In his dissent to today’s SSM ruling, Samuel Alito said that this will lead to vilification of SSM opponents:
But is there ever a major decision that can’t be used to vilify someone? Would there ever be a time when it would make sense to say “We should decide X, but if we did people against X would be vilified, so let’s decide Y”? Is there any time when how bad people against X would look should be a relevant consideration for doing X?
You’ve highlighted very efficiently the intellectual poverty of Alito’s argument.
He’s taken ‘slippery slope’ to an extreme that borders on the hilarious: what, I now have to tolerate Demographic Group X having the right to marriage? Obviously the next step is a government neural-implant that will record my thoughts!!!1!!!1!!
You’d think he’d have more self-respect than to make public such foolishness.
Oh no! Other people in public might label you a bigot! Maybe you need a safe space on campus to shelter from the slings and arrows of free speech, Justice Alito?
He’s really saying that he feels entitled to have his views and opinions and preferences enshrined as the Norm, with all other views and opinions and preferences relegated to official classification as aberrant or sub-normal.
It’s worth recalling that this decision does NOT impel Justice Alito to marry a man. (!)
All it does is remove HIS preference on how marriage should be defined from its former position of prominence. He can no longer assume that all he encounters will defer to his preferences. It is possible that some who define marriage in a way he doesn’t like, will now expect their views to be treated with courtesy.
I honestly think the man is too bone-headed to comprehend the implications of what he is saying. He’s a cave-man, shouting “Me not like” without the least hint of sophisticated reasoning.
(Mind you, this post is also an example of “me not like” excoriation, but at least it is in the context of his blatant logical blundering.)
During WWII, the supreme court upheld requirements for Jehovah’s Witnesses to salute the flag. JW’s were later subjected to mob violence. So SCOTUS might bear that in mind in some cases. Minersville School District v. Gobitis - Wikipedia
I seriously doubt whether that is a serious issue here. While I trust that somewhere, somehow there will be a hate crime directed against an anti-gay bigot, I seriously doubt whether such crimes will be more prominent than (declining) anti-gay incidents. And if one does think this is a concern, then SCOTUS should address the issue squarely, rather than with vague fears devoid of empirical content or prediction. When anti-sodomy laws were upheld during the 1980s, one SCOTUS justice put the kibosh on extremism by stating that he would certainly apply cruel and unusual punishment doctrine if he came across a case where he thought it applied. So there are ways of keeping the hot heads on a leash.
But maybe Alito is afraid that people might look at him and his friends funny. I see that he believes that this is a constitutional concern. Huh.
ETA2: I made a similar point in another thread. I have not read Alito’s dissent. Are we sure the quote is in context?
That dissent was pretty weak tea I’d say. Taking the subject from another angle, while I expect largely peaceful skirmishes to continue, I tend to take Kevin Drum and Jonathan Bernstein’s take on the subject: In a Few Years, Gay Marriage Will Be About as Threatening as Cell Phones. Bernstein: [INDENT][INDENT] Perhaps the most amazing thing about the Supreme Court’s decision today in Obergefell, which recognizes marriage as a basic right, is that it’s not going to be very controversial.
....How do I know? Because we’ve seen it in state after state in which marriage equality was enacted. There’s no controversy remaining in Massachusetts; for that matter, there’s little or no controversy remaining in Iowa, which had court-imposed marriage equality in 2009. On a related issue, conflict over gays and lesbians serving in the military ended immediately after “don’t ask don’t tell” was replaced four years ago. In practice, extending full citizenship and human rights to all regardless of sexual orientation and identity is actually not all that controversial — at least not after the fact. [/INDENT][/INDENT] It's true that bigots will have to express their beliefs more quietly -- though I expect the Catholic prohibition on gay marriage ceremonies to remain in place for decades. Ditto for lots of Protestant congregations. (It's not hard to see a Solomonic compromise on this in time.) But at noted in the OP, that's basically true of any piece of legislation or court decision: it is an aspect of living in a free society or an unfree one for that matter.
Ok I think I get it. If you are a pious and traditionally minded Christian, you should be able to show your non-judgmental bona fides by saying, “Well civil unions are ok.” Alternatively you might say, “I don’t like some of their activities, but I struggle with sin as well.” Basically you need to show that you understand Christ’s message of love – some may think you’re old fashioned, but you will generally avoid much of the vitriol. (Except online. The only way to avoid unkind commentary on the internet is to log off.)
The real problem is with those who don’t qualify their anti-gay sentiments with Christ’s core message. (Other mature religions have analogous doctrinal bases for qualification.) Some may think such people are bigots. Understandably those intolerant of gay marriage don’t want to be thought of in that way, and they don’t appreciate parallels to traditionalists in the past who opposed inter-racial marriage. In fact I’m guessing Alito himself falls in this category. Hence the opaque and roundabout reasoning.
It’s not enough to be free to hold certain opinions: Alito fears that his character will be called into question if he opposes gay marriage, civil union and implies that gay sex is much worse than other sins. He fears that this court decision will prompt such a social situation.
And there is a bright line between this case and others. In this one the ox of Alito and those he identifies with is involved. But that’s about it. I’m struggling for other interpretations, ones not based upon an overly aggrieved sense of entitlement.
Right - but the reason he’s objecting to the comparison is because he’s worried that anti-gay prejudice will becomes as socially unacceptable as anti-black prejudice.
Which, of course, is exactly as it should be.
Also, “…harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past?” Because that shit it totally over. :rolleyes: Man, fuck that guy. Fuck him right in the ear.
No, he’s specifically saying that access to marriage is not equivalent to Jim Crow. If it is, then the logic is that churches must perform gay marriages.