More on the Cowards in Robes

Apparently the pro-gay forces are looking upon the court's decision as a positive thing while the anti-gay forces are livid.

Every anti-gay marriage organization is howling at the moon over the SCOTUS letting the lower court decisions stand.

As I read through the statements blasting the court by people like the AFA and NOM I'm struck by both the consistency of the arguments and how wrong headed they are.

The common threads running through almost all of the statements are:

(1) That legalizing Gay Marriage is a "redefinition of marriage." Well, actually it's not a "redefinition" it's an expansion. Just like the legalization of inter-racial marriage was an expansion.

(2) That the courts are defying the rule of law and the will of the voters. No, it's the purpose of the courts to define the law and to protect the rights of the minority. The will of the voters is OK as long as it doesn't violate the law.

This is a point that conservatives can't seem to grasp. The law, and especially the Constitution, trumps the will of the voters.

(3) That legalizing Gay Marriage negatively impacts Freedom of Religion. This is the old zero sum game argument that somehow rights and freedoms are finite and to expand one persons rights must by necessity reduce the rights of someone else.

The only way to describe this argument is that it's total horseshit.

The whole idea that the legalization of Gay Marriage somehow impinges upon the Freedom of Religion of people who's religion says homosexuality is sinful is ridiculous. If your religion says that homosexuality is a no-no, that's between you and your religion. The rest of us are free to ignore it.

What Christians actually are asking for is the privilege to define morality. They are essentially demanding that everyone else recognize their definition of what's immoral. No, it doesn't work that way because Christianity has no authority in a secular republic like the US.

The acceptance of any religion's teaching is purely voluntary. That's the real meaning of Freedom of Religion. You are allowed to accept or reject the tenets of any religion. When you get right down to it, trying to force the idea that homosexuality is immoral violates the Freedom of Religion of those who's religion, or lack of religion, says no it's not.

So what about non-discrimination laws which force Christians to sell things to gays for events they may disapprove of such as a gay wedding? There's an old saying that one man's rights end where the next one's begin. Again Christians are asking for a privilege. The privilege to discriminate against a class of people because their religion says that class is sinful.

Personally I don't think we're obligated to accept such an ignorant, hateful and bigoted philosophy like that. On the other hand, why force the issue? Take your business someplace else.

Anyway, after thinking about it, the SCOTUS, by not taking these cases is essentially validating the lower court decisions that bans on Gay Marriage violate the 14th Amendment. How can they possibly rule that they don't later after Gay Marriage has been legal in the affected states?