or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Cheney and Kerry agree!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cheney and Kerry agree!!!

post #1 of 37
Thread Starter 
Same sex marriage--providence of the states, or so says Cheney.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...heney.samesex/

How can this be? Cheney agrees with Kerry despite what Bush believes. I see Pro-Bush supporters exploding all over the nation as the logic flaw begins to sink in.

Bush sets the part line

Cheney is not following the party line

Cheney is second in command to Bush

Cheney should follow the party line

Cheney is not following the party line ERROR, ERROR!!! Followed by robot heads exploding.

Point is Kerry is not "for" same-sex marriage but rather feels its a states rights issue. Well how'bout that Cheney feels the same.

Talk amongst yourselves.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #2 of 37
Not so surprising, since he has a lesbian daughter. A cynical person might observe that conservatives are only so conservative when talking about things that affect other people's lives (c.f. Orrin Hatch and stem cell research).
post #3 of 37
It's obvious conservatives would rather leave marriage up to states. They don't want to nationalize the issue but will do so if certain state supreme courts ignore the will of their voters and legislatures and continue to read rights into documents that aren't there.

The amendment issue was obviously half-hearted and had little support. It didn't even make it out of the Republican controlled Senate. It is clear most Republicans want this left as a state issue, but will attempt to address it federally if given no other option.

Nick

"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 #4 of 37
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Towel
Not so surprising, since he has a lesbian daughter. A cynical person might observe that conservatives are only so conservative when talking about things that affect other people's lives (c.f. Orrin Hatch and stem cell research).

Oh, I agree 110%. Its human nature to want the best for your children or family even over one's stated beliefs. I started this thread to dissuade one of the Kerry flip-flop myths. Kerry can be against same-sex marriage and at the same time support a states rights to choose. Cheney agrees. Torpedo one flip-flop argument.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #5 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
It's obvious conservatives would rather leave marriage up to states. They don't want to nationalize the issue but will do so if certain state supreme courts ignore the will of their voters and legislatures and continue to read rights into documents that aren't there.

The amendment issue was obviously half-hearted and had little support. It didn't even make it out of the Republican controlled Senate. It is clear most Republicans want this left as a state issue, but will attempt to address it federally if given no other option.

Nick

I don't understand your argument. You support a state's right to choose...unless you disagree with that state's ruling. Isn't it between the state and that state's citizens? Why should we Californian's get all upset about the Massachusettes supreme court? Isn't that an issue between Bostonians and their own government?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #6 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
They don't want to nationalize the issue but will do so if certain state supreme courts ignore the will of their voters and legislatures and continue to read rights into documents that aren't there.

But what about Mass. where they decided that the right did already exist in the Constitution?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #7 of 37
and what will happen if the supreme court decides states have to recognize same sex marriages from states where it's legal?
states rights are not unlimited.
post #8 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
I don't understand your argument. You support a state's right to choose...unless you disagree with that state's ruling. Isn't it between the state and that state's citizens? Why should we Californian's get all upset about the Massachusettes supreme court? Isn't that an issue between Bostonians and their own government?

Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
But what about Mass. where they decided that the right did already exist in the Constitution?

The court was obviously working against public intent. The state had a law against homosexual marriage. The court choose to find it not only unconstitutional, by reading homosexual marriage into their constitution, but wouldn't stay the order until the state could amend their constitution as well to clarify the previously unfound right.

So the point is that a court can work so hard against the will of all people that they force the issue to be nationalized since their ruling doesn't affect only their state. There is currently another lawsuit going on in Mass. about the law that allows marriages only to take place with out of state residents if their home state allows it. In otherwords Mass state law respects other state laws, even with regard to marriage.

But the advocates of homosexual marriage want this law overturned on the basis of what... that Mass does not have to honor reciprocation rights with other states? That is when it becomes a federal issue. Disputes between states are resolved federally. You can see the path it is traveling down even though it hasn't arrived at that destination yet. It isn't a slippery slope because the lawsuits are already filed. It is just a matter of how the court might rule on them.

Nick

"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 #9 of 37
You mention "the will of the people" as if it matters. Constitutional law is above the people's whim.

