been in the forefront of the civil rights movement, decided to vote against the 1964 version. He foretold that it would lead to quotas in employment and showed exactly how it would. Sen. Hubert Humphrey, who was angling to be Lyndon Johnson’s running mate later that year, acted as Johnson’s lapdog and said that if it did, he’d eat a copy of the bill on the Senate floor. It did & he didn’t...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe wedding caterers have an out. The straight wedding cake costs $100. The gay wedding cake costs $1 Million. Or the gay couple can buy the straight cake and put semen, blood, and fecal matter on it themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. As I aid, there is going to be a fallout over the transgender issue and there will be a lot more agitation than necessary because the right wing loons won't be able to act like adults.

      Delete
    3. How can anyone tell if a cake is straight or gay, Ducky?

      Delete
    4. "because the right wing loons won't be able to act like adults"
      Talking like that is so adult. not.

      Delete
    5. Perhaps caterers should charge $135,000 for gay cakes.

      Delete
  4. Alexander the Gross said

    PSALM NINE

    [1] I will praise thee, O LORD, with my whole heart; I will shew forth all thy marvellous works.

    [2] I will be glad and rejoice in thee: I will sing praise to thy name, O thou most High.

    [3] When mine enemies are turned back, they shall fall and perish at thy presence.

    [4] For thou hast maintained my right and my cause; thou satest in the throne judging right.

    [5] Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever.

    [6] O thou enemy, destructions are come to a perpetual end: and thou hast destroyed cities; their memorial is perished with them.

    [7] But the LORD shall endure for ever: he hath prepared his throne for judgment.

    [8] And he shall judge the world in righteousness, he shall minister judgment to the people in uprightness.

    [9] The LORD also will be a refuge for the oppressed, a refuge in times of trouble.

    [10] And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, LORD, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.

    [11] Sing praises to the LORD, which dwelleth in Zion: declare among the people his doings.

    [12] When he maketh inquisition for blood, he remembereth them: he forgetteth not the cry of the humble.

    [13] Have mercy upon me, O LORD; consider my trouble which I suffer of them that hate me, thou that liftest me up from the gates of death:

    [14] That I may shew forth all thy praise in the gates of the daughter of Zion: I will rejoice in thy salvation.

    [15] The heathen are sunk down in the pit that they made: in the net which they hid is their own foot taken.

    [16] The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. ...

    [17] The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

    [18]

    [19] Arise, O LORD; let not man prevail: let the heathen be judged in thy sight.

    [20] Put them in fear, O LORD: that the nations may know themselves to be but men. ...


    Ask yourself these things: Who is the Enemy? What is Wickedness? Who and what is God? What is the true nature of these constant Battles to which the Bible refers so frequently? Give it some thought. You might be surprised at some of the ideas that come to you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Alexander the Gross said

    " ... Let all bitterness and wrath and anger,
    And clamor ad evil speaking
    Be put away from you with all malice.

    And be ye kind one to another,
    Ttender-hearted and forgiving one another
    Even as God who for Christ's Sake
    Hath forgiven you."

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's all interpretive jiggery-pokery now. The law is whatever the Nine Mullahs in Black Robes say it is.

    We ceased long ago being a natural-rights based system of laws, and we are now a government of men and women who confiscate all our rights and then dole them back out to us. Our rights now flow from government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alexander the Gross said

      "The ungodly are not so, but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away."

      Delete
    2. ....................... . . . . ლ(ಠ益ಠ)ლ

      !!!!!!!!!!!!!Mullahs und Trannies make Loofah Angry!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Supreme Court not supreem...this wrong decide

      dog backwards = God

      cat backwards = t.a.c (( The Anti Christ))

      mind = blown

      /Fark

      Delete
  7. This is why the issue should have remained with the States. Pandora's box is now open. "Free speech" in the end will not come so cheap IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Back to the old bakery argument are we?

    That's been decided in favor of anti discrimination laws and we aren't likely to revisit it any time soon.

