Fair and Impartial Jurisprudence in Alabama

[zipman]

What I find particularly entertaining about this fiasco is:

1. Judge Moore is the Chief Justice of the Alabama state supreme Court.
2. His oath is to uphold the Constitution of the state of Alabama
3. The Alabama Constitution specifically recognizes Almighty God
4. Recognizing God is merely Judge Moore complying with his oath of office.[/list=1]Edited to correct typo.

1. 
   
   However, while his oath is to uphold the constitution of Alabama, his termination is due to the fact that he disobeyed the order of a Federal judge to remove the monument. I believe the US constitution supercedes the state constitution when conflicts arise.
   
   In addition, when I looked at the first page of the Alabama constitution, it said "Almighty God" not "The Judeo-Christian God."

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by zipman7
. . . I believe the US constitution supercedes the state constitution when conflicts arise.
. . .

The U. S. Constitution says "Congress shall make no law . . ."

How do you construe and contort that to mean the Federal judiciary may then overturn a state constitution if they feel it is inappropriate? Federal judges are required to rule in matters as the Constitution might conflict. Where is the conflict between prohibition of Congress legislating and the existence of a state constitution?

It seems to me a case where the Federal judge is asserting his personal interpretation because I can see no basis for his ruling in the U. S. Constitution.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

My main man Azzy: I live in Tennessee now. I'm betting 'Bama ain't a hell of a lot different.

Having lived in both places......the answer is.....affirmative!

 

[sunstruck]

An assertion without a reasoned basis is valueless. Care to elucidate a bit as to why it's a bad thing?Since everyone is so insistent on the concept that there is such a thing as Gay Rights perhaps someone can enumerate for me precisely what they are.

What I ask is for someone to cite what these rights are, what is their basis, why do homosexuals warrant these special rights that others don't.[/SIZE]

What special rights? They want EQUAL rights. To marry whom they chose, receive the benefits of that union as do married men and women and to have their union legally recognized.

How is that special? I hate it when people say gays are looking for "special" rights, as if they have the same rights we do and are looking for more when that is bullshit.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by sunstruck
What special rights? They want EQUAL rights. To marry whom they chose, receive the benefits of that union as do married men and women and to have their union legally recognized.

How is that special? I hate it when people say gays are looking for "special" rights, as if they have the same rights we do and are looking for more when that is bullshit.

Then explain to me what the term Gay Rights means if not some special rights that homosexuals deserve or need that others of us don't.

 

[sunstruck]

Then explain to me what the term Gay Rights means if not some special rights that homosexuals deserve or need that others of us don't.

It means equal rights for homosexuals. Just like women's rights, or African American rights or any other.

Why don't you just research it. You'll see what they are asking for is not special at all. They just want to be treated like everyone else.

Show me one right gay activists have asked for that is special or unavailable to straight people.

 

[JazzManJim]

I posted this in a thread on a similar topc not long ago. It might be useful here, too.

I just saw today that the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals (New Orleans) upheld a decision in Texas to allow a 6-feet tall monument with the Ten Commandments on it to remain on the grounds of the capitol building.

The Texas attorney general appeared to have used the same argument as did Judge Moore and won his case.

Interesting.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by sunstruck
It means equal rights for homosexuals. Just like women's rights, or African American rights or any other.

Why don't you just research it. You'll see what they are asking for is not special at all. They just want to be treated like everyone else.

Show me one right gay activists have asked for that is special or unavailable to straight people.

And what is it you think is a right that these people are trying to claim as their just desert?

As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the United States is founded on the principle of equality, upon the recognition of the [meaning every] individual's right to his life, to liberty [freedom] and the pursuit of happiness. Are they being denied any of these rights?

 

[sunstruck]

Yes. Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. "Those people" have a right to that.

You know, I'd take you for a lot of things I dislike Bill, but homophobe wasn't one of them before.

 

[Pookie]

And what is it you think is a right that these people are trying to claim as their just desert?

