Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
The Supreme Court to Decide Whether the Bible or the Constitution is the Law of the Land
The concept of holding on to a ritual or belief from a previous time that is passed down within a society and still maintained in the present is tradition, and they can persist and sometimes evolve over thousands of years. Every society has myriad popular traditions that are practiced and adhered to by a majority of people, but a tradition’s popularity should not be the impetus for enacting federal or state laws that penalize non-participants, or those who favor alternative traditions. Over the past several years, one tradition has been thrust into cultural and political discourse based around a religious belief, and it has served as motivation to subvert the Constitution’s promise of equal and civil rights with solid support from the religious right’s legislative arm, the Republican Party. Americans love traditions, but the idea of legislating a tradition is about as absurd as legislating morality, but that is the quandary facing America in 2012, and the Supreme Court in 2013.
The news that the Supreme Court will hear two cases revolving around same-sex marriage, and whether the highest court in the land will rule on mandating the traditional definition of marriage as the law of the land, is in one sense, a simple case of civil and equal rights, and on another level, a case of determining whether or not the bible is the law of the land. If one contemplates who supports the court striking down same-sex marriage laws, upholding California’s Proposition 8, and the Defense of Marriage Act, then there is little doubt the issue is not about upholding a tradition, but enforcing a religion’s dogma.
There is no question of whether or not DOMA or California’s Proposition 8 are unconstitutional based on their discrimination against homosexuals, so why the High Court is even hearing the cases is highly questionable. It is true both are laws that need to be struck down as violations of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal rights, but to judge them for what they are, bible-based laws disguised as tradition, is a waste of taxpayer dollars and the Court’s time. The arguments to support the state-sanctioned discrimination are beyond frivolous and would be rejected on their face if the subject was anything other than the rights of homosexuals, but as Americans have become accustomed, frivolity based on religion has become the order of the day for hate-based groups like the National Organization of Marriage and myriad evangelical organizations calling themselves Christians and working from a basis of hatred for other human beings. Such is 21st Century neo-American Christianity.
What should be evident, is that equality is the purview of the U.S. Constitution, not the bible, or god’s condemnation of homosexuality found in a couple of obscure verses in the bible’s version of the Law of Moses. It is doubtful the High Court, or legislators, would consider a law discriminating against Americans who eat pork, or shellfish, as constitutional based on ancient Jewish tradition in Mosaic Law, but they assigned the same importance to the question of whether or not same-sex couples have the legal right to marry. There is a tradition among Catholics to make the sign of the cross at specific times, but there are no legal sanctions against Americans who fail to heed that traditional practice, or financial benefits for Catholics the rest of the population is prohibited from receiving. Unfortunately, same-sex marriage proponents are not afforded the same latitude as Southern Baptists or Mormons who have different traditions than Catholics based on their religion.
Same-sex marriage, as a legal question, has significant financial and legal implications in federal and state laws that discriminate, by legislation, against same-sex couples with no justification other than, as Christians note, it is against tradition (translation; against the bible). However, it has not stopped same-sex marriage opponents and homophobes for concocting a laundry list of absurd notions to ban same-sex marriage with no basis in fact. Some of the insane pronouncements against same-sex marriage, and homosexuals in general, are; it jeopardizes opposite-sex couples’ marriages, propagandizes children into the homosexual lifestyle, incurs god’s wrath leading to natural disasters, and the ever-present leads to the downfall of civilization as we know it. Of course, none of it is true, but even devout evangelical maniacs are intelligent enough to know approaching the courts with a verse of scripture as the reason to uphold a discriminatory law is a deal-killer. However, there is at least one Supreme Court Justice who has implied that is precisely how he will judge the merits of the same sex cases the court hears next year.
Antonin Scalia, arguably the most political Justice in recent history has already ruled on the legality of same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general. For the second time in as many months, Scalia doubled down on his contention that homosexual relations in the privacy of the bedroom are as heinous as murder. Scalia claimed that homosexuality was illegal for 200 years and that it was a no-brainer that it still should be, but so was interracial marriage, African American’s right to vote, women’s right to vote, and many other laws that were struck down as violations of equal and civil rights. It is a pathetic argument from a pathetic human being and is typical of the pitiable arguments against same-sex marriage.
