But the point is you are trying to use colloquial language to show society has multiple legal definitions when in reality it doesn't.
The point is a court can and should decide if a legal term is in fact unconstitutional. If it is found to be unconstitutional then either the definition of the term is broadened/corrected to fall within the bounds of the Constitution or the term is dropped from law.
And if, and if, and if... I stated what I support. You can ponder the hypotheticals society could conjure all day if you desire.
The real issue with the seperate but equal argument in my book is that white and blacks can intermarry where as homosexual and heterosexuals obviously cannot with regard to marriage.
Nick
gay men marry women all the time...maybe with gay marriage that will be reduced some...but gay men in denial marry women all the time, often have kids and then either get divorced or cheat on their wifes...
gay men marry women all the time...maybe with gay marriage that will be reduced some...but gay men in denial marry women all the time, often have kids and then either get divorced or cheat on their wifes...
g
So you are saying the system breaks down if someone lies or cheats. Well a big fat DUH! What system doesn't break down under fraud?!?
This is liking saying we endorse homosexual unions because someone could simply lie about their gender on the form.
You can claim this isn't fraud but the parties involved do think they are living a lie, living in the closet, not being true to themselves, etc.
The point is a court can and should decide if a legal term is in fact unconstitutional. If it is found to be unconstitutional then either the definition of the term is broadened/corrected to fall within the bounds of the Constitution or the term is dropped from law.
Take your pick.
Correct, but they do so with LEGAL definitions.
I don't get your point bunge. I really don't understand at all what you are trying to get across. Court do not consider colloquial language for their legal definitions. Pointing out what they do with legal definitions of words doesn't change that.
Can I sue a city for playing James Brown's "I Feel Good" at a city festival since I can claim it's got "soul" and is thus a religious infringement?!?
That is the sort of nonsense you are resorting to here. You are claiming that homosexual unions can be called marriage because someone might say "married like peanut butter and jelly."
But just for the record, and to quickly put an end to this nonsense. Even if a court were going to use our colloquial understanding, it would work against homosexual unions since all the relationships currently mentioned by you and I denote things that naturally fit together but are DIFFEERENT, like as in different gender.
These things fit together like peanut butter and peanut butter...or chocolate and chocolate.... or like jelly and jelly... would draw stares of absurdity.
Just to clarify again: I'm not saying a court will or should use lay definitions. I'm saying what has traditionally been used as the LEGAL definition has now been determinied to be unconstitutional.
So, regardless of where the new definition comes from, it can't remain the old one. Not legally anyway.
Here it is again:
Quote:
The point is a court can and should decide if a legal term is in fact unconstitutional. If it is found to be unconstitutional then either the definition of the term is broadened/corrected to fall within the bounds of the Constitution or the term is dropped from law.
Take your pick.
Take your pick. Does the court adopt a more general term, or does the court make the state stop using the current formerly legal but now known to be unconstitutional term?
These things fit together like peanut butter and peanut butter...or chocolate and chocolate.... or like jelly and jelly... would draw stares of absurdity.
So the only difference between people is their reproductive organs? All you see in a partner is her vagina?
So the only difference between people is their reproductive organs? All you see in a partner is her vagina?
Please tell me where I'm missing your point.
Ask your parents about the bird and the bees.
We were discussing legal relationships which obviously involve gender. (homosexual versus heterosexual) We were not discussing whether I see and respect my wife as a whole individual.
Just to clarify again: I'm not saying a court will or should use lay definitions. I'm saying what has traditionally been used as the LEGAL definition has now been determinied to be unconstitutional.
So, regardless of where the new definition comes from, it can't remain the old one. Not legally anyway.
Here it is again:
Take your pick. Does the court adopt a more general term, or does the court make the state stop using the current formerly legal but now known to be unconstitutional term?
Take your pick.
