Gay marriage is a mind-numbingly stupid issue. [Archive]

snagswolf

April 6th, 2009, 12:27 pm

Perhaps you should have paid closer attention in your American History classes. The founders looked at many different forms of government and adamently rejected Democracy in favor of a Republic. Franklin mused that he wondered if we would be able to keep it... I fear that we've already crossed that bridge.
You mean American History where these quotes came from:

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people." -- Abraham Lincoln

"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy" -- Theodore Roosevelt

"Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education." -- Franklin Roosevelt

"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." -- John Kennedy

"Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man." -- Ronald Reagan

"Without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure." -- Ronald Reagan

And yes, I'm aware that Thomas Jefferson said:

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

So how can Jefferson hate democracy and yet also worry about it ceasing to exist?

The answer is simple. There are two definitions for democracy. On is a specific form of government (majority rules) (definition 'a'), and the other is a more general form of government, where the People hold the power (definition 'b').

Here's a good explanation:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
As I said, you should learn the meaning of words before you lecture others about them.

Yes, the U.S. is democracy.
Yes, the U.S.'s specific form of government is a representative republic.

Learn that, and you won't be embarrassed on the internet any more.

snagswolf

April 6th, 2009, 12:31 pm

We're not a pure democracy, and you know it.
Seriously, what is wrong with you?

Who mentioned anything about a pure democracy?

Look at all those quotes I posted above. All those famous politicians referring to the U.S. as a democracy. I bet when they said those things that no idiot jumped up and shouted "But we're not a democracy!", or, "You know we're not a pure democracy."

If people comprehended the meaning of the word, and recognized the context it was being used in, these misunderstandings wouldn't happen.

WorldWatcher

April 6th, 2009, 12:35 pm

As long as the state sanctioning of a type marriage is the will of the People of that state, and is enacted through their elected representatives, I have no problem with it. Democracy is a beautiful thing.

However, I do have a problem with judiciaries finding 'rights' in constitutions that don't exists, and bypassing the will of the People by passing de facto laws from the bench.

If the "will of the people" is enacted through the proper channels, I may not like it but I do accept it, even though I believe it will be temporary.

However, if the Constitution of a given state says that it's citizen's have the right to Equal Treatment Under the Law, then that is also the "will of the people". When the legislative process is used to deny that Constitutional right, then those being discriminated against also have the right to challenge that discrimination in court and force the government to show a compelling reason why two groups in similar situations are being treated differently. Those two groups of course being law-abiding, tax paying, infertile, different-sex couples and law-abiding, tax paying, infertile, same-sex couples.

See, Constitutional Law (State or Federal) overrides statutory law. As in the case of the Iowa Supreme Court recently, the Constitution clearly states that statutory laws found in violation of the States Constitution are to be void. The judges are charged with invalidating any law which conflicts with the States Constitution.

>>>>

snagswolf

April 6th, 2009, 12:44 pm

However, if the Constitution of a given state says that it's citizen's have the right to Equal Treatment Under the Law, then that is also the "will of the people". When the legislative process is used to deny that Constitutional right, then those being discriminated against also have the right to challenge that discrimination in court and force the government to show a compelling reason why two groups in similar situations are being treated differently. Those two groups of course being law-abiding, tax paying, infertile, different-sex couples and law-abiding, tax paying, infertile, same-sex couples.

See, Constitutional Law (State or Federal) overrides statutory law. As in the case of the Iowa Supreme Court recently, the Constitution clearly states that statutory laws found in violation of the States Constitution are to be void. The judges are charged with invalidating any law which conflicts with the States Constitution.
And of course, judges can see whatever right they want in the Constitution, or interpret equal protection any way they choose, in order to override the will of the People.

Why even bother with the legislature? Just have the judges determine what our laws should be. Who cares about the voice of democracy?

Jefferson was prophetic in this matter:

"You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.... The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party its members would become despots."

WorldWatcher

April 6th, 2009, 12:52 pm

And of course, judges can see whatever right they want in the Constitution, or interpret equal protection any way they choose, in order to override the will of the People.

Why even bother with the legislature? Just have the judges determine what our laws should be. Who cares about the voice of democracy?

Jefferson was prophetic in this matter:

"You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.... The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party its members would become despots."

And Jefferson also said...

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

Well if the "will of the people" presents a conflict (i.e. Equal Treatment for all citizens and discrimination against a group) then the result is that the people should amend the their Constitution to remove such a conflict. If such an Amendment were to pass, then so be it as it becomes the law of the land. In the case of Iowa we had Statutory law conflicting with Constitutional Law.

>>>>

snagswolf

April 6th, 2009, 1:57 pm

Well if the "will of the people" presents a conflict (i.e. Equal Treatment for all citizens and discrimination against a group) then the result is that the people should amend the their Constitution to remove such a conflict. If such an Amendment were to pass, then so be it as it becomes the law of the land. In the case of Iowa we had Statutory law conflicting with Constitutional Law.
It's only a 'conflict' because a few guys in robes say it's a conflict.

(BTW, SCOTUS has ruled it isn't a conflict, when it comes to the U.S. Constitution.)

And twenty-six states have passed amendments to their constitutions which define marriage as between a man and woman. These amendments are a direct result of judiciaries overstepping their bounds, and the People putting them back in their place.

Pudge

April 6th, 2009, 2:53 pm

As long as the state sanctioning of a type marriage is the will of the People of that state, and is enacted through their elected representatives, I have no problem with it. Democracy is a beautiful thing.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch, and liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" ~Benjamin Franklin.

However, I do have a problem with judiciaries finding 'rights' in constitutions that don't exists, and bypassing the will of the People by passing de facto laws from the bench.

When it comes to individual rights, the will of the people be damned.

snagswolf

April 6th, 2009, 3:03 pm

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch, and liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" ~Benjamin Franklin.
See the discussion of the two definitions of democracy above.

