SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 24 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-11-2008, 08:08 PM   #346
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:50 AM
The underlying debate really is about the morality of the issue. At least that's the conclusion I'm drawing after reading the martha/INDY back and forth. INDY's point about the Supreme Court trumping the will of the people makes sense if they're foisting something of questionable moral worth upon the people. If something that is morally questionable is going to become the law of the land, then it darn well better be the will of the people and not a handful of judges making that call.

On the other hand, if there is no moral issue connected to homosexuality then the morality is exclusively focused on rights being denied individuals. At that point (as in the civil rights cases) the courts must act to defend what is right even if the majority of the people aren't yet willing to go along.

Should be an ideal opportunity for someone to talk about how right and wrong extend beyond whatever the majority happens to think at the time. It would seem there is a higher standard than the "will of the people"?
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 08:21 PM   #347
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 07:50 AM
Excellent work on breaking this down to the crux of the issue, Sean.

Really can't make it much clearer than that.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 10:57 PM   #348
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 08:50 AM
INDY seems to be fundamentally and completely opposed to the common law legal system. That is the only thing one can infer from his comments about an "unelected" majority of judges making decisions.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-12-2008, 12:35 AM   #349
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
INDY seems to be fundamentally and completely opposed to the common law legal system. That is the only thing one can infer from his comments about an "unelected" majority of judges making decisions.
i was going to write a response to this thread about how judicial review and injunctions shaped the u.s. labor movement (in addition to things already mentioned here, i.e. the civil rights movement). "activist judges" certainly aren't a recent phenomenon, and libruls do not have a monopoly on them. your post is much more succinct however.
__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 10-12-2008, 12:58 AM   #350
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
INDY seems to be fundamentally and completely opposed to the common law legal system. That is the only thing one can infer from his comments about an "unelected" majority of judges making decisions.
But see, I don't think he is. Not anymore than you're fundamentally and completely opposed to the legislative branch making the laws.

As I said in my earlier post, there's actually another argument going on underneath the surface of this one about the morality of the issue at hand. What I think is really happening is that INDY sees homosexuality as a moral issue on par with say, adultery, and his belief is that if an issue of dubious morality is going to be enshrined in law it should be done by the people not the courts. (Sorry to speak for you, INDY. . .feel free to correct me if you think I've got it wrong). On the other hand he sees segregation as morally wrong and therefore doesn't object to the courts stepping in as they did in Brown vs. Board of Education and other similar cases.

If he had the stand you're claiming he does he'd be saying things like, "Well, yes, the courts shouldn't have ruled in those civil rights cases. As abohorrent as segregation is it should have been left to the people to decide when to end it rather than to activist judges."

But somehow I don't think he's going to say that.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-12-2008, 03:37 AM   #351
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 05:50 AM
edit I want to think about this response a little more.
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 10-12-2008, 05:06 AM   #352
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
But see, I don't think he is. Not anymore than you're fundamentally and completely opposed to the legislative branch making the laws.

As I said in my earlier post, there's actually another argument going on underneath the surface of this one about the morality of the issue at hand. What I think is really happening is that INDY sees homosexuality as a moral issue on par with say, adultery, and his belief is that if an issue of dubious morality is going to be enshrined in law it should be done by the people not the courts. (Sorry to speak for you, INDY. . .feel free to correct me if you think I've got it wrong). On the other hand he sees segregation as morally wrong and therefore doesn't object to the courts stepping in as they did in Brown vs. Board of Education and other similar cases.

If he had the stand you're claiming he does he'd be saying things like, "Well, yes, the courts shouldn't have ruled in those civil rights cases. As abohorrent as segregation is it should have been left to the people to decide when to end it rather than to activist judges."

But somehow I don't think he's going to say that.
Civil liberties are not granted by popular whim when "morally wrongs" outweigh "dubious morality", they're inherent rights in a Constitution. If a law is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional, regardless of whether people think homosexuality's icky or gross or not.

