Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Interesting argument for the government recognizing same-sex marriage

Following the Supreme Court’s momentous ruling on government recognition of same-sex marriage this past Friday, Libertarianism.org offered an interesting line of reasoning from Jason Kuznicki of the Cato Institute.

At core, this argument should be interesting to conservative Christians as well as gays and lesbians — and everyone else — because it understands the issue of government recognition of a marriage in terms of the marriage’s fundamental nature, and that fundamental nature is the commitment between two people, not state or ecclesiastical sanction.

It’s also interesting to ask what, exactly, state or ecclesiastical sanction has contributed to the sanctity of marriage, now that the U.S. has arrived at a 50-percent divorce rate.

Clarifying the confusion about the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision

Update, July 1, 2 p.m.: This Religion News Service article, published in The Washington Post this past January in anticipation of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling, explains the controversy about how the words “contraception” and “abortifacient” are used — and, in fairness, demonstrates why my definition of “abortifacient” below is not shared by everyone. (Basically, some say an abortifacient does its work after fertilization of the egg, while others say an abortifacient does its work after implantation of the fertilized egg.) Also available is this New York Times article which annotates the ruling and illuminates some of the nuances of Justice Alito’s thinking. For me, two particularly interesting quotations were, first, “As we will show, Congress provided protection for people like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included corporations within RFRA’s definition of ‘persons.’ ” And second, “…it seems unlikely that the sort of corporate giants to which HHS refers will often assert RFRA claims.”

Following today’s 5-4 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby employees keep insurance coverage for 16 forms of contraception.

Hobby Lobby employees lose insurance coverage for 4 abortifacients.

Contraception prevents conception, which is the fertilization of an egg.

Abortion ends the fertilized egg or the resulting fetus. An abortifacient is a medicine or device that causes abortion, typically in an early phase.

People who believe in government funding of abortions probably will be upset that Hobby Lobby employees have lost insurance coverage for 4 abortifacients.

However, as the phrase “birth control” and the word “contraception” are used in the discussions following today’s SCOTUS decision, a confusion of terms can be very inaccurate.

Owners of the “closely held” company known as Hobby Lobby did not oppose contraception, or the prevention of pregnancy.

The owners of Hobby Lobby opposed abortifacients, or the use of medicine or devices that end the growth of a fertilized egg.

It’s a safe guess that the Hobby Lobby owners believe human life begins at conception, and they believe that based on their religious beliefs.

But it’s absurd to say that the owners get between an employee and abortifacients.

Hobby Lobby employees can still buy abortifacients.

The owners don’t want to contribute to abortifacients, and now, as a result of today’s Supreme Court ruling, they don’t have to.

The strange rhetoric of our times often conflates “not paying for” with “preventing.”

This evening, I have not paid for millions of 20-something ladies to have adult beverages.

I guess that means I’m preventing millions of 20-something ladies from drinking.

Oh well. I guess there’s no shorter path to political incorrectness than accuracy.


Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ swing vote on Obamacare will shine light on American thinking

John Roberts will be considered “reasonable” or “wise” or maybe even “maturing” by the Enlightened Ones who supported the Affordable Care Act. Generally speaking, these Enlightened Ones will be the same folks who undoubtedly at some point called him a “right-wing judicial activist.”

Soon, however, without a doubt, Roberts will return to being a “right-wing judicial activist.”

This should not be surprising because it’s incredibly normal and entirely boring.  The basic human attitude, and certainly the current American political attitude, is simplistic and ease to describe: Anyone who shares my point of view is reasonable; anyone who differs from my point of view is an extremist.

Personally, I don’t agree with the high court’s ruling today, but what of it? Very few Americans can imagine that any single one of the Supreme Court justices might have made a genuine decision based upon philosophical traditions and some form of legal heritage. “You’re just a liberal” or “you’re just a conservative” saves a lot of thought.


The court’s ruling today was not on “health care.” It was on the roles and powers of the federal government as relates to mandated health care coverage.