When it comes to individual rights, the will of the people be damned.
Translation: Liberal judges should be able to make up any 'rights' they want, and apply equal protection wherever they want, and We the People should just shut up and accept it.

WorldWatcher

April 6th, 2009, 3:14 pm

It's only a 'conflict' because a few guys in robes say it's a conflict.

Correct, those guys are called Judges.

(BTW, SCOTUS has ruled it isn't a conflict, when it comes to the U.S. Constitution.)

Technically they never ruled as they didn't hear the case. What they did was dismiss Baker v. Nelson on the merits that there was a lack of a federal question in terms of the Constitution. Now that dismissal on the merits is binding on Federal Courts until such time as the SCOTUS wishes to address the issue again, however that ruling is not binding on State Courts addressing cases under State Constitutions.

But don't put all your eggs in the Baker v. Nelson basket. That case is from 1971 and at that time there really was no issue at the Federal level as there were no states that recognized Civil Same-Sex Marriage. Since that time there are now 5 States that recognize Civil Same-Sex Marriage (IIRC, CA, IA, MA, CT, & NY) in addition to the passage of the Federal DOMA passed in 1996. So the legal landscape has changed significantly in terms of Federal issues in three main Constitutional areas revolving mainly around DOMA that have to do with Full Faith and Credit (Fed's not recognizing state issued licenses on a States issue), Equal Protection (Fed's treating people in the same category differently), and the Xth Amendment power of States to determine those things not addressed in the Federal Constitution.

[BTW - Yes I know Prop 8 passed, however it did not have the required retroactive clause to nullify marriages conducted during the time period it was legal, as such those marriages in CA are still valid and recognized by the State of California until such time as the CSC rules on the issue.)

And twenty-six states have passed amendments to their constitutions which define marriage as between a man and woman. These amendments are a direct result of judiciaries overstepping their bounds, and the People putting them back in their place.

Yep, and there were previously "0" states which recognized Civil Same-Sex Marriage, now there are 5.

Prop 22 passed in 2000 with an 18% margin of victory, Prop 8 squeaked by with just 4%. Attitudes are changing and even if you look at the polls more and more people feel it is unfair to discriminate against homosexuals.

Just as Civil Rights Judges were considered "activist" in their day, when we look back now we commend them for their courage. 50 years from now the places of those Judges ruling today on the law instead of political and religous bias will be a place of honor.

>>>>

WorldWatcher

April 6th, 2009, 3:19 pm

However, I do have a problem with judiciaries finding 'rights' in constitutions that don't exists, and bypassing the will of the People by passing de facto laws from the bench.

BTW - Using the Iowa Constitution as an example...

"Laws uniform. SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens. http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Constitution.html#a1s1"

The citizen of Iowa did enshrine in their State Constitution that all citizens have the "right" to Equal Treatment under the law, that is not a right that didn't exist.

>>>>

WorldWatcher

April 6th, 2009, 3:30 pm

Translation: Liberal judges should be able to make up any 'rights' they want, and apply equal protection wherever they want, and We the People should just shut up and accept it.

Translation: Judges should ignore the law because obviously when the a State Constitution says that all citizens should receive equal treatment and not be discriminated against by the government it means all citizens except of course Homosexual, they are fair game.

>>>>

snagswolf

April 6th, 2009, 3:46 pm

Correct, those guys are called Judges.
Thank you Mr. Obvious.

Technically they never ruled as they didn't hear the case.
No, 'technically' they did make a ruling. Dismissing for want of a federal question is a ruling on the merits of the case, which 'technically' would be a ruling.

What they did was dismiss Baker v. Nelson on the merits that there was a lack of a federal question in terms of the Constitution. Now that dismissal on the merits is binding on Federal Courts until such time as the SCOTUS wishes to address the issue again, however that ruling is not binding on State Courts addressing cases under State Constitutions.
Never said it was, which is why my comment specifically discussed the U.S. Constitution.

But don't put all your eggs in the Baker v. Nelson basket. That case is from 1971 and at that time there really was no issue at the Federal level as there were no states that recognized Civil Same-Sex Marriage. Since that time there are now 5 States that recognize Civil Same-Sex Marriage (IIRC, CA, IA, MA, CT, & NY) in addition to the passage of the Federal DOMA passed in 1996. So the legal landscape has changed significantly in terms of Federal issues in three main Constitutional areas revolving mainly around DOMA that have to do with Full Faith and Credit (Fed's not recognizing state issued licenses on a States issue), Equal Protection (Fed's treating people in the same category differently), and the Xth Amendment power of States to determine those things not addressed in the Federal Constitution.
So, has the Constitution changed in the 38 years since Baker v Nelson? Or has liberal judges' opinions of what the Constitution says changed in those years?

Perfect example of judicial activism. Bypassing the constitutionally defined process of amending the Constitution, and doing it through judicial fiat.

Why bother going through the trouble of amending the Constitution, when you can get a few judges to have it say whatever you want it to say?

[BTW - Yes I know Prop 8 passed, however it did not have the required retroactive clause to nullify marriages conducted during the time period it was legal, as such those marriages in CA are still valid and recognized by the State of California until such time as the CSC rules on the issue.)
Yes, the judiciary doesn't like it when the People tell them what to do. As I said, Jefferson's prediction of a "despotism of an oligarchy" is coming true. The judiciary feels they are above the 'Will of the People', and now even above what the Constitution says.

Yep, and there were previously "0" states which recognized Civil Same-Sex Marriage, now there are 5.

Prop 22 passed in 2000 with an 18% margin of victory, Prop 8 squeaked by with just 4%. Attitudes are changing and even if you look at the polls more and more people feel it is unfair to discriminate against homosexuals.
I agree. Attitudes are changing. And when attitudes change enough, democracy will allow the changes in law to occur.

