SPLIT--> Judicial Review & Gay Marriage - 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 10-12-2007, 05:43 PM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer


That defines a secular government with free speefch, not only does it disallow a state church it also prevents the state from promoting or persecuting religious views and practices (provided that they arent violating the secular law of the land); and this extends to promoting biblical law over secular law.

It extends over other issues when property rights and individual rights are crushed over religious sensibilites (blue laws, sodomy laws and gay marriage for instance). The status quo that you are justifying is being erased by the courts as unconstitutional; and that extends to the pledge of alligence explicitely referencing one nation under God.
The framers never intended, as you suggest, that all -- including even the most benign -- references to God be removed from all official government business or political discourse. It certainly isn't the way they wrote, talked or carried on with the running of the Federal government.

And why, using your logic, if on day 1 of a HRC administration the Federal government passed a law making same-sex marriage legal, wouldn't that new law be "promoting the religious views and practices" of the million member United Church of Christ (which supports same-sex marriage) over those of the Southern Baptist, Mormon and Roman Catholic Church which do not? And thus unconstitutional.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-12-2007, 05:48 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


And why, using your logic, if on day 1 of a HRC administration the Federal government passed a law making same-sex marriage legal, wouldn't that new law be "promoting the religious views and practices" of the million member United Church of Christ (which supports same-sex marriage) over those of the Southern Baptist, Mormon and Roman Catholic Church which do not? And thus unconstitutional.
Are you actually serious??

The fact that a Church supports or sanctiones a certain practice does not make that a religious practice. Churches certainly support penalties for domestic violence, but that doesn't make a domestic violence law unconstitutional on account of its religious practice. Churches certainly support that their members shouldn't steal; that doesn't mean that embezzlement laws are unconstitutional because of their religious practice.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-12-2007, 05:50 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


The framers never intended, as you suggest, that all -- including even the most benign -- references to God be removed from all official government business or political discourse. It certainly isn't the way they wrote, talked or carried on with the running of the Federal government.

And why, using your logic, if on day 1 of a HRC administration the Federal government passed a law making same-sex marriage legal, wouldn't that new law be "promoting the religious views and practices" of the million member United Church of Christ (which supports same-sex marriage) over those of the Southern Baptist, Mormon and Roman Catholic Church which do not? And thus unconstitutional.
The justification for gay marriage is one of equality, namely that of homosexuals to consensually agree to a marriage contract and recieve the same legal recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples, the push for gay marraige is not being pushed as one justified as law by religion it is one of civil rights. The opponents of gay marriage may frame their arguments in secular terms for formal opposition and there are definitely non religious people who take issue with it but the majority of the grass roots campaigning justifies the opposition on the basis of religious belief, besides which it is arguing in favour of harmful discrimination which should not be allowed by the government.

I think that it is very telling that Jesus doesn't get a mention by the founding fathers with a bare few references to a creator and natures god while in god we trust and one nation under god only get slipped into place long after it was started. Retroactively casting America as a Christianist nation runs into trouble with the primary documents.

As for your example perhaps a Federal law is the wrong manner either way (in terms of states rights) but whatever happens none of the churches opposing would be forced to sanction gay marriage, if the state was forcing the Catholic Church to marry gays it would be an issue, but that is not what you defined as the issue.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-12-2007, 05:56 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


The framers never intended,

using your logic,

I know we all grow up hearing certain phases

and just accept them

without any critical thinking


but, please just entertain this thought

How do you think these people (founders) (and they never called themselves framers, that word would probably make them laugh their arses off)

again how do you think these people would have reacted

if you told them they had to abide by what someone was imagining a group of people meant when they wrote a document in 1500, and any deviation from that was not allowed, because it was not their intent?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-12-2007, 06:03 PM   #5
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


And why, using your logic, if on day 1 of a HRC administration the Federal government passed a law making same-sex marriage legal, wouldn't that new law be "promoting the religious views and practices" of the million member United Church of Christ (which supports same-sex marriage) over those of the Southern Baptist, Mormon and Roman Catholic Church which do not? And thus unconstitutional.
You really don't believe this "logic" do you?

This was a joke, right?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-12-2007, 06:15 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 12:35 AM
I think it's important at some point in the near future, for someone in the lexicon of important popular political minds to clearly distinguish what a secular government actually means.

To clearly define it amongst our poltical discourse in the U.S.