You also mention that the court wouldn't delay the decision, but they shouldn't. The law was in violation of the State Constitution as it was written and violations of that law had to be stopped immediately. If the people in the state want to amend their constitution in the meantime, so be it. But that doesn't mean that during the time before the constitution may or may not have been updated the legal rights of Massachusetts citizens should be withheld.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #10 of 37
thank god courts act against the will of the people.

black people still wouldn't be able to vote safely, or eat in any place they choose, or sit in the front of the bus.
let's all come up with a list of times that the courts went against the will of the people and society was the better for it.
oh yeah cops would be putting thumbscrews to suspects to coerce confessions without informing them of their rights.

but wait i live in illinois where cops put electrodes to the privates of suspects to coerce confessions....
post #11 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You mention "the will of the people" as if it matters. Constitutional law is above the people's whim.

Thank you for saying this. I'd like to emphasize this point.

It's the intentional purpose of the judicial system to work against "the will of the people" when that will is bent upon infringing individual liberties. The "tyranny of the majority" was a major concern for the Founding Fathers, and the judicial branch of the government was intended in part to provide a counterbalance against majoritarian influences.

All of this conservative whining about "elitist judges legislating from the bench" -- sure, judges can step beyond the bounds of propriety at times, but a lot of the complaining about judges happens when they're just doing their jobs as they were meant to do them.

It's stunning how many people of the sort who wave flags in chest-thumping patriotic fervor, praising the greatness of the United States of America, so often fail to understand what makes it great, and would gladly throw that greatness away in order to make sure their "values" are imposed, or remain imposed, on other people.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #12 of 37
Good responses guys. Apparently, trumptman still has a few things to learn about good governance.
post #13 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You mention "the will of the people" as if it matters. Constitutional law is above the people's whim.

You also mention that the court wouldn't delay the decision, but they shouldn't. The law was in violation of the State Constitution as it was written and violations of that law had to be stopped immediately. If the people in the state want to amend their constitution in the meantime, so be it. But that doesn't mean that during the time before the constitution may or may not have been updated the legal rights of Massachusetts citizens should be withheld.

The will of the people does matter. The law wasn't in violation of that Constitution read by any other number of judges for any other number of years. It's a clear case of activism. It was a 4-3 ruling and tyranny of the minority is no better than tyranny of the majority. The point is tyranny is tyranny. The "rational basis" test they applied can no more be proven for number of partners or age, than it can be gender.

Are you willing to say that not allowing 13 year olds to marry is "tyranny of the majority" and "abridgement of their legal rights" and so forth?

I've asked about age and number of partners dozens of times in these forums. No one can give a legally rational answer as to why the state can determine these issues with regard to licensing but not gender. There is as much historical and natural precident for multiple and 13 year old brides and grooms as there is for homosexuality.

Nick

"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 #14 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I've asked about age and number of partners dozens of times in these forums. No one can give a legally rational answer as to why the state can determine these issues with regard to licensing but not gender. There is as much historical and natural precident for multiple and 13 year old brides and grooms as there is for homosexuality.

Nick

Well quite. Why not?

We've been round this a few times. I believe, apparently along with every single homosexual person on the face of the planet, that homosexuality isn't a choice. You, Nick, believe it is, so you can't see the distinction. Homosexual people can't choose who they love (if you believe homosexual people rather than religious people) and so they shouldn't be prevented from marrying.

Polygamy is cultural. Child marriage is cultural too. They don't take place in your culture but I suppose, as in the case of female circumsision, you're entitled to object.

Homosexuality, however, is part of your culture whether you like it or not since your culture is made up of human beings and some human beings are gay. You're still entitled to object to it but since you're only objecting to people kissing each other, falling in love and wanting to be together it makes you an unpleasant person if you do.
post #15 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
The will of the people does matter. The law wasn't in violation of that Constitution read by any other number of judges for any other number of years. It's a clear case of activism. It was a 4-3 ruling and tyranny of the minority is no better than tyranny of the majority. The point is tyranny is tyranny. The "rational basis" test they applied can no more be proven for number of partners or age, than it can be gender.

Are you willing to say that not allowing 13 year olds to marry is "tyranny of the majority" and "abridgement of their legal rights" and so forth?

I've asked about age and number of partners dozens of times in these forums. No one can give a legally rational answer as to why the state can determine these issues with regard to licensing but not gender. There is as much historical and natural precident for multiple and 13 year old brides and grooms as there is for homosexuality.

Nick

are you saying that homosexuals have the reasoning capacity of 13 year olds?
otherwise i'm afraid i don't understand your comparison.
post #16 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Well quite. Why not?
I believe, apparently along with every single homosexual person on the face of the planet, that homosexuality isn't a choice.

Wow!

Hassan's etc.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #17 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Wow!

Hassan's etc.

Have you ever signed an NDA?

You have?