As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the United States is founded on the principle of equality, upon the recognition of the [meaning every] individual's right to his life, to liberty [freedom] and the pursuit of happiness. Are they being denied any of these rights?

Clearly, certain civil liberties are denied to the GLBT population by specific laws and court decisions. Marriage and adoption (to name just a few) are denied to GLBT couples based solely on their sexual preference. Until this past June, GLBT individuals were considered criminals in many places because of what they did in the privacy of their own homes.

I'll ask this just to know where you stand, and I'm not accusing you of this either. But are you a homophobe? Also, do GLBT individuals not deserve the same rights and liberties as heterosexual individuals?

"Gay rights" to me are those rights and liberties denied the GLBT community, but are enjoyed by the heterosexual community. Nothing more ... nothing less.

 

[Ishmael]

Clearly, certain civil liberties are denied to the GLBT population by specific laws and court decisions. Marriage and adoption (to name just a few) are denied to GLBT couples based solely on their sexual preference. Until this past June, GLBT individuals were considered criminals in many places because of what they did in the privacy of their own homes.

I'll ask this just to know where you stand, and I'm not accusing you of this either. But are you a homophobe? Also, do GLBT individuals not deserve the same rights and liberties as heterosexual individuals?

"Gay rights" to me are those rights and liberties denied the GLBT community, but are enjoyed by the heterosexual community. Nothing more ... nothing less.

Well Pook, I think you, and many others, have thoroughly misconstrued what UB has asked. I see no reference in any of his postings declaring where the GLBT community isn't entitled to the same rights and freedoms as the rest of society. (I'm sure UB will correct me if I'm wrong.)

His question was simple and straightforward. What 'rights' do the GLBT community require that are seperate from the rest of society? I can see no "unless they're gay" clause in the emancipation ammendment not the sufferage ammendment. As a matter of fact there is nothing in the Constitution at all that seperates one groups rights from another.

The issue here is that many believe that just because someone is against special consideration of one group over another under the law that they are somehow saying that that one particular group should not be afforded the same considerations and freedoms as the rest of us. And those are two completely different positions. One does NOT imply the other.

Further, the laws you speak of do exist. But a new law is NOT required to overturn another. You merely repeal the offensive law. (However, most elected officials would find that offensive. They like to diddle with words so they can go back to their constituents and say, "Look what I did!" And generally speaking all they did was make a small mess a bigger mess.)

Ishmael

 

[weed]

Hey Ish? Aren't we talking multiple laws that would need multiple appeals to overturn?

Wouldn't be easier to have one new law that establishes that homosexuals should not be restricted by any other laws that define any rights according to sexual preference than to go back through the archives?

 

[Pookie]

Well Pook, I think you, and many others, have thoroughly misconstrued what UB has asked. I see no reference in any of his postings declaring where the GLBT community isn't entitled to the same rights and freedoms as the rest of society. (I'm sure UB will correct me if I'm wrong.)

His question was simple and straightforward. What 'rights' do the GLBT community require that are seperate from the rest of society? I can see no "unless they're gay" clause in the emancipation ammendment not the sufferage ammendment. As a matter of fact there is nothing in the Constitution at all that seperates one groups rights from another.

The issue here is that many believe that just because someone is against special consideration of one group over another under the law that they are somehow saying that that one particular group should not be afforded the same considerations and freedoms as the rest of us. And those are two completely different positions. One does NOT imply the other.

Further, the laws you speak of do exist. But a new law is NOT required to overturn another. You merely repeal the offensive law. (However, most elected officials would find that offensive. They like to diddle with words so they can go back to their constituents and say, "Look what I did!" And generally speaking all they did was make a small mess a bigger mess.)

Ishmael

The last paragraph in my post was ...

""Gay rights" to me are those rights and liberties denied the GLBT community, but are enjoyed by the heterosexual community. Nothing more ... nothing less."