    It's probably going to play out in some strange ays over the transgender issue and I'm quite certain there will be lot more agitation than necessary because the right isn't going to be able to act like adults.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Constitutional right to freedom of religion means that each can practice their own religion within the constraints of the same.

    Those who engage phallic worship, etc. should not force those who choose not to worship the creature above the Creator to participate in their act of idolatry.

    We sin against God, long before we sin against our fellow man. I take comfort in that knowledge.

    No American should be forced to defile themselves for the practice of another.

    ReplyDelete
  10. NOTE TO COMMENTERS:

    Could we please now return to the subject of this blog post? That is, the matter of Justice Kennedy's approach in declaring a new right -- "a right to dignity."

    The linked article points out unintended consequences therefrom. Is that a real possibility or not?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Unintended consequences? There are always unintended consequences.
    Hell, we are still paying through the nose for Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific RR. .

    He seems primarily concerned with speech but I don't see that this gives a new vehicle to limit speech. Geller/Spencer will be telling us that all Muslims suck well into the foreseeable future.

    The bakery issue was decided before the gay marriage ruling anyway so that example is junk.

    He just sounds like a whiner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Duck,
      Jonathan Turley sounds like a whiner?

      Delete
    3. Any here who are unfamiliar with the name Jonathan Turley can find out about him at Wikipedia.

      Yes, Turley wrote the essay linked in the body of the blog post.

      Delete
  12. What is dignity? How is it numbered and measured? Can it be given, taken, bought, sold, stir fried with Ponzu sauce?

    Should the question even be dignified with a response? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  13. The can of worms has been opened. Now we have to deal with the consequences and there will be consequences. Fasten your seat belts...

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The language of 'dignity' is foundational to the right to assisted suicide advocates. And considering the checks (or lack thereof) on this practice, one can speculate how much easier it will be for the heir first in line to do granny in. Before long.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FT,
      This blog post is not about a legal provision for consenting adults to marry. That's been hashed out here -- and all over the web elsewhere ever since the Obergefell decision.

      Neither is this blog post about morality or Christianity.

      As you well know, you and I don't agree on all aspects of the matter of same-sex marriage.

      But enough of that.

      Here's the point which Jonathan Turley made in his essay: the very idea of "a right to dignity" could well be a slippery slope, with far-reaching unintended consequences.

      Jonathan Turley, the author of the linked essay, has advocated same-sex marriage; he has also argued in favor of polygamy.

      More about Jonathan Turley HERE.

      Delete
    2. FT,
      As for the matter of the bakery, Mr. Turley stated the following:

      With the emergence of this new right, we must now determine how it is balanced against other rights and how far it extends. For example, it is clearly undignified for a gay couple to be denied a wedding cake with a homosexual theme. Yet for a Christian or Muslim baker, it might also feel undignified to be forced to prepare an image celebrating same-sex marriage.

      The very idea of "a right to dignity" relies too much on feeling, emotions, etc. Those elements are not supposed to be a part of the rule of civil law. And when those elements become a part of the rule of civil law, anarchy cannot be far behind.

      It seems to me that the issue of the Obergefell decision goes way beyond what most of us have focused one -- i.e., the matter of same-sex marriage per se.

      Delete
    3. Errratum: "have focused one" should read "have focused on."

      Delete
    4. His concern seems to be that permitting participation in an institution that is considered basic to our humanity will be contorted into a ruling that not being offended is also basic to our humanity.

      Well, that's a huge reach.

      As for the bakery. You violate anti-discrimination laws and you get your ass sued. That's over.

      Delete
    5. Duck,
      Okay. Now you've said that's a huge reach. At least that's on topic -- even though you haven't explained why it's a huge reach:

      1. What prevents that reach?

      2. What prevents the contortion that not being offended is also basic to our humanity?

      Can you answer those two questions in jurisprudence terms? Or will more cases along those lines have to come before the SCOTUS?

