or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › End regulation of genitals
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

End regulation of genitals - Page 2

post #41 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Apparently it is when rule of law is no longer a concern.

Understand this, I voted AGAINST Prop. 8. I support homosexual marriage. However you don't burn down rule of law just to get to a goal. This issue would have moved along in time. Now instead of letting popular support build it could create a federalized decision against such marriages and that would be wrong as well because these things should be left to the states.

Wrongs all around though.


Good post; I share your concern. One judge told 20 million Californians their vote does not matter! I especially like your quote, "you don't burn down rule of law just to get to a goal." That should be good guidance going forward for every leftist!
post #42 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Gay marriage ban is unconstitutional.
The right is against regulation of any kind when it comes to industry and finances. However they love to regulate who can play with who's genitals and what people should be allowed to do with their genitals.

Please someone explain how this makes sense. Thank you.

WTF.

There was a time I thought these people should be brought to justice for their acts. I've softened on that stance and now say let them do what they want in private, but them getting married is crazy talk. Activist judges legislating from the bench won't be allowed to override the voice of the people.
post #43 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Common Man View Post

There was a time I thought these people should be brought to justice for their acts. I've softened on that stance and now say let them do what they want in private, but them getting married is crazy talk. Activist judges legislating from the bench won't be allowed to override the voice of the people.

And the Constitution be damned! Or something.

Aren't Teabaggers supposed to be about defending the Constitution?
post #44 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And the Constitution be damned! Or something.

Aren't Teabaggers supposed to be about defending the Constitution?

Not when it's inconvenient!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #45 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And the Constitution be damned! Or something.

Aren't Teabaggers supposed to be about defending the Constitution?

If you are referring to people associated with the Tea Party movement, yes I believe they do claim to be supporters of the constitution. But then so do liberals. Except when they're not. Are liberals the only ones allowed to be hypocritical on that subject?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #46 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And the Constitution be damned! Or something.

Aren't Teabaggers supposed to be about defending the Constitution?

The Constitution doesn't allow anyone to do anything. We must have a moral standard. Funny to hear the left defend the Constituition when it's the left that wants government to control every aspect of our lives. I hope to see our friends on the left standing up to support our gun, hunting and fishing rights.
post #47 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Common Man View Post

The Constitution doesn't allow anyone to do anything. We must have a moral standard. Funny to hear the left defend the Constituition when it's the left that wants government to control every aspect of our lives. I hope to see our friends on the left standing up to support our gun, hunting and fishing rights.

Yes, we do need a moral standard. The moral standard that we clearly need is the respect for equal rights. Any less is immoral. The Bible (which by the way does not say a single word about same sex marriage) is not our Constitution.

And I do support the Constitution, and I know what the Constitution says about "arms" (before semiautomatic handguns were invented or even conceived of). Which is why I support a Constitutional Amendment to clarify the original intent of the Second Amendment. You want to ban equality in marriage? Go the Constitutional Amendment route. Try State Constitutions first. If that's struck down due to the Federal Constitution, then go ahead and attempt to Amend the Federal Constitution. Anyone who truly respects the Constitution would do no less.
post #48 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, we do need a moral standard. The moral standard that we clearly need is the respect for equal rights. Any less is immoral.

And yet we can't even get agreement on what rights are and which ones we have.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Which is why I support a Constitutional Amendment to clarify the original intent of the Second Amendment.

How is that even possible? Perhaps debate on the subject will be done with a ouija board?!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #49 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And yet we can't even get agreement on what rights are and which ones we have.

Which is the very reason we have a court system in the first place.
Quote:
How is that even possible? Perhaps debate on the subject will be done with a ouija board?

I can tell you with 100% certainty that the framers of the constitution did not foresee governments having machine guns, grenade launchers and satellite laser defense systems that are able to target the ground to within the accuracy of a halfpenny. I can also tell you with 100% certainty that they didn't foresee criminals with AKs.
post #50 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Common Man View Post

There was a time I thought these people should be brought to justice for their acts.

