This is gay

[American]

Mass. Court: Gay Civil Unions Not Enough (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110432,00.html)


They had 95% of what they wanted within reach, and they were going to get it.... but it wasn't enough. Now, they will not only get 0% of that, but they are likely to go into the negative with a constitutional amendment against their agenda (the gay agenda, that is).

Not only that, they have handed the right wing a virtual nuke to use in the next election.

95% just wasn't good enough...... :rolleyes: If they had taken that and then held out another 10 years or so, they likely would have had the last little bit of their program eventually granted.

Oh well! :p

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Does this mean you'll be moving to Massachusetts and getting hitched?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by American
95% just wasn't good enough......

When it comes to basic civil rights such as these, nothing less than 100% is enough, ever.

[shemp]

100% isn't enough! You gotta give 110%! Now get out on the field and pinch some butt!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
When it comes to basic civil rights such as these, nothing less than 100% is enough, ever. Agreed.

I'm just waiting for Christians to propose a constitutional amendment protecting the sanctity of the word "God". Yew fellers can't call yewr gawds "God". Thas whut we call our God. It's sacrid. Yewr infringin on our constitutional rites wit yewr diffren't beliefs.Or something to that effect.

[Tmy]

Is the court basing the decison on gender rights? or gay rights?


Im thinking about the slippery slope argument. When can you limit marriage. Is there a legit reason to say yes to gay marriage and no to incest or poligamy.

[WildCat]

What does it take to amend the Constitution in Mass.? I know it must pass both houses and then a public vote, but does it require each vote to be a simple majority? 3/5? What happens to already-married gay couples if it does pass? The press is doing a poor job reporting on this.

American - a civil union is a poor substitute for marriage. Marriage conveys many legal rights that a civil union doesn't. All the anti-gay marriage rhetoric is eerily reminiscent of the anti-civil rights folks back in the 60's. "Jeez, we allowed you to vote and ride in the front of the bus, now you want to drink out of our fountains and attend our schools also? You already had 95% of what you wanted."

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tmy
Im thinking about the slippery slope argument. "slippery slope argument".... *sigh* Why let anyone have the right to marry, then? That'd fix the problem right there.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by WildCat
All the anti-gay marriage rhetoric is eerily reminiscent of the anti-civil rights folks back in the 60's. Why, the next thing you know, women will want to go to school and vote too. It's a slippery slope, I say.

[Random]

Originally posted by WildCat
What does it take to amend the Constitution in Mass.? I know it must pass both houses and then a public vote, but does it require each vote to be a simple majority? 3/5? What happens to already-married gay couples if it does pass? The press is doing a poor job reporting on this.



There are only two ways to stop gay marriage now. An amendment to the Massachusetts State Constitution, or an amendment to the US Constitution.
An amendment to the MSC isn’t gonna happen. In order for it to happen, the legislature would have to approve the amendment in their upcoming convention, wait two years, approve the amendment again, then put it before the people of Massachusetts in a general vote (simple majority I believe). In the meantime, homosexuals would be getting married. Currently, public opinion in Massachusetts is against amending the MSC. It will not get any more likely over the next two years as people realize that an amendment to the MSC will not only mean preventing homosexual couples from getting married, but would almost certainly render currently existing marriages null and void.
Conservatives might be able to convince the people of Massachusetts to do nothing and deny a certain minority certain civil rights. There is no way in heck they are going to convince the people of Massachusetts to actively eliminate pre-existing civil rights.
That just leaves amending the US Constitution. Not sure what’s gonna happen there.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Tmy
Is the court basing the decison on gender rights? or gay rights?

Im thinking about the slippery slope argument. When can you limit marriage. Is there a legit reason to say yes to gay marriage and no to incest or poligamy.The state already allows homosexual couples to enter into unions. It does not allow relatives or groups of more than two people to enter into unions. The "slippery slope" argument may have worked for allowing gays into civil unions, but it does not work here, where the issue is the distinction between civil unions and marriage.

As gay couples are already allowed to unite and form a union, limiting them to "civil unions" while allowing straight couples to be "married" serves no legitimate purpose. It's simply discrimination.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Random
That just leaves amending the US Constitution. Not sure what’s gonna happen there.