What's happening now is that liberal activists are attempting to bypass the democratic process, and those opposing it are reacting with constitutional amendments - which will be harder to overturn than just passing laws.

Just as Civil Rights Judges were considered "activist" in their day, when we look back now we commend them for their courage. 50 years from now the places of those Judges ruling today on the law instead of political and religous bias will be a place of honor.
Even those involved in the civil rights movement don't accept that comparison.

And I find it odd that you consider reading what's written in the Constitution and judging laws based only on that, as 'political and religious bias'.

snagswolf

April 6th, 2009, 3:55 pm

BTW - Using the Iowa Constitution as an example...
"Laws uniform. SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens. http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Constitution.html#a1s1"
The citizen of Iowa did enshrine in their State Constitution that all citizens have the "right" to Equal Treatment under the law, that is not a right that didn't exist.

The U.S. Constitution has the same type of declaration, and it's been ruled throughout our history that if the State has a compelling interest to discriminate, the discrimination is legal.

States have determined that, for the benefit of society, sanctioned marriage is between a man and a woman, and as such, anyone of legal age is allowed to be sanctioned in that activity, provided they meet the legal definition of that activity.

snagswolf

April 6th, 2009, 4:00 pm

Translation: Judges should ignore the law because obviously when the a State Constitution says that all citizens should receive equal treatment and not be discriminated against by the government it means all citizens except of course Homosexual, they are fair game.
Wrong.

To me, 'ignoring the law' is ignoring the written law. Not ignoring something that isn't there.

Are you saying you can see no reasoning behind the State sanctioning opposite sex marriages, and not sanctioning same-sex marriages?

Not that you agree with it, but just the possibility that others may have that opinion?

WorldWatcher

April 6th, 2009, 4:18 pm

Thank you Mr. Obvious.

You are welcome.

So, has the Constitution changed in the 38 years since Baker v Nelson?

Nope, but legal decisions have been made and federal laws enacted that did not exist in 1971. As such the questions may have existed before in the hypothetical, but with laws now actually existing and conflicts actually created the landscape it different. Not the Constitution.

Perfect example of judicial activism.

On the other hand ignoring the Constitution and ruling based on politics and religious bias would also be judicial activism.

I'm glad, as in the case of Iowa, the decision was based squarely on the law. The State Constitution guarantees equal treatment, statutory law was found to be discriminatory, and as required by the Iowa Constitution that statutory law was invalidated as required.

Good job, Judges.

Bypassing the constitutionally defined process of amending the Constitution, and doing it through judicial fiat.

The Equal Protection Clause was already in the State Constitution, you would have needed to remove it or amend the Constitution to include the discrimination.

Ruling on a part of Statutory Law that is in conflict with an easily readable part of the Constitution isn't "bypassing" anything.

If the people of Iowa don't like the decision, they can have their Constitution Amended to include the discriminatory clause if they want. That will over-rule the Judges and is also a part of the process. See it all works.

Why bother going through the trouble of amending the Constitution, when you can get a few judges to have it say whatever you want it to say?

I know of no cases where the Judges have made a ruling on Same-sex marriage when the people have amended their State Constitutions.

In the two most recent cases, CA and IA, the rulings were made overturning statutory law, not a Constitutional Amendment based on that States Constitution guaranteeing equal treatment under the law.

Yes, the judiciary doesn't like it when the People tell them what to do.

There seems to be your problem, the Judiciary isn't a popularity contest to make rulings the way "people tell them" to.

They should be making rulings based the law.

But I guess it's OK for "activist" judges to rule based on how "people tell them" if you agree with the ruling.

I agree. Attitudes are changing. And when attitudes change enough, democracy will allow the changes in law to occur.

So are you saying that people should be denied the right to bring grievance against the government when the government is violating it's own Constitutional mandate?

What's happening now is that liberal activists are attempting to bypass the democratic process,

Actually they are using a Constitutionally guaranteed process.

and those opposing it are reacting with constitutional amendments - which will be harder to overturn than just passing laws.

That's OK, those amendments can be repealed in the same way they were enacted.

Even those involved in the civil rights movement don't accept that comparison.

Don't strain yourself picking up that broad brush, I didn't know you speak for the civil rights movement.

But you don't speak for them all.

"When someone asks me, "are gay rights civil rights?" my answer is always, "Of course, they are." Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives: the right to equal treatment before the law. These are the rights shared by everyone. There is no one in the United States who does not, or should not, enjoy or share in enjoying these rights. Gay and lesbian rights are not special rights in any way. It isn't "special" to be free from discrimination. It is an ordinary, universal entitlement of citizenship." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq1MN1FYa4M

Horace Julian Bond, known as Julian Bond, (born January 14, 1940) is an American social activist and leader of the American Civil Rights Movement, politician, professor and writer. While a student at Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia, during the early 1960s, he helped found the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). He was the first president of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Bond was elected to both houses of the Georgia Legislature, where he served a total of twenty years. He has been chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) since 1998. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Bond

And I find it odd that you consider reading what's written in the Constitution and judging laws based only on that, as 'political and religious bias'.

Well that's good because I never said that.

Judges should rule based on the law and precedent setting cases based on the law that are binding on them and should not IGNORE the law for (or to satisfy those with) political or religious bias.

In other words if the Constitution, again using Iowa as an example, says that all citizens are to receive equal treatment under the law for similar situations (the true comparison here being infertile different-sex couples who are allowed to marry and infertile same-sex couples who are not) and then the legislature violates that portion of the Constitution by writing into law discriminatory statutes. Then it is the right of citizens to challenge that law in court and have it measured against the Constitution and to require the government to provide a compelling reason as to why such discrimination is warranted.

The Polk County Lawyer presented 5-such reasons to the court, they were all weak and did not provide "compelling reasons" to permit government discrimination.

>>>>

WorldWatcher

April 6th, 2009, 4:25 pm

The U.S. Constitution has the same type of declaration, and it's been ruled throughout our history that if the State has a compelling interest to discriminate, the discrimination is legal.

