Little known fact about my family: My daddy actually taught homiletics to university level theological students at one time in his career. He loved to talk about preachers and preaching styles, and, as a result, I learned a thing or two about the art of preaching. So having said that, I will give O's mini sermon today four out of five possible stars. His spontaneous rendition of Amazing Grace could have used a little work, but I am not going to quibble. The church was with him, and that's all that matters.
"As a nation, out of this terrible tragedy, God has visited grace upon us for he has allowed us to see where we've been blind," Obama said. "He's given us the chance, where we've been lost, to find our best selves."
He might have given "us the chance", but unfortunately a lot of us are not taking it.
Quite a few of our so called leaders still do not realize that they have been blind, and it has taken them a hell of a long time to find their "best selves."
I am thinking of people like Clarence Thomas. A man who has found himself on the wrong side of history because of his ignorant and misguided dissent in today's historic (and long overdue) decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, a case that has given same sex couples the same rights and protections under the Constitution as heterosexual couples.
"The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.
Thomas went on to write that one's liberty and dignity should be shielded from the government — not provided by it.
"Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on 'due process' to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the 'liberty' protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society."
See, this is the problem with this man: He thinks that slaves should have been "Dignified". Sorry, it's kind of hard to maintain your "dignity" when you are being stripped and beaten and sold like cattle. But I digress.
This twisted and sick dissent thinks that majority decision by the court will have a "inestimable consequences for our Constitution. " Huh????
He is wrong. Had he and his right- wing buddies had their way, that would have had a devastating affect on our Constitution. And, as a result, our country would have taken two steps backwards instead of moving forward into the 21st Century.
So in one eventful week the country wakes up and starts to denounce a symbol of hate that has long been ignored, and we legalize the the rights of our fellow Gay citizens to legally marry each other.
Amazing Grace indeed.
Pic by Getty images from themirror.com
32 comments:
Clarence Thomas is a brilliant jurist who understands what America was supposed to be. It was not supposed to be a place where the ruling class imposed its agenda on the democratic majority.
You are a resentful petty Jamaican who despises his adopted country and cheers its dismantling.
The greatest of men will be torn down by the smallest.
"So in one eventful week the country wakes up and starts to denounce a symbol of hate that has long been ignored"
Next up I hope: The Black Nationalist Flag
One man's hate is another man's cultural identity.
"we legalize the the rights of our fellow Gay citizens to legally marry each other."
"We" did no such thing. "We the People" have decided many times through the democratic process that marriage should remain what it always has been, a union between a man and a woman.
What has happened is that the Overclass has decided "we" are bigoted for believing what everyone believed until about five years ago.
This is not an issue of "Equality" because Gay Marriage is not the same thing as Traditional Marriage.
Same sex couples had the right to love each other and form whatever long term relationships they chose without requiring the sanctification of the state.
In truth, the state has no interest or legitimate role in recognizing love between two people.
What the state actually has an interest in is childbirth.
It is the bearing and raising of children that actually propagates the species and perpetuates society.
Promoting a stable environment in which children can be cared for and raised to adulthood -- a very time- and money- intensive proposition -- is something the state has a huge interest in. Not only is there that whole Survival of the Species consideration in play, but there are also grubbier concerns like ensuring that there are enough productive citizens in the next generation to cover the massive debts and massive retirement costs of the previous ones.
Tell me-- what interest does the state have in recognizing "Love" absent the expectation that that love will result in children?
Marriage is not about love, and the state interest in marriage has nothing to do with love.
The idea behind this ruling is that it there is no conceivable non-bigoted grounds to say that loves which, per the rules of biology, simply cannot produce anything other than some (usually transient) pleasure for two people is simply not a compelling interest of the state, and hence does not need to be supported or encouraged by marriage laws.
That idea is false.
I respect gay people and don't mind their relationships at all. I do not believe their relationships to be sinful or "in revolt against God" or even all that weird.
But what they are not, and will never be, is transcendent in connecting one generation to the next, propagating the species, filling the earth with human life.
And thus there is no state interest in "gay marriage," and thus it cannot be the case that the Constitution demands that which the state has no compelling interest in.
This is cultural tyranny, and it will not stop here.
Field Negro: So having said that, I will give O's mini sermon today four out of five possible stars.