I don't think anyone is asking for "special" consideration. Just the "same" consideration as everyone else. I do think UB (correct me if I'm wrong) is interpreting "gay rights" to mean special rights for the GLBT community. In my opinion, it doesn't. We just want the "same" rights and liberties ... nothing more, nothing less. The phrase "gay rights" to me means those rights specifically denied us because of our sexual orientation, that others freely enjoy because they are not GLBT.

New laws are not required. Overturning existing laws are definitely needed. That's the avenue most in the GLBT community are advocating. Repealing or overturning laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation is what's needed.

 

[Ishmael]

The last paragraph in my post was ...

""Gay rights" to me are those rights and liberties denied the GLBT community, but are enjoyed by the heterosexual community. Nothing more ... nothing less."

I don't think anyone is asking for "special" consideration. Just the "same" consideration as everyone else. I do think UB (correct me if I'm wrong) is interpreting "gay rights" to mean special rights for the GLBT community. In my opinion, it doesn't. We just want the "same" rights and liberties ... nothing more, nothing less. The phrase "gay rights" to me means those rights specifically denied us because of our sexual orientation, that others freely enjoy because they are not GLBT.

New laws are not required. Overturning existing laws are definitely needed. That's the avenue most in the GLBT community are advocating. Repealing or overturning laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation is what's needed.

Well, put me in the same boat with UB. When you say "rights" that means one thing, when you say "equality" that means something entirely different. If the gay community wants equality (and I agree) then they should start shouting "Gay Equality." Quite frankly, I think if they did that they would find considerably more sympathy for their cause.

Ishmael

 

[Pookie]

Hey Ish? Aren't we talking multiple laws that would need multiple appeals to overturn?

Wouldn't be easier to have one new law that establishes that homosexuals should not be restricted by any other laws that define any rights according to sexual preference than to go back through the archives?

Personally, I'd prefer to see the existing laws overturned or repealed. The problem with a new law is that who's to say that further down the road another new law isn't written that undoes the previous new law. Let's just get them out of the books altogether. The Courts are getting closer to overturning those laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation.

 

[Pookie]

Well, put me in the same boat with UB. When you say "rights" that means one thing, when you say "equality" that means something entirely different. If the gay community wants equality (and I agree) then they should start shouting "Gay Equality." Quite frankly, I think if they did that they would find considerably more sympathy for their cause.

Ishmael

The cry is for equal rights. We're not after anything special or different. The term "gay rights" can be misunderstood to mean that there are rights that are specific to gays. In usage by the GLBT community, it's meaning is intended to be those rights we're being denied that others enjoy. I understand and agree with your point though, Ish.

 

[weed]

Well, put me in the same boat with UB. When you say "rights" that means one thing, when you say "equality" that means something entirely different. If the gay community wants equality (and I agree) then they should start shouting "Gay Equality." Quite frankly, I think if they did that they would find considerably more sympathy for their cause.

Ishmael

I have to laugh. Point taken but it sounds a bit like like it would fall under political correctness.

 

[weed]

Personally, I'd prefer to see the existing laws overturned or repealed. The problem with a new law is that who's to say that further down the road another new law isn't written that undoes the previous new law. Let's just get them out of the books altogether. The Courts are getting closer to overturning those laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Can't that be said about any law?

Curious. Is it more timely and cost effective to repeal a law or make a new one? If a law is made that overturns/negates (terminology?) a previous law what is the difference?

 

[Pookie]

Can't that be said about any law?

Curious. Is it more timely and cost effective to repeal a law or make a new one? If a law is made that overturns/negates (terminology?) a previous law what is the difference?

I understand your point. I just personally think that the fewer laws, the better. I just don't see any laws like this passing anytime in my lifetime, not without some serious changes to the mentality of those who are occupying the majority of seats in Congress and the White House. I expect that the Courts will overturn existing laws before any new ones can be written (or old ones repealed).