I don't disagree. The point comes down then to not just a declaration of a "compelling reason" it comes down to a thoughtful examination of what those compelling reasons are.

States have determined that, for the benefit of society, sanctioned marriage is between a man and a woman, and as such, anyone of legal age is allowed to be sanctioned in that activity, provided they meet the legal definition of that activity.

And at present there are 5 states which recognize that Civil Marriage exists between two consenting adults as that is the legal definition within those states for specific groups.

More States to follow...

>>>>

WorldWatcher

April 6th, 2009, 4:30 pm

Wrong.

To me, 'ignoring the law' is ignoring the written law. Not ignoring something that isn't there.

Good, so when the Iowa Constitution says "All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens."

That the ISC should review statutory law on that basis. I agree.

Are you saying you can see no reasoning behind the State sanctioning opposite sex marriages, and not sanctioning same-sex marriages?

Yes I see no reason for treating law abiding, taxpaying, infertile same-sex couples differently than law abiding, taxpaying, infertile different-sex couples.

Not that you agree with it, but just the possibility that others may have that opinion?

Oh, I'm sure there are people who want to discriminate against homosexuals simply because - well - they are homosexual.

Is it everyone? No of course not. But I'm sure there are some.

>>>>

Goldwaterian3

April 6th, 2009, 5:26 pm

So if I can't find any number of people adamantly opposed to legalizing gay marriage on the freaking Sean Hannity forums... Where exactly do these people reside?

Where is this slight majority that feels strong enough about gay marriage to speak out/vote against it etc.?

snagswolf

April 6th, 2009, 6:34 pm

Nope, but legal decisions have been made and federal laws enacted that did not exist in 1971. As such the questions may have existed before in the hypothetical, but with laws now actually existing and conflicts actually created the landscape it different. Not the Constitution.
The question asked by Baker v Nelson when appealed to the Supreme Court was, do states passing laws that don't allow same-sex marriages violate the U.S. Constitution?

The ruling was 'no'. The Constitution hasn't changed since then, and no legal decisions or federal laws should affect what the Constitution says.

So, the only thing that could change, is the judges deciding the Constitution says something it doesn't, thereby amending it without going through the process of actually amending it.

On the other hand ignoring the Constitution and ruling based on politics and religious bias would also be judicial activism.
Which is just your fantasy of what is happening.

I'm glad, as in the case of Iowa, the decision was based squarely on the law. The State Constitution guarantees equal treatment, statutory law was found to be discriminatory, and as required by the Iowa Constitution that statutory law was invalidated as required.
Nope, not on the Constitution. Based upon made up law.

The Equal Protection Clause was already in the State Constitution, you would have needed to remove it or amend the Constitution to include the discrimination.
Wrong. The State discriminates in many instances, and is allowed to do so if there is a compelling interest.

Ruling on a part of Statutory Law that is in conflict with an easily readable part of the Constitution isn't "bypassing" anything.
Again, fantasy. It's a ruling by the judges grasped out of thin air, suddenly found in a document that's existed for hundreds of years.

If the people of Iowa don't like the decision, they can have their Constitution Amended to include the discriminatory clause if they want. That will over-rule the Judges and is also a part of the process. See it all works.
Not how it's supposed to work. The judges are supposed to follow the law, not make it.

There seems to be your problem, the Judiciary isn't a popularity contest to make rulings the way "people tell them" to.

They should be making rulings based the law.

But I guess it's OK for "activist" judges to rule based on how "people tell them" if you agree with the ruling.
I never said the People should tell them how to vote. I said they should follow the will of the People and judge according to the law, not their own opinions.

The Will of the People is enacted in the Constitution also, and the judges obviously read it wrong, so the People forced them to read it correctly.

So are you saying that people should be denied the right to bring grievance against the government when the government is violating it's own Constitutional mandate?
The government wasn't violationg it's own constitutional mandate. Only a few judges fantasied that it was.

Actually they are using a Constitutionally guaranteed process.
Nope. Show me in the Constitution where it gives the courts the right to change the Constitution without amending it.

That's OK, those amendments can be repealed in the same way they were enacted.
Which isn't as easy as passing a law.

Don't strain yourself picking up that broad brush, I didn't know you speak for the civil rights movement.

But you don't speak for them all.
Never said I did.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/01/18/Columns/Gay_rightscivil_rights.shtml

Now age 70, Fauntroy was the Washington, D.C., coordinator for the historic March on Washington in 1963 that produced Martin Luther King's renowned "I Have a Dream" speech. As a former delegate for Washington in the U.S. House and former head of the Congressional Black Caucus, he spearheaded countless civil rights initiatives in the community and in the legislature.
But when a proposal surfaced to include a gay speaker on the 20th anniversary celebration of the March in 1983, Fauntroy chaired the group of organizers who turned it down (he said gay speakers have appeared at anniversary celebrations since 1993).
And though he believes black and gay people's struggle for rights are "exactly" the same when it comes to five key areas - access to income, education, health care, housing and criminal justice - he draws the line at the most visible issue now before the courts and community: gay marriage.
"My religious tradition says (homosexuality) is an abomination," said Fauntroy, who serves as pastor of the New Bethel Baptist Church in Washington and has publicly supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as "the union of a man and a woman."
"Don't come to me asking society to attribute to a same-sex union the term "marriage.' It's a misnomer," the pastor added. "Have your same-sex union; have your contracts. But don't confuse my young people into thinking they don't need one another. Don't tell my young women they don't need a man."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1121811,00.html
Just look at the black religious leaders—like Rev. Bernice King, a daughter of Martin Luther King Jr.; evangelical juggernaut Bishop T. D. Jakes; and groups like the Memphis-based Coalition of African American Pastors—who've joined ranks with the conservative Right in opposing gay marriage. They say gay rights are not the same as civil rights. They accuse gays and lesbians of "hijacking" the civil rights movement for their homosexual agenda.

