Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings

[aygart]

My point is does a paper from the court house have any halachik ramifications? Feel free to find a rav that'd prohibit yankel and shimon getting married for tax benefits. I'm sure some rav would forbid it but I'd bet many would say it is halachikally ok, and if that's the case this ruling doesn't have any technical halachik problems, besides the spirit etc.

I did not understand that all you meant was that a secular marriage is irrelevant. If that is what you meant then your entire argument based on this is equally irrelevant.

[sam i am]

This is what is great about these discussions. Quote the guy to make your point when he agrees with you but bash him when he disagrees.

When Roberts' opinion is consistent with most of his other rulings, he has a way of expressing things clearly and simply. When his ruling goes against his usual beliefs then he rightfully gets bashed. The reasoning put forth in his ruling upholding ACA a few years ago and the ruling earlier this week is illogical. He believed that the ACA as written was unconstitutional because the government could not obligate people to buy a certain product so he said it was a tax. The former makes sense but the latter doesn't. No where is there any mention of a tax in the more than 2000 pages of the ACA. Likewise to say when the law states clearly "exchanges established by the state" that it means state and federal government is preposterous. So why is Roberts going so out of character in these 2 instances? 

[wayfe]

Isn't there the issue of us being a "light unto the nations" and educating and raising society up as opposed to us being passive as it degrades itself?

[good sam]

Isn't there the issue of us being a "light unto the nations" and educating and raising society up as opposed to us being passive as it degrades itself?

I would say based on our actions, not our words. I don't think there's any mesorah for lecturing the nations on right and wrong.

[jj1000]

I did not understand that all you meant was that a secular marriage is irrelevant. If that is what you meant then your entire argument based on this is equally irrelevant.

Right because the ruling today decided more than that?

Isn't there the issue of us being a "light unto the nations" and educating and raising society up as opposed to us being passive as it degrades itself?

That is a moral withing Judaism and the Rebbe's teachings among others. Doesn't make it halacha.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Want to thank you all for keeping me up a couple extra hours. See you all when you get back. GS! 

[sam i am]

-1

Today's decision had nothing to do with that.

-1. It has a strong impact. If a state does not recognize SSM a baker could not be sued for refusing tobake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Now he can.

[Aaaron]

Want to thank you all for keeping me up a couple extra hours. See you all when you get back. GS! 

Noon is past your bedtime at your age?    Or are you somewhere across the world?

GS!

[wayfe]

Right because the ruling today decided more than that?  That is a moral withing Judaism and the Rebbe's teachings among others. Doesn't make it halacha.

Jewish morals are completely intertwined with halacha, they can't exist independent of each other.

[Aaaron]

-1. It has a strong impact. If a state does not recognize SSM a baker could not be sued for refusing tobake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Now he can.

CMIIW, but today's decision did not make gay people a protected class, therefore an individual would still be able to legally discriminate. 

[good sam]

CMIIW, but today's decision did not make gay people a protected class, 

Correct

therefore an individual would still be able to legally discriminate.

No, they were made a protected class a short while ago in another decision.

[sam i am]

To broaden the discussion the Torah doesn't really comment on a marriage contract between two men, only about sexual contact, the court didn't rule on sexual contact, only on a contract which maybe the Torah does or doesn't recognize as having any halachik ramifications.

For example if yankel and shimon want tax benefits of being married does the torah forbid this? I do not think so.

That example shows the ruling of the court is not necessarily against halacha.

I do agree it is a break down of the morals and spirit of the Torah however.
 That is how I would answer you in short. This can be talked about for days.

The Torah doesn't talk about it but the Gemara does. It was the writing of marriage contracts for SS couples that sealed the fate of Noah's generation.

[Dan]

I'll add some more kernels in the popper:

[good sam]

I'll add some more kernels in the popper:

My thoughts exactly:

It's interesting that Jews have such a strong opinion on this.  Any legislation/court ruling that doesn't condone killing Jews is fine by me.  They can do whatever they want, its their country.

[Achas Veachas]

I'll add some more kernels in the popper:

Oy!

[good sam]

My thoughts exactly:

FTR, Dan didn't agree with me then

Article from the Rosh circa 2000 on the topic:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/other_voices/article/the_torah_a_moral_compass_20000714

[elit]

Everyone knew this was coming. Kennedy told me a year ago he'd vote for gay marriage.

Yup. A person very involved in the battle for religious freedom told me months ago that they all had no doubt how the court was going to rule. Did you really speak to Kennedy? Where?

He can, and it doesn't.

For now this won't last

[Dan]

FTR, Dan didn't agree with me then

Article from the Rosh circa 2000 on the topic:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/other_voices/article/the_torah_a_moral_compass_20000714

Am I the Rosh?

[good sam]

Am I the Rosh?

I thought so 

[Dan]

I thought so 

Doesn't look like Benny: