Mathew said, "A willingness to accommodate the opponents of a new legal mandate this way (by postponing enforcement) does not communicate weakness, lack of resolve, or lack of commitment to principle."

I'm sorry, but this is precisely what I would take it to mean.  Don't forget that FMRI scans have located specific areas of the brain that are used to represent personal views and the views of others.  When researchers examine people reporting on the opinion of God it does not appear in the part of the brain representing the views of another person.  It appears in the part of the brain where personal views are processed.  This means that these people actually are bigots.  They are operating from their own animus to those who are attracted to the same sex.  Now they might not realize that the propaganda that they have heard in their church is just giving them an opportunity to more passionately hold a private bias against others.  They may legitimately be confused and be willing to passionately tell you that this is "God's word."  However, I do not desire to give them slack because of this confusion.  Moreover, a stronger and more rapid movement toward justice and equality is a message that should make others rethink their remaining biases.

Don

---

Subject: Re: [atheists-27] Supreme Court on Marriage
From: [address removed]
To: [address removed]
Date: Sat, 4 Jul[masked]:46:56 -0400

25 days is better than 1 day.  However, for those government employees who will surrender their employment because they refuse to carry out the new legal mandate, 25 days is not a meaningful accommodation.  It typically takes months to find new employment and people who voluntarily resigned are not entitled to full unemployment benefits.  The criteria for setting our laws should be merit regardless of opposition and at the same time we can also be pragmatic by addressing practical problems attached to the initial implementation of new legal mandates as a consequence of the opposition.  A willingness to accommodate the opponents of a new legal mandate this way (by postponing enforcement) does not communicate weakness, lack of resolve, or lack of commitment to principle.  The new legal mandate will be enforced.  Instead, this would communicate that it is honorable to accommodate the practical needs of sincere opponents of new legal mandates.

On Jul 4, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Jimmy G <[address removed]> wrote:

Almost all states are now performing same-gender marriages at the direction of the governors with the exception of Louisiana.  The 25 day period may be utilized there as one last pathetic attempt to delay the inevitable by the Louisiana's esteemed governor - Bobby Jindal.....lol.

JIm

---

From: "Don Wharton" <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Saturday, July 4,[masked]:29:20 AM
Subject: RE: [atheists-27] Supreme Court on Marriage

I have heard that there is a 25 day delay included in the distribution of the order from the Supreme Court. 

Don

---

Subject: Re: [atheists-27] Supreme Court on Marriage
From: [address removed]
To: [address removed]
Date: Sat, 4 Jul[masked]:27:33 -0400

There are two realities and they conflict.  One is that this new mandate imposes only a minor burden on government employees who disagree and the second is that some government employees nevertheless sincerely perceive this new mandate to be a large negative imposition on themselves.  The former reality should be the only consideration for setting the law while the latter reality remains a factor which the judges could seek to accommodate for the purpose of trying to ease the transition.  Governments are obligated to be tough when it comes to implementing the laws.  This is all the more reason for governments to make it a habit of accommodating the government employees who will be impacted by providing a transition window that postpones the full force of the implementation of controversial changes to the law.

On Jul 4, 2015, at 1:00 AM, Don Wharton <[address removed]> wrote:

I would disagree with you on this Mathew.  This is an extremely minor task for these governmental employees.  I care deeply for our GLBT friends and I see no reason why they should have to wait for their rights.  Yes there is passion on the other side but enough already.  The explicit reading of the 14th amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law and people should not have to be told that the law can be used to deny that equal treatment even for one more year.  Frankly, I do not see that the various motions and actions are disagreeable at all.  What might be disagreeable is a requirement to not act out their bigotries.  That is something quite different.

Don

---

Subject: Re: [atheists-27] Supreme Court on Marriage
From: [address removed]
To: [address removed]
Date: Fri, 3 Jul[masked]:56:20 -0400

To make it easier for the Supreme Court to support a controversial new equal protection before the law claim it may better if they declared that governments have one year to comply with the decision rather than declare their decision is to be implemented immediately.  That would give impacted government employees some time to try to find different employment.  That may reduce the friction that results when those employees are ordered to execute a newly mandated work place task for the first time that is disagreeable to them.

On Jul 3, 2015, at 3:53 PM, Don Wharton <[address removed]> wrote:

I have read almost all of the Supreme Court findings on same sex marriage. I decided that a major problem was the majority opinion from Anthony Kennedy.

From section 1 of the 14^th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

When I started this thread I cited an almost $80,000 benefit received by my ex-wife and myself due to our marriage. In order to invoke the 14^th amendment I would have liked to see specific descriptions of the life, liberty or property that demanded equal protection under due process. This was very minimally done by Kennedy. There was much talk about things such as dignity that most of use would agree with. However, that is not sufficient to be persuasive to a conservative.

Consider this from Justice Kennedy:

“The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”

I considered this a lame statement that said nothing about the nuts and bolts of the legal contract that is marriage in the United States. The sloppy thinking of this became a target for Scalia:

“The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.)

Further from Kennedy:

“A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child rearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.”

This is again very emotional. The so called “material costs” of being raised by unmarried parents are not material at all. It rest only in the emotional disfavor that may be felt by others. There a material benefit to the children in that there is a shared obligation to meet the needs of the children in the event of disability or death of the other spouse. Of course, Kennedy neglects to cite this real virtue which could be more universally seen to be protected by the Constitution.

Now Kennedy did actually refer to some real and explicit rights that would be excellent examples of the nuts and bolts of the marriage contract that deserve protection under the 14^th amendment: “...while the States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decision making authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules.”

The problem here is that is almost a tangential afterthought. There is no effort made to document how and why the denial of these rights should be protected. And he did not cite any rights conveyed by the Federal law. Kennedy says, “This harm results in more than just material burdens. Same-sex couples are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives.” He is focusing almost solely on the emotional argument.

Prior to 1971 it was possible for a man to marry a woman who owned a house. After the marriage in some states the husband could sell the home and pocket the money. Kennedy did cite the change in the marriage law in 1971 but he did not link the reason to the legal nuts and bolts of the marriage contract in a way that clearly showed how property would be lost if same sex marriages were not allowed.

This Salon article makes a case similar to what I described above:

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/29/the_supreme_court_made_the_right_call_on_marriage_equality_%E2%80%94_but_they_did_it_the_wrong_way/

Don

---

A 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Don Wharton ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Don Wharton, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Mathew Goldstein ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Mathew Goldstein, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Don Wharton ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Don Wharton, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Mathew Goldstein ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Mathew Goldstein, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Don Wharton ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Don Wharton, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Jimmy G ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Jimmy G, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Mathew Goldstein ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Mathew Goldstein, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Don Wharton ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Don Wharton, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]