Alito calls same-sex marriage a 'decisive' turn 'against religious liberty' in new book
6 days ago by spaghettiwestern to c/politics
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, the devout Catholic conservative who has long warned of animus against religion in America, says in a new book that he believes the court's landmark decision extending marriage rights to same-sex couples was "perhaps the decisive point in our nation's turn against religious liberty."
Alito, who dissented sharply in the 2015 case, made the claim at Catholic University of America three years after Obergefell v Hodges in a speech that was not open to the public or widely covered at the time. The remarks were published this month in "So Ordered," a collection of Alito speeches that he says reflect his judicial philosophy and outlook on the country.
Ok, so he doesn't fucking understand what liberty is and rights are. Add him to the list
He's using the Southern definition. The Southern notion of "liberty" is about ruling over others and owning them, etc.
That's why when you see "don't tread on me" dipshit talking about "freedom" and "liberty" it is so confusing. They are using common terms for something else entirely.
Don’t tread on me. Others…
By his definition, liberty is the freedom to deprive others of liberty.
Yes. There used to be an article I would reference - it was a rather longer piece on the differences between the Northern definition of liberty and the Southern kind. It was pretty good, I wish I could find it.
Trust me, he's been on the list. One of the founding members, in fact
Xtians believe that they deserve special privileges. They don't recognize that as such, they just think it's the natural order of the universe. They expect their chosen lifestyle of their special book club to be put up on a pedestal and never even have the precepts questioned.
The minute any of that unwarranted privilege is eroded in even the tiniest way, they view that as "but mah rights are being trampled!"
Religious people do not understand the depth of accomodation we provide them as a society. We already go around tolerating an insane collective delusion in our personal interactions with them, and they've leveraged that good will into an attempt to force that delusion onto everyone else.
Personally I think that's where the social contract ends. The second you attempt to legislate your religion, my duty to tolerate it in any form ends.
Alito has a personal right to belittle, mock, and object to same-sex and same-gender marriage. Just as he also has a personal right to belittle, mock, and object to interracial, inter-reliigous, and childless marriage.
And we have the same personal right to belittle, mock, and object to his ideas as idiotic bigotry.
What Alito shouldn't have is a right to use his personal animus to shape public policy. Except he does, because when the court recognized the constitutional right to abortion back when Alito was a 23-year old kid the whole US right wing gave up on the constitution and decided to try a judicial coup.
Alito's entire professional life is pretending that he isnt a proxy for this coup. I'd almost feel sorry for him if his malfeasance hadn't led to pregnant women dying of eminently preventable complications. (Not to mention W and Trump's presidencies and all the death and destruction that might have been avoided if we had actually applied the rules.)
"a form of psychological manipulation where a person makes someone doubt their own memory, perception, or sanity"
Denying or re-envisioning history is most definitely a form of gaslighting.
These are the same people that believe riding a donkey into Jerusalem is enough to fulfill a prophecy about the messiah returning from a victorious military campaign.
Or that when Isaiah pointed to a pregnant young woman, to use the child she was carrying as a marker of time, that that young woman was a virgin, born 300 years later and was Marry.
Or any of ~300 other prophecies that peole claim Jesus fulfilled, but are lying about if you just read the original prophecy with anything resembling integrity.
Yeah, messianic fanfic.
"In dissent from that ruling," he said in the 2018 address, "I expressed my worry that equating the expression of certain views with bigotry -- or, if you like, with dignitary harm -- would drive believers out of public life."
Alito suggests that his prediction has come to pass.
"Quite suddenly, religious liberty has become controversial," Alito said in a newly published 2022 speech to the Magnificat Foundation, a nonprofit group dedicated to promoting Catholic culture and traditions.
So the lifetime appointee on the most powerful court, the majority of whom are religious believers who willingly impose their will on others, in a governmental and political environment controlled by religious believers in every branch of government, believes that the Obergefell decision "dr[o]ve believers out of public life."
Big wiping-his-tears-with-hundred-dollar-bills energy here.
The cases he uses as examples involve businesses threatened with punishment for refusing to provide services for gay weddings and faith-based organizations harmed by government health or employment regulations without any religious exemption.
"What we see in these and other cases," Alito says in the 2022 speech, "is a refusal to live in peace with those who violate the new moral code." He says the dynamic will "virtually guarantee that the Supreme Court will continue to see a steady stream of religious-liberty cases."
To be clear, the "new moral code" that is being "violated" is: Treat other human beings like equal human beings.
There is no deeper meaning here. He's upset that he doesn't view LGBTQ people as deserving the right to equally participate in society, and is therefore the one being oppressed.
