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
The difference between my statement and yours being you're just trying to be inflammatory whereas I have said this is what has been communicated to me by the vast number of anti-gay marriage people I have discussed the situation with. And these are people from across the spectrum of society, so I think the opinion I've drawn is probably a fair one.
Note that I said "some level of bigotry." From what I've seen it is more about intolerance due to fear rather than hatred or outright idiocy (as your examples show). Fear of what I'm really unable to say, as I don't think most people know why they fear and dislike homosexuals. Hiwever, that does not negate the fact that there is fear.
Note I also said "vast majority" whereas you say "always." Always is not a word i used, nor is it one I would ever use to sum something up.
The difference between my statement and yours being you're just trying to be inflammatory whereas I have said this is what has been communicated to me by the vast number of anti-gay marriage people I have discussed the situation with. And these are people from across the spectrum of society, so I think the opinion I've drawn is probably a fair one.
Note that I said "some level of bigotry." From what I've seen it is more about intolerance due to fear rather than hatred or outright idiocy (as your examples show). Fear of what I'm really unable to say, as I don't think most people know why they fear and dislike homosexuals. Hiwever, that does not negate the fact that there is fear.
Note I also said "vast majority" whereas you say "always." Always is not a word i used, nor is it one I would ever use to sum something up.
So it is impossible to disagree with you without being a)bigoted b) fearful c) ignorant since their fear is based off a lack of exposure.
How convenient. You can just label them instead of debating them.
I assure you that in any test on reading comprehension, I have always scored in the 99 percentile.
Shawn, if you want to wander in after two pages of thread and complain that I won't retype for you what has already been addressed that is your problem.
Likewise, rageous, you have yet to declare how someone can disagree with your without being fearful and bigoted. My position is exactly the same as Howard Dean, John Kerry, John Edwards and Josh Marshall. You are welcome to explain how all those folks meet your anecdotal information and are thus fearful and bigoted. Or perhaps you could discuss why you consider yourself, based on no other information, skilled enough to discern not only why the disagree, but the motive behind the disagreement. You certainly assign motive quickly enough, you just don't have to explain it. Must be nice.
Likewise, rageous, you have yet to declare how someone can disagree with your without being fearful and bigoted. My position is exactly the same as Howard Dean, John Kerry, John Edwards and Josh Marshall. You are welcome to explain how all those folks meet your anecdotal information and are thus fearful and bigoted. Or perhaps you could discuss why you consider yourself, based on no other information, skilled enough to discern not only why the disagree, but the motive behind the disagreement. You certainly assign motive quickly enough, you just don't have to explain it. Must be nice.
Nick
Okay, I'll clarify for the last time. Please pay attention:
The vast majority of people I have talked with who oppose gay marriage do so out of some level of fear of the gay community. What this means is that I have have indeed spoken with people who disagree with me that have presented logical and rational opposition, and I respect their opinions. But they are in the minority.
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.
We agree here.
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
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.
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.
And I bet all those bad things that might happen all involve an expansion of individual rights.
Quote:
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.
The fact that the courts struck down part of McCain-Feingold is really an example of exactly what I'm talking about. Is there a specific line in the constitution that says "anybody can give as much money to political candidates as they want?" No, but a broad interpretation of free speech includes giving money to political candidates. The other examples are clearly an expansion of constitutional rights - abortion and sodomy. You may not like those things, but the question is whether those behaviors should be regulated by the gov't, and a conservative strict constructionist approach says yes, they should be regulated.
Strict constructionism always means less individual rights. That's because the constitution is a guarantee of our rights - free speech, fair trial, etc. etc. You can choose to read those rights broadly or strictly. When you read it strictly, you're saying that certain rights aren't there. When you read it broadly you "invent" rights.
Yes there are a few issues in which liberals want a stricter interpretation of constitutional rights - gun control is one. Actually I can't think of any others. I don't know of any speech codes that are actual laws, and I personally, and I think most liberals, would be against them if they tried. But on the vast majority of social issues, conservatives want us to have less rights, and they want the gov't to regulate more of our behavior.