What's that, Harald? You do a lot of business with COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY X, COMPUTER MANUFACTURER Y and HANDSET MANUFACTURER Z?

And you'd prefer it if they didn't know you sent private messages to strangers on forums on the internet?

Keep your hair on.

I only asked you if you'd ever signed an NDA.
post #18 of 37
oh yes, the XYZ conglomerate...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #19 of 37
Excellent points, very well made.

I am very keen to see Nick respond to Hassan's excellent, well made points.

Which are excellent. And made very well, too.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Well quite. Why not?

We've been round this a few times. I believe, apparently along with every single homosexual person on the face of the planet, that homosexuality isn't a choice. You, Nick, believe it is, so you can't see the distinction. Homosexual people can't choose who they love (if you believe homosexual people rather than religious people) and so they shouldn't be prevented from marrying.

Polygamy is cultural. Child marriage is cultural too. They don't take place in your culture but I suppose, as in the case of female circumsision, you're entitled to object.

Homosexuality, however, is part of your culture whether you like it or not since your culture is made up of human beings and some human beings are gay. You're still entitled to object to it but since you're only objecting to people kissing each other, falling in love and wanting to be together it makes you an unpleasant person if you do.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #20 of 37
That's more like it.
post #21 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Thank you for saying this. I'd like to emphasize this point.

It's the intentional purpose of the judicial system to work against "the will of the people" when that will is bent upon infringing individual liberties. The "tyranny of the majority" was a major concern for the Founding Fathers, and the judicial branch of the government was intended in part to provide a counterbalance against majoritarian influences.

Last time I checked, the founding fathers were slaving holding white men who gave neither women nor black people the right to vote. They also didn't give us the right to select senators or directly pick the president. They did this out of a fear not of the majority, but of quick change. There was a fear that the majority, for a short period of time could be easily swayed.

Certainly being of the opinion you are you could respect this with regard to say, a terrorist act and the effect it might have for a short time on the majority of people. So the fear was of quick change via a mob mentality.

For true change to occur, it would require years of sustained effort. One decision by four judges in Mass. does not respect this system. In fact it works against it. There have been laws defining marriage in Mass, at the federal level, in dozens of other states, etc. That is not a mob rushing toward something rash. That is society creating the laws it wants to live under in a sustained manner over a number of years.

They did not give us a court system to rule over the executive and legislative branches either. All branches are supposed to be equal. That is why we have had prohibition for example in our past. But prohibition was passed and later removed by a concerted effort, not a snap court decision.

Nick

"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 #22 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Well quite. Why not?

We've been round this a few times. I believe, apparently along with every single homosexual person on the face of the planet, that homosexuality isn't a choice. You, Nick, believe it is, so you can't see the distinction. Homosexual people can't choose who they love (if you believe homosexual people rather than religious people) and so they shouldn't be prevented from marrying.

Polygamy is cultural. Child marriage is cultural too. They don't take place in your culture but I suppose, as in the case of female circumsision, you're entitled to object.

Homosexuality, however, is part of your culture whether you like it or not since your culture is made up of human beings and some human beings are gay. You're still entitled to object to it but since you're only objecting to people kissing each other, falling in love and wanting to be together it makes you an unpleasant person if you do.

You seem to flip between two points, that which we can control and is cultural, and that which occurs naturally.

I'll attempt to address them both.

First you say that homosexuality is not chosen and instead occurs naturally. You claim society cannot legislate who you love. How is this any different from the previous two variables I mentioned? Does one really have a choice about ones age? Also probably everyone here has been in love and likely more than one time. While we believe love to be some sort of cosmic predestination the reality is that most of us fall in love with and marry someone within a couple miles of our homes. In fact people fall in and out of love so often that we have divorce and remarriage. What is divorce and remarriage but legally sanctioned, serialized polygamy?

Can you honestly control when you love or how many times you love any more than who you love?

But as a society, we choose to limit these expressions of naturally occuring love. If someone falls in love at 13, we tell them too bad until they are 18. If all that time of waiting has caused them to move on, that is too bad for them. If you are married and happen to fall in love with someone else in addition to your spouse, we tell you to deny it, pay for it via a divorce or basically conduct it in an illegal/unsanctioned manner.

Nick

"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 #23 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
are you saying that homosexuals have the reasoning capacity of 13 year olds?
otherwise i'm afraid i don't understand your comparison.

I would believe that their reasoning capacity is the same sure. Society makes them wait out of home that experience and perhaps some wisdom will come to them with age. I've met 13 year olds that I would leave my children with for the weekend, and 33 year olds that I would let near my children or their own for that matter.

