SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage

[indra]

Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT

For me, there's more to it than just this and it is not just an issues of religion or bias or whatever other BS that typically gets thrown out. I have chosen not to get in to my questions and thought process on the conservative side because 1. its too much to try to type and express in a post without it being unclear or misunderstood. 2. I'm not in the mood to have my views and the process I am using to decide what I want to do called venomous or biased or the like. As I said before, I respect everyones opinion even if it does not agree with mine. It's a shame that that there are some on here that are unable to do likewise. Seems more that a little ironic that you are fighting for gay rights and want conservatives, to respect their rights and opinions even if they don't agree with them but you cannot do the same for the conservative rights and opinions that you do not agree with. The word hypocritical comes to mind.

You got me on one thing -- I cheerfully admit that I do not respect opinions I find vile or asinine. I don't respect such opinions at all -- never have and never will. I do respect the right of all people to hold whatever opinions they wish to hold, no matter how mean spirited or idiotic those opinions are.

However, the respect I was talking about in my other post was a more basic respect -- the respect each and every person gets merely for being human. That respect means that everyone gets the same treatment in very basic areas -- that is, everyone gets access to food, shelter, health care, basic security, companionship, etc. To deny gays and lesbians the opportunity to marry (ie, have companionship the same way as straights) is to consider them second class citizens and shows a lack of respect no platitudes can ever compensate for.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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?

(sorry about delay in response but a heavy work schedule and a post-season engine teardown has keep me busy and will continue to into next week)

If you can find a "right to privacy" or "same-sex marriage" in the U.S. Constitution but not the "right of the People to keep and bear arms"...
...youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu might be a liberal.

Irvine, you hint that I object only to judicial activism that I personally disagree with. Well, I hint that maybe you lack understanding of the difference between a "discovered right" and a "restored right."

D.C. residents once enjoyed the right to own handguns -- a right most Americans outside of Washington D.C. enjoy actually. And unlike the "discovered right" of abortion or gay marriage, gun ownership is an enumerated right.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Precedent that it is an individual and not a collective right goes back as far as 1822's Bliss v Commonwealth of Ky.

D.C. v Heller only reestablished that:

a) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to posses a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes.

b) The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. Laws imposing conditions on sales, barring possession by felons, the mentally ill or in sensitive places are not affected by the ruling.

c) A total ban on handgun possession prohibits the type of arms that Americans overwhelmingly prefer for self-defense and protection. The right to self-defense is a natural (universal) right and the right to keep firearms an enumerated right. Thus the D.C. ban was both unnatural and unconstitutional and the right of it's residents to do such IS NOW RESTORED.

Nice try.

[martha]

Originally Posted by INDY500

If you can find a "right to privacy" .... in the U.S. Constitution

I can find a right to privacy in the California Constitution.


Now, what about the rest of the posts you're not addressing?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

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 . . .

Well, I appreciate your attempt at explaining my position in my absence but I'm afraid you got it wrong. See above post about the difference between making up rights and restoring rights. I've gone into this before and I can't write all I'd like to at this time but I think this is important. Read my earlier posts but I'll clarify here as well.

I am being consistent. Brown v Board of Education was NOT judicial activism but also was only restoring rights promised and then taken away. The judicial activism of the U.S. Supreme Court was in 1883, 71 YEARS EARLIER, when the court began to strike down the foundations of post-Civil War Reconstruction. First declaring the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional. Second, Plessy v Ferguson 1896. FYMers, how many of you realize this is where the term "separate but equal" that gets thrown around here all the time comes from? And like "a right to privacy," "separate but equal" is not in the Fourteenth Amendment but became law only through (drum roll please) judicial activism. And oh how we paid for it because from this ruling sprang the Jim Crow laws in the South and systemic segregation and discrimination.

1954's Brown v Board of Education was the beginning of a process to RESTORE RIGHTS that picked up steam as the Executive Branch, under the Attorney General and Justice Dept, went after racial segregationalists and the KKK and the Legislative Branch which passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968.

Again, I'm being consistent.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by martha

I can find a right to privacy in the California Constitution.


Now, what about the rest of the posts you're not addressing?

I'm still waiting for YOUR definition of marriage. The one that doesn't exclude loving people, cast prejudice or impose the tyranny of the majority on a minority.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Nice try.

there is that whole "equal protection" thingy, but it's clear that you're picking and choosing which "judicial activism" you like, and that which you don't.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

I'm still waiting for YOUR definition of marriage. The one that doesn't exclude loving people, cast prejudice or impose the tyranny of the majority on a minority.

why did you get married INDY?