Again any court can make a bad decision, and all courts have in the past and will in the future. The Massachussetts Supreme Court didn't find the definition of marriage to be wrong. Rather they found that it created a hardship for homosexuals. The legislature asked of they could just remove the hardships. The court said no while adding, "We aren't going to redefine the word because that would be writing legislation, which we aren't allowed to do. We are just going to tell you that the name has to start with an "m" and end with an "arriage." It is a very faulty decision that likely allows for many more decisions for anyone who wants to claim that any marriage criteria creates a hardship.
The Massachussetts Supreme Court found that not being able to marry imposed a hardship on homosexuals that should be allowed unless there was a rational reason for it. The hardship were considered to be the many benefits of marriage. They basically declare that although the state is a licensing board, they don't have the right to apply any criteria. Additionally if their criteria creates an undue hardship, the groups affected can sue to have that hardship equalized.
It will, in my opinion, be considered a very bad decision over the long run. I think it will be like Roe v. Wade. You can fully support legalized abortion, but Roe v. Wade was a bad decision and as a result, there is always fear it is going to be overturned since it is on such shaky legal reasoning. The court in this instance not only declare there was a hardship, but declared that the hardship must be redressed only in the manner they specified. If you don't see that as activist, or writing the law from the bench, that is, I suppose, your opinion.
It is always interesting to see how bad decisions play out over the long run. I think it will be very interesting to see how this one plays out.
ok, maybe last post from me as we are are at the AO point of arguing but not changing anybodies minds,
i was thinking about two things...
one the definition of civil rights:
n : right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including esp the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality
the last part about "right to legal and social and economic equality" strikes me...more later
second is wondering why someone would be for gay civil unions but against gay marriage...and it strikes me that is may not be an issue of separate but equal, but an issue of separate but different...and it ties back to the right to social equality...
i see some, not all and probably not even nick, thinking and doing this....
a gay couple says that they are married (but actually it was a civil union as gay marriage is outlawed, but civil unions are not)...a heterosexual married couple corrects them, "No, actually we are married, yours is merely a civil union." separate but different...a marriage is a marriage is a marriage, but we label it something else and suddenly it can be regarded as "socially" inferior...
they (the hetero couple) will argue that marriage has a long and beautiful history, is something almost magical, while civil unions (drab and bureaucratic sounding) are just government programs, new and very non magical...
separate but equal is proven by history not to work
separate but different has also a long history behind it...it often works all too well....many will continue to use any laws to keep the gay community separate from their community...the beautiful term marriage shouldn't be one of those ways to foster intolerence
The vast majority of people opposing gay marriage are doing so out of some level of bigotry and are just using the fact that marriage is traditionally defined as between a man and a woman to mask said bigotry.
I have no links, no pie charts, no graphs to reinforce this. It is merely an opinion I have formulated through the many discussions I've engaged in regarding this subject.
In the end, if someone if for civil unions, and those civil unions would have all the exact same rights and entitlements as marriages, then they have no rational reason to be against gay marriage. Giving the same thing a new name for a specific group of people is an attempt to diminish it.
And somebody explain to me what protecting the "sanctity of marriage" means... and then when you're done... tell my why they're not outraged at all those people getting divorced and destroying that same "sanctity".
And I still haven't heard one reason why a same sex marriage diminishes or affects my marriage at all.
Again any court can make a bad decision, and all courts have in the past and will in the future. The Massachussetts Supreme Court didn't find the definition of marriage to be wrong. Rather they found that it created a hardship for homosexuals.
I think you're mischaracterizing the decision. The court said that the Mass. Constitution holds that its citizens should have equal rights, and there should be no second-class citizens. Therefore, in order to treat people unequally, there must be a really, really good reason. "That's the way we've always done it" isn't good enough.
In the end, I think this question comes down to your philosophy of government. The conservative "strict constructionist" point of view is that people don't have any rights unless they're explicitly written down. The burden of proof is on those who are denied rights to prove that they should have them. The liberal position is that civil rights are inherent, and the burden of proof is on the gov't to show that there's a really good reason to deny those rights.