Maturity is one of those things we believe comes with age, but they are not exclusively so.

Nick

"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 #24 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
The will of the people does matter.

In what way does it matter? Not in the sense that the judges should be thinking to themselves, "Well, what do The People want us to do?" Disputing whether or not there was valid constitutional reasoning behind the (to be specific, let's say Massachusetts) decision to declare same-sex marriage legal has nothing to do with the "will of the people", unless the were some dispute over the voting procedures leading to any laws which forbade same-sex marriage.

There was no such dispute over whether or not Massachusetts law reflected the will of the people of Massachusetts or their representatives. Whether you agree with the decision the Massachusetts justices reached or not, the "will of the people" was not under consideration, nor should it have been.
Quote:
The law wasn't in violation of that Constitution read by any other number of judges for any other number of years. It's a clear case of activism.

Any judicial decision which is not unanimous is somehow automatically a "clear case of activism"? Is that your reasoning?

And who cares how long previous law stood? What's the reasoning there? Any judicial decision which isn't reached within a few years of the Constitution being written or amended is somehow automatically a "clear case of activism"? What was up with those scoundrel judges in the "Brown vs. The Board of Education" case, upsetting laws, supported by The Will of The People which had stood for years!

Another thing not to forget: In the Massachusetts case, as well as cases in other states, state constitutions are part of what has to be considered, and some state constitutions are more expansive than the federal constitution. Do you have specific knowledge of the state constitutions involved which allows you to state with great conviction that declaring same-sex marriage legal wasn't constitutionally valid?
Quote:
It was a 4-3 ruling and tyranny of the minority is no better than tyranny of the majority. The point is tyranny is tyranny.

Which seems more "tyrannical" to you? One group of people telling members of another group that they can't marry as the wish, or a few judges saying "Stay out of it and let these people get married?"

What does this "tyranny" trample upon? The "right" of The People to impose a specific meaning on the word "marriage"? Their "right" to force others to fit and support that definition?
Quote:
The "rational basis" test they applied can no more be proven for number of partners or age, than it can be gender.

Personally, I don't see any good reason why polygamy shouldn't be legal. It really isn't anyone else's business. But I'd expect that most judges would dig for some rationalization in order to stay within their own comfort zones of what they themselves find acceptable, or feel that the public could accept without major rioting breaking out.

One weak "rational basis" for forbidding polygamy that I can imagine would be that polygamy would create a complex burden for the judicial system itself, adding greater complexity to handling property and custody battles in the events of death and divorce. If a man has two wives and the man dies, are the two wives married to each other? If one wife dies, who gets her property? Who takes care of the children she gave birth to?

I rather doubt we'd want to use, say, Saudi law as the basis for forming our own laws and procedures here. Saudi law probably wouldnt serve as a very useful guide for marriages with multiple husbands either.
Quote:
Are you willing to say that not allowing 13 year olds to marry is "tyranny of the majority" and "abridgement of their legal rights" and so forth?

The rational basis for age being a consideration is fairly obvious: There's plenty of legal precedent for children having more restrictive rights than adults, and society has a clear interest in making children wait until adulthood before entering into major legal commitments like marriage.

A curious issue, however, is that the federal constitution says very little about age and rights associated with age. I really wish it did say more, but the fact that it doesn't brings up an important point: A lot of "constitutional" law doesn't come straight out of the text of the Constitution. It comes from the history of legal precedent, a history which goes back even before the writing of the Constitution to sources such as English common law.
Quote:
I've asked about age and number of partners dozens of times in these forums. No one can give a legally rational answer as to why the state can determine these issues with regard to licensing but not gender. There is as much historical and natural precident for multiple and 13 year old brides and grooms as there is for homosexuality.

As I've said, in the case of polygamy, I think a rational basic for forbidding it is lacking, or at least very weak.

But a solid constitutionally supportable rationale for age factoring into marriage is not at all hard to come by. That 13 year-old brides are a historical precedent is a much less important fact than the long-standing history of legal precedents which have clearly established that minors do not have the full breadth of rights as adults, and that society has an abiding interesting in given children a more restrictive, more protective legal status than adults.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #25 of 37
Nick,
A pedophile cannot control the fact that they have a sexual attraction to small children. They can control their acts, but they cannot control their desires. Pedophilia should be regulated because the relationship cannot in any rational way be deemed consensual.