And don't forget, 70% of black voters in California voted down Proposition 8. Your 'companionship' is only imagined on your part.

Well that's good because I never said that.
Of course you did. You just think your opinion is the law.

Judges should rule based on the law and precedent setting cases based on the law that are binding on them and should not IGNORE the law for (or to satisfy those with) political or religious bias.
Yes, they should rule based on the law, not based on their personal opinions.

In other words if the Constitution, again using Iowa as an example, says that all citizens are to receive equal treatment under the law for similar situations (the true comparison here being infertile different-sex couples who are allowed to marry and infertile same-sex couples who are not) and then the legislature violates that portion of the Constitution by writing into law discriminatory statutes. Then it is the right of citizens to challenge that law in court and have it measured against the Constitution and to require the government to provide a compelling reason as to why such discrimination is warranted.
Sorry, you don't get to decide what the 'true comparison' is. The comparison is clearly between opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage, and how society has the right, for it's own benefit, to sanction one and not the other if they so choose.

The Polk County Lawyer presented 5-such reasons to the court, they were all weak and did not provide "compelling reasons" to permit government discrimination.
Your opinion. As part of a democracy, you have the right to that opinion, just as other people have the right to have differring opinions.

Other people may feel that those arguments are a strong reason to not sanction same-sex marriage. In a democracy, we all have a voice.

Of course, being a liberal, you're not interested in democracy. Just forcing your opinion on others through the force of law.

snagswolf

April 6th, 2009, 6:36 pm

I don't disagree. The point comes down then to not just a declaration of a "compelling reason" it comes down to a thoughtful examination of what those compelling reasons are.
And are you claiming that someone else, after 'thoughtful examination' on their part, can't come to a different conclusion than you?

And at present there are 5 states which recognize that Civil Marriage exists between two consenting adults as that is the legal definition within those states for specific groups.

More States to follow...
And more constitutional amendments to follow.

snagswolf

April 6th, 2009, 7:13 pm

Good, so when the Iowa Constitution says "All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens."

That the ISC should review statutory law on that basis. I agree.
And as I've stated numerous times, unless there is a compelling reason to discriminate.

Yes I see no reason for treating law abiding, taxpaying, infertile same-sex couples differently than law abiding, taxpaying, infertile different-sex couples.
You seem to want to always use 'infertile couples' as a comparson.

As it states in the original Baker V. Nelson decision:

The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Oh, I'm sure there are people who want to discriminate against homosexuals simply because - well - they are homosexual.

Is it everyone? No of course not. But I'm sure there are some.
So if someone has the opinion that it is beneficial for society to sanction opposite-sex marriages, but not same-sex marriages, the only reason you can think of for that is that they want to discriminate against homosexuals because they're homosexual?

I guess that's why you feel justified in using the courst to overrided democracy and force your opinions on everyone else. They're all just bigots anyway.

The arrogance of liberalism is never ending.

WorldWatcher

April 6th, 2009, 7:49 pm

The question asked by Baker v Nelson when appealed to the Supreme Court was, do states passing laws that don't allow same-sex marriages violate the U.S. Constitution?

Under the 10th Amendment, in that powers not specified in the Federal Constitution devolve to the state.

At the time there was no federal issue.

The ruling was 'no'. The Constitution hasn't changed since then, and no legal decisions or federal laws should affect what the Constitution says.

You can ignore it if you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

Baker v. Nelson occurred in 1971 - Fact

DOMA Passed in 1996 - Fact

The passage of DOMA changed the legal landscape under FEDERAL law by enacting something that did not exist before 1996. That being the denial of the Federal government to recognize a legal status as authorized by the states and in fact recognizing only partial status based on gender. In there words the Federal Government recognizes a legal status for some, based on state law - but does not recognize the same status for others - based on gender. That aspect did not exist in 1971.

So, the only thing that could change, is the judges deciding the Constitution says something it doesn't, thereby amending it without going through the process of actually amending it.

You state "the only thing that changed", do you have problems with date in recognizing that 1996 is after 1971? That would be a change. In addition 5 state now recognize Civil Same-Sex Marriages to some degree, that did not exist in 1971, that would also be a change.

As such, your statement that "the only thing that changed" is incorrect.

Which is just your fantasy of what is happening.

I didn't say it was happening, the courts are beginning to rule in accordance with the Equal Protection clause, some people's desire that those law be ignored results in comments like your's blaming it on "liberal activist judges" when in fact they would have been activist iif they had ignored the laws instead.

Nope, not on the Constitution. Based upon made up law.

The Equal Protection clause exists, it is not made up, as I've previously cited and provided a link for.

You attempt to ignore it does not change reality.

The Equal Protection Clause was already in the State Constitution, you would have needed to remove it or amend the Constitution to include the discrimination.

Wrong. The State discriminates in many instances, and is allowed to do so if there is a compelling interest.

You response makes no sense to my statement as I've never said the state can't discriminate if they have a compelling interest, as a matter of fact I've affirmed that very point.

The problem is that there is no compelling interest argument that holds water for treating two groups in a similar situation differently in this case. The accurate groups for comparison being law abiding, tax paying, infertile different-sex couples and law abiding, tax paying, infertile same-sex couples.

Again, fantasy. It's a ruling by the judges grasped out of thin air, suddenly found in a document that's existed for hundreds of years.

The wheels of justice often turn slowly, but justice is coming. I do believe it took a number of years for rulings to begin trickling down based on race also.

Not how it's supposed to work. The judges are supposed to follow the law, not make it.

1. Are you saying people don't deserve the right to grieve against the goverrnment when they preceive it is violating the State and Federal Constitutions? I'm sorry, are you saying that the authors of the Federal Constitution and many of the various State Constitutions erred when they wrote in the right to Grieve as part of their Bill's of Rights?

