Women acquired the right to vote through activism.
African Americans acquired the same through activism.
And now gays are trying to achieve the same rights as everyone else...
through activism.
If they don't test the Constitution they can't gain access to the rights everyone else enjoys. You can't test it if you don't bother to fill out the forms.
You've eluded to the fact that this ruling will directly effect other states. How is that possible?
It's the basis for one of your main points, but I think it's faulty. This ruling is for Massachusetts, but doesn't effect any other state. Why do you think it does?
I didn't just elude to it. I addressed it quite clearly.
Quote from....me.
Quote:
Actually it will easily become a federal issue since it will affect intra-state relationships. Should a custody dispute turn out differently in California than in Nevada? In one state the two are legal partners and in the other, not.
What if you are vacationing and get into an auto accident. Does your partner suddenly lose the right to consent to medical care for you if you are in a different state?
Suppose your partner takes some of your assets earned together in Massachusetts and buys a house in their own name in Texas and moves there. How can you divorce him and claim the money from that house?
Sure... this won't become federalized.... please...
quote:What Federal law has the Massachusetts Supreme Court overtuned? The Federal DOMA does not apply to this situation.
It will overturn it in its application. As I have mentioned it will federalize this issue because all homosexual couples who marry in Massachusetts will not stay nor live in that state forever. When you attempt to divorce and get your half of the assets, custody, etc. in another state, you will be asking that state to recogize your marriage in opposition to the DOMA. When the state refuses to do so. You sue.
You can see the process, even if it hasn't gone through it yet.
Bush, trumptman and now you have all used the word 'activism' without supporting your claim. I have only heard arguments as to why it's not activism. Please explain your accusation. I think the problem is that conservatives consider any liberal judgement to be activism. In this case though, the court was specifically asked to make a ruling, and they kept within the confines of the question that was asked.
As for the idea that someone will move and sue, that's not a concern of a court. What you're asking is that the the Massachusettes Court go against their own Constitution because the Constitutions of neighboring states are potentially in conflict. That doesn't make sense.
IF the MA Constitution says gays can marry, then the court HAS to uphold that law until the Feds say no. MA doesn't give a crap what Oregon thinks.
I consider activist to be anything that has to "read" into the law that which cannot be plainly understood and applied by all those who previously read and understood that law.
I apply it to both liberal and conservative courts depending upon the issue.
As for the MA court, you are correct that they can rule as they wish, but the federal government does have right to govern inter-state relationships. You are correct that they could just assert their right to do as they wish much like Wallace stood in the doorway denying education to a young lady. But it doesn't bode well for the long view.
This is activism, by the numbers. 2-5% of the populace shoving their lifestyle down the the majorities' throat. Oh joy.
Can you provide a source for that 2-5% figure? Also, could you clarify whether it is supposed to represent the gay population of the US, the 'activist' gay population of the US, or everyone in the US who believes that same-sex marriages should be legal and available?
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
This is about a small minority with DEEP judicial pockets using sophistry to gain what they themselves decry. Out of one side there mouth they cry "Equal Rights" out the other they orchestrate rulings in the judiciary that place the ethics they are fighting beyond cultural expectance.
I fail to see how individuals stating that they want equal treatment under the law constitutes sophistry. Are you implying that no gay person really wants to get married to the one they love? While some may indeed decry marriage, so do many hetrosexual people. Your statement suggests that you believe 'gays' (as a uniform, cohesive group) are only actually doing this in order to destroy marriage.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I consider activist to be anything that has to "read" into the law that which cannot be plainly understood and applied by all those who previously read and understood that law.
But this is what courts are supposed to do when asked to interpret a point of law. When Bush refers to 'activist' courts the implication is that they are choosing to interpret the law in the way that they do due to some ulterior motive.
But this is what courts are supposed to do when asked to interpret a point of law. When Bush refers to 'activist' courts the implication is that they are choosing to interpret the law in the way that they do due to some ulterior motive.
I see 'activist' judges as those who are reading into the law what is plainly not there. In Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex, age and physical disability.
A few years ago, the courts decided that "sexual orientation" should be "read into" the Charter. Homosexuals did not just appear suddenly on the planet after the mid-80's, when the Charter was adopted. If Parliament had wished to add that phrase, it would have.
That is a clear case of judicial activism. The Left, of course, is happy to have courts side with them when they can't push an agenda through the proper way, through the legislature.
But there are very good reasons why the branches of government are separated. Legislatures make law, the Judiciary enforces it.
Judges are now dictating important things like social policy. While conservatives scream about this, the North American Left is willing to go along with it because their ideals seem to be compatible.
And because they've never seen how badly this can go wrong.
At heart, a lot of the anti-gay stuff seems to come from this (to me) really odd notion that homosexuality is a deliberate afront to "morality". In other words, a certain class of person, not unlike drug users and bohemians and draft-dodgers, choose this distasteful "lifestyle" as a calculated slap to the face of the god fearing and upright citizenry.
Moreover, the thinking seems to go that Americans are so easily misled from the path of rightousness that unless the fags are kept at least nominally at bay the society as a whole will quickly degenerate into a kind of Mardi Gras from Hell, with perverse bacchanalia erupting on every street corner and bestiality written into the pledge of allegiance.
So on the one hand gays are cynical agents of Satan who use "civil rights" as a smoke screen for their strenuous efforts to debase the country; and on the other, there is something so appealing about the generalized licentiousness that gays are purported to embody that allowing them full citizenship will open the flood gates of dog sex and necrophilia that we apparently are barely suppressing our yearning for.