A homosexual cannot control the fact that they have a sexual attraction to members of their sex. They can control their acts, but they cannot control their desires. Homosexuality shouldn't be regulated (even to the point where it is viewed as a relationship non-grata as in denying a homosexual couple's right to marry) because the relationship is consensual and every bit as fulfilling as a straight relationship (presumably)...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #26 of 37
Consensual and with the same amount of parity of power and choice as a straight relationship.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #27 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You seem to flip between two points, that which we can control and is cultural, and that which occurs naturally.

Yes. I am 'making a comparison'. This is the generally accepted procedure for 'making a comparison'.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
First you say that homosexuality is not chosen and instead occurs naturally. You claim society cannot legislate who you love. How is this any different from the previous two variables I mentioned? Does one really have a choice about ones age?

I was talking about child marriage, answering the comparison you made in your post. I don't know any thirteen-year-old capable of making a decision about who they'd want to spend the rest of their life with, gay or straight, but hey. In a perfect society maybe there could be a way of judging individual cases, no?

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
In fact people fall in and out of love so often that we have divorce and remarriage. What is divorce and remarriage but legally sanctioned, serialized polygamy?

Ah, now this - this makes no sense of any kind. 'Polygamy' is the word for when you're married to several people. At the same time. So if you divorce and then remarry, you're only married to one person.

The word you were looking for is 'monogamy', but that's perfectly legal and doesn't win you an argument on the internet.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
But as a society, we choose to limit these expressions of naturally occuring love. If someone falls in love at 13, we tell them too bad until they are 18. If all that time of waiting has caused them to move on, that is too bad for them. If you are married and happen to fall in love with someone else in addition to your spouse, we tell you to deny it, pay for it via a divorce or basically conduct it in an illegal/unsanctioned manner.

This is all quite true.

Still, though, divorce and marriage and not letting a thirteen-year-old marry are cultural constructs - unlike homosexuality, which transcends national boundaries and cultures and is present throughout human history.
post #28 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Last time I checked, the founding fathers were slaving holding white men who gave neither women nor black people the right to vote. They also didn't give us the right to select senators or directly pick the president.

One of the great things about the US Constitution is that it's a document which is, in many ways, better than the men who created it.
Quote:
They did this out of a fear not of the majority, but of quick change. There was a fear that the majority, for a short period of time could be easily swayed.

Certainly being of the opinion you are you could respect this with regard to say, a terrorist act and the effect it might have for a short time on the majority of people. So the fear was of quick change via a mob mentality.

For true change to occur, it would require years of sustained effort. One decision by four judges in Mass. does not respect this system. In fact it works against it. There have been laws defining marriage in Mass, at the federal level, in dozens of other states, etc. That is not a mob rushing toward something rash. That is society creating the laws it wants to live under in a sustained manner over a number of years.

Buffering our society against brief raging passions was one important reason for limiting majoritarian forces, but not the only one. There was also the recognition of a need to protect individuals and minorities against undue impositions or persecutions by a majority, regardless of how steady, stable, and long-term the majority's desire to impose itself might be.

The bigotry of the masses was a very stable, long-term thing at the time of the Brown vs. The Board of Education decision. Nothing "rash" about. The majority of Americans had long been content to treat blacks as second-class citizens, and to "keep them in their place". None of that changes the fact that protecting the rights of black Americans against such prejudice was the right thing for the Supreme Court to do.

Quote:
They did not give us a court system to rule over the executive and legislative branches either. All branches are supposed to be equal. That is why we have had prohibition for example in our past. But prohibition was passed and later removed by a concerted effort, not a snap court decision.

When judges do their jobs by protecting individual liberties that's part of the system of checks and balances. Providing such protection in no way constitutes any form of "rule over the executive and legislative branches".
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #29 of 37
There is nothing 'natural' about (serial) monogamy, it's purely (or at least mostly) cultural. And actually the same can be said about serial heterosexual monogamy. In ancient times no one really cared if you had sex with your slaves or with thirteen year old boys, or other man, as long as you took care of your wife and you legal children, cause that is what made society flourish. Of course, later on christianity came into the picture and made things a bit stricter and added some morality to the mix, and everybody started faking, but nothing fundamental changed.
Now,with the emancipation of women, things are a bit more complex, but most man still wanna fuck the first piece of ass they see on the street, if it wasn't for other, cultural elements.
Every biologist will tell you that men want to sleep around, while women want to settle. The balance you strike between those two 'instincts' is purely cultural.
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
post #30 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
In what way does it matter? Not in the sense that the judges should be thinking to themselves, "Well, what do The People want us to do?" Disputing whether or not there was valid constitutional reasoning behind the (to be specific, let's say Massachusetts) decision to declare same-sex marriage legal has nothing to do with the "will of the people", unless the were some dispute over the voting procedures leading to any laws which forbade same-sex marriage.