2. I've previously quoted the Iowa Constution from two sections, one the Equal Protection Clause and also the clause which mandates that statutory laws which conflict with the Constitution are to be voided. Those laws exist, and no matter how much you don't want them to be on the books, they are their and were the basis of the decision.

I never said the People should tell them how to vote. I said they should follow the will of the People and judge according to the law, not their own opinions.

Currently the law, using Iowa again, specifically says that all citizens have the right to equal protection.

I'm sorry, when did the people of Iowa vote to amend their constitution and remove the Equal Protection Clause or to amend their Constitution to discriminate against same-sex couples?

All I've seen is statutory law which is subordinate to, and must comply with, the State Constitution.

The people of Iowa enacted their Constitution, the legislature enacted a statutory law which was found in conflict with that Constitution, by order of that very same Constitution that law is then void.

The Will of the People is enacted in the Constitution also,

Correct.

and the judges obviously read it wrong, so the People forced them to read it correctly.

OK, cool, here is the equal protection clause from the Iowa Constitution. Could you please point out where the exclusion clause is applicable to homosexuals making them not count as "all citizens", silly me when it says "all citizens", I would interpret that to mean - well - "all citizens".

All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

The government wasn't violationg it's own constitutional mandate. Only a few judges fantasied that it was.

Sure it was.

Nope. Show me in the Constitution where it gives the courts the right to change the Constitution without amending it.

Don't need to as I've never made that claim.

Which isn't as easy as passing a law.

I know, it will be painful, but see I believe in "Liberty and Justice for all". They will get there eventually.

Never said I did.

You said, and I quote, "Even those involved in the civil rights movement don't accept that comparison."

I showed your were a leader from the NAACP does consider it a civil rights issue.

And don't forget, 70% of black voters in California voted down Proposition 8. Your 'companionship' is only imagined on your part.

Yep, commonly called the "Obama Factor" having the first "black" president on the ticket at the same time.

Don't worry though he won't be on the ballot in 2010 when it is likely to be repealed.

Of course you did. You just think your opinion is the law.

No I didn't, here is what I said:

Just as Civil Rights Judges were considered "activist" in their day, when we look back now we commend them for their courage. 50 years from now the places of those Judges ruling today on the law instead of political and religous bias will be a place of honor.

To which you said...

And I find it odd that you consider reading what's written in the Constitution and judging laws based only on that, as 'political and religious bias'.

I did NOT say they should judge based on political and religious bias, I said specifically they should judge based on the law.

Yes, they should rule based on the law, not based on their personal opinions.

Good, we agree.

Sorry, you don't get to decide what the 'true comparison' is. The comparison is clearly between opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage, and how society has the right, for it's own benefit, to sanction one and not the other if they so choose.

I know I don't, that's what we have Judges for, and (in the case of Iowa) those Judges agreed with my interpretation and not yours.

If society wants to discriminate, nothing I can do about it, however they will need to amend their Constitutions to do it. When statutory laws conflict with the Constitutions they should be voided.

However if we do, then we should remove the parts about Equal Protection and we ought to remove "With Liberty and Justice for All" from the pledge as they will no longer be true.

Your opinion. As part of a democracy, you have the right to that opinion, just as other people have the right to have differring opinions.

Other people may feel that those arguments are a strong reason to not sanction same-sex marriage. In a democracy, we all have a voice.

Just not the Judges I guess.

>>>>

WorldWatcher

April 6th, 2009, 7:50 pm

Of course, being a liberal, you're not interested in democracy.

A couple of things...

1. How sad that you have to try to resort to name calling after being spanked.

2. So "small government", "personal responsibility", the government treating all citizen in similar situations the same is "liberal" now. Funny, it sounds more like a Goldwater Conservative telling Social (read as "Big Government Aauthoritarians) to go **** up a rope.

3. Putting my life on the line in defense of your (and every other American's) liberties now means I'm not interested in democracy?

Well I guess the answer to the last question is that no, I don't believe in mob-rule when it comes to people being treated justly under the law, I believe in the rule of law. I don't think that the majority should be able to use government to discriminate against an unpopular class of citizens. If the mob wants to discriminate, they are going to have to go to the trouble of amending the various constitutions to do that. As I believe in the law, and it's principals, there would not be that much to say except to work to repeal such discriminatory measures from out highest legal documents. I stand up for what is right, I stand up for liberty, I stand for justice, and I speak my mind in defense of same.

Just forcing your opinion on others through the force of law.

So using the law to discriminate against an unpopular class of people isn't using the "force of law".

:)) :))

There is a word for that you know. ;)

>>>>

WorldWatcher

April 6th, 2009, 8:02 pm

And as I've stated numerous times, unless there is a compelling reason to discriminate.

Those reasons were given in Iowa, they were found to be as weak as they are.

You seem to want to always use 'infertile couples' as a comparson.

Of course, because that is my opinion. And in the case of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on Iowa Law it was pretty much in agreement.

As it states in the original Baker V. Nelson decision:

The latest case isn't based on Baker, it is based on State law.

So if someone has the opinion that it is beneficial for society to sanction opposite-sex marriages, but not same-sex marriages, the only reason you can think of for that is that they want to discriminate against homosexuals because they're homosexual?

If you are in support of laws that treat one group differently then a similar group based on a characteristic of that group, that is in fact discrimination. If you support treating homosexuals differently because they are homosexual, that is discrimination.

Now are there cases where discrimination is warrented, sure, for example it is discrimination to limit Drivers Licenses to those with good vision. However, there is a compelling reason for that. However, there is no valid reason for treating infertile same-sex couples differently then infertile different-sex couples.

Main Entry:
dis·crim·i·na·tion Listen to the pronunciation of discrimination
Pronunciation:
\dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən\
Function:
noun
Date:
1648

1 a: the act of discriminating b: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

I guess that's why you feel justified in using the courst to overrided democracy and force your opinions on everyone else. They're all just bigots anyway.

