|
Click Here to Login |
Register | Premium Upgrade | Blogs | Gallery | Arcade | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Log in |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#361 | |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 08:35 AM
|
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#362 | ||
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:35 AM
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#363 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 05:35 AM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#364 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:35 AM
|
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#365 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:35 AM
|
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#366 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 08:35 AM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#367 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 08:35 AM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#368 |
Forum Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:35 PM
|
nm
|
![]() |
![]() |
#369 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 08:35 AM
|
i still want to know why people want to get married.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#370 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:35 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#371 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,905
Local Time: 07:35 AM
|
Quote:
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? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#372 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 08:35 AM
|
it seems like "judicial activism" is thrown only at rulings that we don't seem to like very much.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#373 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 05:35 AM
|
I wasted five minutes of my life reading about Joe the
Won't somebody think of his child? ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#374 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 08:35 AM
|
Quote:
![]() 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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#375 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,459
Local Time: 07:35 AM
|
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
#376 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:35 AM
|
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. Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#377 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:35 AM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#378 | |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,763
Local Time: 08:35 AM
|
Quote:
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.' |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#379 | |||
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 08:35 AM
|
Quote:
is this something you really want to encourage? Quote:
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. Quote:
on this we agree. how can you throw "judicial activism" that confirms the right to equal protection under the law. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#380 | ||||
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:35 AM
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
||||
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|