SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 5 - 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 09-29-2008, 02:53 AM   #61
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popmartijn View Post
Here you can watch the full clip: Clip: Sarah Palin Meets 'Bono, the King of Ireland'

Yes, it does include a Bono reference.
How did this post end up in this thread? I thought I posted it in the Palin thread (it even quotes a post from that one).
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 03:01 AM   #62
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Sorry, I must've miscategorized it when I was selecting which posts to keep and which ones to split off. I've moved it back.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 03:08 AM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Do you think the reason why suffragists and black civil rights activists were willing to expend all that time and effort (and in the latter case, lives as well) securing the passage of the 19th Amendment, or the 1964 Civil Rights Act, was because they believed wholeheartedly in the rights of men and whites to decide whether women and blacks were worthy of equal legal status?
Perhaps there are core democratic principles that must be observed even in the face of injustice. Perhaps taking too strong a judicial action against the will of the people actually begins to undermine principles of self-governance in the first place.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 03:13 AM   #64
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Sorry, I must've miscategorized it when I was selecting which posts to keep and which ones to split off. I've moved it back.
Ah, I see. Thanks!
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 09:37 AM   #65
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 02:39 PM
If I had a dollar for every time gay marriage was discussed here, I could have my own fabulous wedding-Vera Wang gown, imported flowers, Waterford crystal. Just leave out the husband..
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 10:53 AM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Perhaps there are core democratic principles that must be observed even in the face of injustice. Perhaps taking too strong a judicial action against the will of the people actually begins to undermine principles of self-governance in the first place.
Which takes me to one of my earliest points. And this is a complex topic so excuse my just being able to touch on some points.

Increasingly our ideal of society is becoming less that of a liberal democracy and more of a cultural or social democracy. If a liberal democracy aims for a self-governing people based on majority rule, individual rights, limited government and a reasonably patriotic populace willing to defend (militarily and intellectually) their way of life. Cultural or social democracies, above all else, strive for a diverse society. Borders and citizenship become less important. Justice is no longer defined as equality of opportunity but equality of result. Remedies for sexism and racism are less seen to be coming from the rule of law and more as an institutionalized problem with the only remedy being to discredit and completely change or remove what are now seen as the systemic oppressive structures of families, churches, businesses, schools, government and the courts themselves.

Identity politics, income redistribution, quotas, denigrating widely held traditions and moral codes, victimology, political correctness, speech codes, immigration beyond what can be assimilated, bigger government, and judicial activism are all attacks on liberal democracy.

Maybe that's what Senator Obama means when in his June 3rd address in Minneapolis he said
Quote:
"This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.
Remake?

Or when he describes what he will look for in a Supreme court justice,
Quote:
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
Not, apparently, the ability to apply the law without prejudice.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 11:13 AM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
This seems like a dodge--if you're going to say that the legislative route is the model to follow, then you're pretty clearly saying that imposing that restriction is acceptable.

Do you think the reason why suffragists and black civil rights activists were willing to expend all that time and effort (and in the latter case, lives as well) securing the passage of the 19th Amendment, or the 1964 Civil Rights Act, was because they believed wholeheartedly in the rights of men and whites to decide whether women and blacks were worthy of equal legal status? That they wanted to make sure their rightful superiors were the ones to decide whether to let them into the club?
Two different issues. black Americans were, and still are, a clear minority. Women on the other hand, while without the vote, made up half or more of the population. Women's suffrage crawled along because for many decades most American women ignored it and even organized against it. For example, a Massachusetts referendum organized by suffragists to prove that women wanted the vote took place in 1895 (both men and women were allowed to cast a vote for this) and it lost 187,000 to 110,000 with only 23,000 women voting.

For most of the suffrage movement of the late 1800's, men weren't denying women the ballot, women were.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 11:15 AM   #68
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,296
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Not, apparently, the ability to apply the law without prejudice.
Why does one go to the exclusion of the other to you?

The courts constantly look at social factors and social studies in writing their decisions (or opinions as they are called in the US). You act as if the law exists in a vacuum and shouldn't take into account anything other than the legislation when it has never, ever been that way in our common law system.

For all the whining about judicial activism, I find that usually the people who are loudest about it have the poorest sense of legal history.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 09-29-2008, 11:34 AM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Why does one go to the exclusion of the other to you?