Because at the end of the day homosexuality, as othereness, is about sex, and sex is America's bete noir, a shadow that stretches from our puritan founders and their hatred of the body right through to our hyper commodified present, with its frantic marketing of bodies as a cure for mortality. I think that in the popular imagination "gay people" are at the intersection of these, sin and pleasure, obedience to god and unfettered deisre. I think that when people argue against full equality for gays there is a way that they are saying: "If I am going to live a joyless life then I'll be damned if some flamer is going to just go around just doing whatever he wants.
Maybe it is becaus eI started late but I have yet to see a good defense about making marriage a secure institutions.
First I'd like to see the facts of when the church decided to care about marriage. I thought I had heard at some point that the church didn't really regard Marriage as anything special religiously until some time in the early past when it became worth the church's time to care. Now I'm not sure so if anybody knows anything feel free to pull a link up for me : )
Second, has anybody seen the divorce rates for marriages now a days!? It's amazing! It's in the nieghborhood of 30-40 percent I think. Now how the hell is that maintaing the "sanctity of marriage?" If people are so concerned with that why aren't their limitations in place to not allow divorce?? And honest to God what can gays possibly do to marriage that is going to hurt you?? Are you that afraid to be committed to marriage now that gays can too???? Is that frightening? This is not where the government should be sticking it's hand in for simple reason. When people get married they recieve tax breaks and other things(Or so I thought). So by not allowing gays to marry they would be discriminating against them wouldn't they??
A few years ago, the courts decided that "sexual orientation" should be "read into" the Charter. Homosexuals did not appear on the planet after the mid-80's, when the Charter was adopted. If Parliament had wished to add that phrase, it would have.
I'm a homosexual, and have been since the day I was born, in 1977. So clearly your statement that gays didn't "appear on the planet until after the mid-80s" (notice the lack of an apostrophe) is clearly bigotted nonsense.
Quote:
But there are very good reasons why the branches of government are separated. Legislatures make law, the Judiciary enforces it.
Legislatures make law. The EXECUTIVE BRANCH enforces law. The Judicial branch interprets the law. Civics 101.
At heart, a lot of the anti-gay stuff seems to come from this (to me) really odd notion that homosexuality is a deliberate afront to "morality". In other words, a certain class of person, not unlike drug users and bohemians and draft-dodgers, choose this distasteful "lifestyle" as a calculated slap to the face of the god fearing and upright citizenry.
Moreover, the thinking seems to go that Americans are so easily misled from the path of rightousness that unless the fags are kept at least nominally at bay the society as a whole will quickly degenerate into a kind of Mardi Gras from Hell, with perverse bacchanalia erupting on every street corner and bestiality written into the pledge of allegiance.
So on the one hand gays are cynical agents of Satan who use "civil rights" as a smoke screen for their strenuous efforts to debase the country; and on the other, there is something so appealing about the generalized licentiousness that gays are purported to embody that allowing them full citizenship will open the flood gates of dog sex and necrophilia that we apparently are barely suppressing our yearning for.
Because at the end of the day homosexuality, as othereness, is about sex, and sex is America's bete noir, a shadow that stretches from our puritan founders and their hatred of the body right through to our hyper commodified present, with its frantic marketing of bodies as a cure for mortality. I think that in the popular imagination "gay people" are at the intersection of these, sin and pleasure, obedience to god and unfettered deisre. I think that when people argue against full equality for gays there is a way that they are saying: "If I am going to live a joyless life then I'll be damned if some flamer is going to just go around just doing whatever he wants.
Wow.
When I respond to some of your points, please understand that I am not positioning myself as any sort of authority on Christianity. My views are my own, based on my trying to live a life based on teachings of Jesus, and early and often failing to do so.
I've attended church pretty much all my life, and pretty much all the churches I've attended would be considered pretty Evangelical by those on this board.
In all that time, the number of sermons I've heard that centred directly on the "evils" of homosexuality could be counted on one hand. On the other hand, when discussing faith and ethics with non-believers, whether in person or on messageboards, the topic is never far from the mind. (Case in point: I'm pretty sure a "Born Again" Christian did not start this thread. )
Christians have a worldview that differs markedly from the secular mindset. But I have noticed that when discussing a specific social issue, a lot of non-Christians generally imply that Christians spend way more time concentrating on issue X because of some nefarious agenda to control the population.
It's natural that non-Christians only think of the work of the Church when it collides with their worldview, but it's important to remember that churches in North America do more in society than issue press releases on court judgements.
Churches work to alleviate suffering, share food and clothing, offer counsel marriages in trouble, advocate for third world AIDS and debt relief, reach out to troubled kids and more AS A MATTER OF COURSE. In the more "Christian" phases of American history that you allude to, the nation saw the birth of organizations like the Red Cross, YMCA, Salvation Army and many others.
From your post, it sounds like you equate the Christian life with televangelist crusades. Don't believe everything you see on tv
Christians take their cues on social policy and from their understand of scripture and a legacy of faith built up over the last two thousand years. Contrary to chu's previous post, Christians do believe they have seen the type of societal breakdown happening in America before, and have always challenged it. Christians weren't thrown to the Lions in the Coliseum because the Romans didn't like our sense of fashion.
