main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Discussion on Same-Sex Marriage: State, Federal, Community

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Cheveyo, Mar 8, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Yes, and to view it that way you need an ajenda.

    You do not view marriage in a qualitative manner--that is to say, you are more concerned with denying some than respecting the relationship of a monogomous couple?

    How does that make marriage better?

    See my last post.

    Your last post said: "I am just showing how a definition of marriage that excludes (the root word of exclusive) all but the man/woman definition makes marriage more valuable."

    That does not answer how a select 5% can somehow undermine the concept of marriage for the 95%.

    Incest breeding could be illegal, but why marriage?

    How do you make breeding illegal, especially when granting a recognized relationship of known intimacy, such that marriage is?

    Along that same line, people with Downs Syndrome get married and have children even though they have a very good chance of passing that disease to the children.

    The number one reason is that while Downs is not preventable, genetic degeneration brought on by incestual conception is not only preventable, but controllable. Hence the law.

    Now it is you who is being quantitative. If it won't work for me, it won't work for you. That is my point.

    Quantitative in that marriage is a contract of exclusive committment. Do you deny this? How does this contradict what I said before about quality in marriage vs. quantity of marriages? It doesn't contradict at all. In fact, it compliments it, because this idea that marriage is a lifelong committment to one person is the core promise in a quality marriage.

    No, your understanding of my answers was incomplete. Hope this post clears it up.

    How could it; this posts has no answers--only referals to previous posts.

    It won't affect my marriage, as I had my understanding of marriage.

    Oh, I see. So it won't harm my marriage. It won't harm your marriage. Your understanding of marriage and my understanding of marriage are clearly very different, yet we both are married, as are millions of others with million differing views. Yet the concept of marriage has servived for millennia.

    That understanding would be changed, thus cheapening marriage for future generations.

    In what manner would "that understanding" be changed? What would that understanding become as opposed to what it is now? And how is that "understanding" the exact same thing to all married couples, so to have granted them legal right to marry over same-sex couples?

    Calviare(SP?), you know, those fish eggs. That crap is expensive. Almost no one can afford it.
    Even though it smells and tastes like a steaming pile found in a pasture, there are entire crime rings in Russia killing each other for it. It is a commodity.


    So, are you saying that marriage is better only because gay couples cannot marry (your theory of exclusivity)? Marriage is somehow stronger because some people can't marry? Why is this?

    But, the intent of marriage is to carry on a tradition of family and to start your own legacy for future generations to carry on. These are big, important ideals, and the ones that form the building blocks of our society.

    As OBM noted, married infertile couples have and use the option of adoption and artificial insemination. It should also be noted that same-sex couples also have and use this option. Both are committed monogomous couples. Both are loving families that will be carrying on a family legacy. The difference beween these two families is that one is granted rights and protections through recognized marriage, while the latter is denied such rights and protections.

    As such, a free society can't be forced to sanction marriages that aren't of that intent. That would cheapen marriage and make it last for
     
  2. VoijaRisa

    VoijaRisa Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 2002
    J-Rod posted on 3/8/05 5:12pm
    Yes, and to view it that way you need an ajenda. [hr][/blockquote] Yes. Equality is an evil agenda. Mwa ha ha! We're so cunning! Actually asking the country to do what it promises to do in guaranting those freedoms stated in the constitution!

    [blockquote][link=http://boards.theforce.net/user.asp?usr=J-Rod][b]J-Rod[/b][/link] [b]posted on 3/8/05 6:28pm[/b][hr]No, as the acknowedged building block for our society, it is, indeed, the intent for marriage.
    [hr][/blockquote] I think there's several thousand gay people out there that would disagree with that. It may have been something that was believed in the past that it was critical, but we also thought that slavery was a good idea for a good long while. And again, it's only the people that are against it that "acknowledge" this. And not even all of them will go that far.

    [blockquote][link=http://boards.theforce.net/user.asp?usr=Green_Jedi33][b]Green_Jedi33[/b][/link] [b]posted on 3/8/05 10:18pm[/b][hr] Studies have shown that children should be reared by a mother and a father for emotional and mental developmental reasons. To have 2 members of one sex raise a child, there is an imbalance. A need is not met. A child who never had a father, or never had a mother, has missed out on a very important part of being brought up. [hr][/blockquote] You're absolutely right. I'm a reject in life because my father died when I was 3. I should just kill myself because my life can never be complete since I didn't have a father figure.
    [/sarcasm]
    Now, by your argument, we should remove all the children of single parents and place them in traditional mother/father households.