I think you're mischaracterizing the decision. The court said that the Mass. Constitution holds that its citizens should have equal rights, and there should be no second-class citizens. Therefore, in order to treat people unequally, there must be a really, really good reason. "That's the way we've always done it" isn't good enough.
In the end, I think this question comes down to your philosophy of government. The conservative "strict constructionist" point of view is that people don't have any rights unless they're explicitly written down. The burden of proof is on those who are denied rights to prove that they should have them. The liberal position is that civil rights are inherent, and the burden of proof is on the gov't to show that there's a really good reason to deny those rights.
I'm not mischaracterizing the decision. I'm practically quoting from it. As for your views on conservatives and liberals, I think you have it grossly mischaracterized. It isn't that something has to be written down, but that liberals are bending and breaking the written law and word definitions to unheard of degrees in order to get an agenda pushed forward. Reviewing arsenic standards is "adding arsenic to the water" for example. Riots are "civil unrest." Defacing SUV's on dealship lots, or burning down new housing in tracts is a "protest."
I could go on, but why... your mind is already made up.
The vast majority of people opposing gay marriage are doing so out of some level of bigotry and are just using the fact that marriage is traditionally defined as between a man and a woman to mask said bigotry.
I have no links, no pie charts, no graphs to reinforce this. It is merely an opinion I have formulated through the many discussions I've engaged in regarding this subject.
In the end, if someone if for civil unions, and those civil unions would have all the exact same rights and entitlements as marriages, then they have no rational reason to be against gay marriage. Giving the same thing a new name for a specific group of people is an attempt to diminish it.
Thanks for sharing.
I think men only support abortion rights so they can force a woman to have a medical procedure against her will, and so he can get out of his parenting obligation. I think it is just another form of repression posing as empowerment.
I think people only support euthanisia because they think the elderly take up to many resources and too much time.
I think it wrong in both of these examples to assign sinister motives to people who hold what could be a tolerant or intolerant position depending upon my own opinion.
I'm not mischaracterizing the decision. I'm practically quoting from it.
Here's the first paragraph, which is basically a summary of the decision.
Quote:
Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.
The decision basically said there's not enough justification to violate a basic constitutional principle like equal treatment under the law.
Quote:
As for your views on conservatives and liberals, I think you have it grossly mischaracterized. It isn't that something has to be written down, but that liberals are bending and breaking the written law and word definitions to unheard of degrees in order to get an agenda pushed forward. Reviewing arsenic standards is "adding arsenic to the water" for example. Riots are "civil unrest." Defacing SUV's on dealship lots, or burning down new housing in tracts is a "protest."
You're talking about manipulating language in a political debate. Both sides do this. Is abortion baby murder or reproductive choice? Many conservatives, such as Newt Gingrich, have been masters at this. But I don't see what that has to do with this decision.
Strict constructionism IS that rights have to be written explicitly in the text of the constitution. That's the whole reason they disagree with Roe and Miranda and on and on. They believe our rights are very narrow and can be taken away, whereas liberals believe they are inherent and broad. Conservatives believe that you have to prove that your rights are exactly written in the constitution.
[BIt isn't that something has to be written down, but that liberals are bending and breaking the written law and word definitions to unheard of degrees in order to get an agenda pushed forward.[/B]
What's your definition of a definition?
Seriously, you have a very limited understanding of the concept of a definition. I'll explain. There are at least three kinds of definitions: dictionary, essential, and legal. Common use mainly determines dictionary definitions. So, "cool" could refer to a low temperature or something that is "hip." An essential definition is a philosophical term for getting to the "essence" of a concept using necessary and sufficient conditions. It discovers the real conditions of the application of a concept- not just how people commonly use it. Legal definitions are obviously decided by the courts and ultimately dependent on the constitution. So I think it's tough to say that we have control over any word definitions in a meaningful way.
The idea that "liberals are bending and breaking word definitions" seems oversimplified and doesn't really describe what's happening.