I've heard this before and it just doesn't hold water. Many Christians get involved with at least one Ministry, and while everybody has hard days, the rewards for helping out society don't mesh with an always angry disposition. If all you do is read papers about how this denomination X is opposed to proposed policy Y, I think you have a mistaken impression of how most Christians spend their time.
The best anecdote I can think of is a few years ago when I was at a rally called a March for Jesus. Churches from all sorts of denominations came together in Toronto (and other NA cities) simply to express their faith.
All the major newspapers covered it, and I talked to a Toronto newspaper reporter who was covering it and she just kept commenting over and over about how happy everyone was. She had the same disposition toward Christians as you do (all fear & hate, no fun...) and expected to see placards denouncing all kinds of social policies. She ended up doing one of the nicest pieces of news on the Church I have ever seen in print.
In short, it's one thing to disagree with people's opinions. It's another to demean their lives because they disagree with you.
I'm a homosexual, and have been since the day I was born, in 1977. So clearly your statement that gays didn't "appear on the planet until after the mid-80s" (notice the lack of an apostrophe) is clearly bigotted nonsense. [/B]
My phrasing was bad so I think you missed my point. It happens on messageboards.
I meant to say that homosexuals did NOT just appear out of nowhere after the Charter was introduced.
Parliament obviously knew that gays existed and deliberately chose not to include the category. Thus a judge "reading" the category in between the lines is making up laws, and properly labelled as "activist."
Parliament obviously knew that gays existed and deliberately chose not to include the category.
It should be noted that homosexuality was back in the early 80s still classified as a personality disorder both in the US diagnostics and statistics manual (DSM-III) and the international code for diseases (ICD-9). A lot of research has since shown that it is rather a different expression of love and sexual attraction.
Therefore, parliament should be required to rethink equal rights issues concerning gays in light of newer scientific results instead of dragging its feet.
Besides, Apartheid (and "equal but separate") racist politicians obviously knew that blacks are as human as whites - this did not hinder them to pass inhuman laws that were rightly knocked down by the supreme court.
What state laws wouldn't fall under this description though? What you're asking for is impossible, that all states agree on all laws. That's silly. You're saying Massachusetts doesn't have the right to make their own laws.
How does this ruling directly effect the ability of other states to outlaw, codify in law, or ignore same sex marriages?
I consider activist to be anything that has to "read" into the law that which cannot be plainly understood and applied by all those who previously read and understood that law.
I apply it to both liberal and conservative courts depending upon the issue.
But this is the job of the courts, to interpret the law, correct? Congress writes laws that are so overreaching sometimes the courts HAVE to make a decision. Often times it's done on purpose so something, anything, can get passed even if it's ultimately meaningless because it's so ill defined that the courts will ultimately strike it down.
The state asked the courts to figure out what the law meant because it wasn't clear.
Your definition is impossible though. Let's look at the bill of rights as an example. Pursuit of happiness. What does that entail? The courts HAVE to decide because the law makers weren't explicit, and they're not explicit for a reason. They do it so future generations can apply new ideas to old laws.
You have the right to free speech. But, does that include the internet? I mean, obviously the founding fathers didn't know about the internet so they couldn't include the idea that you have the right to free speech on the internet but the courts have to read that into the law.
I see 'activist' judges as those who are reading into the law what is plainly not there. In Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex, age and physical disability.
A few years ago, the courts decided that "sexual orientation" should be "read into" the Charter. Homosexuals did not just appear suddenly on the planet after the mid-80's, when the Charter was adopted. If Parliament had wished to add that phrase, it would have.
Well, that's a tough call. When Parliament wrote the Charter, was their intent actually to exclude anything not included on the list? Or were they trying to list everything they could think of to be all inclusive?
What's the intent of the Charter? Is the intent of the Charter really to allow us to discriminate based on someone's tattoos?
In short, it's one thing to disagree with people's opinions. It's another to demean their lives because they disagree with you.
Thanks for the detailed post.
One question I have is, should religious folk push their agenda through law? I mean, from a personal standpoint, forcing someone to follow the ideals of Christianity doesn't make them a Christian anyway. So why would you support going that route of 'mass marketing' instead of on a more individual level? If you could, would you really want the bible to rule America instead of the Constitution?
Secondly, should the secular world disregard the separation of church and state, or do we all just kind of have to ignore it sometimes? If the most valid arguments against this really are religious, don't you agree that the separation of church and state takes precedence?
What state laws wouldn't fall under this description though? What you're asking for is impossible, that all states agree on all laws. That's silly. You're saying Massachusetts doesn't have the right to make their own laws.
How does this ruling directly effect the ability of other states to outlaw, codify in law, or ignore same sex marriages?
Obviously all state laws don't have to agree. However there are laws that do have to agree. Massachussetts could not start printing their own money again as they did once upon a time when they were a colony.
Finally there are many state laws that wouldn't fall under this catagory. Many forms of taxation wouldn't affect surrounding states. If Massachussetts wanted to mandate certain foods not be sold or be prepared a certain way within the state borders, that wouldn't affect other states.
I would say that a much easier criteria would be, any law where you have previous agreements with the other 50 states to reciprically recognize and enforce that law should probably give you a bit of pause before you go changing it.
It isn't so much that Massachussetts doesn't have the right to rule as they want, but rather they are putting all their previous agreements about other states being willing to recognize their marriages at risk.
Quote:
How does this ruling directly effect the ability of other states to outlaw, codify in law, or ignore same sex marriages?
