5899

But the only reason they would rule that is because a Democrat is in office. They wouldn’t give a fuck about the Constitution when the next Trump gets in office. They gave him the green light.

That’s my problem. Not that the president gets to raid the military budget. It’s that this court has no principles.

5900

No, they didn’t. Quite the opposite. They gave Trump the red light. More than once.

5901

Yeah, it’s not like the SCOTUS said this is ok for Trump.

5902
5903

Isn’t that article just about a refusal of the SCOTUS to issue a stay on Trump’s actions prior to the SCOTUS actually hearing this case?

5904
5905

Now this.

On the one hand, it’s not surprising that a prominent professional woman who was also very religious served on the board of a private religious school system. On the other hand, at some point ‘very religious’ can become religious extremism — e.g. active faith-based discrimination — and she seems well on the other side of that line. If she were a religious extremist of any other faith, she wouldn’t be anywhere near a nomination like this.

5906

Her religious extremism is a feature to the people who nominated her, not a bug.

She’s going to get confirmed on Monday.

5907

Yeah it’s absolutely religious extremism and also completely accepted and acceptable to the people who want her on the court. I still know Christians who don’t even bat an eyelash when they tell you straight up that homosexuals are sinners and of course they wouldn’t want them teaching at their school. It would be like asking someone doing meth to teach your drug user recovery program.

5908

Waylon would like to have a word with them.

5909

Meanwhile…

Mr. Cruz, who is gay, said that during his first meetings with the pope in May 2018, the pope assured him that God made Mr. Cruz gay.

“Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God,” the pope said in one of his sit-down interviews for the film. “What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.”

5910

This is a big step for a Pope to take, for sure, but we should not cheer too loudly. “Civil Union” laws are basically “separate but equal” laws for gay couples. Equality is equality, and we shouldn’t be super excited about it when the Pope stops short of that.

5911

I agree. But the Pope now appears to have moved to the left of Barrett on this issue, and that makes me wonder whether her position will also change.

5912

Fake Pope!

5913

These positions are not about religion. I mean, they’re using religion as a bludgeon for what they want, but many of these ideologies have more to do with race and perceived position in society than the religion itself.

5914

Yeah, on this one single point, the Catholic church is now only like a half a decade behind popular sentiment in the US, which is as close as they’ve come to modernity, well, ever.

I mean, still a catastrophically awful organization, but they moved ever so slightly closer to maybe thinking about eventually trying too be less awful someday, today.

5915

I mean the fundamental problem is the blurring of the legal and governmental process with the religious one. The conflation of marriage, in the legal protections and responsibilities to the US and state governments, really should have nothing to do with the religious ceremonial marriage. Honestly they should be separate terms, and at this point the best thing to do is probably have all legal associations be civil unions. Let the term marriage denote a solely religious/ cultural celebration.

5916

Well, we do have to give them some credit for stuff like liberation theology and support for more freedom and better social policies and conditions in the Americas. They were mostly the ones being killed by death squads back in the day, as I recall.

5917

Sure, but how would that work for the tens of millions of couples who are “married” today? Would they now suddenly not be married? Would they have to have a totally new ceremony at a church to add a “marriage” to their new “civil union”? And what if a particular church decided they didn’t want to have anything to do with this new arrangement?

IMO the only way to do it is to say everyone can get married. Religions that want to have a new, special, no-gays-allowed word for some ceremony should have to come up with their own.

5918

Nothing. Just update terminology on documents going forward, and let time sort it out.

Why? Right now you have to fill out forms with witnesses to submit to the county registrar for marriage. I had to go to the courthouse to turn them in, even though I had a traditional wedding ceremony. Nothing need change other than the name on the government documents.

Fuck 'em. We aren’t changing anything for them. If they want to get pissy and no longer do weddings, that’s on them. It is of no legal consequence.

As I said, the problem is the conflation of the legal and religious term by both using marriage, though there is no technical connection. You can get ‘married’ in a church, but if you don’t submit for a marriage license with the state? Guess what, you’re not married in the eyes of the state. Saying ‘I do’ in front of a priest means nothing legally.

And if you go to the courthouse to get married, but never have a formal ceremony? Guess what, you are married legally, with all the legal rights and responsibilities that entails.

There is no formal connection between the two now, other than the terms and how in many places the priest can act as a legal witness for purposes of the state. Divesting the terms is a necessary thing IMO.