----
Only four stars? Perhaps you missed how this shameless grifter pretends he didn't claim, just a few years ago, how opposed he was to gay marriage -- "God's in the mix," you'll remember:
Obama in 2008:
https://youtu.be/rJhQBZ1La0w
Obama today:
https://youtu.be/b715GKJNWXA
You would think someone who opposed Gay Marriage as recently as 2012 would be more ambivalent about today’s Court decision, more circumspect in his language about a practice which, he assured the entire voting public of the United States, conflicted with his deeply religious worldview when he first ran for president in 2008.
Many can lie. But most liars still possess a conscience, which keeps them from swaggering when they lie. Indeed, it's that conscience trying to come out that makes them stumble over words and look away from you -- and give themselves away as lying.
But not President Sociopath.
No human conscience present.
I see that today's decision is a sore subject for some. I find the comment about Thomas knowing what America was supposed to be is interesting. It sounds as if you are mourning for a time seemed great for you, but not for everyone else. I have always lived by a rule that it's best to look at life for how it is than how I think it ought to be. One simply can't leave out a group of people because of something that we don't like such as choosing a spouse of the same sex. I have no control over people's lives and know no one else who does.
The fact of the matter is that same-sex was here prior to the decision and would have been difficult for the court to say it's not thereby invalidating existing marriages. That would have been a nightmare from a legal perspective. Societies change; unfortunately human beings aren't good with change. Perhaps we are afraid of not knowing what the future holds. It's not for me to like or dislike same-sex marriage, or anyone else either. Perhaps it's a good idea for some people to meditate on the Serenity Prayer as I think may help your lost and better cope with this reality.
Now that gay marriage has been legalized, there can be no legal restrictions on gay adoption.
This is the future you have chosen:
https://youtu.be/rJhQBZ1La0w
hennasplace said...
"I have always lived by a rule that it's best to look at life for how it is than how I think it ought to be."
---
Then you are not a Progressive.
You may have no control over other people's lives, but other people have control over your life. And Progressives always want more.
"It's not for me to like or dislike same-sex marriage, or anyone else either."
Actually hennasplace, you and everyone else should be free to decide what you like or dislike. I dislike people who want to force their conceptions of morality on the rest of us.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-lesson-of-this-week-your-stupid.html
-Doug in Oakland
What's hateful about the Black Nationalist Flag? Interesting false equivalence. Kind of like Bill o'Reilly saying there are as many blah hate groups as white. Tit for tat games.
Rough week for righties. First Obamacare is ruled legal, next the confederate flag is coming down left and right and teh gays can marry. What's next, the first family of the right has another out of wedlock baby? Yep, Bristol Palin is preggers again. Damn, imagine if that family was in the VP house. They would have to build an addition for all those kids. Ha!
PilotX said...
What's hateful about the Black Nationalist Flag?
--
It's racist and seditious.
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion legalizing gay marriage contained this gem of hard-headed legal reasoning: "Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there."
Not making this up:
http://time.com/3937570/supreme-court-gay-marriage-memorable/
Because of the fact we have four liberal robots whose votes are as predictable as a New York Times editorial, this idiot gets to decide what our fundamental rights are.
Call America what you will, it is not a democracy.
Anonymous said...
"Now that gay marriage has been legalized, there can be no legal restrictions on gay adoption.
This is the future you have chosen:"
Excellent!!
Quote Scipio Africanus"
"Why stop there? Let's make tax advice a "right", and compel accountants to provide it for free. Let's make haircuts a "right", and force barbers to cut everyone's hair whether or not they feel like paying for it."
I think you must have a PhD in false-eequivelancy, it's the only form of argument you ever seem to use.
Human beings look after each other, that's what they do. For the last four million years they have looked after each other when they are sick, and they have educated their young. That's how you judge civilisations. Do they look after each other? Do they tend to the sick? Do they fend for people who cannot look after themselves? That's what separates human beings from monsters. Whether you like it or not, human beings are social animals, and the human race is at it's best when we cooperate with each other.
**
"If people don't have a choice whether or not to sell their labor and what price they can ask for it, you are damn straight that they are to some extent a slave."
I can't believe that we are well into the 21st century, and people are still writing shit like this.
If you don't want to heal sick people don't become a fucking doctor, it's really that simple.
If you don't want to teach unknowing people don't become a fucking teacher, it's really that simple
If you don't want to save lives don't become a fucking fireman, it's really that simple.
Society decides how much doctors should charge, not the doctors. Because if we allowed a free market then only the rich would be healed, and would be an unconscionable and inhuman situation.
...and finally, nobody as saying that doctors should not be paid you twunt, we are saying that health care and education should be free at the point of delivery. Ask the doctors of western Europe who work under socialised medicine systems if they feel like slaves. Ask them as they climb into their 7-series BMW's, or step on to their yachts. They are very well rewarded for their services to humanity.
No obviously I'm a Socialist and you are a fascist, so we are never going to agree on anything. But the right to education and healthcare is enshrined in bill of human rights, and you can't change that whether you like it or not. So if you don;t want human rights, fuck off somewhere else. Try North Korea, would be my advice.
I know Ace, some of your best friends are Gay. *side-eye*
PC, don't waste your time. These are tough times for the bigots. But they will get over it.
I am sure they whined just as hard after Loving v. Virginia.
Progress
I'm a pragmaticist when it comes to certain things. I know what I can change, what I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference. For example, I have no control over your opinion of me of not being progressive nor who you like or dislike. These are your feelings and who I am to tell you not to feel them.
Now let's deal with some facts. Same-sex marriage is the law of the land in this country. Yes, we live in a country where the U.S Consitution is a living and breathing document that isn't written in stone as it adapts to an ever-changing society. It's not a good idea to suppress the rights of others. You have the right to hate the idea of same-sex marriage, but not the right to prevent people from marrying who they choose.
It seems that this decision shook your concept of morality and perhaps it's time examine the foundation that you've built. It's not an easy prospect, but grace may help. I hope that kindness, generosity, and compassion is a part of your moral code.
"Yes, we live in a country where the U.S Constitution is a living and breathing document that isn't written in stone as it adapts to an ever-changing society. It's not a good idea to suppress the rights of others. You have the right to hate the idea of same-sex marriage, but not the right to prevent people from marrying who they choose."
---
Whether written in stone or on paper, the Constitution is supposed be immutable in its limits on government for the purpose of protecting our rights, not to be subject to the whims of nine lifelong political appointees. There is an amendment process to deal with the needs of an ever-changing society. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the law, not create it. Making decisions based on political factors is the job of elected representatives. In all of these recent decisions, the Court has justified their rulings on the basis of the personal opinions of what good policy is, not on an interpretation of the law as created by Congress. In reality, the Constitution is not is a living and breathing document, but is now a meaningless prop used to hide the workings of a dead Republic from its powerless citizens.
The way it is supposed to work in our ever changing society is that the people of the states elect people to make or change laws, and/or vote directly on such matters through the proposition process, and as long as the resulting law does not violate a clearly stated provision of the Constitution, it stands. In other words, the people are sovereign. This is not how it works anymore. The decisions of the last 25 years or so have shown that the people are no longer represented by their government, but ruled.
Speaking of amendments, the first one said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;. How long before the government starts forcing churches to perform gay marriages, first by threat of tax status and then by legal action? The first amendment did not stop the Obama administration from forcing religious organizations to pay for specific types of abortifacients (instead of the 99.99% of other birth control options they were willing to pay for) that violated there core beliefs.
No one was stopping gays or anyone else from pursuing whatever forms of personal relationships they wanted. In fact, not much longer than ten years ago no one had even seriously broached the idea that same sex marriage was a necessary right. Obama publicly opposed gay marriage into 2012. Gays make up 2% of the population, and maybe 10% of gays will ever consider getting married. This is not about protecting the rights of 0.2% of the population, since gay marriage is not the same thing as traditional marriage and traditional marriage is a cultural institution, not a right. This is about advancing the continuous cultural Marxist campaign against church, family, and country.
The minute the religious people of America decided that their supposedly "holy" institution of marriage, the God-given...whatever...they claim it to be, was handed over to government in order to incentivize the union of men and women, it became something which necessarily needed to be applied equally to all citizens.