Well I addressed this before, but I will again. The legal dealings of these married homosexuals will not just end the second they leave Massachussetts. Additionally, while we might want to believe that they would just remain married forever, that simply isn't always the case.
The easiest example is simply the filing of divorce. How can states grant a divorce for a marriage they don't recognize?
There are dozens of issues like this. If I earned a million dollars while married, the income and possessions bought with it would be considered to be held jointly. If I were a homosexual married couple outside of Massachussetts, would this be so? The partner in that union could be in for a rude awakening. Of course it is possible to write a legal agreement outside of marriage to hold all income and property in joint fashion. However if were assumed because they were married in Massachussetts, it would be a false assumption because in other states there would be no agreement or marriage.
Obviously all state laws don't have to agree. However there are laws that do have to agree. Massachussetts could not start printing their own money again as they did once upon a time when they were a colony.
Non-sequitor. Massachussets is constitutionally barred from printing their own currency. They are not, and should not be, Constitutionally barred from writing their own marriage laws.
Quote:
Well I addressed this before, but I will again. The legal dealings of these married homosexuals will not just end the second they leave Massachussetts. Additionally, while we might want to believe that they would just remain married forever, that simply isn't always the case.
The easiest example is simply the filing of divorce. How can states grant a divorce for a marriage they don't recognize?
You act like this doesn't happen now, with civil unions from Vermont. The states can just continue to do with Massachusetts gay marriages as they do with Vermont civil unions: legally ignore them. The DOMA gives them the right to do this, and I don't see this or any near future Supreme Court overturning that law.
Quote:
If I earned a million dollars while married, the income and possessions bought with it would be considered to be held jointly. If I were a homosexual married couple outside of Massachussetts, would this be so?
Perhaps, since you would likely have to go to Massachussetts in order to dissolve your marriage (or perhaps Vermont or California, if they choose to recognize Massachusetts gay marriages as valid under the legal constructs of their own domestic partnership/civil union laws).
Your concerns have played out already regarding civil unions, and the system has held up. Your concerns are absurd and invalid.
In truth, it's all just rooted in your well-documented mysoginy and hatred of gays. You're just trying to gussy it up with flaccid legal "reasoning."
Non-sequitor. Massachussets is constitutionally barred from printing their own currency. They are not, and should not be, Constitutionally barred from writing their own marriage laws.
Obviously the feds enforce their standards in a lot of different manners. I'm sure if Massachussetts decided to recognize marriages between 13 year olds, no one would declare the federal government wouldn't have a role. Additionally the fed also has a Constitutionally defined role of governing legal matters between states. Marriages cross state boundries and so do their legal obligations.
I've posted examples already where this is coming up. I posted a specific example where a homosexual woman, who had adopted a child. She then engaged in a very long term homosexual relationship. She then had some sort of religious conversion and became straight and seperated from her significant other. The partner sued for custody over a girl she had no legal claim to and because of the odd-ball judge was not only awarded partial custody, but the judge ordered the mother not to discuss her religious beliefs with her daughter. We all know that infringing on private religious beliefs in the domain of your home is about is against the first amendment as you can get, but again when words and laws mean nothing, that is what starts happening.
Likewise, just because you can't "see" it happening doesn't mean it won't or isn't now.
If we get married in Massachusetts, should we sue to force the state to recognize our marriage?
Before you begin any kind of case about your marriage, you should contact the ACLU or one of the other LGBT legal organizations. You may have a good claim that should be brought, but it?s also possible to do serious harm by suing. In 1997, an Alaskan couple sued the state for the right to marry. After they won a preliminary hearing, the state, with a 71% majority, passed a constitutional amendment, banning same-sex marriage. That ended the case. It also prevents any state court or the state legislature from ever allowing same-sex marriage until the people vote to change the state constitution again. The state has even used the constitutional amendment as an excuse not to recognize domestic partnerships.
If you think you would like to be involved in a case to have your marriage recognized in your home state, contact us by phone at (212) 549-2627 or by e-mail at [email protected].
I don't know about you, but when I see it in the frequently asked questions along with an e-mail, phone number and a solicitation, then I "see" it happening.
Quote:
Perhaps, since you would likely have to go to Massachussetts in order to dissolve your marriage (or perhaps Vermont or California, if they choose to recognize Massachusetts gay marriages as valid under the legal constructs of their own domestic partnership/civil union laws).
Your concerns have played out already regarding civil unions, and the system has held up. Your concerns are absurd and invalid.
Perhaps you don't consider the fact that both Massachussetts and Vermont have one year residency requirements and they will not begin to grant you a divorce until you are a resident. That means one of the two married partners has to go live in the state for a year or two in order to get a divorce.
Again the system won't hold up to this, and hasn't held up to this. Very few people want to spend one to two years getting a divorce and have to move to do so.
Here's a few more instances where the "system" isn't holding up.
In truth, it's all just rooted in your well-documented mysoginy and hatred of gays. You're just trying to gussy it up with flaccid legal "reasoning."
You can let name calling and personal attacks substitute for reality since you don't wish to truly look into the matter. However I have posted incidences from many different sources and many different parts of the country to show that the legal issues and suing to resolve them is indeed taking place.
Comments
African Americans acquired the same through activism.
And now gays are trying to achieve the same rights as everyone else...
through activism.
If they don't test the Constitution they can't gain access to the rights everyone else enjoys. You can't test it if you don't bother to fill out the forms.