Seriously, you have a very limited understanding of the concept of a definition. I'll explain. There are at least three kinds of definitions: dictionary, essential, and legal. Common use mainly determines dictionary definitions. So, "cool" could refer to a low temperature or something that is "hip." An essential definition is a philosophical term for getting to the "essence" of a concept using necessary and sufficient conditions. It discovers the real conditions of the application of a concept- not just how people commonly use it. Legal definitions are obviously decided by the courts and ultimately dependent on the constitution. So I think it's tough to say that we have control over any word definitions in a meaningful way.
The idea that "liberals are bending and breaking word definitions" seems oversimplified and doesn't really describe what's happening.
You must have not read this thread because I have already argued with bunge about colloquial vs. legal definitions.
But hey way to skip by all that and assume that your lack of reading is a limit of intellect on the part of someone else.
You are rehashing what you do not care to read. Then insulting someone over your own laziness.
Here's the first paragraph, which is basically a summary of the decision.
The decision basically said there's not enough justification to violate a basic constitutional principle like equal treatment under the law.
I was referring to the second decision where they clarified that civil unions cannot undue the harm of creating a second class citizen. I considered it a clearer reading on what they were doing since it was asked for by lawmakers to clarify the first ruling.
Quote:
The decision basically said there's not enough justification to violate a basic constitutional principle like equal treatment under the law.
I believe I've already given my reason for the decision being a bad one. It sets a precident that will, and not just for homosexual couples mind you, please don't think it just related to that, that will likely boil over very badly into other areas.
Quote:
You're talking about manipulating language in a political debate. Both sides do this. Is abortion baby murder or reproductive choice? Many conservatives, such as Newt Gingrich, have been masters at this. But I don't see what that has to do with this decision.
Strict constructionism IS that rights have to be written explicitly in the text of the constitution. That's the whole reason they disagree with Roe and Miranda and on and on. They believe our rights are very narrow and can be taken away, whereas liberals believe they are inherent and broad. Conservatives believe that you have to prove that your rights are exactly written in the constitution.
It isn't about proving something is there. That is idiotic. It is about not imagining rights where there is nothing written and likewise respecting what IS written down. When you ignore the text, you ignore the rights.
A perfect example of that is the Courts ruling on McCain-Feingold. Free speech is pretty clearly written into the Constitution. I'll criticize it even though it was signed by Bush and pushed forward by both Republicans and Democrats. You don't get the government into the business of limiting the speech of third parties around election times and call that free speech. That is a violation of a well written down first amendment. Under a strict reading of the Constitution, it McCain-Feingold would never be law. The strict reading doesn't limit rights, it GIVE MORE RIGHTS in this instance.
I don't have to look to find free speech, nor even gun ownership which many Democrats want tossed away even though it plainly IS written into the Constitution. Why is the liberal definition of gun ownership so narrow if it is supposed to be giving rights broadly? The second amendment is quite clear, yet the liberal intepretation attempts to remove rights, not add them.
Meanwhile Roe, for example is based on a fictional right read into the Constitution based of a case that is pure fiction as well. That is why there is fear of it being overturned. The Texas sodomy case, which I have complained about as being bad law, could easily have been decided on the equal protection clause, which is written into the 14th amendment. Instead they hung it on the right to privacy which doesn't exist in the Constitution.
So let's get off the strict = fewer rights and liberal = more rights thing. We have a court right now that is liberally reading the Constitution and they want to limit my speech, but allow me to consentually sodomize my neighbor without fear of prosecution.
I assure that for our society I fear a lack of free speech much more than I would two guys sodomizing each other.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
But the point is you are trying to use colloquial language to show society has multiple legal definitions when in reality it doesn't.
The point is a court can and should decide if a legal term is in fact unconstitutional. If it is found to be unconstitutional then either the definition of the term is broadened/corrected to fall within the bounds of the Constitution or the term is dropped from law.
Take your pick.
Originally posted by trumptman
And if, and if, and if... I stated what I support. You can ponder the hypotheticals society could conjure all day if you desire.
The real issue with the seperate but equal argument in my book is that white and blacks can intermarry where as homosexual and heterosexuals obviously cannot with regard to marriage.