You must have not read this thread because I have already argued with bunge about colloquial vs. legal definitions.
And you've never addressed my point. If the current legal definition is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the definition has to change. You can't admit this.
And I bet all those bad things that might happen all involve an expansion of individual rights.
The fact that the courts struck down part of McCain-Feingold is really an example of exactly what I'm talking about. Is there a specific line in the constitution that says "anybody can give as much money to political candidates as they want?" No, but a broad interpretation of free speech includes giving money to political candidates. The other examples are clearly an expansion of constitutional rights - abortion and sodomy. You may not like those things, but the question is whether those behaviors should be regulated by the gov't, and a conservative strict constructionist approach says yes, they should be regulated.
Strict constructionism always means less individual rights. That's because the constitution is a guarantee of our rights - free speech, fair trial, etc. etc. You can choose to read those rights broadly or strictly. When you read it strictly, you're saying that certain rights aren't there. When you read it broadly you "invent" rights.
Yes there are a few issues in which liberals want a stricter interpretation of constitutional rights - gun control is one. Actually I can't think of any others. I don't know of any speech codes that are actual laws, and I personally, and I think most liberals, would be against them if they tried. But on the vast majority of social issues, conservatives want us to have less rights, and they want the gov't to regulate more of our behavior.
The bad things to which I refer basically have the state losing the ability to license marriage in any regard. If I think three people not being allowed to marry is a "hardship" what rational reason can the state give for not allowing the relationship. I've asked this in other threads and mentioned that it is as much as social construct as man and woman. Anyone here is welcome to give a rationa, legally compelling reason that the court would buy to limit marriage to two people and show the ruling was not too broad.
As for McCain-Feingold consider this...
Quote:
?The court struck down the prohibition on interest groups using soft money to pay for 'issue' ads that mention a candidate in the weeks immediately prior to an election. But it upheld a backup provision in the law that bans interest groups from using soft money for ads run -- at any time -- that support or oppose a federal candidate.
Call me crazy, but doesn't that make ads, like Moveon's Bush in 30 seconds ad winner, illegal to run? Last I checked, they were only raising huge chunks of "soft money" being donated by the likes of Soros.
And no I don't think MoveOn.org running the ad would be wrong. I think the court wrong and infringing on free speech. I consider this to be a very liberal reading that is giving fewer rights.
Then how can you turn around and say strict constructionism always means fewer rights while conceding that liberals want a broad redefinition of the second amendment to remove rights. I would also argue that the broad interpretation of the first amendment's "respecting of religion" has been broadly re-read to mean "seperation of church and state" and freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion.
That is yet another instance, besides gun control, where a broad reading leads to fewer rights. Much like how segregation still occurred within the last generation, so did communities being able to have religious displays on public property reflecting numerous religious views instead of no view.
Broadly can also mean, attempting to change the original intent. That doesn't have to lead to more rights. It can lead to a reduction of rights since you ignore the intent of the founders and instead substitute your own restricted definitions of constitutional rights. We have seen this happen with free speech, guns, and religious expression at a minimum.
And you've never addressed my point. If the current legal definition is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the definition has to change. You can't admit this.
From me...
Quote:
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.
So to be very clear. IF the court found that marriage must be redefined, why aren't there homosexual marriages taking place in Massachusetts right now? Because they did not redefine the word. What they did is rule that homosexuals not being allowed to marry creates a hardship for them that is not allowed under equal protection. They told the legislature to remedy this. The legislature said, we are going to remove the hardships and call them civil unions, is that okay? (will this pass Constitutional muster?) The court said no. The Court ORDERED the legislature to come up with a solution and gave them 180 days. In the meantime they have basically dictated the remedy as well (Homosexual marriages) by virtue of setting aside all other remedies, but again they haven't declared it to be THE rememdy. I think the court would prefer the legislature just bail out their activist butt's and pass the law allowing homosexual marriages. I will say that at the end of that 180 days, they WILL dictate the law by declaring the remedy to be redefined marriage that allows homosexual unions as well. The legislature, instead of bailing them out is seeking a constitutional amendment for the state constitution.