Originally posted by tmp
Mods- I know I said I'd be nice, but I find this personally offensive.
You should probably just report the post with a decent explanation.
I thought marriage was about monogamy.
Death till you part kinda trumps base desires.
Originally posted by bunge
Nick, trumptman,
You've eluded to the fact that this ruling will directly effect other states. How is that possible?
It's the basis for one of your main points, but I think it's faulty. This ruling is for Massachusetts, but doesn't effect any other state. Why do you think it does?
I didn't just elude to it. I addressed it quite clearly.
Quote from....me.
Actually it will easily become a federal issue since it will affect intra-state relationships. Should a custody dispute turn out differently in California than in Nevada? In one state the two are legal partners and in the other, not.
What if you are vacationing and get into an auto accident. Does your partner suddenly lose the right to consent to medical care for you if you are in a different state?
Suppose your partner takes some of your assets earned together in Massachusetts and buys a house in their own name in Texas and moves there. How can you divorce him and claim the money from that house?
Sure... this won't become federalized.... please...
quote:What Federal law has the Massachusetts Supreme Court overtuned? The Federal DOMA does not apply to this situation.
It will overturn it in its application. As I have mentioned it will federalize this issue because all homosexual couples who marry in Massachusetts will not stay nor live in that state forever. When you attempt to divorce and get your half of the assets, custody, etc. in another state, you will be asking that state to recogize your marriage in opposition to the DOMA. When the state refuses to do so. You sue.
You can see the process, even if it hasn't gone through it yet.
It is pretty easy to see how this would occur.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Bush, trumptman and now you have all used the word 'activism' without supporting your claim. I have only heard arguments as to why it's not activism. Please explain your accusation. I think the problem is that conservatives consider any liberal judgement to be activism. In this case though, the court was specifically asked to make a ruling, and they kept within the confines of the question that was asked.
As for the idea that someone will move and sue, that's not a concern of a court. What you're asking is that the the Massachusettes Court go against their own Constitution because the Constitutions of neighboring states are potentially in conflict. That doesn't make sense.
IF the MA Constitution says gays can marry, then the court HAS to uphold that law until the Feds say no. MA doesn't give a crap what Oregon thinks.
I consider activist to be anything that has to "read" into the law that which cannot be plainly understood and applied by all those who previously read and understood that law.
I apply it to both liberal and conservative courts depending upon the issue.
As for the MA court, you are correct that they can rule as they wish, but the federal government does have right to govern inter-state relationships. You are correct that they could just assert their right to do as they wish much like Wallace stood in the doorway denying education to a young lady. But it doesn't bode well for the long view.
Nick
Originally posted by dmz
This is activism, by the numbers. 2-5% of the populace shoving their lifestyle down the the majorities' throat. Oh joy.
Can you provide a source for that 2-5% figure? Also, could you clarify whether it is supposed to represent the gay population of the US, the 'activist' gay population of the US, or everyone in the US who believes that same-sex marriages should be legal and available?
Originally posted by dmz
This is about a small minority with DEEP judicial pockets using sophistry to gain what they themselves decry. Out of one side there mouth they cry "Equal Rights" out the other they orchestrate rulings in the judiciary that place the ethics they are fighting beyond cultural expectance.
I fail to see how individuals stating that they want equal treatment under the law constitutes sophistry. Are you implying that no gay person really wants to get married to the one they love? While some may indeed decry marriage, so do many hetrosexual people. Your statement suggests that you believe 'gays' (as a uniform, cohesive group) are only actually doing this in order to destroy marriage.
Originally posted by trumptman
I consider activist to be anything that has to "read" into the law that which cannot be plainly understood and applied by all those who previously read and understood that law.
But this is what courts are supposed to do when asked to interpret a point of law. When Bush refers to 'activist' courts the implication is that they are choosing to interpret the law in the way that they do due to some ulterior motive.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
But this is what courts are supposed to do when asked to interpret a point of law. When Bush refers to 'activist' courts the implication is that they are choosing to interpret the law in the way that they do due to some ulterior motive.
I see 'activist' judges as those who are reading into the law what is plainly not there. In Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex, age and physical disability.
A few years ago, the courts decided that "sexual orientation" should be "read into" the Charter. Homosexuals did not just appear suddenly on the planet after the mid-80's, when the Charter was adopted. If Parliament had wished to add that phrase, it would have.
That is a clear case of judicial activism. The Left, of course, is happy to have courts side with them when they can't push an agenda through the proper way, through the legislature.
But there are very good reasons why the branches of government are separated. Legislatures make law, the Judiciary enforces it.
Judges are now dictating important things like social policy. While conservatives scream about this, the North American Left is willing to go along with it because their ideals seem to be compatible.
And because they've never seen how badly this can go wrong.
Moreover, the thinking seems to go that Americans are so easily misled from the path of rightousness that unless the fags are kept at least nominally at bay the society as a whole will quickly degenerate into a kind of Mardi Gras from Hell, with perverse bacchanalia erupting on every street corner and bestiality written into the pledge of allegiance.
So on the one hand gays are cynical agents of Satan who use "civil rights" as a smoke screen for their strenuous efforts to debase the country; and on the other, there is something so appealing about the generalized licentiousness that gays are purported to embody that allowing them full citizenship will open the flood gates of dog sex and necrophilia that we apparently are barely suppressing our yearning for.