1. Please cite where the people of Iowa voted on amending their Constitution to override the Equal Protection Clause.

2. You also are trying to force you opinion into the law in support of discrimination, so join the club.

3. Pleas cite where I've ever said that Judges should override the will of the people, as a matter of fact I've specifically pointed out that if the people disagree with Judges ruling they have to option of amending their Constitution and overruling the Judges. The process is protected.

Is not the right to grieve against the government one of the rights of the people?

The arrogance of liberalism is never ending.

The arrogance of social authoritarians who want to make everyone live their lives in only the "government approved manner" is never ending.

>>>>

Pudge

April 7th, 2009, 12:21 am

See the discussion of the two definitions of democracy above.

I've read them. We work on democratic principles, but there is no doubt that the Founders were concerned primarily with the rights of individuals, not majorities.

Translation: Liberal judges should be able to make up any 'rights' they want, and apply equal protection wherever they want, and We the People should just shut up and accept it.

No. The correct translation is that individual rights trump the collective will *unless* there is a compelling state interest in abridging an individual's rights. "I don't like it" or "it's against my religion" is not a compelling interest to deny gay & lesbian couples equal protection under the law.

AeroEngineer

April 7th, 2009, 4:30 am

Oh WorldWatcher, you silly librul.

:razz:

snagswolf

April 7th, 2009, 8:36 am

Under the 10th Amendment, in that powers not specified in the Federal Constitution devolve to the state.

At the time there was no federal issue.
'Federal issue' means constitutional. How can the Constitution not have a problem with it 40 years ago, but have a problem with it now? The Constitution hasn't changed.

You can ignore it if you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

Baker v. Nelson occurred in 1971 - Fact

DOMA Passed in 1996 - Fact

The passage of DOMA changed the legal landscape under FEDERAL law by enacting something that did not exist before 1996. That being the denial of the Federal government to recognize a legal status as authorized by the states and in fact recognizing only partial status based on gender. In there words the Federal Government recognizes a legal status for some, based on state law - but does not recognize the same status for others - based on gender. That aspect did not exist in 1971.
The FACT is the Constitution hasn't changed since 1971, which was the question in front of SCOTUS for Baker v Nelson.

You fantasies don't change that FACT.

You state "the only thing that changed", do you have problems with date in recognizing that 1996 is after 1971? That would be a change. In addition 5 state now recognize Civil Same-Sex Marriages to some degree, that did not exist in 1971, that would also be a change.

As such, your statement that "the only thing that changed" is incorrect.

Do you have a problem comprehending that the issue decided by SCOTUS in Baker v Nelson is that state laws that disallow opposite-sex marriages do not violate the U.S. Constitution?

All the 'changes' you talk about have nothing to do with that FACT.

I didn't say it was happening, the courts are beginning to rule in accordance with the Equal Protection clause, some people's desire that those law be ignored results in comments like your's blaming it on "liberal activist judges" when in fact they would have been activist iif they had ignored the laws instead.
Nope. They are applying equal protect where it shouldn't be, because the states have decided that there is a compelling interest to discriminate.

The Equal Protection clause exists, it is not made up, as I've previously cited and provided a link for.

You attempt to ignore it does not change reality.
Please learn to read. I'm not ignoring it.

You response makes no sense to my statement as I've never said the state can't discriminate if they have a compelling interest, as a matter of fact I've affirmed that very point.

The problem is that there is no compelling interest argument that holds water for treating two groups in a similar situation differently in this case. The accurate groups for comparison being law abiding, tax paying, infertile different-sex couples and law abiding, tax paying, infertile same-sex couples.
Which is your opinion. Which you are entitled to. Just as others are enititled to their opinion.

But of course, you don't want their opinions to count.

The wheels of justice often turn slowly, but justice is coming. I do believe it took a number of years for rulings to begin trickling down based on race also.
The lame race comparison doesn't work, as I've pointed out earlier.

1. Are you saying people don't deserve the right to grieve against the goverrnment when they preceive it is violating the State and Federal Constitutions? I'm sorry, are you saying that the authors of the Federal Constitution and many of the various State Constitutions erred when they wrote in the right to Grieve as part of their Bill's of Rights?
Huh? Please learn to read.

2. I've previously quoted the Iowa Constution from two sections, one the Equal Protection Clause and also the clause which mandates that statutory laws which conflict with the Constitution are to be voided. Those laws exist, and no matter how much you don't want them to be on the books, they are their and were the basis of the decision.
Again. Learn to read. I'm not claiming they don't exist.

Must be fun to argue against strawmen instead of what I'm actually saying.

Currently the law, using Iowa again, specifically says that all citizens have the right to equal protection.

I'm sorry, when did the people of Iowa vote to amend their constitution and remove the Equal Protection Clause or to amend their Constitution to discriminate against same-sex couples?

All I've seen is statutory law which is subordinate to, and must comply with, the State Constitution.
As always, there are exceptions to equal protection.

This isn't rocket science.

The people of Iowa enacted their Constitution, the legislature enacted a statutory law which was found in conflict with that Constitution, by order of that very same Constitution that law is then void.
Found by liberal judges, after the laws have been on the books for a hundred years.

OK, cool, here is the equal protection clause from the Iowa Constitution. Could you please point out where the exclusion clause is applicable to homosexuals making them not count as "all citizens", silly me when it says "all citizens", I would interpret that to mean - well - "all citizens".
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

So when the state makes laws that forbid criminals from owning guns, are they violating equal protection also? I mean, these criminals are citizens too. Could you please point out the where the exclusion clause is applicable to criminals making them not count as "all citizens"?

Sure it was.
Nope.

Don't need to as I've never made that claim.
So what changed? Was it just the mind of the judges?