Nobody is better at having a persecution complex/delusion than Christians. Hell their entire religion was founded on a persecution fetish story basically.
He's a theocratic authoritarian.
He's not extraordinarily stupid, just evil and corrupt.
Someone should remind the bigot that so was interracial marriage.
Of course he ignores that marriage is a civil contract that exists outside of religion. Why would he let facts get in the way of his sexist position.
Yeah, what a total fuckass numbnuts. Interracial couples love eachother and so do gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, pansexual and other such couple or tuple combinations. The sex part has nothing to do with the marriage part. It's similar to how two cars or different shape size and color can end up in the same garage /driveway/dealership etc. None of the car features have anything to do with how the cars ended up where they ended up at. It's love fora specific car or interest on a specific feature or need for a specific horsepower that makes a person get a specific car. And so it is with the ones we love... Maybe I'm short and I want my other to be tall to be different or maybe short like me to mutually enjoy our height. I wish I could define true love but it's probably all those things in a single action and so marriage to that person symbolizes the bond. It also brings all the same tax benefits. Why should people only have Toyotas or Fords, if they want both, give them both. Heck if they want two small cars, a van for the kids and a truck for the weekend rally (WTF is that?) that's fine. Let them! They paid for the vehicles. Similarly, if you want a lovely person or an ugly one or a tall or skinny or fat or thick or strong other, let us! There's nothing wrong about it and it's only our business. There's nothing between me and my loved ones where any of us care to know what your opinion of us might be. You, the government, are just an asshole getting in the way. Like a dating app... An asshole who wants 50 cents getting in the way.
Against religious oppression. Loss of or difficulty to find the freedom to oppress others is what Alito is mourning. Your religion doesn’t ask you to stop others from sinning, it commands you to preach the message of Jesus (and perhaps the old testament if your particular flavor of Christianity is a fire and brimstone variety), and to tell others to repent or ask forgiveness and become religious - there’s a difference between the choice to become saved, and forcing it on others by direct and active oppression, which isn’t a choice. Jesus didn’t say to force religion on people, he very specifically said that’s not the way to make his father happy or support his cause.
That being said, fuck modern organized religions for the most part, I find almost all of them to be born of and run by conmen.
Jesus didn’t say to force religion on people
Simple to understand, but these Christians would be the first to set upon Jesus if he came back and put him on another cross. Blood cult, they should stop using his name in theirs, it's literally sacrilegious.
I wish more actual Christians would rise up against their "brethren" who talk like this, if nothing else to say that it's not what Jesus taught. Defend your religion.
He's such an insufferable whiny bitch.
Everyone that supports child marriage, raise your hand.
The crazy thing is that has just as much historical precedence as any of the bullshit he cited in Dobbs
If they don’t like gay marriage don’t have one. It really is that simple.
Your religious beliefs shouldn’t affect what I can do.
Your religious beliefs shouldn’t affect what I can do.
Too bad that some of the worst people think otherwise.
If I forbid you from eating ketchup because my religion forbids ketchup, you would think I am insane and laugh me all the way to the fridge.
But somehow, we keep entertaining these morons.
Why does the government even have to recognize marriages? It seems like govt overreach to be involved in a religious ceremony. Abolish marriage certificates and just set your partner as your emergency contact.
Why does the government even have to recognize marriages?
Property ownership and inheritance (which could be done without marriage, but marriage is such a common pattern that it's convenient to have it).
It's a reverse dominance hierarchy to stop high-status people from forcing low-status people into harems. Marriage abolition is counterintuitively not woke at all, imo.
Alito doesn't want religious liberty, he wants religious tyranny. The U.S. is not a theocracy, at least not yet, and it is horrifying this clergyman is in the highest level of power.
Wikipedia:
Religious abuse is abuse administered through religion, including harassment, humiliation, spiritual abuse, or religious violence. Religious abuse may also include the misuse of religion for selfish, secular, or ideological ends, such as the abuse of a clerical position.
This is such an Alito thing to say; taking a fact, that people were increasingly turned away from the church by anti-gay rhetoric, and then distorting the cause and reframing the result as a "Turn against religious liberty."
Most Alito line ever, 10/10 no notes.
This guy is infringing on my "liberty" to have him stfu
Trollito is so mad about that.
Also, how were the rights of xtians curtailed in any way? It's not like the gays are stopping me from driving to any church and joining up. Also, it so happens a lot of gay people are also xtians, soooo....
Also, people are allowed to worship in their homes, however they choose (well, as long as they are not breaking the law, meaning things like human sacrifice are out). Nothing about that has changed.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
"I have no liberties because two people of the same sex love each other! Waaah!" Shut the fuck up Alito.
save