Because at the end of the day homosexuality, as othereness, is about sex, and sex is America's bete noir, a shadow that stretches from our puritan founders and their hatred of the body right through to our hyper commodified present, with its frantic marketing of bodies as a cure for mortality. I think that in the popular imagination "gay people" are at the intersection of these, sin and pleasure, obedience to god and unfettered deisre. I think that when people argue against full equality for gays there is a way that they are saying: "If I am going to live a joyless life then I'll be damned if some flamer is going to just go around just doing whatever he wants.
First I'd like to see the facts of when the church decided to care about marriage. I thought I had heard at some point that the church didn't really regard Marriage as anything special religiously until some time in the early past when it became worth the church's time to care. Now I'm not sure so if anybody knows anything feel free to pull a link up for me : )
Second, has anybody seen the divorce rates for marriages now a days!? It's amazing! It's in the nieghborhood of 30-40 percent I think. Now how the hell is that maintaing the "sanctity of marriage?" If people are so concerned with that why aren't their limitations in place to not allow divorce?? And honest to God what can gays possibly do to marriage that is going to hurt you?? Are you that afraid to be committed to marriage now that gays can too???? Is that frightening? This is not where the government should be sticking it's hand in for simple reason. When people get married they recieve tax breaks and other things(Or so I thought). So by not allowing gays to marry they would be discriminating against them wouldn't they??
Originally posted by Frank777
A few years ago, the courts decided that "sexual orientation" should be "read into" the Charter. Homosexuals did not appear on the planet after the mid-80's, when the Charter was adopted. If Parliament had wished to add that phrase, it would have.
I'm a homosexual, and have been since the day I was born, in 1977. So clearly your statement that gays didn't "appear on the planet until after the mid-80s" (notice the lack of an apostrophe) is clearly bigotted nonsense.
But there are very good reasons why the branches of government are separated. Legislatures make law, the Judiciary enforces it.
Legislatures make law. The EXECUTIVE BRANCH enforces law. The Judicial branch interprets the law. Civics 101.
Kirk
Originally posted by addabox
At heart, a lot of the anti-gay stuff seems to come from this (to me) really odd notion that homosexuality is a deliberate afront to "morality". In other words, a certain class of person, not unlike drug users and bohemians and draft-dodgers, choose this distasteful "lifestyle" as a calculated slap to the face of the god fearing and upright citizenry.
Moreover, the thinking seems to go that Americans are so easily misled from the path of rightousness that unless the fags are kept at least nominally at bay the society as a whole will quickly degenerate into a kind of Mardi Gras from Hell, with perverse bacchanalia erupting on every street corner and bestiality written into the pledge of allegiance.
So on the one hand gays are cynical agents of Satan who use "civil rights" as a smoke screen for their strenuous efforts to debase the country; and on the other, there is something so appealing about the generalized licentiousness that gays are purported to embody that allowing them full citizenship will open the flood gates of dog sex and necrophilia that we apparently are barely suppressing our yearning for.
Because at the end of the day homosexuality, as othereness, is about sex, and sex is America's bete noir, a shadow that stretches from our puritan founders and their hatred of the body right through to our hyper commodified present, with its frantic marketing of bodies as a cure for mortality. I think that in the popular imagination "gay people" are at the intersection of these, sin and pleasure, obedience to god and unfettered deisre. I think that when people argue against full equality for gays there is a way that they are saying: "If I am going to live a joyless life then I'll be damned if some flamer is going to just go around just doing whatever he wants.
Wow.
When I respond to some of your points, please understand that I am not positioning myself as any sort of authority on Christianity. My views are my own, based on my trying to live a life based on teachings of Jesus, and early and often failing to do so.
Allegation #1 - Gays are Christian Mission One.
I've attended church pretty much all my life, and pretty much all the churches I've attended would be considered pretty Evangelical by those on this board.
In all that time, the number of sermons I've heard that centred directly on the "evils" of homosexuality could be counted on one hand. On the other hand, when discussing faith and ethics with non-believers, whether in person or on messageboards, the topic is never far from the mind. (Case in point: I'm pretty sure a "Born Again" Christian did not start this thread.
Christians have a worldview that differs markedly from the secular mindset. But I have noticed that when discussing a specific social issue, a lot of non-Christians generally imply that Christians spend way more time concentrating on issue X because of some nefarious agenda to control the population.
It's natural that non-Christians only think of the work of the Church when it collides with their worldview, but it's important to remember that churches in North America do more in society than issue press releases on court judgements.
Churches work to alleviate suffering, share food and clothing, offer counsel marriages in trouble, advocate for third world AIDS and debt relief, reach out to troubled kids and more AS A MATTER OF COURSE. In the more "Christian" phases of American history that you allude to, the nation saw the birth of organizations like the Red Cross, YMCA, Salvation Army and many others.
From your post, it sounds like you equate the Christian life with televangelist crusades. Don't believe everything you see on tv
Christians take their cues on social policy and from their understand of scripture and a legacy of faith built up over the last two thousand years. Contrary to chu's previous post, Christians do believe they have seen the type of societal breakdown happening in America before, and have always challenged it. Christians weren't thrown to the Lions in the Coliseum because the Romans didn't like our sense of fashion.
Allegation #2 - The Christian Life is "joyless."
I've heard this before and it just doesn't hold water. Many Christians get involved with at least one Ministry, and while everybody has hard days, the rewards for helping out society don't mesh with an always angry disposition. If all you do is read papers about how this denomination X is opposed to proposed policy Y, I think you have a mistaken impression of how most Christians spend their time.
