Discussion in 'Archive: Your Jedi Council Community' started by KnightWriter, Aug 4, 2010.
Nixon and a Republican Iowa governor (Terry E. Branstad).
I must admit that I know little to nothing about the 9th circuit, so I'll take your word for it. But no matter how the 9th circuit rules, this will go all the way to the Supreme Court. Could be another 5-4 decision.
So because you've gone too far, I'm now responsible for everyone that's ever said "we are going too far" in all of human history?
Yep, since creating civil rights out of thin air could never cause any problems, let's create a right to ingest whatever you want, a right to marry multiple people, a right to not wear clothes in public, a right to marry your animals, because all rights are AWESOME and just help CIVILIANS. Oh you're getting all huffy because I brought up bestiality? Yeah well maybe you should recognize that this rights free for all has to stop somewhere.
I'd be really nervous about the USSC taking on the case. Despite how they feel about Prop. 8, would they dare strike down the law in 39 states and set a precedent to challenge DADT and DOMA? I mean, with Loving v. Virginia, for example, anti-miscegenation were already on the way out. Same with sodomy laws by the time of Lawrence v. Texas. The Supreme Court was just smacking the holdouts.
Since when do they come out of "thin air"? People don't do things like this for the fun of it, you know.
Actually, I believe all adults can ingest what we want. We just can't possess some of those items.
I'm okay with this.
Don't they have that in England?
Animals are physically incapable of entering a legal contract
And it should stop at a line that your religion defines?
And the above quotes good examples in irrelevance. You know that the right for two people of the same gender to enter a legal contract for marriage is not unreasonable, nor is "making up rights."
Please, actually respond to the question asked. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm asking you to explain why the protected classes and civil rights that emerged from these historical precendents should not have occurred, since you seem to feel that losing a ballot initiative is sufficient to demonstrate that a right is more of a "want". As it stands, you seem to be favoring laws that would protect religious beliefs (something entirely impossible to prove (the existence of a deity concept, let alone any resultant justification for personal or social mores) and which has caused no end of trouble due to the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses), but do not favor laws that would protect sexual orientation (which are biologically based, just like race, gender, and other protected classes). So, since you are suggesting that this class of rights isn't infinite, what is the metric that establishes the permissibility of one, but not the other? If you agree with the social protections that arose in the past (e.g., the establishment of protected classes), how do you reconcile the "judicial activism" of the past with your vitriol against the "judicial activism" of the present? If you view all cases of "judicial activism" as being equal, then what was wrong with the three cases I've mentioned?
And by all means, continue to suggest that I'm advocating bestiality, polyamory, and the absence of any drug laws. Nevermind that I've argued against all of these in the Senate, repeatedly. It makes you look classy.
I worry about that as well.
Back-to-Back!: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 L.A. Lakers: World Champions
The argument that the courts "make up rights" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how our system has worked since about... 1803, when Chief Justice Marshall "made up" Judicial Review. Damned activist judge!
Ah, Marshall. A good Federalist.
Also the year we bought Louisiana for like, half the price of Haiti. win
Backwords: No new rights were created. Judge Walker merely indicated that it was illegal for the state of California to discriminate against gay couples in applying the legal status of marriage. Equal protection and due process are rights that were granted a long time ago.
Yes, granted. Shut up, Jefferson.
Well, that's just because you're using an old fashion rule of what counts as marriage and not a progressive one. You just have to change the gov't idea of marriage to something other than a strict legal contract.
After all, France allows people to marry the dead, with some restrictions. The dead can't enter a legal contract.
(no one take this too seriously, just highlighting that marriage isn't a fixed concept, not that I think it should be interpreted that broadly)
Sexual orientation =/= sexual behavior. We draw the line at creating new protected classes based on whether it is a behavior or a trait. You can say the trait creates the behavior, but as a celibate man I just don't have that much sympathy for that argument. And I still find there is a compelling state interest in only fostering through tax breaks those categories of relationships that it finds are the best suited to developing children. As a single person, I find it incredibly offensive that I be discriminated against based solely on my lack of a long term partner. Grouping everybody that can't possibly create children together was one thing, but now I'm being taxed more because those two people just happened to have found "love?" They should be giving me money. And considering the wide ranging changes and the very good likelihood Prop 8 could have been overturned at the ballot box, was this situation really anything close to that of African Americans? What good does judicial activism if society rejects it? Why are we even voting for things that the courts get to decide? I'm asking you at what point do stop issuing protected class cards out? The rest of that post was largely directed at Joey for maintaining that there could be nothing wrong with increasing the number of protected classes.
Espaldapalabras, are you suggesting getting rid of marriage as a government recognition all together? Or did I misinterpret the complaints about marriage?
Ah, I see it now. You're just against the whole idea because it doesn't directly affect you and therefore everyone else should think it wrong because of that. That was very enlightening, thank you.
Well if it isn't for helping make and develop babies, I'm lost on what the purpose of the institution is, and if the government is going to be granting marriage status to everyone but the lonely I hardly see the point.
Property rights, visitation rights, insurance coverage, etc. There are many practical reasons for government recognition of marriage other than baby-making and taxes.
All of which can be handled through not changing the definition of marriage.
Why do the courts get to decide things, Backwords?
Well, aside from being in the constitution, they do know more about the law than Joe Public.
While solving the problems of property rights, visitation rights, insurance coverage, etc. for same sex couples can be done without changing the definition of marriage, extending the definition to include same sex couples is the cheapest way to solve them. I for one would rather see gay marriage than absurd amounts of money spent modifying rules and regulations to include a new different but equivalent type of marriage. Really, anyone who doesn't want to take the cheapest most efficient way to make this problem go away must hate America.
Separate but equal?
As long as "marriage" is a status recognized by the state to bestow privileges... no, not really. The judge already addressed this issue. From the San Francisco Chronicle's story: He also said domestic partnerships in California, available to same-sex couples, are a "substitute and inferior institution" that lack the social meaning and cultural status of marriage. As long as the state is granting marriage licenses, the state has to grant them on an equal basis.