 

[sunstruck]

Well, put me in the same boat with UB. When you say "rights" that means one thing, when you say "equality" that means something entirely different. If the gay community wants equality (and I agree) then they should start shouting "Gay Equality." Quite frankly, I think if they did that they would find considerably more sympathy for their cause.

Ishmael

Only for people so caught up in titles and rhetoric that they ignore the cause behind the bumper sticker. Or people too ignorant to know that a title is only PART of the issue. Or people looking for an excuse to keep homosexuals separate and beneath the rest of society.

I really hope you aren't one of those people. I was shocked to see Uncle Bill was.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Well, put me in the same boat with UB. When you say "rights" that means one thing, when you say "equality" that means something entirely different. If the gay community wants equality (and I agree) then they should start shouting "Gay Equality." Quite frankly, I think if they did that they would find considerably more sympathy for their cause.

Ishmael

And, remember, this is from someone who thinks the so-called PC-ers are acting like the language and thought police.

 

[sunstruck]

And, remember, this is from someone who thinks the so-called PC-ers are acting like the language and thought police.

That is a much better way of saying what I was thinking. Course I'm in a pissy mood.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Not better--Just agreeing with you, darlin'.

Mark my words: pretty soon one of 'em's gonna come in here and start quoting their Webster's dictionary at us.

 

[zipman]

The U. S. Constitution says "Congress shall make no law . . ."

How do you construe and contort that to mean the Federal judiciary may then overturn a state constitution if they feel it is inappropriate? Federal judges are required to rule in matters as the Constitution might conflict. Where is the conflict between prohibition of Congress legislating and the existence of a state constitution?

It seems to me a case where the Federal judge is asserting his personal interpretation because I can see no basis for his ruling in the U. S. Constitution.

I guess I'm not the only one "construing and contorting" around here!

Where exactly did the federal government overturn the state constitution or the existence of it?

The part of the Alabama state constitution that you posted states "invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God." Therefore, while Moore interpreted this to mean that he was allowed to display the 10 commandment sculpture in the court house, the federal judge, whose powers outweigh Moore's ruled that it violated "the principle" of seperation of church and state.

Judges regularly rule on the "spirit of the law" when the letter of the law doesn't cover a specific example. The commandments were viewed as an "endorsement" of one religion as opposed to merely an acknowledgement of it.

Moore was not punished for doing that, but rather for intentionally violating the federal order to remove it, which he had an obligation to do.

 

[Ishmael]

Only for people so caught up in titles and rhetoric that they ignore the cause behind the bumper sticker. Or people too ignorant to know that a title is only PART of the issue. Or people looking for an excuse to keep homosexuals separate and beneath the rest of society.

I really hope you aren't one of those people. I was shocked to see Uncle Bill was.

Well sunny, "rights" and "equality" are not the same thing. Never were. The words mean two different things entirely.

Rights are yours as a human being. They are inalienable and can neither be bestowed nor taken away by the state. They exist outside the law. Those 'rights' that are codified in the first several ammendments to the Constitution are those attributes that are considered "rights" by our government. They are NOT granted by the constitution, they are considered to exist outside the constitution.

Everything else is priveledge. Driving an automobile is a priviledge. One that many would argue is a "right".

Another example is abortion. It is considered by many to be a 'right'. It isn't. It has been permited by the Supreme Court. It is not a 'right' and will never be a right until it is defined as being a 'right' by an ammendment to the Constitution. It matters little which side of the fence you're on in this issue because if it were really a 'right' a change in the consistancy of the Supreme Court would make no difference at all. Obviously that change could effect the renderings of the court.

Equality simply means that one law applies to all. No consideration of gender, race, ethnic background, sexual orientation, whatever.

The "rights" versus "equality" issue is not some PC splitting of infinitives. The words mean something and they mean something quite different. Nothing is a "right" just because the state or federal government allows you to do it.

Ishmael