Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional..

[Wyldfire]

Hmm, Gay marriage or "Immigration reform"? Which one is more controvercial and what exactly are we using the smoke and mirrors to cover up?

My opinion is "marriage" is a religeous rite that government should never have become involved in. Church and state, that whole thing. On a purely governmental angle Domestic partnerships are what everyone should be using. You want marriage? Go to your church and have the priest or priestess say the pretty words. You want the legal binding that goes with it go to the county and fill out the domestic partnership papers.

Gender be fucked. For that matter, number of spouses be fucked.

 

[RobDownSouth]

One thing that puzzles me.

Why was it a huge conflict of interest for a judge in Lousiana to rule on oil drilling when he owned some mutual funds containing energy stocks...

...but it's a non-issue if a gay judge rules on whether gay marriage is constitutional? Doesn't he stand to benefit personally?

I don't particularly care about the ruling, but it seems odd that those who were up in arms about the other judge don't seem to care about this, perhaps because of the decision.

I DO love your rather pathetic attempts at false equivalency! They are so charming!

On to business, then!

Now, I've been hammering this concept home with the Vettebigot, perhaps you'll do a bit better.

We're going to talk about two seperate and distinct things here:
1. Protected Classes
2. Conduct

Now here's a simple mnemonic for you to remember:
Protected Class - The Constitution protects my ass
Conduct - Break a law, I'm fucked

Now then, the 14th amendment protects those attributes over which you have no control over: race, gender, sexual orientation....from discrimination via the force of law.

Conduct, on the other hand, is what you voluntarily engage in. It may or may not be regulated by law.

ERGO....a judge chooses to purchase oil company stocks, regulations specify a conflict of interest if he/she were to rule on legal matters affecting oil company stock. Since the judge had a a choice to purchase or not to purchase stock, he was subject to the law due to his conduct.


ON THE OTHER HAND, a female judge may rule on matters related to other females, an African-American judge may rule on matters affecting other African Americans, and a gay judge may rule on matters affecting other gay people and the law will NOT automatically assume bias in the ruling because they had no control over being female, black and gay respectively. I'm not say there COULDN'T be a bias, but it would have to be proven, not assumed.

I hope this lessens your ignorance somewhat!

 

[firespin]

Well, okay.

I still fail to see how this ruling negatively affects anyone at all.

That's not relevant to the question of whether the judge stood to gain personally.

Since the judge had a a choice to purchase or not to purchase stock, he was subject to the law due to his conduct.

(redacted large block of irrelevant text.)

In both cases, the issue is whether there is the appearance that the judge stands to gain personally based on what they rule...in the case where a judge cannot change the factor causing that issue, then recusal would be even more appropriate, one would think.

A Native American judge would raise the appearance of a conflict of interest if they ruled on an issue that benefited only Native Americans, and there are many other judges who could hear such a case without raising that issue.

 

[Byron In Exile]

"The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to make it keep pace with the advance of the age in science and experience. Instead of this, the European governments have resisted reformation, until the people, seeing no other resource, undertake it themselves by force, their only weapon, and work it out through blood, desolation and long-continued anarchy."

— Thomas Jefferson to Robert J. Garnett, 1824.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Even former Obama lover Peggy Noonan is beginning to worry about us boiling over...




She makes me laugh with each new day of discovery of just how out of touch she has gotten while hob-nobbing with the elite class.

 

[Byron In Exile]

"Can one generation bind another and all others in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not for the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter unendowed with will." — Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." — Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions, I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know, also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times." — Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

 

[Byron In Exile]

"Let us go on perfecting the Constitution by adding, by way of amendment, those forms which time and trial show are still wanting." — Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803.

"Our children will be as wise as we are and will establish in the fulness of time those things not yet ripe for establishment." — Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810.

 

[Byron In Exile]

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." — Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803.

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect; and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them, and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." — Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824.

"We have always a right to correct ancient errors, and to establish what is more conformable to reason and convenience." — Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1801.

"Happily for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers, and set them to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions." — Thomas Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1787.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Byron.





I'm a bisexual. I can't help it, it's biological.

Is it my right to marry one of each?

 

[tomnorthwales]

Byron.





I'm a bisexual. I can't help it, it's biological.

Is it my right to marry one of each?

heh, since when does prop 8 have anything do with polygamy versus monogamy?

 

[Byron In Exile]

Byron.

I'm a bisexual. I can't help it, it's biological.

Is it my right to marry one of each?

You need to petition Justice Kennedy, not me...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I thought he was already married...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

heh, since when does prop 8 have anything do with polygamy versus monogamy?

Because we sicced the army on the Mormons and told them their definition of marriage was against the law...


I'm looking for a woman with three husbands so I can do some skating.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I thought he was already married...

I said "petition," not "proposition..."

Are you sure you're not one of Busybody's famous "Lib Loons"?

'Cause you sure do go on about all that "freedom" shit sometimes...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Not me. Freedom is as pernicious an idea as Democracy.





I'm an Individual Liberty advocate.




And a loon.

 

[tomnorthwales]

Because we sicced the army on the Mormons and told them their definition of marriage was against the law...


I'm looking for a woman with three husbands so I can do some skating.

thanks, now fuck off.

EDIT: what does polygamy have to do with homosexuality. polygamy is not allowed in federal law or the consitution is it?

 

[Ishmael]

What's your point byron, I see nothing in your Jefferson quotations that would indicate that he would advocate judicial advocacy. Taken in conjunction with those quotes that vette posted one could only conclude that the contrary is the case. Quite clearly Jefferson saw legislative and constitutional amendment processes as the way forward.