The challenges to same-sex marriage are only based on personal beliefs by those who adhere to the bible, and they are just that; beliefs. During the campaign for the presidency, Willard Romney said he supported a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and he cited his “belief” as the sole reason to discriminate against other Americans. Is it not curious that he did not advocate for a Constitutional Amendment banning coffee, cola drinks, or non-magic underwear? Those “beliefs” have their basis in his religion, but he certainly did not propose banning Starbucks or Coca Cola under a Constitutional amendment.
This entire movement against same-sex marriage is another in a long line of attempts by devotees of the bible to impose their will on the entire population, and the fact they are using the United States Congress and Supreme Court are in themselves highly unconstitutional, and yet no-one is opposing the National Organization of Marriage or various religious groups on the real basis for discriminating against same-sex couples; the bible as law of the land.
Americans have moved past archaic superstition and recognized that all Americans deserve the same rights under the law, and religious fanatics cannot comport losing the battle to theocratize the U.S. Constitution. The groups fighting desperately to legalize discrimination are despicable cowards who know if they approached banning same-sex marriage on religious grounds, their challenges would be summarily dismissed as frivolous. Since they cannot go before the court and recite scripture and verse as the reason to suspend the Constitution, they have come up with the equally absurd contention that the courts legalize a tradition. It will be interesting over the next few months to observe the machinations of NOM, DOMA devotees, and religious fanatics as they attempt to convince the court their advocacy for legal discrimination has a basis in any fact that is not in the bible, their personal beliefs, or religious liberty to impose god’s hatred of homosexuality on the entire nation. One thing is clear; there is no legal or sane reason to use the law to discriminate against any person in America, but unfortunately when fanatical Christians and their Republican enforcers are involved, the concept of a sane reasoning is always the bible is the law of the land; regardless what the Constitution says.
Related Posts :
It's a little over two years since Proposition 8 in California passed and denied same-sex couples the ri ...
In America's first official document, the concept of universal equality was elegantly stated even though ...
It was a good day for the Constitution when Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Co ...
Most people understand that marriage, matrimony, or wedlock is a social union or legal contract between ...
California's new motto: we do more before 10am than most people do in a day. Earlier this morning (and it ...
13 Responses to The Supreme Court to Decide Whether the Bible or the Constitution is the Law of the Land
Public Service Advertisements
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 10:58 am
To me, the Supreme Court is the height of pure insanity. A court based on purely political motives and ideals. That really has nothing to do with the constitution but upon the morals and beliefs of the party that appointed them. Worse, we have no recourse except to follow their decisions
There are no laws making hetero marriage legal. If gay marriage is banned then so should all marriage. At best, the court has no business even dealing with marriage. Given the condition of some of our Koch owned states the states shouldnt be dealing with marriage either.
D. Lowrey
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 2:50 pm
To me, the Supreme Court is the height of pure insanity. A court based on purely political motives and ideals.
This can be changed if the SCOTUS were legally bound to the same ethics as lower courts. They never have been and if they can have it their way…will never be held to the same ethics as the lower courts.
For instance…Justice “Morality” Scalia regularly goes on paid junkets with those whose cases he judges. The one which sticks out is when he went hunting with Bullseye Cheney…then ruled in favor of Bullseye. Want to look even further…just look in a seat or two away to Clarence “Porno” Thomas. His wife is a paid lobbyist for corporations which come in front of the court.
A Walkaway
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 11:06 am
When you add to the mix that same-sex marriage was reasonably acceptable until about the time of the Black Death (or shortly afterwards), and the RC church had a ceremony for the blessing of such relationships (AND at least one pair of declared saints in such a relationship) – well, their arguments are even more flimsy and demonstrated to be driven by modern superstitions and misunderstandings of ancient writings and cultures.
djchefron
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 11:09 am
We shall see how much of a Strict constructionis tweelde dee and tweedle dum aka scalia and thomas really are.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Str...
Reynardine
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Three outcomes are possible.
1. The Court could rule that same-sex marriage is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, period. From a civil libertaian’s standpoint, such a ruling is the most desireable, but the least likely, given the number of cavemen on that august Bench.
2. The nightmare scenario, for most people, is that, in light of “tradition”, even DOMA would be found constitutional, leading to a precedent that other “traditions” could trump constitutional protections- the same sort of thinking that produced Dredd Scott.
