Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings

[Aj3042]

...based on your interpretation of the constitution.  Have you read the opinion?

Some of it. Quite frankly it's irrelevant. The Torah has already ruled on this-case closed. SCOTUS's decision makes no difference.

[Aj3042]

So you would rather have them offer a religious ruling in this case?

A moral view. A historical view that has held sway since the beginning of civilization. Not an enlightened decision based on popular opinion.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Some of it. Quite frankly it's irrelevant. The Torah has already ruled on this-case closed. SCOTUS's decision makes no difference.

When you decide on a new place to live that is ruled by religious laws I would read the fine print first.

[clear thinker]

Next is a "right" to marry animals, then a right to marry trees, then rocks.
Astonishing how the morals of the Western world and of this country have corroded so badly so fast.

I wanna marry a pump! I really want!
I want equality!

[ChaimMoskowitz]

A moral view. A historical view that has held sway since the beginning of civilization. Not an enlightened decision based on popular opinion.

Can I get your view on slavery?

[Achas Veachas]

Some of it. Quite frankly it's irrelevant. The Torah has already ruled on this-case closed. SCOTUS's decision makes no difference.

Unless the SCOTUS rules that Aj3042 must marry a man I see no reason why the fact that Torah rules differently should have bearing on the SCOTUS's ruling.

Should the SCOTUS rule that belief in one G-D is mandatory? Should they outlaw lobster?

[aygart]

I am not sure why government is in the marriage business in the first place. Marriage is an inherently religious exercise. Other than the name marriage let them make whatever contracts they wish between themselves.

[clear thinker]

I am not sure why government is in the marriage business in the first place. Marriage is an inherently religious exercise. Other than the name marriage let them make whatever contracts they wish between themselves.

Exactly!

[Aj3042]

Can I get your view on slavery?

No, start a new thread for that.

When you decide on a new place to live that is ruled by religious laws I would read the fine print first.

I don't expect you to relate to that part of what I'm saying by the religious Jews should. In fact we pray multiple times a day for the reestablishment of a the monarchy and state ruled by religious law. But also separate discussion.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Should the SCOTUS rule that belief in one G-D is mandatory?

As long as they understand the Holy Trinity is one G-D.

[mb1]

Footnote 22 of Justice Scalia's dissent:

If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

[Achas Veachas]

As long as they understand the Holy Trinity is one G-D.

Tell that to the 1.5M Hindus in the US...

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I don't expect you to relate to that part of what I'm saying by the religious Jews should. In fact we pray multiple times a day for the reestablishment of a the monarchy and state ruled by religious law. But also separate discussion.

...but don't you only want a certain religion to make the rules?

[Aj3042]

Unless the SCOTUS rules that Aj3042 must marry a man I see no reason why the fact that Torah rules differently should have bearing on the SCOTUS's ruling.

Should the SCOTUS rule that belief in one G-D is mandatory? Should they outlaw lobster?

Well let's think. I'm sure you're well aware of the 7 Noahide laws and that this act is punishable by death in our books. so yes you should view it as a corruption of morals.
Besides, the most important point here is that nobody is discussing banning it (like the liberal media liars call it). It's a question of whether we should recognize it as a marriage, the very concept of which is at least partly religious in nature. As i pointed out, can one marry his pet? Why not? Because we don't recognize it as a marriage. same here. this ain't a freedom issue. It's a morals issue.

[Aj3042]

...but don't you only want a certain religion to make the rules?

No I want the old religious views this country was founded upon (Protestant work ethic, morality, whatever name you want to call it) to make the rules.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Tell that to the 1.5M Hindus in the US...

Any on DDF I have to worry about?

[Proisrael]

Can I get your view on slavery?

This country was based on a set of rules they are not meant to be fundamentally changed. Whats next that we should change because of feelings? Love who you want but Marriage as defined by LAW should never change.

[Proisrael]

Unless the SCOTUS rules that Aj3042 must marry a man I see no reason why the fact that Torah rules differently should have bearing on the SCOTUS's ruling.

Should the SCOTUS rule that belief in one G-D is mandatory? Should they outlaw lobster?

Stop the jokes! The country was based on a moral code of conduct and the SCOTUS just usurped that entire code.

[Dave A]

Appointed by Bush and he is the 5th Justice on all these liberal decisions.

Um... no he's not.  Roberts was in the dissent today.  And he was the 6th, not the swing, on healthcare. 

[Proisrael]

Um... no he's not.  Roberts was in the dissent today.  And he was the 6th, not the swing, on healthcare.

Your right it was Kennedy appointed by Reagan...