Nick
gay men marry women all the time...maybe with gay marriage that will be reduced some...but gay men in denial marry women all the time, often have kids and then either get divorced or cheat on their wifes...
g
Originally posted by thegelding
gay men marry women all the time...maybe with gay marriage that will be reduced some...but gay men in denial marry women all the time, often have kids and then either get divorced or cheat on their wifes...
g
So you are saying the system breaks down if someone lies or cheats. Well a big fat DUH! What system doesn't break down under fraud?!?
This is liking saying we endorse homosexual unions because someone could simply lie about their gender on the form.
You can claim this isn't fraud but the parties involved do think they are living a lie, living in the closet, not being true to themselves, etc.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
The point is a court can and should decide if a legal term is in fact unconstitutional. If it is found to be unconstitutional then either the definition of the term is broadened/corrected to fall within the bounds of the Constitution or the term is dropped from law.
Take your pick.
Correct, but they do so with LEGAL definitions.
I don't get your point bunge. I really don't understand at all what you are trying to get across. Court do not consider colloquial language for their legal definitions. Pointing out what they do with legal definitions of words doesn't change that.
Can I sue a city for playing James Brown's "I Feel Good" at a city festival since I can claim it's got "soul" and is thus a religious infringement?!?
That is the sort of nonsense you are resorting to here. You are claiming that homosexual unions can be called marriage because someone might say "married like peanut butter and jelly."
But just for the record, and to quickly put an end to this nonsense. Even if a court were going to use our colloquial understanding, it would work against homosexual unions since all the relationships currently mentioned by you and I denote things that naturally fit together but are DIFFEERENT, like as in different gender.
These things fit together like peanut butter and peanut butter...or chocolate and chocolate.... or like jelly and jelly... would draw stares of absurdity.
So you lose on both counts.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Correct, but they do so with LEGAL definitions.
Just to clarify again: I'm not saying a court will or should use lay definitions. I'm saying what has traditionally been used as the LEGAL definition has now been determinied to be unconstitutional.
So, regardless of where the new definition comes from, it can't remain the old one. Not legally anyway.
Here it is again:
The point is a court can and should decide if a legal term is in fact unconstitutional. If it is found to be unconstitutional then either the definition of the term is broadened/corrected to fall within the bounds of the Constitution or the term is dropped from law.
Take your pick.
Take your pick. Does the court adopt a more general term, or does the court make the state stop using the current formerly legal but now known to be unconstitutional term?
Take your pick.
Originally posted by trumptman
These things fit together like peanut butter and peanut butter...or chocolate and chocolate.... or like jelly and jelly... would draw stares of absurdity.
So the only difference between people is their reproductive organs? All you see in a partner is her vagina?
Please tell me where I'm missing your point.
Originally posted by Harald
So the only difference between people is their reproductive organs? All you see in a partner is her vagina?
Please tell me where I'm missing your point.
Ask your parents about the bird and the bees.
We were discussing legal relationships which obviously involve gender. (homosexual versus heterosexual) We were not discussing whether I see and respect my wife as a whole individual.
Toss your dust elsewhere.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Just to clarify again: I'm not saying a court will or should use lay definitions. I'm saying what has traditionally been used as the LEGAL definition has now been determinied to be unconstitutional.
So, regardless of where the new definition comes from, it can't remain the old one. Not legally anyway.
Here it is again:
Take your pick. Does the court adopt a more general term, or does the court make the state stop using the current formerly legal but now known to be unconstitutional term?
Take your pick.
Again any court can make a bad decision, and all courts have in the past and will in the future. The Massachussetts Supreme Court didn't find the definition of marriage to be wrong. Rather they found that it created a hardship for homosexuals. The legislature asked of they could just remove the hardships. The court said no while adding, "We aren't going to redefine the word because that would be writing legislation, which we aren't allowed to do. We are just going to tell you that the name has to start with an "m" and end with an "arriage." It is a very faulty decision that likely allows for many more decisions for anyone who wants to claim that any marriage criteria creates a hardship.