I really doubt that's going to happen, either. It's doesn't sound as difficult as amending the Massachusetts comstitution, but there's just not enough popular support for it. A lot of people are against gay marriages, but not 75% of the states. My prediction is that the U.S. Supreme Court will say substantially the same thing as Massachusetts, and that's where it'll end.

American is right about one thing, though. This will give the right wing some ammunition in the upcoming election. As happy as I am about the outcome, I'm worried about the timing.

Jeremy

[Luke T.]

What is the difference between a "civil union" and "marriage?" A tax break? What?

If you have a civil union and then break up, does one have to pay the other alimony? If you have a civil union, and one of them sleeps with someone else, is that grounds for adultery? Can they get the family rate on insurance?

What do people who are married get that civil unions don't get?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Luke T.
What is the difference between a "civil union" and "marriage?" A tax break? What?

Seems to me that the less differences there are, the less reason you have to deny it to one type of person and not another.

Graham

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Graham


Seems to me that the less differences there are, the less reason you have to deny it to one type of person and not another.

Graham

Sorry. I was editing my post while you were responding to it. I need more specifics.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Luke T.

What do people who are married get that civil unions don't get?
A big one is Social Security survivor payments. Depending on the states definition of civil unions, it could also impact inheritance rights, ability to see a loved one in the hospital (and make treatment decisions), etc.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Tmy
Is the court basing the decison on gender rights? or gay rights?

Im thinking about the slippery slope argument. When can you limit marriage. Is there a legit reason to say yes to gay marriage and no to incest or poligamy.
I haven't rread the Mass. judgment, but I have read the Ontario Court of Appeal judgment on gay marriage. It was based on equality rights. Denying gay people the right to marriage is considered discrinmination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is analogous to race or religion.

The same cannot be said of incest. There is no "incest community", not even in Alabama. All people have restrictions on incest - whether straight or gay. In short, there is no discrimination with respect to incest, so it is a big red herring.

Polygamy is a bit of a different issue, as an argument could be made that it is discrimination based on religious grounds. However, the law does not prohibit Mormons from getting married - just from getting married to more than one person at a time. That may be a distinction without a difference for some people, but it is a separate issue from whether gays can get married. There are also other issues inherent in polygamy that are unique: What happens on relationship break down? What if a husband with two wives gets sick and is in a coma, and one wife wants to "pull the plug" and the other doesn't?

In any event, if someone wants to challenge laws against polygamy, they are free to do so. And if they do, the issue will be decided on its own merits - with the issues addressed head on. And in challenging the law, a polygamist should have a better argument than "But the gays can get married!" because that has nothing to do with polygamy.

[Tmy]

I took a quick look at the story. I think your right about the sexual oreintation thing. Im sure thats a listed class under the mass constitution.

I still suprised how poligamy has managed to be illeagle. The arguments against it are pretty week and ,unlike the gay issue, you have freedom of religion protections.



"However, the law does not prohibit Mormons from getting married - just from getting married to more than one person at a time. That may be a distinction without a difference for some people, but it is a separate issue from whether gays can get married"

Isnt that the same as saying gays can marry too. They only have to marry soemone of the opposite sex.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Random
That just leaves amending the US Constitution. Not sure what’s gonna happen there.

I really doubt that's going to happen, either. It's doesn't sound as difficult as amending the Massachusetts comstitution, but there's just not enough popular support for it. A lot of people are against gay marriages, but not 75% of the states. My prediction is that the U.S. Supreme Court will say substantially the same thing as Massachusetts, and that's where it'll end.

American is right about one thing, though. This will give the right wing some ammunition in the upcoming election. As happy as I am about the outcome, I'm worried about the timing.

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tmy
I still suprised how poligamy has managed to be illeagle. The arguments against it are pretty week and ,unlike the gay issue, you have freedom of religion protections.

There are good practical reasons not to allow polygamy. When you can have an arbitrary number of partners, the recordkeeping and tax complications pile up pretty quick. Especially since divorces would probably stay high (or go even higher), it would be a nightmare for the the census bureau, not to mention the IRS (how do you file jointly when your two wives are each also married to two other men, not to mention their additional spouses? That's a lot of exemptions!)

Jeremy

[Random]

Originally posted by Luke T.
What is the difference between a "civil union" and "marriage?" A tax break? What?