Let me introduce you to a little something I like to call, The Preamble of the Constitution....

Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This country was established by the people and for the people.

Let me introduce you to a little passage from the Declaration of Independence.

Quote:
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Note that phrase... governments derive their powers from the CONSENT of the governed. Judges are not kings that rule from on high.

Quote:
There was no such dispute over whether or not Massachusetts law reflected the will of the people of Massachusetts or their representatives. Whether you agree with the decision the Massachusetts justices reached or not, the "will of the people" was not under consideration, nor should it have been.

Note the phrase, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

The judges in Mass. did not respect the laws or the other branches of government. They had both the executive and legislative branches implore them for the time to clarify the language that was vague enough for them to "discover" the right to homosexual marriage within. The judges acted in a terrible manner not respectful of the people from whom they derive their power.

Quote:
Any judicial decision which is not unanimous is somehow automatically a "clear case of activism"? Is that your reasoning?

Don't rally against a strawman you set up. I never claimed it had to be unanimous.

Quote:
And who cares how long previous law stood? What's the reasoning there? Any judicial decision which isn't reached within a few years of the Constitution being written or amended is somehow automatically a "clear case of activism"? What was up with those scoundrel judges in the "Brown vs. The Board of Education" case, upsetting laws, supported by The Will of The People which had stood for years!

Who cares how long it stood? Are you the one who spends the rest of a couple posts arguing about age and historical precident?

Quote:
And who cares how long previous law stood? What's the reasoning there? Any judicial decision which isn't reached within a few years of the Constitution being written or amended is somehow automatically a "clear case of activism"? What was up with those scoundrel judges in the "Brown vs. The Board of Education" case, upsetting laws, supported by The Will of The People which had stood for years!

Actually you should do a bit of reading on Brown. School segregation was almost exclusively a Southern institution. It was not tolerated by the rest of the country. Brown overturned Plessy v. Ferguson which sanctioned segregation. The problem was segregation was of course that you had two groups who were supposed to be receiving equal rights according to the constitution. They were also entitled to those rights according to the Constitution. However when reviewed they found that the although the conditions were often seperate, they were hardly ever equal.

We do not have a homosexual right to marriage written into the Constitution as were the rights of black people. Additionally we have not granted homosexuals seperate but equal rights based off those Constitutional guarantees which we then overturn to make just equal but not seperate.

Quote:
Personally, I don't see any good reason why polygamy shouldn't be legal. It really isn't anyone else's business. But I'd expect that most judges would dig for some rationalization in order to stay within their own comfort zones of what they themselves find acceptable, or feel that the public could accept without major rioting breaking out.

One weak "rational basis" for forbidding polygamy that I can imagine would be that polygamy would create a complex burden for the judicial system itself, adding greater complexity to handling property and custody battles in the events of death and divorce. If a man has two wives and the man dies, are the two wives married to each other? If one wife dies, who gets her property? Who takes care of the children she gave birth to?

The reason polygamy isn't legal is because society has the right to define marriage and as defined it in manner that excludes more than two people. That is the ONLY rational basis for it. The issues you bring up are already handled all the time in divorce courts. That is why I called divorce and remarriage sanctioned, serial polygamy. If the man was married to a woman for 25 years, and divorces and remarries, does she no longer get part of his retirement income? Often she does get part of it, even though they are no longer married for example. It is a condoned form of multiple marriages.

Quote:
The rational basis for age being a consideration is fairly obvious: There's plenty of legal precedent for children having more restrictive rights than adults, and society has a clear interest in making children wait until adulthood before entering into major legal commitments like marriage.

A curious issue, however, is that the federal constitution says very little about age and rights associated with age. I really wish it did say more, but the fact that it doesn't brings up an important point: A lot of "constitutional" law doesn't come straight out of the text of the Constitution. It comes from the history of legal precedent, a history which goes back even before the writing of the Constitution to sources such as English common law.

Yes but that whole man and woman marriage thing has no legal or historical precident? The precident you mention for children is the same for traditional marriage. (you know, hence why it is called traditions... )

Quote:
But a solid constitutionally supportable rationale for age factoring into marriage is not at all hard to come by. That 13 year-old brides are a historical precedent is a much less important fact than the long-standing history of legal precedents which have clearly established that minors do not have the full breadth of rights as adults, and that society has an abiding interesting in given children a more restrictive, more protective legal status than adults.