The Massachussetts Supreme Court found that not being able to marry imposed a hardship on homosexuals that should be allowed unless there was a rational reason for it. The hardship were considered to be the many benefits of marriage. They basically declare that although the state is a licensing board, they don't have the right to apply any criteria. Additionally if their criteria creates an undue hardship, the groups affected can sue to have that hardship equalized.
It will, in my opinion, be considered a very bad decision over the long run. I think it will be like Roe v. Wade. You can fully support legalized abortion, but Roe v. Wade was a bad decision and as a result, there is always fear it is going to be overturned since it is on such shaky legal reasoning. The court in this instance not only declare there was a hardship, but declared that the hardship must be redressed only in the manner they specified. If you don't see that as activist, or writing the law from the bench, that is, I suppose, your opinion.
It is always interesting to see how bad decisions play out over the long run. I think it will be very interesting to see how this one plays out.
Nick
i was thinking about two things...
one the definition of civil rights:
n : right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including esp the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality
the last part about "right to legal and social and economic equality" strikes me...more later
second is wondering why someone would be for gay civil unions but against gay marriage...and it strikes me that is may not be an issue of separate but equal, but an issue of separate but different...and it ties back to the right to social equality...
i see some, not all and probably not even nick, thinking and doing this....
a gay couple says that they are married (but actually it was a civil union as gay marriage is outlawed, but civil unions are not)...a heterosexual married couple corrects them, "No, actually we are married, yours is merely a civil union." separate but different...a marriage is a marriage is a marriage, but we label it something else and suddenly it can be regarded as "socially" inferior...
they (the hetero couple) will argue that marriage has a long and beautiful history, is something almost magical, while civil unions (drab and bureaucratic sounding) are just government programs, new and very non magical...
separate but equal is proven by history not to work
separate but different has also a long history behind it...it often works all too well....many will continue to use any laws to keep the gay community separate from their community...the beautiful term marriage shouldn't be one of those ways to foster intolerence
g
The vast majority of people opposing gay marriage are doing so out of some level of bigotry and are just using the fact that marriage is traditionally defined as between a man and a woman to mask said bigotry.
I have no links, no pie charts, no graphs to reinforce this. It is merely an opinion I have formulated through the many discussions I've engaged in regarding this subject.
In the end, if someone if for civil unions, and those civil unions would have all the exact same rights and entitlements as marriages, then they have no rational reason to be against gay marriage. Giving the same thing a new name for a specific group of people is an attempt to diminish it.
And that's what the Mass. Supreme Court said.
And somebody explain to me what protecting the "sanctity of marriage" means... and then when you're done... tell my why they're not outraged at all those people getting divorced and destroying that same "sanctity".
And I still haven't heard one reason why a same sex marriage diminishes or affects my marriage at all.
Originally posted by trumptman
Again any court can make a bad decision, and all courts have in the past and will in the future. The Massachussetts Supreme Court didn't find the definition of marriage to be wrong. Rather they found that it created a hardship for homosexuals.
I think you're mischaracterizing the decision. The court said that the Mass. Constitution holds that its citizens should have equal rights, and there should be no second-class citizens. Therefore, in order to treat people unequally, there must be a really, really good reason. "That's the way we've always done it" isn't good enough.
In the end, I think this question comes down to your philosophy of government. The conservative "strict constructionist" point of view is that people don't have any rights unless they're explicitly written down. The burden of proof is on those who are denied rights to prove that they should have them. The liberal position is that civil rights are inherent, and the burden of proof is on the gov't to show that there's a really good reason to deny those rights.
Originally posted by BRussell
I think you're mischaracterizing the decision. The court said that the Mass. Constitution holds that its citizens should have equal rights, and there should be no second-class citizens. Therefore, in order to treat people unequally, there must be a really, really good reason. "That's the way we've always done it" isn't good enough.
