« NC Voices Represented in Touchstone | Main | Timely Truth »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

More from Justice Scalia's dissent from today's SCOTUS intervention:

"...The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create 'liberties' that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work. [...]"

Bob, Scalia is a good one, as he has amply demonstrated over the last couple of days. But unfortunately, the dishonorable left has prevailed. And we all have to decide what we are going to do about it.

Some might be tempted to emigrate to another country; but that carries certain downsides also, and there are really not many better options.

I can't tell you how much I enjoy your distress. It is like a warm bath into which I settle luxuriously while nursing a single-malt scotch. Ahhhhh.

Andrew, no doubt many of Greensboro's Godless Marxists are quite happy with the turn of events over the last couple of days.

It is fortunate for your side that the Republicans at the national level have been a non-entity.

In my case, the distress is blunted because bad outcomes on these matters have been anticipated for a long time.

I think both decisions were correct and that they move the country in a positive direction, but I take no pleasure in your distress and hope that in time the outcomes will prove positive in your eyes, and that meanwhile you will feel safe and secure in your own liberty to believe what you will and live as you wish, just as the rights of others to do the same are recognized.

Ah yes, And here's the blogger king - and Cone board member - wishing Joe well.

North Carolina will NOT respond in the way you wish, Joe. It is what it is. The Republicrats in Raleigh are a bunch of gutless (insert word not acceptable in mixed company).

I fully expected the Supremes to legitimize gay marriage. As a Southern Baptist with married gay friends, I continue to struggle internally (on Biblical grounds) - they know it - I see no reason to lie. But I know my friends are celebrating today, and they should be. Being Americans, they've pursued their happiness for a long time - never mind the roadblocks - they lived their lives as they wanted - and now they feel vindicated.

I love them with all my heart. Jesus loves them too. They are happy. In the end, that's what matters most. My innards will just have to jiggle.

Politically speaking, here's the thing: The decision takes the issue OFF the table as an election hurdle for candidates to trip and waffle over (Clinton and Obama were against it - supposedly on Biblical grounds - before they were for it) . . . and instead now puts Republicans in the enviable position of legislatively and legally championing the free speech and religious rights of fundamentalist/traditional Christians - that is, if they have the stones for it.

As for the King v. Burwell decision. I hear hospital stocks went WAY up. Overpaid executives will be empowered to be even bigger jerks . . . and doctors will ALWAYS come in last . . . as this "dime-a-dozen" Pediatrician did when she cleaned up a Cone-owned doctor's mess seventeen years ago. As with Roberts' elaborate contortions, words (in a Federal contract) didn't mean anything.

As I look at the gay marriage decision today, I see great irony in the fact that, as a straight American physician who played by all of our nation's traditional rules, lived by its values, believed in the rule-of-law, and honorably discharged the duties of a public service obligation in her own hometown, I've not been able to live/practice as I wished since the moment I faced the twits running Randolph Hospital down.

Back when he was a "journalist", it never seemed to bother our dear Edward - who now sits on Cone's Board and could do/say something about what happened way-back-when NOW.

And/so I'm not EVER going to let Mr. Cone live down selling-out a fellow blogger for a seat on that board. He doesn't get to lecture me on recognizing the rights of others - when my rights were trampled because, in standing up for a patient who did not die because I was there, I pissed off the hospital that now affords him a chair in its Boardroom.

My married gay friends are finally happy living in Asheboro - one of the last truly Republican strongholds in North Carolina. I am still wandering - far from home. I told them they would get their "justice" before I EVER saw mine.

As you ridicule Joe (Andrew) and offer mealy-mouthed platitudes (Edward), put that in your scotch and swirl it.

Scalia was right. If We-the-People cannot rely upon the wording of a Federal law (or contract) what can we really rely on?

Ed, I appreciate your sentiments. Of course, feeling "safe and secure in your own liberty to believe as you will and live as you wish" can be a bit challenging when the media, the political left, the legal system and the religious left are all aligned against those objectives.

Lean to accept defeat and leave the field of battle.

The gays have won.
Obamacare has won.

Leave it alone. You are only upsetting yourself. And yes, the flag is coming down.

Clint Eastwood say that "A man has got to know his limitations." We have lost these issues and now must move on. Quit crying over spilled milk. Pragmatism is the new word of the day.

I appreciate your input. But one point is that, having lost these issues, there is no prospect of later winning unless we recognize that the previous way Republicans failed/refused to fight these battles effectively will not succeed in the future.

And the second point is that both Obamacare and marriage are foundational conservative concerns-- both from a constitutional perspective and also from a Christian perspective. Conceding defeat is effectively giving away the store-- which, after all, is what the Republicans have done.

For what it's worth.....

There is too much in common here:
-government corruption

Indeed, Tommy. Many forces in our politics unfortunately choose to reject history and its lessons.

A question for Ed Cone and Andy Brod


"What would you think if the Court had decided the opposite? That is, if the Court had held that same sex marriage is unconstitutional, so that all state laws approving such unions are void, and all court decisions establishing same sex marriage are overruled. Would you then think it appropriate for “five lawyers,” as Chief Justice Roberts put it, to remove this issue from the democratic process and purport to resolve it by judicial fiat?

I am pretty sure you wouldn’t. I am pretty sure that in the face of such a ruling, you would howl with outrage and insist that the issue of same sex marriage be determined by democratic processes."

You're projecting. Not everyone's ethics are as situational as yours.

In any case, it's a bit silly to imagine the Court declaring same-sex marriage "unconstitutional," and the question suggests that you and the Powerline blogger don't really understand what was just decided.

But okay, suppose the Court had ruled that state bans of same-sex marriage were constitutional. What then? I presume we would have done what we did after Amendment One. Take the lumps and figure out how to keep fighting the good fight.

And remember, when it comes to rights, democratic processes are very often the wrong way to establish and protect them. The exercise of free speech is, after all, often quite unpopular. There's a reason the Constitution created a country that wasn't a pure democracy.

"The exercise of free speech is, after all, often quite unpopular."

More and more so every day.

The comments to this entry are closed.