So to bring this to a close, I don't think they have redefined it yet, but will. They want the legislature to do this for them before they show how radically activist they are with regard to the law.
The Court ORDERED the legislature to come up with a solution and gave them 180 days. In the meantime they have basically dictated the remedy as well (Homosexual marriages) by virtue of setting aside all other remedies, but again they haven't declared it to be THE rememdy.
And as I've said repeatedly, the court deemed the legal definition to be 'wrong' (unconstitutional), and has given the legislature an ultimatum to fix it. That fix is either to broaden the legal definition or kill it. That's exactly what a court is supposed to do. They have to order the legislature to fix a 'broken' (unconstitutional) law. That's exactly what the legislature asked the court to do in the first place.
You don't like that this is a valid action by the court and strictly not activism, and you're stretching the truth to fit your beliefs.
The Mass. Legislature may very well decide that marriage is not legally valid anymore and only civil unions will be honored legally. You have never acknowledged this possibility or admitted if you could accept this change.
And as I've said repeatedly, the court deemed the legal definition to be 'wrong' (unconstitutional), and has given the legislature an ultimatum to fix it. That fix is either to broaden the legal definition or kill it. That's exactly what a court is supposed to do. They have to order the legislature to fix a 'broken' (unconstitutional) law. That's exactly what the legislature asked the court to do in the first place.
You don't like that this is a valid action by the court and strictly not activism, and you're stretching the truth to fit your beliefs.
The Mass. Legislature may very well decide that marriage is not legally valid anymore and only civil unions will be honored legally. You have never acknowledged this possibility or admitted if you could accept this change.
If the legislature fails to act, the court will instead. The legislature didn't ask in the first place. The state was sued by seven homosexual couples. The court not only ordered the legislature to act, they ordered them HOW to act.
You also left off that if the legislature has not acted in 180 days, the court will no longer set aside their very activist decision and instead will act on it. As I said the court knows they are overstepping their bounds and hoped the legislature might act to remedy this. Instead they are at odds and so the court will plunge ahead with their decision and rewriting the law.
As for the final possibility you mentioned it. The reason I never considered it is because, as far as I have read, no one else is considering it either. Why should I propose hypotheticals that no one is considering?
As for accepting it, are you seriously suffering from a memory lapse? I have repeatedly said I support civil unions for homosexual and heterosexual couples.
If the legislature fails to act, the court will instead.
And a court has to act if the legislature will not, even if the legislature doesn't like the decision.
How is this decision activist? The court decided that the legal definition is unconstitutional and told the legislature to change it. How else could the court have acted?
EDIT: As for the memory lapse, the part you don't want to respond to is that of the state no longer recognizing marriages and only recognizing civil unions. That way we can avoid separate but equal.
And a court has to act if the legislature will not, even if the legislature doesn't like the decision.
How is this decision activist? The court decided that the legal definition is unconstitutional and told the legislature to change it. How else could the court have acted?
EDIT: As for the memory lapse, the part you don't want to respond to is that of the state no longer recognizing marriages and only recognizing civil unions. That way we can avoid separate but equal.
I support marriage.
I support civil unions for homosexual and heterosexual couples.
I support a third legal mechanism whereby homosexual and heterosexual couples can be more than legal strangers to each other, but not have to make a lifetime commitment and have lifetime legal entanglements.
I have said this repeatedly. I have also said that we need MORE state sanctioned forms of creating legal relationships and not fewer, and not one catch all that everyone has to argue over (marriage.)
So I would NOT support civil unions exclusively because I DON'T support marriage exclusively either.
Hope that clears up your memory because I have posted that about 10 times in there forums.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Fine.
We agree that dictionary definitions differ from legal definitions.
Now what?
Or is that all you planned to respond to?
The point is I already did good boy. Go read.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
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
The difference between my statement and yours being you're just trying to be inflammatory whereas I have said this is what has been communicated to me by the vast number of anti-gay marriage people I have discussed the situation with. And these are people from across the spectrum of society, so I think the opinion I've drawn is probably a fair one.