Stoned to death, perhaps? How common, indeed.
post #51 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Which is the very reason we have a court system in the first place.

So the courts decide what our rights are?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I can tell you with 100% certainty that the framers of the constitution did not foresee governments having machine guns, grenade launchers and satellite laser defense systems that are able to target the ground to within the accuracy of a halfpenny. I can also tell you with 100% certainty that they didn't foresee criminals with AKs.

Perhaps not. But you didn't answer my question.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #52 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Common Man View Post

...them getting married is crazy talk.

Welcome to "The Beverly Hillbillies move to Cupertino".

New sig, by the way.
post #53 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So the courts decide what our rights are?

When there is a constitutional dispute, yes. Of course, they do! That is their very function! You do know that, don't you?
post #54 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Welcome to "The Beverly Hillbillies move to Cupertino".

New sig, by the way.

Them damn commie gay hippies and their crazy talk! They do things differently in Bug Tussel or is it Sibley?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #55 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Which is the very reason we have a court system in the first place.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that the framers of the constitution did not foresee governments having machine guns, grenade launchers and satellite laser defense systems that are able to target the ground to within the accuracy of a halfpenny. I can also tell you with 100% certainty that they didn't foresee criminals with AKs.

They may not have been thinking about Hindus and Muslims and Hare Krisna when they wrote about Religious Freedom either
post #56 of 212
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Common Man View Post

There was a time I thought these people should be brought to justice for their acts. I've softened on that stance and now say let them do what they want in private, but them getting married is crazy talk. Activist judges legislating from the bench won't be allowed to override the voice of the people.

The judge is a conservative Republican appointed by Ronald Reagan, re-appointed by G H W Bush.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #57 of 212
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Common Man View Post

The Constitution doesn't allow anyone to do anything. We must have a moral standard. Funny to hear the left defend the Constituition when it's the left that wants government to control every aspect of our lives. I hope to see our friends on the left standing up to support our gun, hunting and fishing rights.

How was it when sucked off your dog?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #58 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

How was it when sucked off your dog?

Ah, the maturity of the left.
post #59 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Common Man View Post

Ah, the maturity of the left.

If you really want to rile them up, start quoting the Founding Fathers.

"A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #60 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Common Man View Post

Ah, the maturity of the left.

Yeah! More " Crazy talk ". That's so much more mature.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #61 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

When there is a constitutional dispute, yes. Of course, they do! That is their very function! You do know that, don't you?

I think you are missing my point. Frankly I'm a bit too tired to elaborate at this time. But, in answer to your question I don't quite agree. The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the law and the constitution and the actions that rub up against those. This is different from, though somewhat related to deciding what are rights are. Agreed that they might play a role in discovering what are rights are. But I was thinking of the question in the more active sense of deciding...meaning that they give us our rights.

More succinctly the question is whether our rights are given to us by the state or exist a priori and are to be protected by the state.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #62 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And the Constitution be damned! Or something.

Aren't Teabaggers supposed to be about defending the Constitution?

Will you be saying the same thing if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Prop 8?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, we do need a moral standard. The moral standard that we clearly need is the respect for equal rights. Any less is immoral. The Bible (which by the way does not say a single word about same sex marriage) is not our Constitution.

And I do support the Constitution, and I know what the Constitution says about "arms" (before semiautomatic handguns were invented or even conceived of). Which is why I support a Constitutional Amendment to clarify the original intent of the Second Amendment. You want to ban equality in marriage? Go the Constitutional Amendment route. Try State Constitutions first. If that's struck down due to the Federal Constitution, then go ahead and attempt to Amend the Federal Constitution. Anyone who truly respects the Constitution would do no less.

You can't support the Constution and support this ruling. Also you appear unaware that Prop 8 is an amendment to the California state constitution. The federal judge ruled that it is unconstitutional for a state to amend their constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Which is the very reason we have a court system in the first place.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that the framers of the constitution did not foresee governments having machine guns, grenade launchers and satellite laser defense systems that are able to target the ground to within the accuracy of a halfpenny. I can also tell you with 100% certainty that they didn't foresee criminals with AKs.