3. A likely outcome is that whether or not to recognize such marriages is within the purview of the state, with or without comity. At first, this seems innocuous. The problem is that, by extension, states might once again be allowed to bar interracial marriages and perhaps even interfaith marriages, or to lay different requirements on men and women entering matrimony.
I am not sanguine.
SinghX
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
…”states might once again be allowed to bar interracial marriages and perhaps even interfaith marriages, or to lay different requirements on men and women entering matrimony…”
There is already small pockets of these radical fundamentalist who are anti-interracial and interfaith marriages.
Bob Jones University banned interracial dating up until just recently; the only reason the “changed” their policy is because no the Presidential candidates will visit the school after they hammered Bush over the issue.
And, remember that Baptist congregation in Kentucky who would not allow a interracial couple to join the congregation? The church said that interracial dating and marriage is considered as undoing of God’s judgment.
So, is it in the Bible and they are “justified” in their “belief”? By a far reach of interpretation and vivid imagination, sure, of course!
Their interpretation has something to do with the Tower of Babble, God getting pissed and causing humans to be “different” in language and culture…they justify that these kinds of marital unions are forcing us to be “different” as in, they are acting against god’s will for all humans to be exactly the same.
D. Lowrey
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
they justify that these kinds of marital unions are forcing us to be “different” as in, they are acting against god’s will for all humans to be exactly the same.
They may argue this all day long till the chickens come to roost…but as long as “Christian” fundamentalists cherry-pick whatever they want of the Bible they claim they believe…nothing is going to change. For instance…with their clamoring the Old Testament says this or that…I don’t see them killing their kids…not eating shellfish…getting divorced…not wearing clothes of different fibers or sacrificing animals. Either they practice all of what they claim they believe or else quit bothering people like me who have actually read the Bible and attempt to live it one day at a time…NOT by what someone tells me to believe.
SinghX
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
I’m just sayin’…
Reyn could be on to something as it seems there is always some other “motive” unseen, lurking behind the “Fundamentalist Iron Curtain”. We the People don’t go around looking backwards all the time like fundamentalist, therefore, it’s difficult for “normal” people to decipher what they will attack next based upon their outmoded morality code.
The biblical fundamentalist entire existence is based on some cherry-picked moral code that doesn’t pass the test of time…if you take that away, they have no relevance. Hopefully, that is what the court will eventually do…
However, as stated earlier, the courts should not even be involved in the issue of marriage or what ever consenting adults do in their private bedrooms, etc.
bee
Dec. 16th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Excellent article – thanks…..
Andrew Stein
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 4:14 am
“…about as absurd as legislating morality”
The law IS just codified and enforced morality.
kountryking
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Biology trumps “equal and civil rights”. Marriage is a social institution first and foremost for the propagation of the species. The union of a male and female human has secondary responsibilities such as family protection, child-rearing, teaching family and societal values, etc. These secondary tasks can be performed by two males or two females as well as by extended families of mixed gender. The element of love is important. What I’m reading is that the union of a male and female is a marriage and the union between two like-gendered people is more of a business partnership, where one partner can profit by the employment and tax benefits of the other.
I hold that in the U.S. two or more consenting adults have the right to have whatever kind of sex they want. But to call these
relationships “marriage” would be ludicrous.
Yes, traditions change and the melding of cultures change them even more in any geopolitical entity. Gays have the right to parade and flout their “gayness”. I think they look foolish as I would if we had straight pride parades. No one cares about your sexuality or how you practice it. Just don’t think the majority of us (despite some polls) Americans are supportive or even tolerant of it.
My beliefs don’t stem from my religious background but from my intellect. I respect Gov. Romney’s belief in refraining from coffee and Coke. But to even suggest the idea that a Mormon president or a majority Mormon congress would ban them is as foolish as most of the writer’s premises against SCOTUS’ taking up DOMA and Prop. 8.
Biology not homology.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Where is it written that people get married just to have kids? I wonder if you could say that kids are the result of sex? If you consider that many kids are born out of wedlock than the idea that marriage is just there for propagation is false. People fall in love and get married and children are the result of the marriage not the reason for the marriage.
We should note that people fall in love and get married. It doesn’t say it has to be men and women.
If you have never been in these types of relationships(and I haven’t) I seriously doubt if you can call their love any different from the love of a man and a woman. You seem to think that being homosexual is only for sex which I suspect is about as far from the truth as possible.
ripuree11
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Interesting! I never thought of it that way. And now that I have read your point of view I agree.