In the end, I think this question comes down to your philosophy of government. The conservative "strict constructionist" point of view is that people don't have any rights unless they're explicitly written down. The burden of proof is on those who are denied rights to prove that they should have them. The liberal position is that civil rights are inherent, and the burden of proof is on the gov't to show that there's a really good reason to deny those rights.
I'm not mischaracterizing the decision. I'm practically quoting from it. As for your views on conservatives and liberals, I think you have it grossly mischaracterized. It isn't that something has to be written down, but that liberals are bending and breaking the written law and word definitions to unheard of degrees in order to get an agenda pushed forward. Reviewing arsenic standards is "adding arsenic to the water" for example. Riots are "civil unrest." Defacing SUV's on dealship lots, or burning down new housing in tracts is a "protest."
I could go on, but why... your mind is already made up.
Nick
Originally posted by rageous
Here's my final take:
The vast majority of people opposing gay marriage are doing so out of some level of bigotry and are just using the fact that marriage is traditionally defined as between a man and a woman to mask said bigotry.
I have no links, no pie charts, no graphs to reinforce this. It is merely an opinion I have formulated through the many discussions I've engaged in regarding this subject.
In the end, if someone if for civil unions, and those civil unions would have all the exact same rights and entitlements as marriages, then they have no rational reason to be against gay marriage. Giving the same thing a new name for a specific group of people is an attempt to diminish it.
Thanks for sharing.
I think men only support abortion rights so they can force a woman to have a medical procedure against her will, and so he can get out of his parenting obligation. I think it is just another form of repression posing as empowerment.
I think people only support euthanisia because they think the elderly take up to many resources and too much time.
I think it wrong in both of these examples to assign sinister motives to people who hold what could be a tolerant or intolerant position depending upon my own opinion.
Enjoy...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm not mischaracterizing the decision. I'm practically quoting from it.
Here's the first paragraph, which is basically a summary of the decision.
Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.
The decision basically said there's not enough justification to violate a basic constitutional principle like equal treatment under the law.
As for your views on conservatives and liberals, I think you have it grossly mischaracterized. It isn't that something has to be written down, but that liberals are bending and breaking the written law and word definitions to unheard of degrees in order to get an agenda pushed forward. Reviewing arsenic standards is "adding arsenic to the water" for example. Riots are "civil unrest." Defacing SUV's on dealship lots, or burning down new housing in tracts is a "protest."
You're talking about manipulating language in a political debate. Both sides do this. Is abortion baby murder or reproductive choice? Many conservatives, such as Newt Gingrich, have been masters at this. But I don't see what that has to do with this decision.
Strict constructionism IS that rights have to be written explicitly in the text of the constitution. That's the whole reason they disagree with Roe and Miranda and on and on. They believe our rights are very narrow and can be taken away, whereas liberals believe they are inherent and broad. Conservatives believe that you have to prove that your rights are exactly written in the constitution.
2. if marriage is a wonderful thing for adults, why are we limiting it for adults?
3. will allowing gays to marry harm marriage? if so, how? if not, how will changing the "definition" of marriage help marriage?
4. why are so many hetro men arguing this? and what do their wives think?
g
edit:
5. how will gay marriages adversely affect your non-gay marriage?
my answers:
1. no
2. prejudice, vanity, human nature to want to control what others do, etc
3. no, will help unite this country in the long term. more love, more support, more equality, more justice...our founding fathers would be proud
4. not sure, my wife is pro acceptance and love and marriage (most days at least)
5. not at all
Originally posted by trumptman
[BIt isn't that something has to be written down, but that liberals are bending and breaking the written law and word definitions to unheard of degrees in order to get an agenda pushed forward.[/B]
What's your definition of a definition?
Seriously, you have a very limited understanding of the concept of a definition. I'll explain. There are at least three kinds of definitions: dictionary, essential, and legal. Common use mainly determines dictionary definitions. So, "cool" could refer to a low temperature or something that is "hip." An essential definition is a philosophical term for getting to the "essence" of a concept using necessary and sufficient conditions. It discovers the real conditions of the application of a concept- not just how people commonly use it. Legal definitions are obviously decided by the courts and ultimately dependent on the constitution. So I think it's tough to say that we have control over any word definitions in a meaningful way.