Did they think about women voting, black people having equal rights, or any other issue that required an amendment rather than just a decision by a judge?

Again, even when you support a right, you have to support the system defining and defending that right the same way. A house built on sand will not stand. If you just make it possible to define words whatever way a judge desires to do so, then that is wrong.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #63 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What am I doing there? What aren't you buying?

And I see what you're doing there and I'm still not buying it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #64 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And I see what you're doing there and I'm still not buying it.

No, really. Please explain what I am doing. You seem to know better than I do. Please explain.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #65 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Will you be saying the same thing if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Prop 8?

Yes, I will. Then I will wait for the pendulum to swing and the court to rule otherwise in another case, at the same time I push for a constitutional amendment to either remove marriage as a right granted by the states or to define marriage between any two persons as a federal right. What will you be doing now? Complain about 'activist judges'? How very American of you.
Quote:
You can't support the Constution and support this ruling.

Really? I'm doing it right now.
Quote:
Also you appear unaware that Prop 8 is an amendment to the California state constitution. The federal judge ruled that it is unconstitutional for a state to amend their constitution.

Well then it appears to be you who doesn't understand this ruling. The judge ruled that you cannot amend the state constitution when such amendment violates the federal constitution.
Quote:
Did they think about women voting, black people having equal rights, or any other issue that required an amendment rather than just a decision by a judge?

Actually, they did. I suggest you check your history.
Quote:
Again, even when you support a right, you have to support the system defining and defending that right the same way. A house built on sand will not stand. If you just make it possible to define words whatever way a judge desires to do so, then that is wrong.

You don't understand the concept of Judicial authority at all.
post #66 of 212
It's important to note that this judge put a stay on his own ruling, so Prop 8 is still in effect and gay marriages are still not being performed, pending the final outcome of the litigation.

This is obviously a complex constitutional issue that the SCOTUS will ultimately decide.

My feelings on the matter are that marriage is not an enumerated power specifically delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Therefore, the 10th Amendment applies:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is an issue that must be decided by each state, which California has done by amending their state constitution. How can you declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional? You can't. You can repeal the amendment, but that is a different process entirely.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #67 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

It's important to note that this judge put a stay on his own ruling, so Prop 8 is still in effect and gay marriages are still not being performed, pending the final outcome of the litigation.

This is obviously a complex constitutional issue that the SCOTUS will ultimately decide.

My feelings on the matter are that marriage is not an enumerated power specifically delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Therefore, the 10th Amendment applies:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is an issue that must be decided by each state, which California has done by amending their state constitution. How can you declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional? You can't. You can repeal the amendment, but that is a different process entirely.

Neither the judge nor the plaintiffs in this case made the claim that marriage was a Federal right.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that whatever right is given by States, no matter what that right might be, can only be given in that it is not discriminatory.

A State can't, for instance, put it in their Constitution that all blacks have the right to free dental care, but the whites do not. That would be discriminatory under the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution, even if dental service is not a right granted by the Federal Government.

So the State of California granted its citizens the right to a marriage that is recognized by the state. The court found that although California can grant this right, they can't grant it to "only opposite sex couples" and deny it to same sex couples (or transgender, or interracial, or interfaith couples). It is a right that has to be given to everyone equally, or to no one.

And you can't say, "the right is to marry someone of the opposite sex, and gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex" because then it shows that in fact it is YOU who are redefining the definition of marriage, which is a union of love. Gays can't marry someone of the opposite sex because they can't love someone of the opposite sex.

Let me put it another way.

The judge in this case is not giving anyone any new rights. He is just clarifying that the right to a state recognized marriage, which has already been given by the State of California, and privileges connected to that right, cannot be granted to some people and not to others, for to do so would violate the EPC.
post #68 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, I will. Then I will wait for the pendulum to swing and the court to rule otherwise in another case, at the same time I push for a constitutional amendment to either remove marriage as a right granted by the states or to define marriage between any two persons as a federal right. What will you be doing now? Complain about 'activist judges'? How very American of you.