The best anecdote I can think of is a few years ago when I was at a rally called a March for Jesus. Churches from all sorts of denominations came together in Toronto (and other NA cities) simply to express their faith.
All the major newspapers covered it, and I talked to a Toronto newspaper reporter who was covering it and she just kept commenting over and over about how happy everyone was. She had the same disposition toward Christians as you do (all fear & hate, no fun...) and expected to see placards denouncing all kinds of social policies. She ended up doing one of the nicest pieces of news on the Church I have ever seen in print.
In short, it's one thing to disagree with people's opinions. It's another to demean their lives because they disagree with you.
Originally posted by Kirkland
I'm a homosexual, and have been since the day I was born, in 1977. So clearly your statement that gays didn't "appear on the planet until after the mid-80s" (notice the lack of an apostrophe) is clearly bigotted nonsense. [/B]
My phrasing was bad so I think you missed my point. It happens on messageboards.
I meant to say that homosexuals did NOT just appear out of nowhere after the Charter was introduced.
Parliament obviously knew that gays existed and deliberately chose not to include the category. Thus a judge "reading" the category in between the lines is making up laws, and properly labelled as "activist."
Originally posted by Frank777
Parliament obviously knew that gays existed and deliberately chose not to include the category.
It should be noted that homosexuality was back in the early 80s still classified as a personality disorder both in the US diagnostics and statistics manual (DSM-III) and the international code for diseases (ICD-9). A lot of research has since shown that it is rather a different expression of love and sexual attraction.
Therefore, parliament should be required to rethink equal rights issues concerning gays in light of newer scientific results instead of dragging its feet.
Besides, Apartheid (and "equal but separate") racist politicians obviously knew that blacks are as human as whites - this did not hinder them to pass inhuman laws that were rightly knocked down by the supreme court.
Originally posted by trumptman
It is pretty easy to see how this would occur.
What state laws wouldn't fall under this description though? What you're asking for is impossible, that all states agree on all laws. That's silly. You're saying Massachusetts doesn't have the right to make their own laws.
How does this ruling directly effect the ability of other states to outlaw, codify in law, or ignore same sex marriages?
Originally posted by trumptman
I consider activist to be anything that has to "read" into the law that which cannot be plainly understood and applied by all those who previously read and understood that law.
I apply it to both liberal and conservative courts depending upon the issue.
But this is the job of the courts, to interpret the law, correct? Congress writes laws that are so overreaching sometimes the courts HAVE to make a decision. Often times it's done on purpose so something, anything, can get passed even if it's ultimately meaningless because it's so ill defined that the courts will ultimately strike it down.
The state asked the courts to figure out what the law meant because it wasn't clear.
Your definition is impossible though. Let's look at the bill of rights as an example. Pursuit of happiness. What does that entail? The courts HAVE to decide because the law makers weren't explicit, and they're not explicit for a reason. They do it so future generations can apply new ideas to old laws.
You have the right to free speech. But, does that include the internet? I mean, obviously the founding fathers didn't know about the internet so they couldn't include the idea that you have the right to free speech on the internet but the courts have to read that into the law.
That's not activism.
Originally posted by Frank777
I see 'activist' judges as those who are reading into the law what is plainly not there. In Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex, age and physical disability.
A few years ago, the courts decided that "sexual orientation" should be "read into" the Charter. Homosexuals did not just appear suddenly on the planet after the mid-80's, when the Charter was adopted. If Parliament had wished to add that phrase, it would have.
Well, that's a tough call. When Parliament wrote the Charter, was their intent actually to exclude anything not included on the list? Or were they trying to list everything they could think of to be all inclusive?
What's the intent of the Charter? Is the intent of the Charter really to allow us to discriminate based on someone's tattoos?
Originally posted by Frank777
In short, it's one thing to disagree with people's opinions. It's another to demean their lives because they disagree with you.
Thanks for the detailed post.
One question I have is, should religious folk push their agenda through law? I mean, from a personal standpoint, forcing someone to follow the ideals of Christianity doesn't make them a Christian anyway. So why would you support going that route of 'mass marketing' instead of on a more individual level? If you could, would you really want the bible to rule America instead of the Constitution?
Secondly, should the secular world disregard the separation of church and state, or do we all just kind of have to ignore it sometimes? If the most valid arguments against this really are religious, don't you agree that the separation of church and state takes precedence?
Originally posted by bunge
What state laws wouldn't fall under this description though? What you're asking for is impossible, that all states agree on all laws. That's silly. You're saying Massachusetts doesn't have the right to make their own laws.
How does this ruling directly effect the ability of other states to outlaw, codify in law, or ignore same sex marriages?
Obviously all state laws don't have to agree. However there are laws that do have to agree. Massachussetts could not start printing their own money again as they did once upon a time when they were a colony.
Finally there are many state laws that wouldn't fall under this catagory. Many forms of taxation wouldn't affect surrounding states. If Massachussetts wanted to mandate certain foods not be sold or be prepared a certain way within the state borders, that wouldn't affect other states.
I would say that a much easier criteria would be, any law where you have previous agreements with the other 50 states to reciprically recognize and enforce that law should probably give you a bit of pause before you go changing it.
It isn't so much that Massachussetts doesn't have the right to rule as they want, but rather they are putting all their previous agreements about other states being willing to recognize their marriages at risk.