If you have a civil union and then break up, does one have to pay the other alimony? If you have a civil union, and one of them sleeps with someone else, is that grounds for adultery? Can they get the family rate on insurance?

What do people who are married get that civil unions don't get?

Well there are several. There are the issues of Social Security benefits, joint filing of income taxes, not being forced to testify against each other in a court of law, immigration rights of people who chose to marry someone from another country, inheritance rights, standing in child custody disputes, etc.
Homosexual couples can solve a variety of these differences with Civil Unions and Power of Attorney Agreements, but not all of them. As a purely practical matter, the cloak of Marriage that heterosexuals enjoy is vastly superior to the crazy patchwork of fig leaves that is the Civil Union.
There is also cost. A heterosexual couple that wants to marry just needs a justice of the peace and a marriage certificate. A homosexual couple looking for the same rights would need to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars in various legal fees and would never quite get there.

[Tony]

Originally posted by toddjh


There are good practical reasons not to allow polygamy. When you can have an arbitrary number of partners, the recordkeeping and tax complications pile up pretty quick. Especially since divorces would probably stay high (or go even higher), it would be a nightmare for the the census bureau, not to mention the IRS (how do you file jointly when your two wives are each also married to two other men, not to mention their additional spouses? That's a lot of exemptions!)


Then eliminate the IRS. Why should people be denied freedom for the sake of a tyrannical government beaurocracy?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Tmy
"However, the law does not prohibit Mormons from getting married - just from getting married to more than one person at a time. That may be a distinction without a difference for some people, but it is a separate issue from whether gays can get married"

Isnt that the same as saying gays can marry too. They only have to marry soemone of the opposite sex.
I don't see it as the same - "how many" is different from "at all". But as I said above, for some it may be a distinction without a difference. In any case, it should be addressed directly rather than used obliquely as an argument against gay marriage, which makes no sense.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Thanz

I don't see it as the same - "how many" is different from "at all". But as I said above, for some it may be a distinction without a difference. In any case, it should be addressed directly rather than used obliquely as an argument against gay marriage, which makes no sense.

I think its more of an argumnet allowing for lawmakers limitations on marriage.

What makes no sense is how some poeple think its the worse thing int the world having a restriction to marriage that is "man + women" but are fine with the restriction of "one person + one person". Whos to say that line in the sand is any better.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by American

They had 95% ...snip[/B]

So you do have a problem with Elton John.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tony
Then eliminate the IRS. Why should people be denied freedom for the sake of a tyrannical government beaurocracy?

Hey, I'm all for eliminating the IRS. But that wouldn't solve the problem. Right now, the government recognizes marriage and grants benefits to married people because they think it has some usefulness in society. The complications that would be caused by polyamorous marriages would remove all of that usefulness, and create a whole host of new problems.

As others have suggested, one solution would be to get the government out of the marriage business entirely. That would work, but I also don't think it's a discrimination to limit legally recognized marriages to two people as a matter of practicality. Equal protection only applies when the groups in question are actually functionally equivalent.

Jeremy

[Checkmite]

I was doing some thinking on this issue last night, and something occurred to me: to wit, that while the government can involve itself in the question of "civil unions", it cannot constitutionally involve itself in marriage; the argument here is that marriage is a religious institution, whose constraints are to be dictated by each particular religion. Thus, if a religion chooses to allow gays to marry, and the state prohibits gay marriage, the state is then prohibiting the free exercise of religion (which it is explicitly prevented from doing by the First Amendment). The argument is very, very simple indeed, if this is the case. I wonder how many will pick it up?

[Otther]

Well there are several. There are the issues of Social Security benefits, joint filing of income taxes, not being forced to testify against each other in a court of law, immigration rights of people who chose to marry someone from another country, inheritance rights, standing in child custody disputes, etc.Homosexual couples can solve a variety of these differences with Civil Unions and Power of Attorney Agreements, but not all of them. As a purely practical matter, the cloak of Marriage that heterosexuals enjoy is vastly superior to the crazy patchwork of fig leaves that is the Civil Union. There is also cost. A heterosexual couple that wants to marry just needs a justice of the peace and a marriage certificate. A homosexual couple looking for the same rights would need to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars in various legal fees and would never quite get there So if the law included something that said "the term 'civil union' is analugos with 'marriage' as far as the law is concerned," this would satisfy most of the gay community?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Otther
So if the law included something that said "the term 'civil union' is analugos with 'marriage' as far as the law is concerned," this would satisfy most of the gay community?