What is minor but a societal label? You think I'm messing around but the voting age has already been lowered from 21 to 18 and there are those who wish to give the same right to children. Also historical proof of oppression is by no means a reason to continue said oppression. I'm sure someone could have stood up and said, "Yes, but blacks have always been slaves, and women have always not voted. It has a long standing history and legal precident."

That doesn't mean it was right. It doesn't provide a rational basis for denying the right to a 13 year old either.

Nick

"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 #31 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Yes. I am 'making a comparison'. This is the generally accepted procedure for 'making a comparison'.

I was talking about child marriage, answering the comparison you made in your post. I don't know any thirteen-year-old capable of making a decision about who they'd want to spend the rest of their life with, gay or straight, but hey. In a perfect society maybe there could be a way of judging individual cases, no?

Rest of their life? Are you imposing your judeo-christian values on me again? Who said anything about marriage having to be a commitment for life? I was simply thinking the 13 year olds would last longer than say, Britney or J-Lo.

Come now, we don't expect or require straight adults to stay in a relationship for the rest of their lives. Why would we require it of teenagers?

Quote:
Ah, now this - this makes no sense of any kind. 'Polygamy' is the word for when you're married to several people. At the same time. So if you divorce and then remarry, you're only married to one person.

The word you were looking for is 'monogamy', but that's perfectly legal and doesn't win you an argument on the internet.

You must still be thinking in those "death do us part" terms again. Plus there marriage and monogomy don't have to be words that are related. Why do you think the divorce rate is 50%? Perhaps they would be better related if divorce were for cause as it were in the past. But in most states, you do not need to give a reason for a divorce. You just dump who you have now and move on to the next marriage.

Quote:
This is all quite true.

Still, though, divorce and marriage and not letting a thirteen-year-old marry are cultural constructs - unlike homosexuality, which transcends national boundaries and cultures and is present throughout human history.

Homosexuality may not be a cultural construct, but marriage itself is a construct. Being thirteen is just as natural as being homosexual, even more so since we were all thirteen at one time or another. If we can culturally construct that thirteen year olds can marry, why not homosexuals? Cultural construct means society decides.

Nick

"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 #32 of 37
Some ad is making Mozilla trip out. Weird double post.

Nick

"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 #33 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman

(.....)
Homosexuality may not be a cultural construct, but marriage itself is a construct. Being thirteen is just as natural as being homosexual, even more so since we were all thirteen at one time or another. If we can culturally construct that thirteen year olds can marry, why not homosexuals? Cultural construct means society decides.

Nick [/B]

Except that all we are asking of the 13 year old is "wait awhile". Like many of the rights and responsibilities granted in our culture (driving, voting, drinking), we impose age thresholds predicated on the assumption that entering into certain kind of societal contracts requires a certain level of maturity.

Whereas restricting the possible societal contracts open to homosexuals has no contingency (short of forswearing homosexuality).

Thus the comparison to 13 year olds is specious.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #34 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Rest of their life? Are you imposing your judeo-christian values on me again? Who said anything about marriage having to be a commitment for life? I was simply thinking the 13 year olds would last longer than say, Britney or J-Lo

snip: gibberish

Nick

I can't really understand anything you argue so I'm not going to contest any of it.

You've convinced me that being gay is just as natural as being thirteen, though, so that's a success of sorts.
post #35 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Except that all we are asking of the 13 year old is "wait awhile". Like many of the rights and responsibilities granted in our culture (driving, voting, drinking), we impose age thresholds predicated on the assumption that entering into certain kind of societal contracts requires a certain level of maturity.

Whereas restricting the possible societal contracts open to homosexuals has no contingency (short of forswearing homosexuality).

Thus the comparison to 13 year olds is specious.

The comparison is appropriate because of the decision in Mass. They claimed the state had to have a rational reason for denying marriage rights. But the reality is that many of these beliefs in other areas are based on more flimsy reasoning than marriage having to be a man and woman.

Maturity at 18 is basically saying that most people's mental functioning must be fully developed because at that age their bodies are typically fully developed. But that is such nonsense in so many ways. There are people who are never mentally mature. There are plenty of men and women who reach full physical maturity at a much younger age. Is there even a rational basis to believe that physical maturity = mental maturity?

Nick

"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 #36 of 37
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Some ad is making Mozilla trip out. Weird double post.

Nick

Republicans ... always blaming others




[/joke]
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
post #37 of 37
Quote:
This country was established by the people and for the people...
Let me introduce you to a little passage from the Declaration of Independence...