    And I figure I'll post this here since no one else has:

    [i]28 reasons gay marriage should be abolished.

    1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

    2. Marriage is valuable because it produces children, which is why we deny marriage rights to infertile couples and old people.

    3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

    4. Straight marriage, such as Britney Spears' 55-hour escapade, will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed.

    5. Marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all: women are property, matches are arranged in childhood, blacks can't marry whites, Catholics can't marry Jews, divorce is illegal, and adultery is punishable by death.

    6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because majority-elected legislatures have historically protected the rights of minorities.

    7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

    8. There is no separation between religious marriage and legal marriage, because there is no separation of church and state.

    9. Devout, faithful Anglicans should never accept same-sex marriage, because it is an affront to the traditional family values upheld by Henry VIII and his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and his wife, Anne Boleyn, and his wife, Jane Seymour, and his wife, Anne of Cleves, and his wife, Catherine Howard, and his wife, Catherine Parr. They all knew the meaning of marriage and none of them lost their heads over the matter.

    10. Married gay people will encourage others to be gay, in a way that unmarried gay people do not.

    11. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because dogs have legal standing and can sign marriage contracts.

    12. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to legislative change in general, which could possibly include the legalization of polygamy and incest. Because we don't know what comes next, we should never change our laws.

    13. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to rais
     
  3. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Thats a great list, VoijaRisa.

    I found this one especially funny:

    Marriage was created in the Bible as a bond between a man and a woman. The people who lived prior to the writing of the Bible, such as the Chinese, sat around in confusion for many years until the Mesopotamians finally came around and invented the family unit.

     
  4. VoijaRisa

    VoijaRisa Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 2002
    Jediflyer posted on 3/8/05 10:44pm
    Thats a great list, VoijaRisa. [hr][/blockquote] Sadly, I can't claim it as my own.

    [blockquote][link=http://boards.theforce.net/user.asp?usr=Jediflyer][b]Jediflyer[/b][/link] [b]posted on 3/8/05 10:44pm[/b][hr]I found this one especially funny: [hr][/blockquote] Funny? I posted that in all seriousness. [face_rolling_eyes] [face_plain]
     
  5. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Your last post said: "I am just showing how a definition of marriage that excludes (the root word of exclusive) all but the man/woman definition makes marriage more valuable."

    That does not answer how a select 5% can somehow undermine the concept of marriage for the 95%.


    No, but read my post about family legacy.

    How do you make breeding illegal,

    It already is...try having a baby with your sister and see what happens.

    especially when granting a recognized relationship of known intimacy, such that marriage is?

    You said it yourself, marriage ain't about having a family...or is it?

    The number one reason is that while Downs is not preventable, genetic degeneration brought on by incestual conception is not only preventable, but controllable. Hence the law.

    Then why can people with Downs have children and run a much greater risk of passing Downs on? It would also be preventable.

    Quantitative in that marriage is a contract of exclusive committment. Do you deny this?

    No I don't. But I am consistant.

    You, on the other hand, just use quantitative reasoning only when it suits you.

    If we can't pass an ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, why then would it work to pass an ammendment defining it as between only 2 people.

    Can't you see that both are quantitative views? If one is wrong, as you suggest, then both must be wrong.

    How does this contradict what I said before about quality in marriage vs. quantity of marriages? It doesn't contradict at all. In fact, it compliments it, because this idea that marriage is a lifelong committment to one person is the core promise in a quality marriage.

    Again, to use your logic, by whose definition of a quality marriage?

    How could it; this posts has no answers--only referals to previous posts.

    Because the answers were already given.

    Oh, I see. So it won't harm my marriage. It won't harm your marriage. Your understanding of marriage and my understanding of marriage are clearly very different, yet we both are married, as are millions of others with million differing views. Yet the concept of marriage has servived for millennia.

    Hence, the rise in divorce rates and fatherlessness. Thanks for pointing that out.

    In what manner would "that understanding" be changed? What would that understanding become as opposed to what it is now? And how is that "understanding" the exact same thing to all married couples, so to have granted them legal right to marry over same-sex couples?

    It would change in that a marriage between gays does not leave a legacy. It ends at death.

    So, are you saying that marriage is better only because gay couples cannot marry (your theory of exclusivity)? Marriage is somehow stronger because some people can't marry? Why is this?

    The last answer covered it.

