OT: Interesting Article

[DeMaroon]

Lots of interesting posts in this thread ...

I choose not to engage in conversations with people about what their faith requires of them. We do not live in a theocracy and not all denominations of Christianity even offer the same view on a myriad of topics. Gay marriage is included in that. I attend a church that supports, affirms, and marries gay couples. One of the things I do like about America is that I like not having to live by anyone else's faith. What's important to me, as an American, is that each of us is granted the same rights. I do not care who someone chooses to marry.

I grew up in a single parent home, and I am doing quite well for myself. I have gay friends in Mississippi who are raising the children of their messed up siblings and doing a much better job at raising those kids than their parents were. There's no guarantee that any form of parenting will yield the perfect adult. Children from amazingly stable and loving homes go on to do some messed up stuff. Children from horrific backgrounds do wonderful things.

I really believe that we, as an American people, need to be bent towards justice and equality and get out of the discrimination business. That, to me, is our moral imperative. Every single law-abiding American, regardless as to how I feel or believe they should live their lives, deserves equal protection under the law.

As for the young lady's article ... I think there are a lot of factors that might have influenced her. She is entitled to her views, but she I am always cautious about those who want us all to live their way. My father was addicted to heroin and cocaine and ultimately overdosed and died. I am glad I grew up, raised by a single mother who kept that away from me.

 

[johnson86-1]

That's a whole lot of words that say absolutely nothing, much like many of the laws. Bottom line, our elected officials are SO corrupt and dysfunctional that they are incapable of doing anything of value. They write these laws with so much ******** and waffling in them that you can drive a Mack truck through all the loopholes and they create horrible situations like the issue with software patents. They do this because they don't want to take a side. This leaves it up to the courts to determine what to do with the mess handed down to them. This is a failure to GOVERN because if the law were clear the Supreme Court would not have room to interpret.

That's completely wrong. The text of Obamacare is a trainwreck b/c it didnt' go through the normal legislative process, but even well written laws have to be interpreted by courts.

And I just want to add, that anyone who feels at odds about the ruling on ObamaCare (aka: The Affordable Care Act) I have no problem with you. From my seat as a leader in a large Healthcare system I think it's a decent law. Certainly not perfect, but better than what we had before. But if you hate it I have no problem with that, it certainly is a big change. But ANYONE lumping the same sex marriage ruling in with the ACA as an example of an activist SCOTUS needs to back away from public discourse and learn a little bit about the law. The Equal Protection Clause of the constitution is black letter law and easy to interpret. I'm honestly stunned that anyone dissented. The government simply is not allowed to offer up one thing for a certain subset of the people and not allow others to have access. It's as simple as that. Those gay marriage ban amendments and laws were illegal on their face the day they were passed and they have been an ENORMOUS waste of money, especially in states who weren't all that flush with cash to begin with.

You got this exactly backward. There can be a legitimate debate about the King v. Burwell ruling. The ruling seems really, really bad to me, and I think it's a bad idea for the Court to 'fix' legislation, but there's at least a legitimate argument to be made and the opinion actually contains something that is recognizably a legal argument. There is no justification for the gay marriage ruling unless you think it's appropriate for the Supreme Court to be a supralegislative body. The majority didn't even really try to pretend that every jurisdiction in the U.S. acted unconstitutionally for over 100 years. They just decided to make up a right.

Oh, and one last thing. I will take highly educated Supreme Court Justices any day of the week. They aren't support to "have a clue as to how life is in America outside of those walls which they reside" (which no one really understands a life outside their own) they are supposed to interpret the law. I don't want them thinking like some bigoted, uneducated piece of inbred trailer trash. But maybe that's must me.

Then you really shouldn't like the current supreme court, because by abandoning the pretense that they are there to interpret rather than write laws, they are making it more likely that somebody with views you don't like will start legislating from the bench.

 

[johnson86-1]

As Whit Waide pointed out, 2 of the judges who tipped the scale in favor of gay marriage were appointed by GWB.

I hope Whit Waide didn't point that out. W nominated Roberts and Alito. If he was talking about H, H nominated Souter (who is no longer on the court) and Thomas. Unless I am missing something, you have Reagan responsible for Kennedy (although that was after Bork was Borked), Bill Clinton for Breyer and Ginsberg, and Obama for Sotomayer and Kagan.

 

[mstateglfr]

Yeah, its interesting because she is the topic of a book and is now against the very way she grew up.

The article sounds like complaining though. Its well thought out and very well worded, but complaining nonetheless.

She is complaining that she was missing something while growing up and blames the family structure she was raised in as the reason.
Well hell, go figure- someone sees error in how they were raised. Grab a ticket and get in line with the other dozens of millions across the country that feel that way.

Single family households are overflowing with kids who blame their family structure, even when that remaining parent was incredible and did the best they could.
Divorced households are overflowing with kids who blame one or both parents for the instability, and that’s only after the kids no longer blame themselves for the divorce.
Abusive households are overflowing with kids who blame the abuser for their horrible acts.

Etc etc etc

Yes, its unfortunate that this woman’s parents and supporters were apparently so active against men that they would preach to her that men arent needed. That must cause some serious questions in a girl as she is growing up, especially when she is desiring a relationship with an adult male role model.
But get the 17 in line, its no different in other family structures. Kids yearn for unconditional love and are the scars run deep when that isnt around.
You know who messed up? Her dad. She readily admits her dad wasn’t around. It isnt her mom’s fault of her stepmom’s fault that she didn’t have a man in her life- its her dad who chose to not be around.
Had her dad chosen to stay involved in her life, she would have had a male role model to look up to and to form a bond with- the very thing she is wishing she had.



So now the issue is- well what about kids adopted to gay couples? They don’t have both genders to look up to. Well yes, that’s true. And yet they are almost assuredly in a better position than they were before and will be loved by people who figuratively moved mountains to adopt. Seems like a pretty good alternative to a foreign orphanage or domestic foster homes.



Whats really interesting is how few responses in this thread have addressed the actual story. Its mostly just been a bunch of responses to gay marriage in general. The article isn't really about gay marriage, its about family dynamics, and family dynamics are a mess in all types of households.