SCOTUS takes on Prop 8 & DOMA!

[Alan]

You are ducking my question.

There are a handful of people posting on this board -- including you -- who have a fair amount of contempt for government. I understand that, in your perfect world, it would not be necessary to involve the government in marriage. In fact, I actually would be happy to let married couples enter into a civil union recognized by the government for the purposes of inheritance, power of attorney, etc., and let them go to the social organization of their choice for a "marriage" with whatever other covenants they want to add in. But this toothpaste is out of the tube.

Well, now that you've labeled me, and a handful of unknown others, let's see how close you are. I don't have contempt for government, I have contempt for government over-reach, particularly on the federal level.

Whether I like the outcome or not, I believe the states have the right to use their government to impose the will of the people, within the limitations of their constitution. And, once the people have spoken, the federal government should keep their hands out of it provided the state isn't violating one of the tenents of the federal constitution. I believe DOMA to be over-reach by the federal government, intruding into states rights, and I believe Prop 8 to be squarely within the realm of states rights whether the federal government likes it or not.

If you (the collective you) don't want the federal government to intrude on the state's ability to allow same sex marriage (DOMA), or the legalization of marijuana, or any other local decision, then you shouldn't be asking them to arbitrate those decisions you don't like, such as proposition 8.

[JaneV2.0]

I suppose it is un-PC to point out we have a supreme court packed with religionists, specifically Catholic ones*. I'd like to think that doesn't matter, that the justices will interpret the Constitution objectively, but I doubt it.

Also, Scalia might want to contemplate the morality of murder as it relates to war. He can consult the Vatican for guidance. Or is that a case of "situational ethics?"

*Full disclosure: I'm sure I'm still on the rolls of the Church somewhere.

[Alan]

I suppose it is un-PC to point out we have a supreme court packed with religionists, specifically Catholic ones*. I'd like to think that doesn't matter, that the justices will interpret the Constitution objectively, but I doubt it.

Can we safely assume then that you don't think the concept of morality should come into play in governmental decisions?

Also, Scalia might want to contemplate the morality of murder as it relates to war.

Oh, maybe not..

[redfox]

Can we safely assume then that you don't think the concept of morality should come into play in governmental decisions? Oh, maybe not..

Whose morality?

[Alan]

Whose morality?

Doesn't matter, for the purpose of discussion anyone's will do.

[JaneV2.0]

Whose morality?

I can't think of a concept that is more subject to interpretation, unless it is codified by some external agency. Like a religion.

[redfox]

Doesn't matter, for the purpose of discussion anyone's will do.

Because morality is a subjective belief system, it matters a great deal to me. Throughout our western history, the relationship between morality & law has been debated. I tend towards the Platonic view:
"Morality involves interaction with others and therefore the organization of society and the nature of government are also central issues." - http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/netshots/republic.htm (This article is an interesting read.)

I believe that the role our judiciary is one of reason and principle above subjective morality and personal values. As humans, it is quite the challenge to rise to objectivity, as our brains are configured to subjectivity. Recognizing one's subjectivity, one's values, principles, and morals allows one to cognitively see these frames of reference, and to shift out of them when considering objective questions of law.

A personal example: my stepson was buying and using cannabis when he lived with us, and was under the age of 18. Neither his father nor I have any moral or values based objections to the purchase and use of cannabis, and we both use it. However, we enforced the rule in our household that he was not to possess or use cannabis while in our custody and under the age of 18. My husband seized his pipe & stash, and returned it to him after he had moved out and was over 18.

We were very clear to our son that our principled stance was two-fold: it was illegal for our stepson to be in possession, and it was medically unsound for him to expose his developing brain to cannabis. Once he was of the age to be legally responsible for himself AND out of our home, he was free to make his own choices. Following the law was of paramount concern to me, the daughter of an attorney, and a firm believer in the rule of law. I wanted my stepson to see and experience the importance of the rule of law, despite my moral and values based disagreement with the illegality of cannabis possession & use.

We discussed when one might violate the law, in the context of personal morals & values, as my husband & I do when we possess and use cannabis. We also talked at length about the civil processes for changing the law, as well as the civilly disobedient ways of challenging laws one finds personally objectioable.

Do I want morality to play a role in my governmetn's processes? Optimally, I prefer informed objectivity and reason. The weave is subtle, and I prefer those who govern to be clear on their principles, clear on their own moral and values based stances, and willing to suspend those beliefs to consider a larger, objective and reasoned approach.

[creaker]

Whose morality?

That's really what it comes down to. Morality is not required to be logical, reasonable, or even feasible.

[peggy]

Whose morality?

I think society's morality will do. There is morality, as religions dictate, and there is the accepted morality of a society. I am not religious, at all. Don't believe in it. But I am a moral person. Religion does not own morality, nor did they invent it. When we gathered together in organized societies, each society had to 'hammer out' what was acceptable morality for that society. Today, even, the world isn't in total agreement as to what is moral. Some societies are fairly loose by our standards, and others quite strict. Although I think most of who we would consider civilized societies find murder immoral, some are more lax in this than others. Morality is simply what we think is right and what is wrong. (this is of course different than laws. It isn't immoral to run a red light, but it is against the law)

This society, right now, is largely saying gay marriage is OK. Therefore, gay marriage is moral and perfectly acceptable. This society, right now, also says discrimination against gays, blacks, women, etc...is not moral and is wrong, therefore it is.
People evolve, societies evolve. It wasn't that long ago when showing your ankle was wrong, and women who did were thought to be immoral. We think it's funny now, but it was a very serious reality that labeled these women, possibly ruining their reputations.

When people decry societies changing morals, this is the kind of thing they are talking about. It was the same mindset that didn't want women to vote/allowed to own property, or blacks to be freed/treated equal, or let women have control over their own reproductive lives, etc...We learn, we evolve, we move forward. There will always be those who try to cling to the 'way it was' with both hands, screaming about 'taking America back' and other such nonsense.
This is an evolving, moral nation. I think, rather than losing our morals, we are fine tuning them and becoming more aware. And those who would brag about their morals, are largely becoming the ones who are immoral by this society's thinking.

The reason the federal government needs to be involved is because we don't allow states to vote on discrimination. If we allowed each state to decide what was discrimination, the south would still be segregated. And I'm sure there would be more than one state that didn't allow women to vote, or mixed race couples to marry.

[Alan]

This society, right now, is largely saying gay marriage is OK. Therefore, gay marriage is moral and perfectly acceptable.

Just for the sake of discussion, the people of California (lets call them a regional society) voted not to allow same sex marriage, so, if we consider their vote to be an expression of their morals, does that make their decision moral and perfectly acceptable? Or, do they perhaps need a panel of 9 people to validate/invalidate their decision for them?