    As OBM noted, married infertile couples have and use the option of adoption and artificial insemination.

    As is their birth-right. A man and a woman are meant to have children. That means that a man and a woman were meant to raise children.

    It should also be noted that same-sex couples also have and use this option. Both are committed monogomous couples. Both are loving families that will be carrying on a family legacy. The difference beween these two families is that one is granted rights and protections through recognized marriage, while the latter is denied such rights and protections.

    What rights? What protections? The only thing they are denied is the Marriage Penalty Tax. Anything else may be gotten through the courts and powers of atternies. Sorry it's not all wraped up in a nice little bow, but hey, they don't have to pay the tax.

    We are talking about 5% of the population of the United States. How will humanity die out if 5% of the population chooses not to procreate?

    It won't. It is about corruption of an institution, not procreation.

    How does a "free society" sanction the denial of the privileges conferred by
     
  6. Neo-Paladin

    Neo-Paladin Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 10, 2004
    I've only got a few minuets so this may be a bit disorganized.

    Homosexual couples are denied more than the tax credit. If one goes to the hospital, their partner may be denied visiting rights and the right to ride along in the ambulance as they are not recognized as family. Family health insurance may be denied one's partner. The law does not recognize the partner as a spouse and a whole variety of issues arise from that. How is it fair to recognize and give these protections to one family unit and not another?

    The qualitative vs quantitative issue we seem to be having seems to be borne of the argument that confining the definition of marriage to heterosexual unions adds value to the institution. To this I have two points to make. One is, if this is your contention, how are you not making a quantitative argument? Secondly, homosexuals are already becoming married in every sense of the word but the legal one. If the damage can be done, it has already been done. I don't see it any worse off than before.

    The institution is primarily societal and biological, it changes as these factors change. It has changed, is changing, and will continue to change. The law should reflect this.

    Would someone please clearly explain how the recognition of a homosexual marriage lends to the "corruption of an institution"? I am unclear as to what leads to this conclusion. I think if I understood this argument I would understand your position better.
     
  7. Son-Of-Suns

    Son-Of-Suns Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 18, 2000
    If we can't pass an ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, why then would it work to pass an ammendment defining it as between only 2 people.

    One's restricting, one's expanding.

    It would change in that a marriage between gays does not leave a legacy. It ends at death.

    A genetic legacy is not left, true enough (unless its a lesbian couple and one of the partners carries the child), but its still a legacy of their name. We consider those who are adopted part of that family's legacy, so why can't the same rationale be applied to gay couples who adopt or artificially inseminate?

    Again, it isn't gender discrimination.

    Regardless, its still discrimination.

    Because all people have the privilage of marrying someone of the opposite sex. That makes it equal and Constitutional. To say that only some single people can marry only some single people of the opposite sex would not be equal.

    Indeed, everyone has the privledge to marry someone of the opposite sex, but when one partner is not capable of loving the opposite sex some of the fundamental building blocks of marriage are lost; bond of love. Expanding it would allow those basics to be kept.

    What rights? What protections? The only thing they are denied is the Marriage Penalty Tax. Anything else may be gotten through the courts and powers of atternies. Sorry it's not all wraped up in a nice little bow, but hey, they don't have to pay the tax.

    You know as well as I that a marriage license eliminates a lot of red tape that a gay couple would have to cut through in order to get certain protections, like Neo mentioned, "If one goes to the hospital, their partner may be denied visiting rights and the right to ride along in the ambulance as they are not recognized as family."

    And like that...he's gone.
     
  8. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Studies have shown that children should be reared by a mother and a father for emotional and mental developmental reasons. To have 2 members of one sex raise a child, there is an imbalance. A need is not met. A child who never had a father, or never had a mother, has missed out on a very important part of being brought up.

    What "studies" are these?

    I'd like to see the publication dates and information for them. How many subjects were used, how was the study done, how large was the significant difference (presuming there was one)?

    It's unwise to cite unnamed "studies" in a place like the Senate.
     
  9. JediSmuggler

    JediSmuggler Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 5, 1999
    As per my previous objections in the previous thread, a court is going to decide this issue - it will be debated and decided in secret by judges who are unaccountable to the people.

    The people will be presented with a fait accompli, with practically no recourse. Is this America?
     
  10. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    The 'studies' are based upon the gender role model. Basically you get your idea of gender through your father or mother depending on your gender. I believe my professor once said this model does not include surrogate gender role models. It's all a very out of date thinking any way. People like to bring it up like, "AH-HA! See? Two gay people cannot raise a child because of this." Blah blah blah. And they do the same thing that this thinking does: they don't include the possibility of surrogate models.