It is not in the advantage of religous conservatives to do so.
Losing issue.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 10-12-2007, 06:21 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



I know we all grow up hearing certain phases

and just accept them

without any critical thinking


but, please just entertain this thought

How do you think these people (founders) (and they never called themselves framers, that word would probably make them laugh their arses off)

again how do you think these people would have reacted

if you told them they had to abide by what someone was imagining a group of people meant when they wrote a document in 1500, and any deviation from that was not allowed, because it was not their intent?
Framers signifies those that actually wrote or had input into the wording of the Constitution, over those that but signed it, led armies in the Revolutionary War or were in government at the country's FOUNDING.
Anyway, the "fill in the blank with the noun of your choice" clearly FRAMED a constitution that allowed for amendments and should the need arise, the process for an Constitutional Convention to rewrite the whole thing.
What I think "again fill in the blank" would object to, is 9 unelected people in robes making the country's law.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-12-2007, 06:38 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

What I think "again fill in the blank" would object to, is 9 unelected people in robes making the country's law.
So Brown vs Board of Education and others were bad rulings because we didn't let the States decide? Should the SC never have the ability to intervene? Is it only when one agrees or disagrees with the ruling?

Every decision they make creates law, in that it defines the constitutionality of those cases and/or laws or sets the precedent for them.

I think this whole 'activist judges' issue is a myth created by the far right to beat down certain key issues.

Not every federal law is written in the constitution.
Some constructionists act as if this is so.
What do we expect the Supreme Court to do?

From the Constitution:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. "
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 10-12-2007, 10:18 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


What I think "again fill in the blank" would object to, is 9 unelected people in robes making the country's law.
The do not make laws, they interpret them. Are you familiar with how the common law jurisdictions operate?

"Activist judges" is a mere soundbyte that is thrown around when you happen to disagree with a specific ruling.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-12-2007, 10:43 PM   #10
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 10:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan


So Brown vs Board of Education and others were bad rulings because we didn't let the States decide?

I'm eagerly awaiting his answer to this.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-12-2007, 11:35 PM   #11
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
And why, using your logic, if on day 1 of a HRC administration the Federal government passed a law making same-sex marriage legal, wouldn't that new law be "promoting the religious views and practices" of the million member United Church of Christ (which supports same-sex marriage) over those of the Southern Baptist, Mormon and Roman Catholic Church which do not? And thus unconstitutional.
Good parody of conservative "interpretations" of the constitution.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 10-13-2007, 12:10 AM   #12
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

And why, using your logic, if on day 1 of a HRC administration the Federal government passed a law making same-sex marriage legal, wouldn't that new law be "promoting the religious views and practices" of the million member United Church of Christ (which supports same-sex marriage) over those of the Southern Baptist, Mormon and Roman Catholic Church which do not? And thus unconstitutional.


yes, this of course makes sense because we don't allow atheists to get married.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-13-2007, 12:27 AM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan


So Brown vs Board of Education and others were bad rulings because we didn't let the States decide? Should the SC never have the ability to intervene? Is it only when one agrees or disagrees with the ruling?

Every decision they make creates law, in that it defines the constitutionality of those cases and/or laws or sets the precedent for them.

I think this whole 'activist judges' issue is a myth created by the far right to beat down certain key issues.

Not every federal law is written in the constitution.
Some constructionists act as if this is so.
What do we expect the Supreme Court to do?

[/I] "
Brown v. Board of Education really just overturned the earlier (1896) and awful Supreme Court ruling that upheld institutional segregation (Homer Adolph Plessy v. The State of Louisiana). The same Court that some 30 years before that gave us the Dred Scott decision which voided the Missouri Compromise and spread slavery to the new territories. It took a Civil War and a constitutional amendment to end that bit of "judicial activism."

But if "activist judges" is such a myth, why the contentious partisan fights over judicial nominees in the Senate? Why is it we now have something called a "swing vote" on the Court? Swing between what? And why is the future makeup of the Supreme Court now one of the main issues every 4 years when we elect a president.

Not what the Framers envisioned.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-13-2007, 12:45 AM   #14
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
[B]
Brown v. Board of Education really just overturned the earlier (1896) and awful Supreme Court ruling that upheld institutional segregation (Homer Adolph Plessy v. The State of Louisiana). The same Court that some 30 years before that gave us the Dred Scott decision which voided the Missouri Compromise and spread slavery to the new territories. It took a Civil War and a constitutional amendment to end that bit of "judicial activism."

oh, i see, so it's like overturning Roe V Wade. it's what the framers would have wanted.



[q]But if "activist judges" is such a myth, why the contentious partisan fights over judicial nominees in the Senate? Why is it we now have something called a "swing vote" on the Court? Swing between what? And why is the future makeup of the Supreme Court now one of the main issues every 4 years when we elect a president.[/q]

maybe Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh should have asked Clarence Thomas this when he was hawking his book on their radio shows, or maybe you should ask Rudy this when he swears to place judges who'll over turn that whole RVW thing.

as it turns out, i agree with you, sort of, but this certainly cuts both ways. and i'd say it started with Bork -- a Regan nominee, and as clear a hand-out as anything, ever, to the "Moral Majority" peeps.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-13-2007, 12:56 AM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




yes, this of course makes sense because we don't allow atheists to get married.
I would make a mocking statement about how atheists are supposedly promiscuous drug users but then I remembered that that may not be a bad thing.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer 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 01:35 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