Don't you think it would be better to simply have it done right than have this become another Roe v. Wade? That is the point about shortcuts. When you federalize and issue, especially one that the feds have no reason or right to be involved in, and when that issues ISN'T resolved properly by an amendment, it becomes an eternal "pray/hope the wrong people don't die on the Supreme Court" issue instead of a resolved issue. Do you think people are worried about which judge might retire with regard to women's right to vote, or about whether 18 year olds get to vote. They don't. It is a properly resolved issue, not one where it is eternally in play.

Quote:
Really? I'm doing it right now.Well then it appears to be you who doesn't understand this ruling. The judge ruled that you cannot amend the state constitution when such amendment violates the federal constitution.

Yes exception for the fact that we still have all manner of gender decisions and differences out there played out in all manner of items at the federal level. Equal protection is not an absolute just like all rights are not absolutes. Since marriage is a state domain, the federal authority needs a good rationale to override the state right.

Quote:
Actually, they did. I suggest you check your history.You don't understand the concept of Judicial authority at all.

Actually I do thank you and claims of ignorance on your part won't change the fact that the judges within that circuit are overruled more than any other judges in any other circuit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Neither the judge nor the plaintiffs in this case made the claim that marriage was a Federal right.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that whatever right is given by States, no matter what that right might be, can only be given in that it is not discriminatory.

A State can't, for instance, put it in their Constitution that all blacks have the right to free dental care, but the whites do not. That would be discriminatory under the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution, even if dental service is not a right granted by the Federal Government.

So the State of California granted its citizens the right to a marriage that is recognized by the state. The court found that although California can grant this right, they can't grant it to "only opposite sex couples" and deny it to same sex couples (or transgender, or interracial, or interfaith couples). It is a right that has to be given to everyone equally, or to no one.

And you can't say, "the right is to marry someone of the opposite sex, and gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex" because then it shows that in fact it is YOU who are redefining the definition of marriage, which is a union of love. Gays can't marry someone of the opposite sex because they can't love someone of the opposite sex.

Let me put it another way.

The judge in this case is not giving anyone any new rights. He is just clarifying that the right to a state recognized marriage, which has already been given by the State of California, and privileges connected to that right, cannot be granted to some people and not to others, for to do so would violate the EPC.

What the judge has done is created an overly broad interpretation of the equal protection clause. Does one's daughter have to register for the federal draft? Does it mandate equal outcomes or merely equal opportunities? How does affirmative action work if we all must be treated equally?

It isn't so cut and dried as you would like to believe. We've also mentioned half a dozen other manners in which the state excludes for marriage that have no more rational basis for their exclusion than man/woman marriage. This is about how broad you want to apply equal. In my view, this was too broad. Obviously you disagree but when it was Bush v. Gore, I doubt you agreed there for it cited equal protection of vote counting.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #69 of 212
Sorry to beat on this twice in a row but this article was pretty awesome.

Now that said, I'm still of the view that society should allow homosexual marriage. However it needs to be the majority that decides this, not one judge using bad reasoning.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #70 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Sorry to beat on this twice in a row but this article was pretty awesome.

Now that said, I'm still of the view that society should allow homosexual marriage. However it needs to be the majority that decides this, not one judge using bad reasoning.

This is incorrect. If everything were decided by the majority, we would probably not have women voting in many states, we would probably even still outlaw interracial marriage in many states and we would definitely have segregation in many states. I think you may know already that that was decided by the courts as well.

The purpose of human rights and civil rights is to protect the rights of the minority, even when the majority may oppose such rights.