How does this ruling directly effect the ability of other states to outlaw, codify in law, or ignore same sex marriages?
Well I addressed this before, but I will again. The legal dealings of these married homosexuals will not just end the second they leave Massachussetts. Additionally, while we might want to believe that they would just remain married forever, that simply isn't always the case.
The easiest example is simply the filing of divorce. How can states grant a divorce for a marriage they don't recognize?
There are dozens of issues like this. If I earned a million dollars while married, the income and possessions bought with it would be considered to be held jointly. If I were a homosexual married couple outside of Massachussetts, would this be so? The partner in that union could be in for a rude awakening. Of course it is possible to write a legal agreement outside of marriage to hold all income and property in joint fashion. However if were assumed because they were married in Massachussetts, it would be a false assumption because in other states there would be no agreement or marriage.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Obviously all state laws don't have to agree. However there are laws that do have to agree. Massachussetts could not start printing their own money again as they did once upon a time when they were a colony.
Non-sequitor. Massachussets is constitutionally barred from printing their own currency. They are not, and should not be, Constitutionally barred from writing their own marriage laws.
Well I addressed this before, but I will again. The legal dealings of these married homosexuals will not just end the second they leave Massachussetts. Additionally, while we might want to believe that they would just remain married forever, that simply isn't always the case.
The easiest example is simply the filing of divorce. How can states grant a divorce for a marriage they don't recognize?
You act like this doesn't happen now, with civil unions from Vermont. The states can just continue to do with Massachusetts gay marriages as they do with Vermont civil unions: legally ignore them. The DOMA gives them the right to do this, and I don't see this or any near future Supreme Court overturning that law.
If I earned a million dollars while married, the income and possessions bought with it would be considered to be held jointly. If I were a homosexual married couple outside of Massachussetts, would this be so?
Perhaps, since you would likely have to go to Massachussetts in order to dissolve your marriage (or perhaps Vermont or California, if they choose to recognize Massachusetts gay marriages as valid under the legal constructs of their own domestic partnership/civil union laws).
Your concerns have played out already regarding civil unions, and the system has held up. Your concerns are absurd and invalid.
In truth, it's all just rooted in your well-documented mysoginy and hatred of gays. You're just trying to gussy it up with flaccid legal "reasoning."
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
Non-sequitor. Massachussets is constitutionally barred from printing their own currency. They are not, and should not be, Constitutionally barred from writing their own marriage laws.
Obviously the feds enforce their standards in a lot of different manners. I'm sure if Massachussetts decided to recognize marriages between 13 year olds, no one would declare the federal government wouldn't have a role. Additionally the fed also has a Constitutionally defined role of governing legal matters between states. Marriages cross state boundries and so do their legal obligations.
I've posted examples already where this is coming up. I posted a specific example where a homosexual woman, who had adopted a child. She then engaged in a very long term homosexual relationship. She then had some sort of religious conversion and became straight and seperated from her significant other. The partner sued for custody over a girl she had no legal claim to and because of the odd-ball judge was not only awarded partial custody, but the judge ordered the mother not to discuss her religious beliefs with her daughter. We all know that infringing on private religious beliefs in the domain of your home is about is against the first amendment as you can get, but again when words and laws mean nothing, that is what starts happening.
Likewise, just because you can't "see" it happening doesn't mean it won't or isn't now.
A few links for those with blinders on....
Conn. couple seeks to dissolve union
Another
ACLU FAQ
Note the following...
If we get married in Massachusetts, should we sue to force the state to recognize our marriage?
Before you begin any kind of case about your marriage, you should contact the ACLU or one of the other LGBT legal organizations. You may have a good claim that should be brought, but it?s also possible to do serious harm by suing. In 1997, an Alaskan couple sued the state for the right to marry. After they won a preliminary hearing, the state, with a 71% majority, passed a constitutional amendment, banning same-sex marriage. That ended the case. It also prevents any state court or the state legislature from ever allowing same-sex marriage until the people vote to change the state constitution again. The state has even used the constitutional amendment as an excuse not to recognize domestic partnerships.
If you think you would like to be involved in a case to have your marriage recognized in your home state, contact us by phone at (212) 549-2627 or by e-mail at [email protected].
I don't know about you, but when I see it in the frequently asked questions along with an e-mail, phone number and a solicitation, then I "see" it happening.
Perhaps, since you would likely have to go to Massachussetts in order to dissolve your marriage (or perhaps Vermont or California, if they choose to recognize Massachusetts gay marriages as valid under the legal constructs of their own domestic partnership/civil union laws).
Your concerns have played out already regarding civil unions, and the system has held up. Your concerns are absurd and invalid.
Perhaps you don't consider the fact that both Massachussetts and Vermont have one year residency requirements and they will not begin to grant you a divorce until you are a resident. That means one of the two married partners has to go live in the state for a year or two in order to get a divorce.
Again the system won't hold up to this, and hasn't held up to this. Very few people want to spend one to two years getting a divorce and have to move to do so.
Here's a few more instances where the "system" isn't holding up.
Mountain Pride
Washington Times
In truth, it's all just rooted in your well-documented mysoginy and hatred of gays. You're just trying to gussy it up with flaccid legal "reasoning."
You can let name calling and personal attacks substitute for reality since you don't wish to truly look into the matter. However I have posted incidences from many different sources and many different parts of the country to show that the legal issues and suing to resolve them is indeed taking place.
Nick