I would further add that Jefferson was an optomist, that is not an indictment, merely an observation. He, and many of his contemporaries, saw themselves on the leading edge of a new age of reason. I think that like many today he felt that all of the new discoveries in the realm of science would somehow have profound changes in the realm of mans relationship to his government. My position is that nothing has changed in the least. How man interacts with his government has certainly changed, for the better AND for the worse, due to technology but that there has no change in governmental forms at all.

But the issue at hand is NOT whether gay marriage should be legal. I think that the trend is clear, and has been for quite some time, and that gay marriage is an inevitable societal conclussion to the ongoing process of change. Afterall marriage is merely a shotcut to what can already be accomplished by the filing of the proper legal documents. The issue is whether that decision should be made by the people of the several states or by the courts by fiat.

When the courts can render decisions on what the judge(s) believe the consitution meant to say, or by what it infers on subjects on which it is mute, rather than what the document actually says, then we are on our way to a government where elections, all elections, are rendered meaningless beyond the hopes that a different judge for life be appointed. We enter a phase where men who are wholly unaccountable to the people for their actions become a communal monoarchy.

I don't care whether California, or any other state for that matter, decides to allow gays to marry or not. I see that as the proper role of the states and the intent of the founders. I do care whether that change comes about via the people or the courts. The former reflects exactly the evolutionary change that Jefferson discussed, the latter is no different than an edict from the king.

Ishmael

 

[Byron In Exile]

Not me. Freedom is as pernicious an idea as Democracy.

I'm an Individual Liberty advocate.

Well, that's what I meant.

And a loon.

And that, too.

Hope all the Jefferson quotes didn't discombobulate you much.

Did you know he's not a "framer"? ... Write that down...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

thanks, now fuck off.

EDIT: what does polygamy have to do with homosexuality. polygamy is not allowed in federal law or the consitution is it?

Definitions man, definitions...

For example, giving them the full benefits and rights under civil unions was not good enough for the Left. The Left reads the past as an indictment, see the present as tyrannical (the tyranny of the 'moral' majority), and see our only salvation in their ideas. The word "marriage" as this judge pointed out is an indictment of the past, proof of bigotry, and and opening to attack and destroy the present...

Then, we'll have a golden future, until the next liberal radical interest group springs up and claims their marriage "rights" are being violated and their union deserves fair and equal treatment...

What the Left (altruistic moral busybodies) hopes and prays for is that you never, ever get past the emotion of the issue to examine the logic of the issue...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I was a framer...





We bent them back in shape so the body parts would fit...

 

[kbate]

Our Senate just confirmed a Supreme Court Justice - after the Obama administration assured them that she would be a Steady and reliable vote for the Liberal Bloc on the court.

Is there any point in ever arguing judicial activism again? They have made it a virtue and qualification for being on the high courts.

***

As for Prop 8 - it makes little difference who passed a bad law - a slim majority of the people or a slim majority of the legislature. Laws which do not promote or create equal justice for everyone - should be challenged in the courts and overturned if they do not meet that standard.

 

[tomnorthwales]

Definitions man, definitions...

For example, giving them the full benefits and rights under civil unions was not good enough for the Left. The Left reads the past as an indictment, see the present as tyrannical (the tyranny of the 'moral' majority), and see our only salvation in their ideas. The word "marriage" as this judge pointed out is an indictment of the past, proof of bigotry, and and opening to attack and destroy the present...

Then, we'll have a golden future, until the next liberal radical interest group springs up and claims their marriage "rights" are being violated and their union deserves fair and equal treatment...

What the Left (altruistic moral busybodies) hopes and prays for is that you never, ever get past the emotion of the issue to examine the logic of the issue...

that wont happen with bestiality or incest people as they dont form a class, like the gay community/class do. all gay people want is to live in equality, what exactly is the problem with gay marriage? Since church and state are apparently separated under the constitution, then why should religious objection by allowed to be taken into account?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

that wont happen with bestiality or incest people as they dont form a class, like the gay community/class do. all gay people want is to live in equality, what exactly is the problem with gay marriage? Since church and state are apparently separated under the constitution, then why should religious objection by allowed to be taken into account?

I'm an atheist.

I am also 50. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman, has been forever. Check most any dictionary. When ANY definition will do then the definition, a union of some grouping of loving people seeking government benefit, will work equally as well.

We gave them equality and benefit before the law and recognized their partnerships and it wasn't good enough which only proves their motives are not as pure as the wind-driven snow.

It's not like we're going to go to the local Imam and get his blessing and permission to have them stoned over their love like they do where Shaira prevails...

 

[Sean]

I'm an atheist.

I am also 50. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman, has been forever. Check most any dictionary. When ANY definition will do then the definition, a union of some grouping of loving people seeking government benefit, will work equally as well.

We gave them equality and benefit before the law and recognized their partnerships and it wasn't good enough which only proves their motives are not as pure as the wind-driven snow.

It's not like we're going to go to the local Imam and get his blessing and permission to have them stoned over their love like they do where Shaira prevails...

How is allowing gay marriage taking away any of your rights?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

PS - Ours is a Constitution of Individual Liberty, not group rights.




As an individual, any gay is free to marry a woman and any lesbian is free to marry a man and either one of them is perfectly free to enter into a legal contract with someone of the same sex that preserves their "rights" in every legal setting...