    Is this America?

    Yes. Last I checked. America: home of the free, the brave, and the hypocritical.
     
  11. MajorMajorMajorMajor

    MajorMajorMajorMajor Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Jan 3, 2001
    I love how people pervert their explanation and understanding of our Constitutional system to advance their agendas.

    Conservatives are more than happy to have judges 'uphold liberties' that the majority tries to take away when the sides are switched. It's happened before, and it'll happen again.

    If you don't like the checks the Judicial system places on our government, I suggest you stop whinging and start advocating Constitutional solutions. Because, much as I intensely dislike it, State and Federal Constitutional amendments are the proper avenue for Conservatives to channel support....not on dark assertions about the bedrock system of our Government. Cheap comments like that WILL come back to haunt you, and your movement.
     
  12. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    And they do the same thing that this thinking does: they don't include the possibility of surrogate models.

    When studying just about anything, not accounting for different possible variables leads to an invalid or poor study.


    Conservatives are more than happy to have judges 'uphold liberties' that the majority tries to take away when the sides are switched. It's happened before, and it'll happen again.

    Completely agreed, and excellent point.

    Great post, Major.
     
  13. VoijaRisa

    VoijaRisa Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 2002
    J-rod, I could reply to your posts by carefully going over each point, but I get the impression it would be useless and redundant. Every argument you've proposed hinges on one flawed principle: That your perception of what marriage should be is the only right one.
     
  14. Green_Jedi33

    Green_Jedi33 Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Did I say that children should be removed from custody of their biological parents, whether single, gay, straight, married or otherwise?

    No.

    Why do you put words in my mouth?

    I simply stated the fact that it is certainly most healthful to a child for it to be reared in a mother/father environment.

    By my stating this, in no way did I assume a position that children should be taken away from single parent homes and the like.

    Your sarcasm is not appreciated. :(

    Can't I offer .02 to this debate without the pre-judgements?
     
  15. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001
    It already is...try having a baby with your sister and see what happens.

    That would be a neat trick, as I'm an only child. ;) In seriousness, marriage is an intimate relationship--and, might I add, the only type of relationship in which the community defines appropriate for sexual behavior. By definition, marriage is a close, sexual, intimate relationship; therefore, to permit incestuous marriage is to permit incest.

    You said it yourself, marriage ain't about having a family...or is it?

    No, I have never said as much, nor do I believe that. I strongly believe that marriage is about family, and that family can be defined as any and all of the following:
    two married parents and their child[ren],
    one parent and his/her child[ren],
    two married adults with no children,
    one guardian and adopted child[ren],
    two married guardians and adopted children,
    and countless other dynamics.

    Marriage is a tool used to strengthen these family types, not required, but beneficial to all. In no case is a marriage between two monogomous, loving, committed partners detrimental to the family.

    If you believe it is, please provide an example. Please note the above qualifiers (thereby excluding such reasons as adultery, abuse, etc)

    Then why can people with Downs have children and run a much greater risk of passing Downs on? It would also be preventable.

    Because Downs Syndrome was not introducedas a result of procreation from the same gene pool. With incest, genetic mutation is not a natural occurence. While Downs is not the genetic norm, it is a "naturally" occuring syndrome.

    You, on the other hand, just use quantitative reasoning only when it suits you.
    If we can't pass an ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, why then would it work to pass an ammendment defining it as between only 2 people.
    Can't you see that both are quantitative views? If one is wrong, as you suggest, then both must be wrong.


    Because Marriage already exists as a contract of exclusive committment. If you take that away, then the level of committment defined in marriage is reduced if not completed eroded. which of these statements contradicts the ideal of marriage as being a solemn promise to remain committed only to each other for the rest of your lives:

    1) A monogomous, committed, loving same-sex couple wanted to codify their relationship for the rest of their life; or

    2) A man promising in marriage to remain faith to one woman exclusively for the rest of his life, then taking on a second wife and promising the same thing to that second wife.

    Which of these two examples harms the promise that is the foundation of a marriage?

    Again, to use your logic, by whose definition of a quality marriage?

    Marriage is a promise to remain committed to one person for life. Every marriage in the United States is founded on this one promise--everything else said in vows are variables dictated by the individual couples. A "quality" marriage is universally defined as a loving, committed, intimate relationship between two adults.