Religious folks found out, at long last, that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim something holy and righteous while simultaneously allowing the government to use it like an advertising ploy. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. It's either (a) holy and divine and God's will and subsequently kept in the church, or (b) it's something the government controls and is thus subject to equal protection and due process.
The only SCOTUS Justice that has had my respect for a while is Kennedy. And not for any particular way he rules per se, but because when these political cases come up in court, you can pick with exacting precision which Justice will rule on which side, and rarely if ever will you be wrong by playing the political divide. Kennedy is the only guy who seems to be swayed back and forth in either direction based on the merits of the case. That's commendable juxtaposed against political shills whose rulings--and sometimes even whose opinions--can be predicted well in advance of the court even hearing a case.
The only hang-up I have personally is the precedent it sets for the court to step on states' rights. Though, like with abortion, the issue of same-sex marriage isn't one that has many similar situations lying in wait.
And no real lengthy rant here, but just a LOL shot to the folks who believe this signals the coming of the Marxist revolution or people marrying goats or Americans acting like the Lannisters and birthing little blonde tyrants. Chillax, folks.
The worst that's going to happen: Same-sex couples will get divorced at the same rate as those supposedly holy, doing-God's-work-and-will couples, thus fucking up the lives of 50% of children and providing a thick layer of over-burden in the family court system. When you woke up this morning, was the sky a different color? Did your tap water give you an uncontrollable urge to have buttsex with a sheep? Dafuq is all the panic and loathing about here? Let people have their fucking equality in this world, you chadrools. Life is a hell of a thing to happen to a person, and we should all have the right to pursue that which makes us happy. And if ass pirates wanna pursue divorce like straight folks, it's high time they were allowed.
Sheri, that was well said.
Josh said...
"The only SCOTUS Justice that has had my respect for a while is Kennedy."
What little respect I had for Josh's opinion just evaporated in a puff of ignorance.
"What little respect I had for Josh's opinion just evaporated in a puff of ignorance."
Thank fucking Zeus or Ra or whatever god people pray to in their culture. I was more than a little sick of all these fucking anons clinging to shit I said like grim fucking death. Maybe now you can just mind your own fucking business on this blog and leave my name the hell off your damn lips.
Happy to be of service.
And happier still to know that my championing of a Justice able to be swayed by arguments, rather than beholden to party lines, is seen as "ignorance." It's really telling, the things people let slip that they'd rather you not know...
So then a country should keep old archaic laws, tantamount to Sharia Laws. Never changing them?
Is that good for a country?
Just wondering...
"Is that good for a country?"
Yes
Josh said...
"And happier still to know that my championing of a Justice able to be swayed by arguments, rather than beholden to party lines, is seen as "ignorance."
Justice Kennedy: "Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there."
Now a right not to be lonely has been found in the Constitution.
You are obviously ignorant of this man's stupidity. And proud of it.
Josh said...
Life is a hell of a thing to happen to a person, and we should all have the right to pursue that which makes us happy.
-----
I agree with Josh.
How is a unity flag racist and seditious? Those that flew it never took up arms against the United States unlike......never mind.
Thumbs up to the sista that took the confederate flag down in SC. Only thing better would have been if she had burned it.
Not surprising you'd use a quote-mine to actually form your opinion of someone and not simply as a cheap tactic to score inter-points on a blog. It's to be expected, I suspect.
PilotX said...
How is a unity flag racist and seditious?
----
I believe it to be anti-white and anti-American. Therefore, it offends me.
People who fly the Confederate flag see at as a cultural identity symbol, a.k.a. a unity flag. They say it is not about a defense of slavery or rebellion, but since you take offense, it must be banned.
I take offense at the Black Nationalist flag. It must be banned.
Josh said...
When you woke up this morning, was the sky a different color? Did your tap water give you an uncontrollable urge to have buttsex with a sheep?
----
Yes and yes. You're in my head, son.
Do you like clowns Josh?
Poor Josh! I think he does like clowns! :)
I was wondering when a white person would jump on the blah nationalist flag, I guess that answered my question. Some folks are really good at false equivalencies. Also, the confederate flag is not being banned, it is just should not be able to fly over government property. On what government property is the blah nationalist flag flying? If you want to fly any flag on your private property you can. You sound like you want a police state in which no one can fly a flag on their private property, is that what you want Ban Everything? Very interesting.
Post a Comment