Note that I said "some level of bigotry." From what I've seen it is more about intolerance due to fear rather than hatred or outright idiocy (as your examples show). Fear of what I'm really unable to say, as I don't think most people know why they fear and dislike homosexuals. Hiwever, that does not negate the fact that there is fear.
Note I also said "vast majority" whereas you say "always." Always is not a word i used, nor is it one I would ever use to sum something up.
Originally posted by rageous
The difference between my statement and yours being you're just trying to be inflammatory whereas I have said this is what has been communicated to me by the vast number of anti-gay marriage people I have discussed the situation with. And these are people from across the spectrum of society, so I think the opinion I've drawn is probably a fair one.
Note that I said "some level of bigotry." From what I've seen it is more about intolerance due to fear rather than hatred or outright idiocy (as your examples show). Fear of what I'm really unable to say, as I don't think most people know why they fear and dislike homosexuals. Hiwever, that does not negate the fact that there is fear.
Note I also said "vast majority" whereas you say "always." Always is not a word i used, nor is it one I would ever use to sum something up.
So it is impossible to disagree with you without being a)bigoted b) fearful c) ignorant since their fear is based off a lack of exposure.
How convenient. You can just label them instead of debating them.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Did he read anything I typed?
Originally posted by rageous
Have you actually read anything I typed?
I assure you that in any test on reading comprehension, I have always scored in the 99 percentile.
Shawn, if you want to wander in after two pages of thread and complain that I won't retype for you what has already been addressed that is your problem.
Likewise, rageous, you have yet to declare how someone can disagree with your without being fearful and bigoted. My position is exactly the same as Howard Dean, John Kerry, John Edwards and Josh Marshall. You are welcome to explain how all those folks meet your anecdotal information and are thus fearful and bigoted. Or perhaps you could discuss why you consider yourself, based on no other information, skilled enough to discern not only why the disagree, but the motive behind the disagreement. You certainly assign motive quickly enough, you just don't have to explain it. Must be nice.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise, rageous, you have yet to declare how someone can disagree with your without being fearful and bigoted. My position is exactly the same as Howard Dean, John Kerry, John Edwards and Josh Marshall. You are welcome to explain how all those folks meet your anecdotal information and are thus fearful and bigoted. Or perhaps you could discuss why you consider yourself, based on no other information, skilled enough to discern not only why the disagree, but the motive behind the disagreement. You certainly assign motive quickly enough, you just don't have to explain it. Must be nice.
Nick
Okay, I'll clarify for the last time. Please pay attention:
The vast majority of people I have talked with who oppose gay marriage do so out of some level of fear of the gay community. What this means is that I have have indeed spoken with people who disagree with me that have presented logical and rational opposition, and I respect their opinions. But they are in the minority.
Now, is that better?
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.
We agree here.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
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 haven't answered that.
Originally posted by trumptman
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.
And I bet all those bad things that might happen all involve an expansion of individual rights.
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.
The fact that the courts struck down part of McCain-Feingold is really an example of exactly what I'm talking about. Is there a specific line in the constitution that says "anybody can give as much money to political candidates as they want?" No, but a broad interpretation of free speech includes giving money to political candidates. The other examples are clearly an expansion of constitutional rights - abortion and sodomy. You may not like those things, but the question is whether those behaviors should be regulated by the gov't, and a conservative strict constructionist approach says yes, they should be regulated.
Strict constructionism always means less individual rights. That's because the constitution is a guarantee of our rights - free speech, fair trial, etc. etc. You can choose to read those rights broadly or strictly. When you read it strictly, you're saying that certain rights aren't there. When you read it broadly you "invent" rights.
Yes there are a few issues in which liberals want a stricter interpretation of constitutional rights - gun control is one. Actually I can't think of any others. I don't know of any speech codes that are actual laws, and I personally, and I think most liberals, would be against them if they tried. But on the vast majority of social issues, conservatives want us to have less rights, and they want the gov't to regulate more of our behavior.
Originally posted by trumptman
You must have not read this thread because I have already argued with bunge about colloquial vs. legal definitions.