Meanwhile the pendulum is swinging anyway. The Prop 8 vote was very severely tampered with by one-sided funding and deliberately spread misinformation. The vote would not be the same if it were held today, with full and balanced disclosure of the issues and plenty of time for voters to absorb them.
post #71 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This is incorrect. If everything were decided by the majority, we would probably not have women voting in many states, we would probably even still outlaw interracial marriage in many states and we would definitely have segregation in many states. I think you may know already that that was decided by the courts as well.

The purpose of human rights and civil rights is to protect the rights of the minority, even when the majority may oppose such rights.

Meanwhile the pendulum is swinging anyway. The Prop 8 vote was very severely tampered with by one-sided funding and deliberately spread misinformation. The vote would not be the same if it were held today, with full and balanced disclosure of the issues and plenty of time for voters to absorb them.

Did you even read it?

(1) Judge Walkers decision is internally, logically inconsistent in its treatment of the worth of cultural values, arguing that morality and tradition are not a valid basis for supporting the legal status of marriage, but at the same time finding a Constitutional violation from the fact that the same-sex alternative (domestic partnerships) lacks the social and cultural status that marriage hasand which it derives from its grounding in longstanding moral, cultural and religious traditions;

That right there nails it so simply. It can't be had both ways.

Also supporters of Prop 8 were outspent on the campaign.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #72 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

...morality and tradition are not a valid basis for supporting the legal status of marriage...the same-sex alternative (domestic partnerships) lacks the social and cultural status that marriage has...

Both these statements are correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

...and which it derives from its grounding in longstanding moral, cultural and religious traditions.

And this is such an obvious fallacy even an idiot can see through it. The reason for Marriage's social legitimacy is absolutely irrelevant and not part of the case. The first pair of statements stand true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Also supporters of Prop 8 were outspent on the campaign.

The funding of the Prop 8 campaign goes far beyond official, reported donations and receipts. Watch the film and you will understand. Regardless, my assertion about today's broad public opinion against the measure, and that the original vote on Prop 8 was affected by a manipulated campaign, stands.
post #73 of 212
What the article is arguing is similar to an argument that because traditionally, for centuries, all Christians were white, non-whites can't be Christian.
post #74 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Both these statements are correct.

And this is such an obvious fallacy even an idiot can see through it. The reason for Marriage's social legitimacy is absolutely irrelevant. The first pair of statements stand true.

They are not correct. They are inconsistent reasoning. You can't use it as the basis for and against something. You can't say tradition isn't a good enough rationale and then say the rationale for overturning the law is that tradition won't afford domestic partnerships the same status.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What the article is arguing is similar to an argument that because traditionally, for centuries, all Christians were white, non-whites can't be Christian.

Wrong. Bad analogy. Here's how to fix it though and it shows the irrationality. This deals with gender.

Traditionally all humans with penises have been called men. The court finds there is no rational basis for this besides tradition. Tradition also shows that we had a society which was patriarchal and caused females to be treated in an inequitable manner. The judge rules not only that females are entitled to the rights allowed men, but also are allowed to call themselves men. The judge rules that if they aren't allowed to call themselves men, that society will traditionally not treat them the same.

Tradition cannot be both the problem and the solution. This has been the classic problem with equal protection readings that are overly broad. Affirmative Action is the classic example of this as well and the court has been radically been restricting use of Affirmative Action in ruling after ruling. The problem cannot be the solution.

Here's another good article on this.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #75 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

They are not correct. They are inconsistent reasoning. You can't use it as the basis for and against something. You can't say tradition isn't a good enough rationale and then say the rationale for overturning the law is that tradition won't afford domestic partnerships the same status.

That marriage has a higher social status is a fact, not tradition.

Quote:
Traditionally all humans with penises have been called men. The court finds there is no rational basis for this besides tradition. Tradition also shows that we had a society which was patriarchal and caused females to be treated in an inequitable manner. The judge rules not only that females are entitled to the rights allowed men, but also are allowed to call themselves men. The judge rules that if they aren't allowed to call themselves men, that society will traditionally not treat them the same.