      As for your last paragraph -- not necessarily, IMO. Those who refuse services have their right to dignity, too. According to Justice Kennedy, that is. Let us not forget that what he wrote is also in the record.

      Delete
    6. What prevents overreach?

      Nothing.

      That's been a feature of this system of jurisprudence sine the Sedition act.

      Citizens United anyone?
      I'm curious that Turley (not a fan) uses this issue not to deal with real rulings that have done serious damage to our democracy but to go all goo-goo, ga-ga about some theoretical future ruling.

      Delete
    7. Duck,
      Turley deals with a lot of theoretical material because of the nature of his particular law specialty.

      But the fact remains that theoretical future rulings are something that all lawyers must consider. As one who is trying to get our wills into place, I know more about legal theoretical matters than I care to navigate.

      Let's think a moment about what you and are I now discussing. You like the Obergefell ruling; I do not. But just suppose that the ruling had gone the other way -- that is, with the SCOTUS upholding that the right to dignity favored those who deny services to same-sex couples so that the dignity of the deniers could be preserved. Would you then not be concerned? I'm sure that you would because the very phrase "a right to dignity" is ripe for abuse in a nation of litigious people with lawyers standing on every corner.

      As for the Alien and Sedition Acts, you and I know the outcomes of that -- and the backlash as well.

      Now, as to why Turley wrote this opinion piece, I cannot say why. But, IMO, because the Obergefell ruling is one of the big stories right now. That said, let us remember that Turley approved of the ruling favoring same-sex couples, but not of the language used by Justice Kennedy.

      Delete
    8. Duck,
      There is another possibility. Turley may be concerned that Justice Kennedy's language will somehow interfere with same-sex marriage. I detect that undertone in the essay.

      Delete
  17. The dignity of gay sex.
    What was the question?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, Ed.

      The question is gay marriage.

      They've been having sex without your permission for thousands of years.

      Delete
    2. Duck,
      Once again, the topic of this blog post is not gay marriage.

      The author of the linked essay supports gay marriage.

      Have you read the entire linked essay?

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. FT,
      Sorry that you can't read the entire essay. It's quite interesting. I was hoping that you could enlarge the font so as to read what Turley has to say.

      dwelling on minutiae of this sort is little more than a mask for hostility towards homosexuals, and a way of trying to undermine support for the new ruling among those who may be wavering

      I can't speak for others in that regard. I wouldn't say that I have any hostility toward homosexuals.

      Jonathan Turley, the author of the essay, clearly bears no ill will toward same-sex marriage. He actually favors same-sex marriage and even polygamy -- libertarian principles according to Turley himself.

      It is a sad fact of life in our republic that legal minutiae matter a great deal.

      This FRACAS, BROUHAHA or KERFUFFLE -- whatever you want to call it –– over "Gay Marriage" in my view is nothing more than a Tempest in a Teapot –– a sensationalistic RED HERRING designed to DISTRACT our citizenry from issues that have a GENUINELY deleterious effect on the quality of American Life

      I do think that the gay agenda will have a GENUINELY deleterious effect on the quality of American Life in that the definition of family is changing; as that definition changes, the state will take more control of how parents rear their children.

      Furthermore, it has been a mere thirteen years that gay marriage has been legal in the modern world. Therefore, I say that we don't know with certainty the long-term effects on modern societies.

      The above said, the other issues you mentioned are clearly very, very serious -- a death spiral, in fact: Unemployment, Crumbling Infrastructure, Trade Imbalance with other nations, Uncontrolled Illegal Immigration, Increasing Lawlessness in general, and the utter foolishness of permitting ISLAM and its Followers even to EXIST within our borders. I will agree with you that the matter of gay marriage is a distraction from other things going on.

      Delete
    5. FT,
      Forgot to say that there was no need for you to withdraw your remarks.

      Delete
    6. I would have to say Islam in our borders would effectively minimize uppity homos, especially when is starts raining men... off the tops of tall buildings. You just gotta find the silver lining in the storm...

