The Supreme Court on Friday delivered a historic victory for gay rights, ruling 5 to 4 that the Constitution requires that same-sex couples be allowed to marry no matter where they live and that states may no longer reserve the right only for heterosexual couples.
The court’s action marks the culmination of an unprecedented upheaval in public opinion and the nation’s jurisprudence. Advocates called it the most pressing civil rights issue of modern times, while critics said the courts had sent the country into uncharted territory by changing the traditional definition of marriage.
“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. He was joined in the ruling by the court’s liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
All four of the court’s most conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — dissented and each wrote a separate opinion, saying the court had usurped a power that belongs to the people.
Well it was coming.. i'll be interested to know wut everyone thinks about this topic.
In my personal opinion it should be upto one individual to decide whether they want to go for same-sex or opposite-sex marriage. But on the same side we know that most religions dont approve this thing. And being a follower of Islam, we shouldnt approve that either. So its a complicated issue but we need to find the right balance which is the real challenge here.
The state our ummah is much scarier than the legalization of gay marriage in my opinion. Better we concentrate on fixing our own ills rather then lamenting on a law that won't really have any baring on our day to day lives. Our thoughts and prayers today should go towards our Shia brethren in Kuwait. Legalized gay marriage has no affect whatsoever on my marriage, deen, life etc. What someone else chooses to do in their bedroom is between them and Allah.
Well it was coming.. i'll be interested to know wut everyone thinks about this topic.
In my personal opinion it should be upto one individual to decide whether they want to go for same-sex or opposite-sex marriage. But on the same side we know that most religions dont approve this thing. And being a follower of Islam, we shouldnt approve that either. So its a complicated issue but we need to find the right balance which is the real challenge here.
Balance is overrated. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Prejudice is wrong. Sometimes the choices are quite simple - either live and let live, or promote and participate in prejudice (sometimes with religion as cover).
Balance is overrated. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Prejudice is wrong. Sometimes the choices are quite simple - either live and let live, or promote and participate in prejudice (sometimes with religion as cover).
There is no middle ground. No balance.
I know you have been critique of faith but how in the world is balance overrated Southie?
Remember its the balance that gave you this day where supreme court awarded this historic decision.
Its the balance that today a transexual can be employed with more flexibility as compared to previous days. So there has been a ton of progress. Yes everyone should have a right to make their choice. I'm all for it. HOWEVER, at no point anyone should diminish role of religion in our lives. We still need it to be disciplined. In the right way ofcourse. And thats where our 'balance' is.
And btw wuts right for you may be wrong for someone else and vice versa.
I know you have been critique of faith but how in the world is balance overrated Southie?
Remember its the balance that gave you this day where supreme court awarded this historic decision.
Its the balance that today a transexual can be employed with more flexibility as compared to previous days. So there has been a ton of progress. Yes everyone should have a right to make their choice. I'm all for it.
HOWEVER, at no point anyone should diminish role of religion in our lives. We still need it to be disciplined. In the right way ofcourse. And thats where our 'balance' is.
And btw wuts right for you may be wrong for someone else and vice versa.
Explain your first sentence. On what basis do you "know" I am a "critic of faith". Nothing could be farther than the truth.
In my personal opinion it should be upto one individual to decide whether they want to go for same-sex or opposite-sex marriage. But on the same side we know that most religions dont approve this thing. And being a follower of Islam, we shouldnt approve that either. So its a complicated issue but we need to find the right balance which is the real challenge here.
Well, the US Constitution is very clear. It guarantees religious freedom & freedom from religion. According to the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". In other words, govt has no business using religion to advance public policy (for or against whatever the cause) & I completely agree with that. So, this was the right decision to give equal rights to ALL citizens regardless of their sexual orientations.
I know you have been critique of faith but how in the world is balance overrated Southie?
Remember its the balance that gave you this day where supreme court awarded this historic decision.
Its the balance that today a transexual can be employed with more flexibility as compared to previous days. So there has been a ton of progress. Yes everyone should have a right to make their choice. I'm all for it.
HOWEVER, at no point anyone should diminish role of religion in our lives. We still need it to be disciplined. In the right way ofcourse. And thats where our 'balance' is.
And btw wuts right for you may be wrong for someone else and vice versa.
It is not balance that gave you and me and the rest of the world this day. It is FAIR MINDEDNESS. I am all for religion being part of a person's life. Focus should be "in the right way of course" as you put it.
DISCRIMINATING against someone on the basis of their sexuality is as wrong as discriminating against someone on the basis of their religion.
I am sure you would protest if you see discrimination against Muslims. As a good Muslim, and as a good human being, you should be EQUALLY offended when you see discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Re the last sentence, being AGAINST discrimination is not just "right for me". It is right for EVERYONE.
Explain your first sentence. On what basis do you "know" I am a "critic of faith". Nothing could be farther than the truth.
Sorry if that isnt true, ofcourse not meant to offend anyone, but thats the impression i got from yr recent previous posts.
Regarding your other post i think we are going in circles. I do stand by my opinion. I'll look to ping you when we see a case of any drunken LGBT running into a church and screaming "in your face" at the priest's. Thats when the balance would hv lost, again.
Sorry if that isnt true, ofcourse not meant to offend anyone, but thats the impression i got from yr recent previous posts.
Regarding your other post i think we are going in circles. I do stand by my opinion. I'll look to ping you when we see a case of any drunken LGBT running into a church and screaming "in your face" at the priest's. Thats when the balance would hv lost, again.
No offense taken. What "recent previous posts" are you referring to where I took a swipe at faith. I think you are referring to the climate change related heat wave thread. You had an issue when I stated faith can play a role in all of us helping with mitigation of climate change. And thus help the guy on the street who bears the brunt if heat waves.
You confusion surprised me. Because I had said NOTHING negative about faith. Your confusion ws also an eye opener - some people of faith see criticism of faith where there was meant to be none. Rather than welcome the attempt to involve the help of faith to decrease out carbon footprint, you appeared to take umbrage.
Regarding your other post i think we are going in circles. I do stand by my opinion. I'll look to ping you when we see a case of any drunken LGBT running into a church and screaming "in your face" at the priest's. Thats when the balance would hv lost, again.
What circles? I am stating it is NOT Ok to discriminate. And u r stating it is. Indeed, you can stand by ur opinion, however wrong it is.
Why give the example of a drunken LGBT going into a church? They are as likely to he drunk as a non LGBT. I missed the fine point entirely.
That example cuz they just won a case against conservatives
You didn't exactly say that. But u stated as followers of Islam we shoukd not approve of this decision. The decision was to give equal rights wrt marriage. And u r against it. Ergo display rimination.
You didn't exactly say that. But u stated as followers of Islam we shoukd not approve of this decision. The decision was to give equal rights wrt marriage. And u r against it. Ergo display rimination.
Thats exactly why i said BALANCE is necessary. You have to follow the religion but you have to not discriminate either. And no i'm not against it. I explained my POV very well (atleast i thought) But i want to keep religious perspective in front as well. Unless you say you dont believe in God at all.
Now you are free to conclude anything or twist any words so please go ahead, i wont mind.
And now you should also know why we are going in circles.. you didnt even get my first post yet.
Thats exactly why i said BALANCE is necessary. You have to follow the religion but you have to not discriminate either. And no i'm not against it. I explained my POV very well (atleast i thought) But i want to keep religious perspective in front as well. Unless you say you dont believe in God at all.
Now you are free to conclude anything or twist any words so please go ahead, i wont mind.
And now you should also know why we are going in circles.. you didnt even get my first post yet.
First, I was not trying to twist your words. To me, your first post was not clear. It is not a matter of I "didn't even get" your "first post yet". I didn't get it because it could have been interpreted more than one way (why does this sound familiar when it comes to religious books - and I will is Gita as an example - passages from Scripture can be interpreted multiple ways.)
Your second sentence explained it CLEARLY and left NO ROOM for interpretation.