    Hence, the rise in divorce rates and fatherlessness. Thanks for pointing that out.

    Yes, instead, we had loveless marriages in loveless homes, single mothers in institutions until the birth of their child, when the child was immidiately given up for adoption, and no such law against marital abuse or child abuse.

    Again, you would harken back to the days of old??

    It would change in that a marriage between gays does not leave a legacy. It ends at death.

    Just as married couples who do not bear children leave no legacy. It ends at death. Yet they are permitted to marry.

    Just as married couples who adopt leave no biological legacy. Their bloodline ends at death. Yet they are permitted to marry.

    Just as a previously married parent i
     
  16. Obi-Wan McCartney

    Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 1999
    J-Rod
    Every person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

    No person has the right to marry someone of the same sex.

    There is no special privileges for anybody. And if the law is looked at objectively and without an ajenda, there can be no other concluesion.


    -J-Rod, there ARE special privileges. Think about it, the law states that no class of citizens can have a privlege not granted to another class of citizens, therefore:

    You have to allow same sex marriage. Why? Otherwise its' discrimating a class based on sex. Why, you ask? Well, because that means that say women have the ability to marry men, but men have no ability to marry other men. That means that women have a special right over men in that they are allowed to marry men.

    It works vice versa. And seperate but equal limitations don't work, they have to be the same limitation. Men are limited from marrying men but women don't have that limitation. Same, men can marry women but women don't have that privilege.

    Therefore, by denying same sex marriage we deny rights and privileges afforded under the constitution.
     
  17. Blue_Jedi33

    Blue_Jedi33 Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 12, 2003
    JUST WOW ^^^^ on that reasoning that logic seems bizzaro to me. But that's just me
     
  18. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001
    JUST WOW ^^^^ on that reasoning that logic seems bizzaro to me. But that's just me

    Why? Can you expound?

    OBM: Therefore, by denying same sex marriage we deny rights and privileges afforded under the constitution.

    I would like to clarify that the Constitution says nothing about marriage as a right; however through the privilege of marriage, rights are bestowed upon committed monogomous couples. Because these rights are denied to a specific class, it is a violation of the equal protections clause of the Constitution, which states that no right may be denied to a citizen without due process of the law.

    It has also been argued that marriage is a "basic human right", as defined by the US Supreme Court, and therefor is protected as a right to all citizens equally by the Constitution's provision of basic human rights.
     
  19. JediSmuggler

    JediSmuggler Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 5, 1999
    Is it the ideal of America to maintain that "The privilege of civil marriage and the various privileges legally conferred by that status are not being made equally available to all citizens"?


    No, it is not.

    Is it an American standard to deny human rights based soley on public opinion?

    No, it is not.


    And once again, we are seeing the moral arrogance of the Left. The people cannot be trusted to do the right thing - and so the people will not be given a chance to have a voice in the matter.

    Instead, they will be told how it will be by unelected and essentially unaccountable judges. In essence, in America these days, the elections are less and less relevant. If you want your policy enacted, go forum-shopping, file your suit, and you can avoid such inconveniences such as convincing the people as a whole to support your position.

    The legislators can be held accountable by the people. They have to publish their debates on the public record. Niether of these will apply to judges. No public debate will occur on this ruling. and if Cheveyo had his way, the people would have no say in the matter whatsoever.

    What is happening in Washington State, and what happened in Massachusetts was, in essence, a bunch of people who were so cowardly that they could not do things up front and have a public debate. They instead had to resort to sneaking this in the back door, with the hopes of preventing the people from having a say in the matter.

    If anyone is afraid of the people having a debate over gay marriage it is the Left. That much is clear now.
     
  20. VoijaRisa

    VoijaRisa Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 2002
    Green_Jedi33 posted on 3/9/05 11:07am
    Did I say that children should be removed from custody of their biological parents, whether single, gay, straight, married or otherwise?
    No.
    Why do you put words in my mouth?
    I simply stated the fact that it is certainly most healthful to a child for it to be reared in a mother/father environment.
    By my stating this, in no way did I assume a position that children should be taken away from single parent homes and the like.
    Your sarcasm is not appreciated. [face_sad]
    Can't I offer .02 to this debate without the pre-judgements? [hr][/blockquote] While your argument didn't explicitly state this, the conclusions I drew from it are only extending the argument to all couples. You argue that gay couples can't raise "healthy" children because there's no mother/father figure. So they shouldn't be allowed to raise kids. So if we prevent them from rasing kids, we should prevent single parents as well. That's not putting words in your mouth. That's keeping things fair.
     