      Delete
  18. A right to dignity is rooted in acting dignified.
    What one thinks is dignified, a large population thinks is abhorrent.
    So now it IS a free speech issue.
    Freedom to call something for what it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed,
      What one thinks is dignified, a large population thinks is abhorrent.
      So now it IS a free speech issue.


      That's how I, too, see this matter of Justice Kennedy's language.

      If Justice Kennedy's language is applied to other cases, we will certainly see a serious erosion of our First Amendment.

      Indeed, there will be a right not to be offended.

      All too often being offended is in the eye of the beholder.

      In my view, 21st Century mankind is actively searching for a reason to be offended. It's the Age of Whiners, which began to metastasize in the 1980s/ I think that this metastasis began when great emphasis was placed on self-esteem.

      Delete
    2. There is your book title, The Age of Whiners.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. FT,
      Ed is merely stating his opinion. Do you really think that he is despotic?

      I think that all of us who frenetically type in comments often mean "IMO" -- whether that phrase is used or not. Such is the nature of blogging, which is, more often than not, opinion.

      Delete
    5. I'm not sure what FT is referring to as despotic.
      I only said "a large population thinks is abhorrent".

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. FT,
      Lobbying is a HUGE part of what is wrong with our political system, IMO.

      As citizens, we certainly have the duty to contact our elected public servants, but what we say without the power of a lobby no longer seems to matter!

      I wonder what the history of lobbying is.

      Delete
    8. FT, your comment sounds suspiciously like a retread of the old "you can't legislate morality" trope. Forgive me if that's not the intent, as I know you're careful in your language, but it's how it looks in print. Virtually ALL laws are anchored in morality that is considered close enough to universal truth to merit public codification of the 'truth' as part of the legal/social contract that governs our actions.

      Absolute Truth [eternal, immutable Truth]
      + Interpretation of its Application [beliefs and opinions]
      = A Law

      If I lobby for a law that says people can’t wear yellow because I don't like the color - THAT's a 'pet peeve.' (Of course under the Ober ruling I can now mount a nuisance claim an impingement on my ‘dignity’ to support a law about the offense, but I digress.)

      But to lobby to maintain the status quo of an institution that is the underpinning of all societies I know of and has been privileged by governments for millenia for roughly that reason can hardly be dismissed as an opinion or pet peeve. We obviously disagree to the very depth of this issue. Let's acknowledge how profoundly we disagree and not try to swat it away with such a demeaning arm wave as calling it peevish.

      Delete
    9. It seems then that the people can't vote to make society in their image, but a man in a robe can dictate it.

      Delete
    10. It seems then that the people can't vote to make society in their image, but a man in a robe can dictate it.

      Delete
    11. The image of our society is bound by the Constitution. Repeal it or amend it.

      Delete
  19. Exactly. Dignity is honor and respect, honor and respect are expression of belief and principle, expression of belief and principle is free speech. I have the right to refuse to honor and respect any one, for any reason. If that offends you, f*ck you. If that doesn't offend you, f*ck you. Big ol egalitarian f*ck you. If I'm the source of your dignity, you need a shrink, not me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beamish,
      I'm not as "hardcore" as you. However, you are precisely correct with your statement: If I'm the source of your dignity, you need a shrink, not me.

      I respect people according to certain Biblical principles. You know what I mean. But Christians are not commanded to respect certain things (several abominations, for example); and we clearly are not commanded to respect people according to their "book covers." Know what I mean?

      Delete
    2. As a matter of law, I can't libel or slander anyone, and if their melanin content exceeds some certain level of parts per million I can't "hate" them atop committing a crime against them, but I reserve and enjoy the right to refuse and reject their requests and refuse service to them be it a business proposal or just some Jehovah's Witlesses at my door. Generally a "no thanks,not interested" should suffice and save the f-you for the persistent, but the right to tell someone to go f themselves must be upheld.