This logic legitimized in the 1950s would've kept racial laws from being repealed by the courts. These weren't written just for kicks, the racists wrote them because they DID think things like interracial marriage were "morally dubious". Therefore, they need to be enshrined or repealed by the people/legislature. Therefore:

Quote:
Well, yes, the courts shouldn't have ruled in those civil rights cases. As abohorrent as segregation is it should have been left to the people to decide when to end it rather than to activist judges.
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 10-12-2008, 11:34 AM   #353
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:50 AM
2 questions, INDY:

1. why did you want to get married?
2. what did you think about the overturning of the handgun ban in Washington DC?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-12-2008, 11:47 AM   #354
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
But see, I don't think he is. Not anymore than you're fundamentally and completely opposed to the legislative branch making the laws.
I honestly have no idea what you're getting at here. I have never complained about the legislative branch making laws - hello that's the foundation of the system! The legislative branch passes laws which, in turn, have to pass constitutional muster in order to be valid. It is my belief, based on legal reasoning, that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional in California - now if you want to amend your constitution to make the ban constitutional, go right ahead. You'd be living in a backwards state, but you would be within your legal right of doing so. Therefore I really don't get your point here at all.

INDY seems to believe that unelected judges should not have, within their authority, the power to strike down laws (apparently even if they conclude that they are unconstitutional). My point is that if he feels this way, then perhaps he's better off functioning in a civil law system, where all laws are codified in statute by legislatures.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-12-2008, 10:50 PM   #355
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I honestly have no idea what you're getting at here. I have never complained about the legislative branch making laws - hello that's the foundation of the system! The legislative branch passes laws which, in turn, have to pass constitutional muster in order to be valid. It is my belief, based on legal reasoning, that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional in California - now if you want to amend your constitution to make the ban constitutional, go right ahead. You'd be living in a backwards state, but you would be within your legal right of doing so. Therefore I really don't get your point here at all.

INDY seems to believe that unelected judges should not have, within their authority, the power to strike down laws (apparently even if they conclude that they are unconstitutional). My point is that if he feels this way, then perhaps he's better off functioning in a civil law system, where all laws are codified in statute by legislatures.
I know you've never complained about the legislative branch making laws. My point is that INDY would like to frame your argument that way. My point is that INDY claims to be against so-called judicial activism but I think that he's only opposed to it when certain issues are at stake. I'm arguing that his belief that homosexuality is wrong is REALLY what's undergirding his opposition to the courts striking down these laws.

But maybe I should just let him speak for himself . . .
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-12-2008, 10:54 PM   #356
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 08:50 AM
It's hard to tell with him since anytime martha asked an equivalent question from the past, he brushes it aside by saying he wasn't around then or some such.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-12-2008, 11:06 PM   #357
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
My point is that INDY claims to be against so-called judicial activism but I think that he's only opposed to it when certain issues are at stake.



hence, why conservatives never really want to discuss the revocation of the DC handgun ban.

no one in DC wants handguns to be legal. there's far and away enough murder in this town. but some guy sued, and guess what, the SCOTUS affirmed the fact that, yes, there is a right to buy and own a firearm in DC.

but i guess Republicans prefer murder to marriage?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-12-2008, 11:38 PM   #358
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
hence, why conservatives never really want to discuss the revocation of the DC handgun ban.

no one in DC wants handguns to be legal. there's far and away enough murder in this town. but some guy sued, and guess what, the SCOTUS affirmed the fact that, yes, there is a right to buy and own a firearm in DC.

but i guess Republicans prefer murder to marriage?
I support both, but wouldn't his hypocrisy be matched by those who oppose gun rights in DC but support gay marriage through the courts?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 12:11 AM   #359
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I know you've never complained about the legislative branch making laws. My point is that INDY would like to frame your argument that way. My point is that INDY claims to be against so-called judicial activism but I think that he's only opposed to it when certain issues are at stake. I'm arguing that his belief that homosexuality is wrong is REALLY what's undergirding his opposition to the courts striking down these laws.

But maybe I should just let him speak for himself . . .
I think melon has more or less said this before, though slightly more scathingly, stating that a bigot would never identify oneself as a bigot.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 09:39 AM   #360
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I support both, but wouldn't his hypocrisy be matched by those who oppose gun rights in DC but support gay marriage through the courts?

the principles are the same, but these are totally different issues. so while the principle of judicial activism, or not, applies, the benefits vs. costs are entirely different. so each issues should be debated on it's merits, and with the DC gun issue, there's a more pertinent public safety issue at play, imho.

again, marriage vs. murder.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com