Well, then you just move on to the question of why you should even draw a distinction. "We get marriages, you get civil unions, but they're the same" sounds an awful lot like "separate but equal."

Seriously, if they're the same, why bother using different words to describe them? Isn't that just needless complication?

Jeremy

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Thus, if a religion chooses to allow gays to marry, and the state prohibits gay marriage, the state is then prohibiting the free exercise of religion (which it is explicitly prevented from doing by the First Amendment). The argument is very, very simple indeed, if this is the case. I wonder how many will pick it up? Good point. It'd also work for polygamy, since most practioners claim religious reasons. I'm not saying polygomy is a good thing, but I'm not about to tell someone else they can't follow their own religious beliefs, as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

The government has a way that it recognizes what counts as a "church" and what does not. Perhaps, it should be that any two conscenting adults should be allowed to get married as long as they have the permission of a recognized church. The state, then, could define it's own criteria for who or who may not be married in civil ceremonies, but couldn't interfere with how each religion decided to define marriage.

The only state imposed restriction that makes any sense under our constitution is that the participants should be conscenting adults. To force the non-conscenting into wedlock is an infringement on their basic rights and children cannot give conscent.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Good point. It'd also work for polygamy, since most practioners claim religious reasons.

The thing is, though, the government prosecutes polygamy. It does not recognize it as an acceptable religious belief.

[Luke T.]

It seems the entire argument in favor of not allowing gays to be officially married is that marriage is a religious institution. Most churches do not recognize gay marriages. We are a religious nation. The majority don't want gay marriages to be recognized because it is irreligious.

However, at least one major religion bans birth control. But many of its adherents use birth control. Birth control is approved by the FDA.

Many religions ban unmarried couples from living together and/or having sex. Hardly anyone follows that rule. The government approves "palimony."

It seems that while some religious people think it is okay to disregard religious restrictions because they don't like them, they want to keep other people from doing the same.

Their is a movement in some religious circles to roll all of this back. Not just gay marriage, but "living in sin," birth control, and everything else they can think of. I have to give them points at least for being consistent.

[Silicon]

Here's a great page from religioustolerance.org about the various benefits that straight married couples currently enjoy, that gay couples (even married by a church) do not.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm


A summary:

1049 Federal Rights are denyed gay couples.

About 400 State benefites are denied.

Some of the benefits denied are:


joint parenting;

joint adoption;

joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);

status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;

immigration and residency for partners from other countries;

inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;

joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;

inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in
probate);

benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;

spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;

joint filing of customs claims when traveling;

wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;

decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;

crime victims' recovery benefits;

loss of consortium tort benefits;

domestic violence protection orders;

judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;


Personally, I'd LOVE to see a dollar amount on those rights. That'd put it in perspective.

For fear of sounding like Shanek :D I'd say it amounts to a special tax on gays.

[Checkmite]

Wow, I never realized how many joints gay people do not get to enjoy. :D

[American]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Does this mean you'll be moving to Massachusetts and getting hitched?

I'm already there (here), and I ain't moving nowhere. I'm not gay, therefore I don't like gay people and don't want them to be married in my state. The gays don't agree with this; they want to come here and marry me and turn my future progeny gay (they recruit the young), and make all the girls I could potentially date into lesbians who won't date me. I already know LOTS of them.

Originally posted by NightG1
So you do have a problem with Elton John.

No no no- I'm just saying that he's a very good musical artist, and we shouldn't judge his talent based on his personal life.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by American

I'm not gay, therefore I don't like gay people {snip} By this logic:
You are not a woman, therefore you don't like women.
You are not a dog, therefore you don't like dogs.
You are not a child, therefore you don't like children.
You are not ice cream, therefore you don't like ice cream.

Wonderful way you have with words there, American.
The gays don't agree with this; they want to come here and marry me and turn my future progeny gay (they recruit the young), and make all the girls I could potentially date into lesbians who won't date me. I already know LOTS of them.Why do I doubt that? I play in a band of over 80 gays and lesbians. None of them want to marry a straight guy and turn their children into homosexuals. You're living in a dream world of your own design, American.

edited to add: or maybe of Jack Chick's design... hmm...