(assuming you are ... i think you've said you are)

why?

[yolland]

nm

[Irvine511]

i still want to know why people want to get married.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by martha

Of course, you left out the equal protection clause of all these constitutions. Or are you the one who gets to choose who that applies to?

You are amusing.

Are you the one that gets to decide who the right to life applies to?

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Well, I appreciate your attempt at explaining my position in my absence but I'm afraid you got it wrong. See above post about the difference between making up rights and restoring rights. I've gone into this before and I can't write all I'd like to at this time but I think this is important. Read my earlier posts but I'll clarify here as well.

I am being consistent. Brown v Board of Education was NOT judicial activism but also was only restoring rights promised and then taken away. The judicial activism of the U.S. Supreme Court was in 1883, 71 YEARS EARLIER, when the court began to strike down the foundations of post-Civil War Reconstruction. First declaring the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional. Second, Plessy v Ferguson 1896. FYMers, how many of you realize this is where the term "separate but equal" that gets thrown around here all the time comes from? And like "a right to privacy," "separate but equal" is not in the Fourteenth Amendment but became law only through (drum roll please) judicial activism. And oh how we paid for it because from this ruling sprang the Jim Crow laws in the South and systemic segregation and discrimination.

1954's Brown v Board of Education was the beginning of a process to RESTORE RIGHTS that picked up steam as the Executive Branch, under the Attorney General and Justice Dept, went after racial segregationalists and the KKK and the Legislative Branch which passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968.

Again, I'm being consistent.

Fair enough. I know it's poor form to presume to speak for some one else. There was no offense intended, and I hope none was taken.

I'd to probe your argument a little bit though. Would it be fair to say then that if the 14th Amendment hadn't been passed (which it might not have if the Southern states hadn't been represented by those sympathetic to Reconstruction) you would then oppose the actions of the Supreme Court during the Civil Rights era because the rights would be discovered and rather then restored?

And how would you argue that the rights of blacks and whites to go to school together or to eat in the same restaurant or to marry each other are protected by the 14th Amendment but the rights of gays to marry are not?

[Irvine511]

it seems like "judicial activism" is thrown only at rulings that we don't seem to like very much.

[martha]

I wasted five minutes of my life reading about Joe the Moron Plumber this morning. Turns out he's a single parent. I thought children had a "right" to a dad AND a mom. (At least that's what the SoCAl Chinese Christian Association's Flyer said yesterday.)

Won't somebody think of his child?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by martha

I wasted five minutes of my life reading about Joe the Moron Plumber this morning. Turns out he's a single parent. I thought children had a "right" to a dad AND a mom. (At least that's what the SoCAl Chinese Christian Association's Flyer said yesterday.)

Won't somebody think of his child?

his children will spend their lives aching for the special gift that only a mother brings, and for the magical alchemy that two heterosex parents create that will save them from a life of crime, drugs, and low self-esteem.

if we don't codify the ideal, and make illegal anything that differs from it, then society is as doomed as Joe the Plumber's kids.

[MrsSpringsteen]

I read something yesterday that made so much sense to me. "Marriage isn't about finding the right person, it's about being the right person".

Aspiring to that isn't a heterosexual only trait, or privilege, or right

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

there is that whole "equal protection" thingy

Again, under the traditional definition of marriage, homosexuals already have equal protection as they are just as free to marry as a heterosexual is. This is not about equal protection but about redefining marriage.

But, as our laws do grant certain legal rights and benefits to married couples, I feel equal protection arguments are germane. Which is why I support civil unions (many religious conservative do not.) You then say civil unions are "2nd class" or somehow inferior. I say no, just different. The term Marriage must mean something or it means nothing.

it's clear that you're picking and choosing which "judicial activism" you like, and that which you don't.

How you can apply the term "judicial activism" to a constructivist ruling that simply confirms an enumerated constitutional right (that means you can actually find it there) is beyond me.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by yolland

nm

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Again, under the traditional definition of marriage, homosexuals already have equal protection as they are just as free to marry as a heterosexual is. This is not about equal protection but about redefining marriage.

But, as our laws do grant certain legal rights and benefits to married couples, I feel equal protection arguments are germane. Which is why I support civil unions (many religious conservative do not.) You then say civil unions are "2nd class" or somehow inferior. I say no, just different. The term Marriage must mean something or it means nothing.

How you can apply the term "judicial activism" to a constructivist ruling that simply confirms an enumerated constitutional right (that means you can actually find it there) is beyond me.

