-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Mr Manifesto
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4,815
I think it's worth reminding JREF at this point that American never gets laid. Even his hand won't have anything to do with him. All that sexual frustration can lead to some screwy ideas.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,099
American said:
They won't have to turn into lesbians to not date you. Women just don't want to date poor trailer trash. Maybe if you get a few dollars some day, you'll have more luck.
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2002
- Messages
- 20,366
That's ironic, because I would like to see Jerry Springer as POTUS.
I didn't really care one way or another about civil unions. And if the various state legislatures were to sanction homosexual marriages, I could live with that as well. Such is democracy in action. But I do have a bit of a problem with activist judges trying to circumvent the democratic process with new constitutional interpretations in areas as controversial as homosexual marriage.
Who knows, maybe I'm misreading the case.
Who knows, maybe I'm misreading the case.
While many marriages take place in churches and are performed by preachers, I believe the legal condition of being married is conferred by the state, which empowers preachers and various other office-holders to do the ceremonies. It's easy to view marriage as a religious thing because folks who subscribe to religions traditionally have their preachers do the wedding service and because these events are made known to us by the industry that has grown up to publicize and gussy up the event itself. The couples involved could as well be hitched by the local justice of the peace. Thus, state and federal governments appear authorized to meddle with the law regarding marriage.Joshua Korosi said:
shuize said:
In this country's history, when have an opressed minority ever been granted equal rights by the legislature? Okay, maybe the Americans with Disability Act.
It's usually done by the Judicial or the Executive Branch.
Why?
Because the Legislature is there to BE the VOICE of the majority. The Judicial is there to be the CHECK on that majority. So we don't have, as Jefferson called it, "The Tyranny of the Majority".
If Americans aren't being treated equally under law, as determined by the Judiciary, they order a remedy.
God Bless America.
Oh, and since equal protection is part of the 14th Amendment, that's the Amendment we're pooping on if George W. Bush follows through on his SOTU promise.
Read it here and understand it:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Ask yourself why our President opposes it.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
It's a community concert-style band, but yes. For what it is, it is impressive.Luke T. said:
I have a hard time over-estimating American's intelligence. He's made some real bone-headed posts.
Blondin
Muse
I just want to say I think you should lay off the polygamies. They didn't choose to be short, they were born that way.
Luke T. said:
Yeah, but not any points for awareness of history, I think.
They should be obliged to show some place that their desired prohibition(s) actually worked, IN THE LONG RUN.
Otherwise it's just like alcohol prohibition or the 55 mph speed limit, both examples of how to teach people to get around, avoid, break, or otherwise ignore the law.
That's not a wise lesson to teach, I think.
Other civil rights causes took their rights a little at a time, or in "chunks". Look how long it took blacks to be able to vote in America. They gained rights slowly, not all at once.
My step-sister is a lesbian. She is married to a woman (unofficially I'm sure). They would gladly have the rights offered for now, and call it a "civil union" rather than a marriage. Take what you can get now, then fight for more later.
Perhaps the legal term across the board should be Civil Union, saving the term "marriage" for those who are religious.
Besides, the whole "sanctity of marriage" is a load o' crap anyways...half end in divorce, right?
Maybe the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Democracy affords people the right to decide the basic ground rules of the society in which they live. Homosexual marriage represents a radical departure from traditional legal and social norms and, in my opinion, such a decision should be left to the people acting through their elected representives. If the people decide the want to change those rules, then I can live with the result.
After forgetting about the Civil Rights Acts, you say it's "usually done by the judicial branch." But my guess is you only say that when the judicial branch is giving you decisions with which you agree. When a judge interprets constitutional law against your position, I'll bet you don't have such a favorable impression. (When the Supreme Court ruled against yet another recount in Florida, for example? ... Or had the Court had decided Lawrence differently maybe.)
As one who likes to throw around legal terminology, you should recognize that as "forum shopping." It seems you are not willing to trust the people to make the "correct" decision, but instead turn to the judiciary circumvent them altogether.
*Cough* Brown v. Board of Education 1954 *cough*
You really think that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have ever happened if "seperate but equal" wasn't struck down in the highest court in the land TEN YEARS earlier?
Was that judicial activism? Was it forum shopping?
In my mind, it was the only decision that a rational mind properly applying the constitution could come to.
*cough* Browder v. Gayle, 1956 *cough*
*cough* Irene Morgan v. Commonwealth of Virginia 1946 *cough*
You really think that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have ever happened if "seperate but equal" wasn't struck down in the highest court in the land TEN YEARS earlier?
Was that judicial activism? Was it forum shopping?
In my mind, it was the only decision that a rational mind properly applying the constitution could come to.
*cough* Browder v. Gayle, 1956 *cough*
*cough* Irene Morgan v. Commonwealth of Virginia 1946 *cough*
"Judicial Activism" is in part, and often wholly responsible for all the civil progress in this country. Legislation only happens *after* the courts (the only people left that generally understand the constitution. Our president does not.) are asked to rule on something.
These statements are exactly analagous.
Sometimes, our elected officials do the right thing, and they do it in a reasonable amount of time. Sometimes, they don't. Our system is set up to *prevent* ochlacracy. "The people" be damned when it comes to bestowing civil rights to all. Our system is denying me, and millions of others, basic civil liberties guaranteed to everyone. This is wrong. If it takes a judge to say this and force lawmakers to change, then so be it.
These statements are exactly analagous.
Sometimes, our elected officials do the right thing, and they do it in a reasonable amount of time. Sometimes, they don't. Our system is set up to *prevent* ochlacracy. "The people" be damned when it comes to bestowing civil rights to all. Our system is denying me, and millions of others, basic civil liberties guaranteed to everyone. This is wrong. If it takes a judge to say this and force lawmakers to change, then so be it.
Silicon said:
You posed the question:
I gave you an answer.
In posing your original question you forgot some of the most sweeping civil rights legislation in this country's history but you turn to Brown as an earlier example of judicial involvement. How this supports your earlier position that the legislature never granted minorities equal rights, I'm not exactly sure. Oh, wait. After your edit I see. You are trying to "grandfather" back to Brown to argue that only since Brown has the legislature done anything right. Only after the judiciary shows them the light so to speak can the people acting through their elected representatives manage to get anything right. Is that it?
Well, not only does that change your original statement, (when has an oppressed minority ever been granted ... ) it also fails to consider which branch of government enacted the Fourteenth Amendment in the first place. Here's a hint: it wasn't the judiciary.
Fade:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the examples you posed of Negro freedom and women's sufferage actually resolved through the legislative will of the people?
Crazy as it may sound, some of us think that entrusting such decisions to the people gives the results more legitimacy.
But, as you said, "the people be damned ... " Just so your pet judicial interpretation is the one followed, right?
Maybe we could cut out the legislative process altogether and just ask you which rules a democratic society should be allowed to choose for themselves.
By the way, how do you feel about polygamy? Since our system is, as you point out, set up to prevent "ochlacracy" (sic), you would certainly agree that laws prohibiting such a practice represent an unjust denial of civil rights, yes?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the examples you posed of Negro freedom and women's sufferage actually resolved through the legislative will of the people?
Crazy as it may sound, some of us think that entrusting such decisions to the people gives the results more legitimacy.
But, as you said, "the people be damned ... " Just so your pet judicial interpretation is the one followed, right?
Maybe we could cut out the legislative process altogether and just ask you which rules a democratic society should be allowed to choose for themselves.
By the way, how do you feel about polygamy? Since our system is, as you point out, set up to prevent "ochlacracy" (sic), you would certainly agree that laws prohibiting such a practice represent an unjust denial of civil rights, yes?