The idea that "liberals are bending and breaking word definitions" seems oversimplified and doesn't really describe what's happening.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
What's your definition of a definition?
Seriously, you have a very limited understanding of the concept of a definition. I'll explain. There are at least three kinds of definitions: dictionary, essential, and legal. Common use mainly determines dictionary definitions. So, "cool" could refer to a low temperature or something that is "hip." An essential definition is a philosophical term for getting to the "essence" of a concept using necessary and sufficient conditions. It discovers the real conditions of the application of a concept- not just how people commonly use it. Legal definitions are obviously decided by the courts and ultimately dependent on the constitution. So I think it's tough to say that we have control over any word definitions in a meaningful way.
The idea that "liberals are bending and breaking word definitions" seems oversimplified and doesn't really describe what's happening.
You must have not read this thread because I have already argued with bunge about colloquial vs. legal definitions.
But hey way to skip by all that and assume that your lack of reading is a limit of intellect on the part of someone else.
You are rehashing what you do not care to read. Then insulting someone over your own laziness.
Nick
We agree that dictionary definitions differ from legal definitions.
Now what?
Or is that all you planned to respond to?
Originally posted by BRussell
Here's the first paragraph, which is basically a summary of the decision.
The decision basically said there's not enough justification to violate a basic constitutional principle like equal treatment under the law.
I was referring to the second decision where they clarified that civil unions cannot undue the harm of creating a second class citizen. I considered it a clearer reading on what they were doing since it was asked for by lawmakers to clarify the first ruling.
The decision basically said there's not enough justification to violate a basic constitutional principle like equal treatment under the law.
I believe I've already given my reason for the decision being a bad one. It sets a precident that will, and not just for homosexual couples mind you, please don't think it just related to that, that will likely boil over very badly into other areas.
You're talking about manipulating language in a political debate. Both sides do this. Is abortion baby murder or reproductive choice? Many conservatives, such as Newt Gingrich, have been masters at this. But I don't see what that has to do with this decision.
Strict constructionism IS that rights have to be written explicitly in the text of the constitution. That's the whole reason they disagree with Roe and Miranda and on and on. They believe our rights are very narrow and can be taken away, whereas liberals believe they are inherent and broad. Conservatives believe that you have to prove that your rights are exactly written in the constitution.
It isn't about proving something is there. That is idiotic. It is about not imagining rights where there is nothing written and likewise respecting what IS written down. When you ignore the text, you ignore the rights.
A perfect example of that is the Courts ruling on McCain-Feingold. Free speech is pretty clearly written into the Constitution. I'll criticize it even though it was signed by Bush and pushed forward by both Republicans and Democrats. You don't get the government into the business of limiting the speech of third parties around election times and call that free speech. That is a violation of a well written down first amendment. Under a strict reading of the Constitution, it McCain-Feingold would never be law. The strict reading doesn't limit rights, it GIVE MORE RIGHTS in this instance.
I don't have to look to find free speech, nor even gun ownership which many Democrats want tossed away even though it plainly IS written into the Constitution. Why is the liberal definition of gun ownership so narrow if it is supposed to be giving rights broadly? The second amendment is quite clear, yet the liberal intepretation attempts to remove rights, not add them.
Meanwhile Roe, for example is based on a fictional right read into the Constitution based of a case that is pure fiction as well. That is why there is fear of it being overturned. The Texas sodomy case, which I have complained about as being bad law, could easily have been decided on the equal protection clause, which is written into the 14th amendment. Instead they hung it on the right to privacy which doesn't exist in the Constitution.
So let's get off the strict = fewer rights and liberal = more rights thing. We have a court right now that is liberally reading the Constitution and they want to limit my speech, but allow me to consentually sodomize my neighbor without fear of prosecution.
I assure that for our society I fear a lack of free speech much more than I would two guys sodomizing each other.
Nick