The courts constantly look at social factors and social studies in writing their decisions (or opinions as they are called in the US). You act as if the law exists in a vacuum and shouldn't take into account anything other than the legislation when it has never, ever been that way in our common law system.

For all the whining about judicial activism, I find that usually the people who are loudest about it have the poorest sense of legal history.

A nice summary from Wiki,
Quote:
Lady Justice is often depicted wearing a blindfold. This is done in order to indicate that justice is (or should be) meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of the identity, power, or weakness: blind justice and blind impartiality.
Quote:
Lady Justice is most often depicted with a set of weighing scales typically suspended from her left hand, upon which she measures the strengths of a case's support and opposition. She is also often seen carrying a double-edged sword in her right hand, symbolizing the power of Reason and Justice, which may be wielded either for or against any party.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 11:44 AM   #70
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
And this is a complex topic so excuse my just being able to touch on some points.

you know what? it's not complex at all. it's extremely simple. homosexuals are barred from the institution of marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. there are many rights and tax incentives bestowed upon married couples. a gay person cannot in good faith marry any other person besides their chosen same-sex partner. thus, entrance into the institution of marriage must be expanded to allow gay people and their chosen same sex partner.

and it ends right there. that's all. everything else is hysterical window dressing. you'll find that all of your concerns about longstanding moral traditions or whatever turns out to be nonsense when you actually get to know gay people and their partners and you realize that they're not *any* different from you and your opposite sex partner.

that's really what it comes down to. all these arguments put forth are rooted in ignorance, in the fundamental conviction that there's something different and thusly inferior about same sex couples than there is about opposite sex couples.

there is nothing, NOTHING, a same sex couple can't do that an opposite sex couple can do. have biological children? firstly, this has *never* been a requirement for marriage, and secondly, it's quite possible to have a child that is fathered or mothered by one of the two partners.

there is no argument against same sex marriage other than one either rooted in bigotry and ignorance, or in a Draconian conservative viewpoint that demands that we not meddle with any and all institutions, the kind of viewpoint that would still be fine with slavery.

humanity evolves. we understand women different today than they were understood 200 years ago. the same for blacks. the same for any group. why there is such resistance to full equality for gay citizens -- which *has* to come in this particular arena, along with employment and housing -- can only be rooted in prejudice.



Quote:
Identity politics, income redistribution, quotas, denigrating widely held traditions and moral codes, victimology, immigration beyond what can be assimilated, bigger government, and judicial activism are all attacks on liberal democracy.

nah, not attacks on liberal democracy. just the typical laundry list of conservative buzz words meant to distract from the actual issues, and then this laundry list is turned around and used to defend things like picking Sarah Palin or using judges to overturn the DC handgun ban or expanding government for the DHS or governments powers to wiretap or to give welfare to corporations or wealthy CEOs or seeking to gain the vote of individuals who are threatened by anyone who is different from them by giving them an easily identified "other" to rally against and define their communities against (mexicans, blacks, gays).

you're just defending your own set of special interests, this is a very non-specific sideshow.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 11:47 AM   #71
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

A nice summary from Wiki,



you realize that Lady Justice is about treating all people the same under the law, regardless of their race, class, creed, orientation, etc. it's about the "identity, power or weakness" of the individual on trial.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 11:48 AM   #72
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,296
Local Time: 02:39 PM
INDY, I don't think those quotes stand for what you think they stand for.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 09-29-2008, 12:07 PM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:39 PM
I think understand the concept of blind justice, blind impartiality and weighing the evidence and it has nothing to do with justices having heart and empathy.


Court is hereby adjourned for the start of my 80 hour rotation.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 12:23 PM   #74
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I think understand the concept of blind justice, blind impartiality and weighing the evidence and it has nothing to do with justices having heart and empathy.


no, it's about all people are to be treated the same under the law.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 12:46 PM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
The courts constantly look at social factors and social studies in writing their decisions (or opinions as they are called in the US). You act as if the law exists in a vacuum and shouldn't take into account anything other than the legislation when it has never, ever been that way in our common law system.
So you're saying the courts *should* evaluate social factors and studies in writing their decisions or opinions? Including the fact that the social definition of family over several thousand years has been best articulated as both a mother and father who love each other and their children?
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
 

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 02:39 PM.


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