"Making matters worse, if Trump is elected this year he could veto any congressional attempt to reverse such a disastrous ruling of the Court by passing a law guaranteeing same sex marriage rights."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It seems like you just negated your own point though? If the justices believe black people do not have rights, and make rulings based on that, then they have ignored the letter of the law. On the other hand, ruling in favor of black people's rights is actually making a judgement that follows the constitution (which makes no mention of race, religion, sexual preference, or anything else). Saying that all people are equal does not just apply to the people that you personally find equal, it means ALL. Making a judgement that same-sex couples have the same rights to marriage does not mean that a judge overcame their bigotry, it simply means that a judge ruled in favor of the letter of the law and did not let their personal feelings get in the way -- they dd the job they were hired for rather than becoming a vindictive dictator.

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I noticed. What I wanted to say was it can become a battle between the correct belief and the wrong belief. Especially if the law itself is interpreted wrongly and scientific evidence is difficult to acquire (which sometimes is).

[–] Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

True, if they don't have an existing law to work from then you have to determine what the law should say. The problem is the current justices have set out to take away people's rights rather than defend them. Like allowing same-sex marriages harms nobody, but conservatives would have you believe they are some how directly harmed by this (your hurt feelings do not constitute actual harm) or that children will somehow be sexually exploited by it (to which they've never been able to show a single case where that was true).

So maybe my earlier statement could be clarified by saying that making laws which intentionally sets people apart, allowing freedoms for one group while taking them away from another group for no reason other than "I don't like something about them" is what is making a mockery of the legal system. I mean I could make the case that conservatives should not be allowed to vote based on their recent history of electing criminals and con men, as this is causing actual harm to the collective nation and to individuals, but that's still just a judgement based on my personal beliefs even when actual physical and monetary harm can be shown, because such a law would still be taking away the rights of one group while still providing the same rights to another group that can have the same problems (even though those incidents are greatly reduced).

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago

Agreed.