[Bearguin]

What about this?

The gov't stops recognizing marriages. They ONLY recognize Unions (be they heterosexual or same sex). The legal rules for Unions are the same regardless of the sex of the couples.

Churches are permitted to perform marriages. From a legal standpoint, they have ruled over a Union, but can choose to call it a marriage etc.

The law sees no difference between the two.

Is the label that important?

[Fade]

We want to recruit?


What?


This thread has made my day. God damn hilarious.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I play in a band of over 80 gays and lesbians.

That's some band! 80 people!

None of them want to marry a straight guy and turn their children into homosexuals. You're living in a dream world of your own design, American.

edited to add: or maybe of Jack Chick's design... hmm...

You can't recognize a parody?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
What about this?

The gov't stops recognizing marriages. They ONLY recognize Unions (be they heterosexual or same sex). The legal rules for Unions are the same regardless of the sex of the couples.

Churches are permitted to perform marriages. From a legal standpoint, they have ruled over a Union, but can choose to call it a marriage etc.

The law sees no difference between the two.

Is the label that important?

You know, you just might have something there.

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Fade
We want to recruit?


What?


This thread has made my day. God damn hilarious.

Then you haven't read enough stuff by American ;)

[Mr Manifesto]

I think it's worth reminding JREF at this point that American never gets laid. Even his hand won't have anything to do with him. All that sexual frustration can lead to some screwy ideas.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by American

....and make all the girls I could potentially date into lesbians who won't date me. I already know LOTS of them.


They won't have to turn into lesbians to not date you. Women just don't want to date poor trailer trash. Maybe if you get a few dollars some day, you'll have more luck.

[Chaon]

I'd like to see a constitutional amendment preventing trailer trash from getting married.

[Dorian Gray]

I'd like to see a constitutional amendment preventing trailer trash from getting married. That's ironic, because I would like to see Jerry Springer as POTUS.

[shuize]

I didn't really care one way or another about civil unions. And if the various state legislatures were to sanction homosexual marriages, I could live with that as well. Such is democracy in action. But I do have a bit of a problem with activist judges trying to circumvent the democratic process with new constitutional interpretations in areas as controversial as homosexual marriage.

Who knows, maybe I'm misreading the case.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I was doing some thinking on this issue last night, and something occurred to me: to wit, that while the government can involve itself in the question of "civil unions", it cannot constitutionally involve itself in marriage; the argument here is that marriage is a religious institution, whose constraints are to be dictated by each particular religion. Thus, if a religion chooses to allow gays to marry, and the state prohibits gay marriage, the state is then prohibiting the free exercise of religion (which it is explicitly prevented from doing by the First Amendment). The argument is very, very simple indeed, if this is the case. I wonder how many will pick it up? While many marriages take place in churches and are performed by preachers, I believe the legal condition of being married is conferred by the state, which empowers preachers and various other office-holders to do the ceremonies. It's easy to view marriage as a religious thing because folks who subscribe to religions traditionally have their preachers do the wedding service and because these events are made known to us by the industry that has grown up to publicize and gussy up the event itself. The couples involved could as well be hitched by the local justice of the peace. Thus, state and federal governments appear authorized to meddle with the law regarding marriage.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shuize
I didn't really care one way or another about civil unions. And if the various state legislatures were to sanction homosexual marriages, I could live with that as well. Such is democracy in action. But I do have a bit of a problem with activist judges trying to circumvent the democratic process with new constitutional interpretations in areas as controversial as homosexual marriage.

Who knows, maybe I'm misreading the case.

In this country's history, when have an opressed minority ever been granted equal rights by the legislature? Okay, maybe the Americans with Disability Act.

It's usually done by the Judicial or the Executive Branch.

Why?

Because the Legislature is there to BE the VOICE of the majority. The Judicial is there to be the CHECK on that majority. So we don't have, as Jefferson called it, "The Tyranny of the Majority".

If Americans aren't being treated equally under law, as determined by the Judiciary, they order a remedy.

God Bless America.




Oh, and since equal protection is part of the 14th Amendment, that's the Amendment we're pooping on if George W. Bush follows through on his SOTU promise.