Present this argument to Chaz Bono. Lots of women act like men, dress like men, and call themselves men, and there's no law against that. They are allowed to call themselves men. Whether the law recognizes them as men (on their ID, etc.) or not has no bearing, since there is (by law) absolutely no difference in the rights granted to men and women. Obviously, there are a few exceptions, like bathroom use and sports competition, etc., which have legitimate reasons for differentiation, none of which are based on tradition alone.

Quote:
Tradition cannot be both the problem and the solution.

It's not. As I said, marriage's social legitimacy is fact, not tradition.
Quote:
This has been the classic problem with equal protection readings that are overly broad. Affirmative Action is the classic example of this as well and the court has been radically been restricting use of Affirmative Action in ruling after ruling. The problem cannot be the solution.

Here's another good article on this.

Thanks for the article. I haven't got time to read it now, but I shall at a future date. I support affirmative action as a temporary measure to counter inequality, and as it's used, inequality will be reduced, and affirmative action can be reduced. Which may explain why that's what we see happening. There is NOT as much racial inequality now as there was in the past, and affirmative action may be part of the reason that is so. Is this mentioned in the article, or has it been conveniently ignored?
post #76 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

That marriage has a higher social status is a fact, not tradition.

I think the ever rising number of people cohabitation rather than getting married would disagree with you. In fact, I've mentioned before that since marriage is a contract so easily broken and carries so much traditional gender role baggage, that most people simply forgo it. Family courts have filled in trying to demand men take their traditional marriage role, but increasingly, men aren't having it.

Quote:
Present this argument to Chaz Bono. Lots of women act like men, dress like men, and call themselves men, and there's no law against that. They are allowed to call themselves men. Whether the law recognizes them as men (on their ID, etc.) or not has no bearing, since there is (by law) absolutely no difference in the rights granted to men and women. Obviously, there are a few exceptions, like bathroom use and sports competition, etc., which have legitimate reasons for differentiation, none of which are based on tradition alone.

You fail to see the point. This would be about one judge declaring that YOU, myself, and 35 million Californians have to label women who act like men as men.

Quote:
It's not. As I said, marriage's social legitimacy is fact, not tradition.

Social legitimacy? That is a societal construct right there. How can that be a fact? Your reasoning is no different than declaring that people will call children born outside of marriage asbastards per tradition. It's just labels and names. There's no facts involved there.

Quote:
Thanks for the article. I haven't got time to read it now, but I shall at a future date. I support affirmative action as a temporary measure to counter inequality, and as it's used, inequality will be reduced, and affirmative action can be reduced. Which may explain why that's what we see happening. There is NOT as much racial inequality now as there was in the past, and affirmative action may be part of the reason that is so. Is this mentioned in the article, or has it been conveniently ignored?


Affirmative Action has moved well beyond that but that is for a different thread. I mentioned it because Wikipedia discusses it when talking about the equal protection clause.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #77 of 212
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The funding of the Prop 8 campaign goes far beyond official, reported donations and receipts. Watch the film and you will understand. Regardless, my assertion about today's broad public opinion against the measure, and that the original vote on Prop 8 was affected by a manipulated campaign, stands.

We can make believers believe anything we want as long as we start the sentence with "The Lord ..... I am starting to see why "evil" is contained in "bELIeVe".
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #78 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You fail to see the point. This would be about one judge declaring that YOU, myself, and 35 million Californians have to label women who act like men as men.

No, not at all. Just that we have to treat them that way. The Phelpses and "Common Men" of the world can call a married gay couple sinners, faggots, and "no way in hell am I calling them married" all they want.
post #79 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Social legitimacy? That is a societal construct right there.

As is law. As is discrimination. As is a majority vote. Still holds no relevance.
post #80 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No, not at all. Just that we have to treat them that way. The Phelpses and "Common Men" of the world can call a married gay couple sinners, faggots, and "no way in hell am I calling them married" all they want. Now you're just being silly.

Read the ruling. The judge both addressed and belittled the motives of Prop 8 supporters.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › End regulation of genitals