  21. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001
    JediSmuggler: And once again, we are seeing the moral arrogance of the Left. The people cannot be trusted to do the right thing - and so the people will not be given a chance to have a voice in the matter.

    Just as was the case when the public majority tried to prevent inter-racial marriage. The one thing that the people as a democratic republic cannot do is suspend or deny the rights of other citizens without due process.

    Instead, they will be told how it will be by unelected and essentially unaccountable judges. In essence, in America these days, the elections are less and less relevant. If you want your policy enacted, go forum-shopping, file your suit, and you can avoid such inconveniences such as convincing the people as a whole to support your position.

    If your policy contradicts the laws as established in the state or federal Constitutions, then you should expect your policy to be shut down by the courts, whose job it is to ensure that laws stand in accordance to the established constitutions.

    The legislators can be held accountable by the people. They have to publish their debates on the public record. Niether of these will apply to judges. No public debate will occur on this ruling. and if Cheveyo had his way, the people would have no say in the matter whatsoever.

    Not at all true, either in theory or reality. The judicial sysytem has its purpose, just as the legislature has its purpose. It's called Checks and Balances.

    What is happening in Washington State, and what happened in Massachusetts was, in essence, a bunch of people who were so cowardly that they could not do things up front and have a public debate. They instead had to resort to sneaking this in the back door, with the hopes of preventing the people from having a say in the matter.

    Cowardly? Fighting a law that is believed to violate the state constitution is cowardly? The justice system is not the back door. It is one of three rooms (executive and legislative being the other two). In our system of government, the people have the opportunity to have their say.

    If anyone is afraid of the people having a debate over gay marriage it is the Left. That much is clear now.

    The only thing that is abundantly clear is that there are some who do not comprehend the American system of Checks and Balances at both the state and federal levels, and the systems guidelines for law and its adherence to the Constitution. Such people find it easier to blame those who oppose their opinion than to take the necessary steps to enact the change they desire.

    Here's the chronology of events for this particular legal scenario (so as to cite specific examples) as dictated by legal procedure by our system of Checks and Balances:
    1. Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is signed into law by President Clinton.

    2. Washington state Legislature passes bill enacting DOMA as state law. (Note that the people of Washington were not given the opportunity to vote to enact it.)

    3. Governor Locke vetoes DOMA.

    4. State Legislature revotes, wins with majority vote to over-rule veto.

    5. Overturning governor's veto, DOMA is passed into law.

    6. 19 gay couples file lawsuit against the state when they are denied marriage licenses, citing a legal conflict between DOMA and Article 1, Section 12 of the Washington State Constitution (for quoted text of the WA Const. Article, see post #1 of this thread).

    7. The cases are taken to the King and Thurston County Superior Courts of Washington State to hear the case of Constitutionality.

    8. After arguments from both sides, the courts rule in favor of the plaintiffs, that DOMA does conflict with Article 1, Section 12 of the state constitution.

    9. Having won their cases at Superior Courts, the lawsuits are then sent to state Supreme Court to hear the case of Constitutionality.

    10. The State
     
  22. MajorMajorMajorMajor

    MajorMajorMajorMajor Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Jan 3, 2001
    Could someone please buy jedismuggler a civics lesson? Deciding these cases, and acting in this manner, is the Judiciary?s JOB, MANDATE, and reason for existence.

    Or at least let him know that over-the-top swipes at 'The Arrogant Left' and other ad hominem attacks on the nation's judiciary are embarrassing.

    'Rule of Law' (aka protection of liberties and minority rights) is a *good* thing, and if you disagree in this case the proper avenue is Constructional Legislation, not dismantling Rule of Law and the Judicial branch's power. (If you disagree in general with Rule of Law, well, perhaps a totalitarian state like the PRC, with no rule of law or legal rights (and interpretations of law decided by the legislature to boot, yey!), would suit you better.)
     
  23. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Interesting and informative links, MajorMajorMajorMajor. Thanks. :)

     
  24. MajorMajorMajorMajor

    MajorMajorMajorMajor Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Jan 3, 2001
    The links are just basic definitions. 6th grade civics class stuff. Not a big deal.
     
  25. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001
    My point exactly. Regardless of grade level, they give a basic, much needed, lesson of what the judiciary does and how it is intended to function.

    Such a lesson should be required of anyone seeking to use the label "activist judge" or "cowardly" relating to legal filings.

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.