      Delete
    3. In the rural Alabama town where I grew up, there's a small lake that was dredged which unearthed the skeleton of a black man wrapped in a heavy chain. Local authorities concluded that the black man had simply stolen more chain than he could swim with.

      I suspect that if the homos keep pissing people off, similar discoveries will be made.

      Delete
  20. Don't the Constitution's emolument clauses pretty much deny the granting of arbitrary dignity to any citizen? Queen Lispy is just going to have to f*ck off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beamish,
      Do our political "leaders" even know what the term emolument clauses means?

      Delete
    2. I hope so, before telemarketers start taking you to court for hanging up on faggots.

      Delete
    3. Seriously though, the anti-emoluments argument might shake things up, as to exactly what American citizens are and are not entitled to.

      Is not being able to retire and draw Social Security until 65 age discrimination?

      If we're gonna bonfire the Constitution, by God lets immolate the sucker.

      Delete
  21. A right to dignity is rooted in acting dignified.
    What one thinks is dignified, a large population thinks is abhorrent.
    So now it IS a free speech issue.
    Freedom to call something for what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Here we go, with the very words "husband" and "wife" not being dignified enough or offensive -- or something:

    Dems File Bill Banning Words “Husband” And “Wife” From U.S. Laws

    More than two dozen Democrats have proposed legislation that would eliminate the words “husband” and “wife” from federal law.

    Those “gendered terms” would be replaced by “gender-neutral” words like “spouse” or “married couple,” according to the bill from Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif.

    “The Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act recognizes that the words in our laws have meaning and can continue to reflect prejudice and discrimination even when rendered null by our highest courts,” Capps said. “Our values as a country are reflected in our laws. I authored this bill because it is imperative that our federal code reflect the equality of all marriages.”...


    Get ready to re-do your last will and testament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here again is an example of a necessary change to comport with the law.....but couched in absurd appeals to emotion. The bill should simply refer to spouse...and discard the garbage of prejudice, values...etc....

      Delete
    2. CI,
      I don't agree that it is a necessary change. Personally, I have no problem with the term "spouse." But in a marriage ceremony, civil or religious, I would want "husband and wife" used.

      If same-sex couples want to use "spouse and spouse," okay.

      Furthermore, this matter of terminology should not be something dealt with at the federal level.

      If I recall correctly, Virginia law already uses "spouse" as of the recent passage of a bill by the General Assembly. Is my recollection incorrect?

      Delete
    3. I agree with you, the verbiage should not be the business of the federal legislative body. After all, they have much more important matters to attend to, such as removing all vestiges of a historical battle flag.....

      Not certain about the Virginia verbiage...but I'd bet many states already use 'spouse'.

      Delete
    4. There ya go indeed, little lady.

      Let the government into your home, and they'll do some bigtime redecorating, led by the liberal likes ol' Louise Crapps there...

      Delete
    5. This sh*thead (Capps) is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group that pretends to be 'centrist' - Along with Adam Schiff and Loretta Sanchez (California voters will note they're not so centrist either - her record is atrocious - http://tinyurl.com/Capps-Vote-Record). She slimed into office in a weepy environment of being elected to replace her dead husband.

      She actually had the nerve to write "Our values as a country are reflected in our laws." Like the constitution, Ms. Capps? Spare me the bullsh*t.

      How long before one of us is sued for calling our husband our husband - because (back to the original post) we crushed the "dignity" of some poor little homo-sapien by using a term they are 'uncomfortable' with. Just wait. And not long.

      Delete
  23. And "acts of God" must become "non-indemnifying occurrences" in your insurance policies....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beamish,
      There is no end to convoluted legalese.

      Delete
    2. Thank God for King v. Burwell. Due to language not in the Smoot-Tawley Act, it's now legal to not pay taxes if you have a note from your mom. ;)

      Delete
    3. Smoot-Hawley, yes I know... But does it really matter what a law, the Constitution, or a judge says anymore?