Note that phrase... governments derive their powers from the CONSENT of the governed. Judges are not kings that rule from on high.

"For the People", however, doesn't necessarily mean "For the majority people lording it over the minority of the people." It means that there's something in this system for all of people, even if 51% or 99% of the country might stand against the rights of a minority. The power of one part of the people over another part of the people is not absolute. All of the people are "The People", not just the ones whose opinions are in ascendance at a given moment. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the preamble to the Constitution are endorsements of majoritarianism.

Declaring that a law is unconstitutional can give judges a lot of power in some cases, but not "kingly" power. Judges are appointed by elected officials, or in some cases directly elected. The Senate, a body of elected officials, provides an "advice and consent" role in federal judicial appointments. Clearly the power of judges therefore derives from the CONSENT of the governed.

The fact that a judge might well be appointed for life, and make decisions the The People don't like, doesn't change the fact that his or her power derives from The People. Although it is difficult, judges can be dismissed for malfeasance. That is one check on their power. The Constitution can also be amended, which provides another check. These checks on judicial power are deliberately difficult apply, but they are there.

By design the power of judges is meant to be insulated from political influence. If it's the job of a judge to sometimes declare that what (the majority of) "The People" want isn't permissible, that judge is naturally going to occasionally invoke the wrath of those who consented to give him such power in the first place. That's part of his or her job, a necessary and expected part.

Is this judicial system elitist? You bet. Like it or not, a little elitism is designed into our system of government. There is no perfect answer here. Without restraint, the majority will abuse minorities. Put judges in as a buffer against majority power abuse, and sometimes those judges will abuse their power. The Founding Fathers decided that the latter was the lesser of two evils, that there should be some place in our system of government where education, experience, and (one hopes) wisdom matter more than populist clamor.
[QUOTE][B]Note the phrase, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

Quote:
The judges in Mass. did not respect the laws or the other branches of government.

It's the job of the judiciary to decide whether or not those laws should stand, to decide if those laws should be respected or not.


Quote:
Don't rally against a strawman you set up. I never claimed it had to be unanimous

Who cares how long it stood? Are you the one who spends the rest of a couple posts arguing about age and historical precident? .

You didn't say flat-out that judicial decisions had to be unanimous, but you certainly made a clear implication that the dissent of a number of judges from the majority was some kind of indication that what the majority did was <shudder!> "activist". You made the same implication about turning over laws that had stood for a long time. I wasn't making a straw man at all. I was demonstrating the absurdity of what you implied by focusing on what your implications would mean, regardless of whether you like how those implications sound when they are played out.

Applying historical precedent has nothing to do with slavishly following past judicial and legal practices. It is simply a way of providing broader context for the sparse wording of the Constitution, a way of creating a more stable and predictable basis for making judicial decisions. Applying historical precedent to same-sex marriage laws wouldn't have as much to do with how long those marriage laws had stood as it would with the entire history of how gender has or has not been allowed to play a part in the application of any law.
Quote:
Actually you should do a bit of reading on Brown. School segregation was almost exclusively a Southern institution. It was not tolerated by the rest of the country. Brown overturned Plessy v. Ferguson which sanctioned segregation. The problem was segregation was of course that you had two groups who were supposed to be receiving equal rights according to the constitution. They were also entitled to those rights according to the Constitution. However when reviewed they found that the although the conditions were often seperate, they were hardly ever equal.

In those states where segregation was practiced, however, local majorities supported the local laws. That the country as a whole didn't approve of segregation merely turns this into a matter of state and local rights vs. federal power.
Quote:
We do not have a homosexual right to marriage written into the Constitution as were the rights of black people. Additionally we have not granted homosexuals seperate but equal rights based off those Constitutional guarantees which we then overturn to make just equal but not seperate.

If you want to be stubborn about what's literally written into the Constitution (and conveniently ignore things like the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."), you could still call BvsBoE <shudder again!> an "activist" decision. You could insist that because the Constitution says nothing about segregation that the proper solution would simply have been more diligently making sure that the segregated schools received equal funding and met equal standards. Segregation proponents could say (and did) that those damned overstepping liberal judges created rights out of thin air with their weak, self-serving argument that separate could never be equal. How do they know seperate could never be equal? They didn't give us a chance to prove we could fix it and make it equal, they just imposed themselves on us! (Rant, rant, etc., etc.)

More than enough for now for one post I'll have to stamp out the rest of your facile case later.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Cheney and Kerry agree!!!