Read it here and understand it:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Ask yourself why our President opposes it.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate


Then you haven't read enough stuff by American ;)

You know I agree.

But I mean that in the sense that I think I'm finally starting to get his sense of humor.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Luke T.

That's some band! 80 people!It's a community concert-style band, but yes. For what it is, it is impressive.
You can't recognize a parody? I have a hard time over-estimating American's intelligence. He's made some real bone-headed posts.

[Blondin]

I just want to say I think you should lay off the polygamies. They didn't choose to be short, they were born that way.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I have a hard time over-estimating American's intelligence. He's made some real bone-headed posts.

That's a risk every comedian takes.

[jj]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Their is a movement in some religious circles to roll all of this back. Not just gay marriage, but "living in sin," birth control, and everything else they can think of. I have to give them points at least for being consistent.

Yeah, but not any points for awareness of history, I think.

They should be obliged to show some place that their desired prohibition(s) actually worked, IN THE LONG RUN.

Otherwise it's just like alcohol prohibition or the 55 mph speed limit, both examples of how to teach people to get around, avoid, break, or otherwise ignore the law.

That's not a wise lesson to teach, I think.

[schplurg]

When it comes to basic civil rights such as these, nothing less than 100% is enough, ever.

Other civil rights causes took their rights a little at a time, or in "chunks". Look how long it took blacks to be able to vote in America. They gained rights slowly, not all at once.

My step-sister is a lesbian. She is married to a woman (unofficially I'm sure). They would gladly have the rights offered for now, and call it a "civil union" rather than a marriage. Take what you can get now, then fight for more later.

Perhaps the legal term across the board should be Civil Union, saving the term "marriage" for those who are religious.

Besides, the whole "sanctity of marriage" is a load o' crap anyways...half end in divorce, right?

[shuize]

Originally posted by Silicon

In this country's history, when have an opressed minority ever been granted equal rights by the legislature? Okay, maybe the Americans with Disability Act.
Maybe the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Democracy affords people the right to decide the basic ground rules of the society in which they live. Homosexual marriage represents a radical departure from traditional legal and social norms and, in my opinion, such a decision should be left to the people acting through their elected representives. If the people decide the want to change those rules, then I can live with the result.

After forgetting about the Civil Rights Acts, you say it's "usually done by the judicial branch." But my guess is you only say that when the judicial branch is giving you decisions with which you agree. When a judge interprets constitutional law against your position, I'll bet you don't have such a favorable impression. (When the Supreme Court ruled against yet another recount in Florida, for example? ... Or had the Court had decided Lawrence differently maybe.)

As one who likes to throw around legal terminology, you should recognize that as "forum shopping." It seems you are not willing to trust the people to make the "correct" decision, but instead turn to the judiciary circumvent them altogether.

[Silicon]

*Cough* Brown v. Board of Education 1954 *cough*



You really think that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have ever happened if "seperate but equal" wasn't struck down in the highest court in the land TEN YEARS earlier?

Was that judicial activism? Was it forum shopping?

In my mind, it was the only decision that a rational mind properly applying the constitution could come to.




*cough* Browder v. Gayle, 1956 *cough*

*cough* Irene Morgan v. Commonwealth of Virginia 1946 *cough*

[Fade]

"Judicial Activism" is in part, and often wholly responsible for all the civil progress in this country. Legislation only happens *after* the courts (the only people left that generally understand the constitution. Our president does not.) are asked to rule on something.

Homosexual marriage represents a radical departure from traditional legal and social norms and, in my opinion, such a decision should be left to the people acting through their elected representives.


Allowing women to vote represents a radical departure from traditional legal and social norms and, in my opinion, such a decision should be left to the people acting through their elected representitives

Allowing negros to be free represents a radical departure from traditional legal and social norms and, in my opinion, such a decision should be left to the people acting through their elected representitives.


These statements are exactly analagous.

Sometimes, our elected officials do the right thing, and they do it in a reasonable amount of time. Sometimes, they don't. Our system is set up to *prevent* ochlacracy. "The people" be damned when it comes to bestowing civil rights to all. Our system is denying me, and millions of others, basic civil liberties guaranteed to everyone. This is wrong. If it takes a judge to say this and force lawmakers to change, then so be it.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Silicon
*Cough* Brown v. Board of Education 1954 *cough*



You really think that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have ever happened if "seperate but equal" wasn't struck down in the highest court in the land TEN YEARS earlier?