      Delete
  24. More of "the right to dignity"?

    See Gay Man Files $70M Suit Against Bible Publishers Over ‘Homosexual’ Verses:

    Bradley LaShawn Fowler, an ex-con turned author, filed the federal suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on Monday, the same day a judge refused to appoint him a lawyer for his suit against Thomas Nelson, The Grand Rapids Press reported.

    “The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims,” the judge wrote.

    Fowler, who is representing himself in both cases, claims that Zondervan manipulated Scripture by using the term “homosexuals” in 1 Corinthians 6:9 of their 1982 and 1987 revised edition Bibles. He also contends that the reference to homosexuality were deleted by the publisher in later versions without informing the public.

    He alleges that since the older Kings James Version containing the term “homosexuals” is used by his family pastor, he has been outcast by his family.

    The 39-year-old is suing the Grand Rapids publisher for compensation of 20 years of “emotional duress and mental instability,” he told WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids.

    In a hand-written suit, Fowler lists all sorts of charges against Zondervan including malicious negligence, strict liability, malice, libel, and violating his civil rights. He filed a suit in June against Tennessee-based publisher Thomas Nelson on similar grounds. He’s seeking $60 million from Zondervan and $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This case deserves...and will get, the same credibility as the California petition to stone gays to death.

      Delete
  25. Liberals and conservatives, statists and libertarians can all point to horrible Supreme Court precedents. Honest liberals have observed many times that Roe v. Wade was erroneously decided. They invented a 'right' out of whole cloth.

    To answer your question, AOW, yes, Kennedy has opened a Pandora's box with his 'Dignity' justification.

    This is just one more brick in the wall of mob rule USA. We are going through a cleaned-up, digital remaster of the old analog French Revolution, and it's just beginning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. It isn't "sincerity". It's "righteous indignation".

      Delete
  26. The only "dignity" in affirmative action lies smugly ensconced within the contemptuous sense of superiority 'felt' by its' legislators. It is in reality, the epitome of intellectual hubris to believe that one can confer "dignity" through legislation. One may confer safety, security, and even prosperity upon others. But dignity is something "earned" through personal effort, not conferred by the powers du jour. For it is an "inalienable" property (Madison).

    Gay marriage will always be a joke. That the "king" approves of it, does not render the acts performed by its' adherents "dignified" in the eyes of one's fellow subjects, only in the eyes of the king.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And for the king now to be perceived as able to confer "dignity" upon certain subjects and "classes" of said subjects is merely an indication of just how far "off-track" Constitutional interpretation has been allowed to drift. It's high time we return to the Constitution. Impeach Associate Justice Kennedy!

      Delete
  27. ___ Battling in the Darkness ____

    Irrationality combined with spite
    Laced with paranoid self-righteous zeal
    Makes a combination hard to fight,
    Since adversaries treat with nothing real.

    Projection of self-doubt with willfulness
    Combines to seal out decent, common sense.
    So, even virtue shown with skillfulness
    Can’t penetrate Obduracy’s defense.

    Alas! The joy of honest thoughts exchanged
    Is lost midst warring egotists stalemated ––
    Entrenched by suppositions oft deranged ––
    Employed to see all mutually berated.

    Thus trapped in darkness blindly on we fight
    Afraid to see our faults exposed to light.


    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  28. Replies
    1. Thank you for posting the link. It's about what I would expect from the Witherspoon Institute...but I'll keep my opinion of their work largely to myself. The most glaring facet of this opinion piece is that the author appears to be thoroughly confused on the generally accepted definitions of classical Liberalism and modern Liberalism. I'm thoroughly confused as to how he equates individual autonomy with modern Liberalism. That is the currency of Libertarians....and to a much lesser extent [my opinion], modern Conservatives. Certainly not modern Liberals.

      The rest of his essay is rather convoluted and seemingly meant as some scattershot hit piece on modern Liberal/Progressive ideology.

      Frankly, Turley's piece was far more cogent.

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective