Judge rules SSM legal in Kentucky

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wish some brave county clerk, judge-exec, or mayor would have gone ahead and started performing gay marriages already. This would have at least effectively legalized it in certain counties or cities.

While on this issue you would like that to happen, I think that in general you wouldn't like it if officials start doing whatever they please instead of following the law.  Especially since I expect that what would please most officials certainly wouldn't please you.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We are wise to see whether the decision is upheld. Appeals could eventually go to the US Supreme Court.

Nothing in the Constitution bans SSM. We are going to discover soon whether states with SSM have the vile consequences that gay-baiters say will happen.

(Really I think that SSM will promote domestic tranquility and that states with SSM will get more business).

They've had gay marriage in Massachusetts for 10 years.  That seems like confirmation enough that there are no negative consequences from marriage equality.

It also had Romney as Governor for 4 years.  Does that mean there are no negative consequences to having him in charge?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is no valid argument from SSM opponents other than using religion (which isn't a valid argument because there is a separation of church and state in the US).

So kudos to this judge for acknowledging that the ban on SSM is an attempt from a majority to infringe the rights of a minority.

One could argue that the purpose of government recognition of marriage is to foster procreation.  Not a particularly good option IMO since that is far from the only reason, and plenty of other ways to encourage the production of future taxpayers, but it would be a reason not dependent upon religion.  Now if we still had traditional marriage in which the wife became the property of the husband, that would be a reason, but until the Sons of Jacob take power, that won't be a valid reason either.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Conway: "I wanted to be on the right side of history."

May I say that while I approve of his decision that quote is highly cringe-worthy for me.  The idea that we can predict with certainty what the future will think of our actions is one of the more ludicrous ideas that has entered the realm of public discourse.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Conway: "I wanted to be on the right side of history."

May I say that while I approve of his decision that quote is highly cringe-worthy for me.  The idea that we can predict with certainty what the future will think of our actions is one of the more ludicrous ideas that has entered the realm of public discourse.

In some cases it's pretty damn obvious. This is one of them.

Hardly.  While given current demographic momentum, it's fairly obvious that support for recognition of same-sex marriage will continue to grow for the next couple of decades, that it will certainly be the case that society will consider it a good idea a couple centuries from now is not at all obvious.  History does not travel in an inexorable straight path towards the future we want.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Conway: "I wanted to be on the right side of history."

May I say that while I approve of his decision that quote is highly cringe-worthy for me.  The idea that we can predict with certainty what the future will think of our actions is one of the more ludicrous ideas that has entered the realm of public discourse.

In some cases it's pretty damn obvious. This is one of them.

Hardly.  While given current demographic momentum, it's fairly obvious that support for recognition of same-sex marriage will continue to grow for the next couple of decades, that it will certainly be the case that society will consider it a good idea a couple centuries from now is not at all obvious.  History does not travel in an inexorable straight path towards the future we want.

My, my, aren't you quite the pessimist?

No.  A realist.  If I were a pessimist, I'd be saying that the current changes would inevitably be reversed in a couple centuries, which is just as ludicrous.  I just doubt our ability to predict what societal norms will be a couple centuries from now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.  A realist.  If I were a pessimist, I'd be saying that the current changes would inevitably be reversed in a couple centuries, which is just as ludicrous.  I just doubt our ability to predict what societal norms will be a couple centuries from now.

I think Conway's usage could be quite reliable if we're only thinking about the next 30-50 years, i.e. his own lifetime, rather than extending it arbitrarily into the future. People today can speak about being "on the right side of history" for the civil rights movement. Does that usage bother you, too, because it doesn't take into account that we could be living in Waterworld or Mad Max in 2314 where civil rights are viewed differently?

The U.S. isn't going backwards on gay rights any more than it's going to go backward on anti-Semitism or bigotry against the Irish. End of story.

Yes, it bothers me in any context and it won't take a apocalyptic catastrophe to cause things to go backward, tho I will admit it is more likely to cause it to happen, not because such events are likely to cause society to become evil but because such events are more likely to cause society to change, both for good and for evil.