What do you mean 'marriage must mean something'? Are you saying that if gay marriage is allowed, then all of a sudden marriage doesn't mean anything anymore? That's absurd. Marriage is still the legal joining and lifetime commitment of two people who love each other, whether gay people are allowed to marry each other or not.

As for your last comment...you're going against your own point. There are things written in the constitution that should already provide that gay marriage is permitted, even though that right isn't spelled out verbatim. "All men are created equal." "Equal protection." Etc. Furthermore, gay marriage is not outlawed verbatim by the constitution either. This is a matter of interpretation. You always say the legislative branch should be the branch to make these decisions and not the judicial branch. But the legislative branch writes new law or gets rid of existing law. That's not what's needed here. There's no law against gay marriage, technically speaking, and there's already grounds in the constitution that should allow for gay marriage, so this is a matter of interpretation, not legislation. It is perfectly within the bounds and rights of the judicial branch to look at the constitution or a state constitution and say, 'hey, you've been reading this wrong, it allows for this, court adjourned.'

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Again, under the traditional definition of marriage, homosexuals already have equal protection as they are just as free to marry as a heterosexual is. This is not about equal protection but about redefining marriage.

is this something you really want to encourage?

But, as our laws do grant certain legal rights and benefits to married couples, I feel equal protection arguments are germane. Which is why I support civil unions (many religious conservative do not.) You then say civil unions are "2nd class" or somehow inferior. I say no, just different. The term Marriage must mean something or it means nothing.

whites had white schools, blacks had black schools.

why must you maintain your assumption of superiority? is that how you define marriage? as "better than a civil union!" i know that some heterosexuals -- as do racist, for example -- derive a portion of personal pride in not being a member of a discriminated against minority. "i might be a criminal, but at least i'm no faggot."

but is this really a good thing? is this much of a "defense" of marriage at all?

could you show me how, exactly, the "meaning" of marriage has been destroyed in Masschusetts? please cite specific examples and show me the many straight marriages that have been ended by the apathy and disinterest caused by the lessening of the status of a heteorsexual relationship by reducing it to the level of a mere homosexual coupling. and cite your sources, please. after all, this isn't wild speculation based on fear, ignorance, and loathing on your part. you can back this up. you have real examples. now's your chance -- go for it.

How you can apply the term "judicial activism" to a constructivist ruling that simply confirms an enumerated constitutional right (that means you can actually find it there) is beyond me.

on this we agree. how can you throw "judicial activism" that confirms the right to equal protection under the law.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

Fair enough. I know it's poor form to presume to speak for some one else. There was no offense intended, and I hope none was taken.

Not a problem, you gave it a try and clearly stated you were only trying to make my argument in my absence. You did a better job than I could do making a liberal argument. Here's what I would add.

While I have every right to seek laws that reflect my own moral believes, as does everyone, they must be done consistent to the form of government we live under. A constitutional democracy. Our constitution not only enumerates protected rights, but clearly defines the roles of the three branches of government. So a court that "makes law" by "discovering a right" is guilty of a double no-no.

I'd to probe your argument a little bit though. Would it be fair to say then that if the 14th Amendment hadn't been passed (which it might not have if the Southern states hadn't been represented by those sympathetic to Reconstruction) you would then oppose the actions of the Supreme Court during the Civil Rights era because the rights would be discovered and rather then restored?

Again, MLK's "Promised Land" was one that existed from our founding.

(from I Have A Dream speech)
When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.
This note was a promise that all men -- yes, black men as well as white men -- would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

This promise was also written into law after Reconstruction with the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Sadly the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified to strengthen the 1875 law, was instead used to weaken it. And this was done through JUDICAL ACTIVISM and the discovery of "separate but equal."

While it would certainly be fair to say that liberals pushed civil rights during the 60's over the objection of many conservatives (many of whom were Southern Democrats.) It would be wrong to credit these advances to judicial activism. Restoring "promised" rights isn't activism, especially when acting in tandem with the Executive and Legislative branches.

And how would you argue that the rights of blacks and whites to go to school together or to eat in the same restaurant or to marry each other are protected by the 14th Amendment but the rights of gays to marry are not?

It's simply a false comparison. Races aren't inherently different -- the sexes most definitely are.

It would be like arguing against separate public bathrooms for males and females in the year 2008 because 60 years ago, in much of the country, there were separate public bathrooms for Blacks and Whites. I suppose there might be good reasons to have unisex bathrooms... but that would not be one of 'em.