And you've never addressed my point. If the current legal definition is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the definition has to change. You can't admit this.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
We agree here.
You haven't answered that.
Actually I did. We BRussell. We had a discussion about strict versus liberal interpretation of the Constitution.
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
And I bet all those bad things that might happen all involve an expansion of individual rights.
The fact that the courts struck down part of McCain-Feingold is really an example of exactly what I'm talking about. Is there a specific line in the constitution that says "anybody can give as much money to political candidates as they want?" No, but a broad interpretation of free speech includes giving money to political candidates. The other examples are clearly an expansion of constitutional rights - abortion and sodomy. You may not like those things, but the question is whether those behaviors should be regulated by the gov't, and a conservative strict constructionist approach says yes, they should be regulated.
Strict constructionism always means less individual rights. That's because the constitution is a guarantee of our rights - free speech, fair trial, etc. etc. You can choose to read those rights broadly or strictly. When you read it strictly, you're saying that certain rights aren't there. When you read it broadly you "invent" rights.
Yes there are a few issues in which liberals want a stricter interpretation of constitutional rights - gun control is one. Actually I can't think of any others. I don't know of any speech codes that are actual laws, and I personally, and I think most liberals, would be against them if they tried. But on the vast majority of social issues, conservatives want us to have less rights, and they want the gov't to regulate more of our behavior.
The bad things to which I refer basically have the state losing the ability to license marriage in any regard. If I think three people not being allowed to marry is a "hardship" what rational reason can the state give for not allowing the relationship. I've asked this in other threads and mentioned that it is as much as social construct as man and woman. Anyone here is welcome to give a rationa, legally compelling reason that the court would buy to limit marriage to two people and show the ruling was not too broad.
As for McCain-Feingold consider this...
?The court struck down the prohibition on interest groups using soft money to pay for 'issue' ads that mention a candidate in the weeks immediately prior to an election. But it upheld a backup provision in the law that bans interest groups from using soft money for ads run -- at any time -- that support or oppose a federal candidate.
Call me crazy, but doesn't that make ads, like Moveon's Bush in 30 seconds ad winner, illegal to run? Last I checked, they were only raising huge chunks of "soft money" being donated by the likes of Soros.
And no I don't think MoveOn.org running the ad would be wrong. I think the court wrong and infringing on free speech. I consider this to be a very liberal reading that is giving fewer rights.
Then how can you turn around and say strict constructionism always means fewer rights while conceding that liberals want a broad redefinition of the second amendment to remove rights. I would also argue that the broad interpretation of the first amendment's "respecting of religion" has been broadly re-read to mean "seperation of church and state" and freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion.
That is yet another instance, besides gun control, where a broad reading leads to fewer rights. Much like how segregation still occurred within the last generation, so did communities being able to have religious displays on public property reflecting numerous religious views instead of no view.
Broadly can also mean, attempting to change the original intent. That doesn't have to lead to more rights. It can lead to a reduction of rights since you ignore the intent of the founders and instead substitute your own restricted definitions of constitutional rights. We have seen this happen with free speech, guns, and religious expression at a minimum.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
And you've never addressed my point. If the current legal definition is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the definition has to change. You can't admit this.
From me...
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.
So to be very clear. IF the court found that marriage must be redefined, why aren't there homosexual marriages taking place in Massachusetts right now? Because they did not redefine the word. What they did is rule that homosexuals not being allowed to marry creates a hardship for them that is not allowed under equal protection. They told the legislature to remedy this. The legislature said, we are going to remove the hardships and call them civil unions, is that okay? (will this pass Constitutional muster?) The court said no. The Court ORDERED the legislature to come up with a solution and gave them 180 days. In the meantime they have basically dictated the remedy as well (Homosexual marriages) by virtue of setting aside all other remedies, but again they haven't declared it to be THE rememdy. I think the court would prefer the legislature just bail out their activist butt's and pass the law allowing homosexual marriages. I will say that at the end of that 180 days, they WILL dictate the law by declaring the remedy to be redefined marriage that allows homosexual unions as well. The legislature, instead of bailing them out is seeking a constitutional amendment for the state constitution.