You posed the question: In this country's history, when have an oppressed minority ever been granted equal protection by the legislature? Okay maybe the Americans with Disability Act.
I gave you an answer.

In posing your original question you forgot some of the most sweeping civil rights legislation in this country's history but you turn to Brown as an earlier example of judicial involvement. How this supports your earlier position that the legislature never granted minorities equal rights, I'm not exactly sure. Oh, wait. After your edit I see. You are trying to "grandfather" back to Brown to argue that only since Brown has the legislature done anything right. Only after the judiciary shows them the light so to speak can the people acting through their elected representatives manage to get anything right. Is that it?

Well, not only does that change your original statement, (when has an oppressed minority ever been granted ... ) it also fails to consider which branch of government enacted the Fourteenth Amendment in the first place. Here's a hint: it wasn't the judiciary.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shuize
Well, not only does that change your original statement, (when has an oppressed minority ever been granted ... ) it also fails to consider which branch of government enacted the Fourteenth Amendment in the first place. Here's a hint: it wasn't the judiciary.

Du jure 1866. Not de facto until Brown.


And no, in 1866 the legislature did not contemplate black boys and white girls sharing drinking fountains.

[shuize]

Fade:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the examples you posed of Negro freedom and women's sufferage actually resolved through the legislative will of the people?

Crazy as it may sound, some of us think that entrusting such decisions to the people gives the results more legitimacy.

But, as you said, "the people be damned ... " Just so your pet judicial interpretation is the one followed, right?

Maybe we could cut out the legislative process altogether and just ask you which rules a democratic society should be allowed to choose for themselves.

By the way, how do you feel about polygamy? Since our system is, as you point out, set up to prevent "ochlacracy" (sic), you would certainly agree that laws prohibiting such a practice represent an unjust denial of civil rights, yes?

[Fade]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the examples you posed of Negro freedom and women's sufferage actually resolved through the legislative will of the people?

Only after the courts found pointed out problems.

That is the history of the US. Somebody sues the government/the state/some official something, years later legislation is enacted to comply.

But, as you said, "the people be damned ... " Just so your pet judicial interpretation is the one followed, right?

My interpretation is that we should all have equal rights.

In fact the constitution says.. uh, well exactly that. I'm not getting the same rights everybody else is. Something is wrong. I don't care *how* it is fixed, but it needs fixing.

Maybe we could cut out the legislative process altogether and just ask you which rules a democratic society should be allowed to choose for themselves.

1. This is not a democratic society. It never has been, and it never will be. As I said, our form of government speaks specifically *against* ochlocratic tyranny, which is exactly what true democracy would give us.

2. Our system is set up in the forms of Checks and Balances. One branch keeps another in line. If Bush were to push through any more "defense of marriage" type legislation, the Supreme Court would likely strike it down. Why? Because it is up to them to ensure that our laws jive with the constitution.

However, our lawmakers are concerned with winning votes (popularity) rather than doing their jobs (creating laws that follow the guide lines set down by the constitution) so our courts have historically had to do that job too.

I don't know the solution to the problem, but I think the Checks and Balance system is viable.

By the way, how do you feel about polygamy? Since our system is, as you point out, set up to prevent "ochlacracy" (sic), you would certainly agree that laws prohibiting such a practice represent an unjust denial of civil rights, yes?

The same way I feel about everything else.

If it they are consenting adults, it is not my business to tell them that their consensual activities are wrong. It is also not the business of the government to give special preference to one type of relationship over another, when neither is causing any harm to society, or the people within them.


What bugs me about this entire mess is that Bush is not only doing exactly the opposite of what he said he would do in his campaign and inauguration speech, he's doing things that are unconstitutional. The powers of the federal government are enumerated. The rest falls to the state. Bush is, in principle, over-riding state sovereignty on issues that fall far, far outside the realm of the constitution.

What bugs me more is that people don't see that our cherished system is being blatantly destroyed, and they don't care. They can't see past their idiotic bigotries, whether religious or personal, to see that what is going on is wrong.

It's ironic to me that I, the true patriot, am in the minority with my views. I wasn't even born here, and I understand the system far better than most Americans.


Edit-

Damn irregular verbs.