So to bring this to a close, I don't think they have redefined it yet, but will. They want the legislature to do this for them before they show how radically activist they are with regard to the law.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
The Court ORDERED the legislature to come up with a solution and gave them 180 days. In the meantime they have basically dictated the remedy as well (Homosexual marriages) by virtue of setting aside all other remedies, but again they haven't declared it to be THE rememdy.
And as I've said repeatedly, the court deemed the legal definition to be 'wrong' (unconstitutional), and has given the legislature an ultimatum to fix it. That fix is either to broaden the legal definition or kill it. That's exactly what a court is supposed to do. They have to order the legislature to fix a 'broken' (unconstitutional) law. That's exactly what the legislature asked the court to do in the first place.
You don't like that this is a valid action by the court and strictly not activism, and you're stretching the truth to fit your beliefs.
The Mass. Legislature may very well decide that marriage is not legally valid anymore and only civil unions will be honored legally. You have never acknowledged this possibility or admitted if you could accept this change.
Originally posted by bunge
And as I've said repeatedly, the court deemed the legal definition to be 'wrong' (unconstitutional), and has given the legislature an ultimatum to fix it. That fix is either to broaden the legal definition or kill it. That's exactly what a court is supposed to do. They have to order the legislature to fix a 'broken' (unconstitutional) law. That's exactly what the legislature asked the court to do in the first place.
You don't like that this is a valid action by the court and strictly not activism, and you're stretching the truth to fit your beliefs.
The Mass. Legislature may very well decide that marriage is not legally valid anymore and only civil unions will be honored legally. You have never acknowledged this possibility or admitted if you could accept this change.
If the legislature fails to act, the court will instead. The legislature didn't ask in the first place. The state was sued by seven homosexual couples. The court not only ordered the legislature to act, they ordered them HOW to act.
You also left off that if the legislature has not acted in 180 days, the court will no longer set aside their very activist decision and instead will act on it. As I said the court knows they are overstepping their bounds and hoped the legislature might act to remedy this. Instead they are at odds and so the court will plunge ahead with their decision and rewriting the law.
As for the final possibility you mentioned it. The reason I never considered it is because, as far as I have read, no one else is considering it either. Why should I propose hypotheticals that no one is considering?
As for accepting it, are you seriously suffering from a memory lapse? I have repeatedly said I support civil unions for homosexual and heterosexual couples.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
If the legislature fails to act, the court will instead.
And a court has to act if the legislature will not, even if the legislature doesn't like the decision.
How is this decision activist? The court decided that the legal definition is unconstitutional and told the legislature to change it. How else could the court have acted?
EDIT: As for the memory lapse, the part you don't want to respond to is that of the state no longer recognizing marriages and only recognizing civil unions. That way we can avoid separate but equal.
Originally posted by bunge
And a court has to act if the legislature will not, even if the legislature doesn't like the decision.
How is this decision activist? The court decided that the legal definition is unconstitutional and told the legislature to change it. How else could the court have acted?
EDIT: As for the memory lapse, the part you don't want to respond to is that of the state no longer recognizing marriages and only recognizing civil unions. That way we can avoid separate but equal.
I support marriage.
I support civil unions for homosexual and heterosexual couples.
I support a third legal mechanism whereby homosexual and heterosexual couples can be more than legal strangers to each other, but not have to make a lifetime commitment and have lifetime legal entanglements.
I have said this repeatedly. I have also said that we need MORE state sanctioned forms of creating legal relationships and not fewer, and not one catch all that everyone has to argue over (marriage.)
So I would NOT support civil unions exclusively because I DON'T support marriage exclusively either.
Hope that clears up your memory because I have posted that about 10 times in there forums.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
So I would NOT support civil unions exclusively because I DON'T support marriage exclusively either.
You can't explain away the issue of separate but equal though.
And how else was the Mass. Court supposed to react when they decided that the legal term was unconstitutional? Were they supposed to turn a blind eye?