I know, it will be painful, but see I believe in "Liberty and Justice for all". They will get there eventually.
Obviously not, since you advocate laws being passed by the un-elected judiciary. But you're ok with it this time because you happen to agree with the laws they're making. Next time that may not be the case.

You said, and I quote, "Even those involved in the civil rights movement don't accept that comparison."

I showed your were a leader from the NAACP does consider it a civil rights issue.
Yes, and show me where I said 'all those involved'.

Learn to read.

Yep, commonly called the "Obama Factor" having the first "black" president on the ticket at the same time.

Don't worry though he won't be on the ballot in 2010 when it is likely to be repealed.
Huh? How does having Obama on the ballot cause 70% of blacks to vote against Prop 8? All Obama did was increase the number of blacks showing up. It wouldn't change the percentage of blacks voting against it.

No I didn't, here is what I said:
Of course you do. Your opinion is that there is no compelling interest to discriminate, and you want that to be the law, regardless of other's opinions.

Good, we agree.
Obviously not, since you want them to disregard the law and make judgements based on their political and religious opinions.

I know I don't, that's what we have Judges for, and (in the case of Iowa) those Judges agreed with my interpretation and not yours.

If society wants to discriminate, nothing I can do about it, however they will need to amend their Constitutions to do it. When statutory laws conflict with the Constitutions they should be voided.
Then don't conflict, and they haven't conflicted for the hundred years they've been on the books. The only thing that's changed is we now have liberal judges who want to write law.

However if we do, then we should remove the parts about Equal Protection and we ought to remove "With Liberty and Justice for All" from the pledge as they will no longer be true.
Of course. Every time a liberal wants something, they turn it into a 'right' and whine that there's no justice.

Just not the Judges I guess.
Of course. It's how liberals get what they want when democracy doesn't go their way.

snagswolf

April 7th, 2009, 8:47 am

1. How sad that you have to try to resort to name calling after being spanked.
:)) :)) :))

Calling you a liberal is 'name calling'?

And I've been 'spanked'?

:)) :)) :)) :))

Your delusion knows no end.

2. So "small government", "personal responsibility", the government treating all citizen in similar situations the same is "liberal" now. Funny, it sounds more like a Goldwater Conservative telling Social (read as "Big Government Aauthoritarians) to go **** up a rope.
Sorry, asking the government to sanction more types of marriages is in no way 'smaller government', no matter how much you fantasize that it is.

And it's not a 'similar situation' to redefine what marriage is.

And as a conservative, I want the power that is retained by the People to stay with the People, not transferred to un-elected judges.

3. Putting my life on the line in defense of your (and every other American's) liberties now means I'm not interested in democracy?
If you're willing to transfer the power of the People to un-elected judges, then yes, you're not interested in democracy. You're only interested in getting what you want passed into law, and screw democracy.

Well I guess the answer to the last question is that no, I don't believe in mob-rule when it comes to people being treated justly under the law, I believe in the rule of law.
Another clueless one who needs to learn the definition of democracy.

I don't think that the majority should be able to use government to discriminate against an unpopular class of citizens. If the mob wants to discriminate, they are going to have to go to the trouble of amending the various constitutions to do that. As I believe in the law, and it's principals, there would not be that much to say except to work to repeal such discriminatory measures from out highest legal documents. I stand up for what is right, I stand up for liberty, I stand for justice, and I speak my mind in defense of same.
:)) :)) :))

The only thing you stand up for is turning personal activities into 'rights', and then abusing the power of the judiciary to use the force of law to force everyone else into following your opinions.

So using the law to discriminate against an unpopular class of people isn't using the "force of law".
Happens all the time in a democracy.

Of course, democracy is fine for liberals until they lose a vote.

There is a word for that you know.
Yes, it's 'hypocrisy'. Like when you claim you stand for liberty, but then abdicate your liberty to un-elected judges.

snagswolf

April 7th, 2009, 9:14 am

Those reasons were given in Iowa, they were found to be as weak as they are.
Of course. And the majority who have a different opinion don't get a say in this democracy.

Of course, because that is my opinion. And in the case of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on Iowa Law it was pretty much in agreement.
Well, it's good to know that you recognize that is just your opinion, and not a fact.

So what about the rest of your fellow citizens, who don't share your opinion? Their voices in this democracy have been ignored by some un-elected judges.

But that's ok, right? Because you got what you wanted.

The latest case isn't based on Baker, it is based on State law.
So? Do all arguments presented here have to come from the latest case?

Weak. I presented a legal rebuttal against your 'infertile couple' argument, and the best you can come up with is that it wasn't part of the latest case?

If you are in support of laws that treat one group differently then a similar group based on a characteristic of that group, that is in fact discrimination. If you support treating homosexuals differently because they are homosexual, that is discrimination.
Yes, and some discrimination is legal.

How many times do we have to go over this?

Now are there cases where discrimination is warrented, sure, for example it is discrimination to limit Drivers Licenses to those with good vision. However, there is a compelling reason for that. However, there is no valid reason for treating infertile same-sex couples differently then infertile different-sex couples.
Once again, it is only your opinion that there is 'no valid reason'.

Most people disagree with you. I've presented a legal argument that disagrees with you. (Which you conveniently ignored.)

1 a: the act of discriminating b: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>
I prefer definition '1'. "the act of discriminating b: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently"

We have two stimuli. One is opposite-sex marriage, and the other is same-sex marriage. People are responding differently to these two stimuli. They feel that opposite sex marriage is beneficial to our society, so they want the State to sanction it. They have no such feelings for same-sex marriage, so they don't want the State to sanction that.

Once again, it's not rocket science. Society has the right to sanction activities it feels are beneficial, and they also have the right to not sanction activities they don't consider beneficial.

1. Please cite where the people of Iowa voted on amending their Constitution to override the Equal Protection Clause.
Show me where in the past these laws were found to violate equal protection. It is only the judges opinions that have changed. Not the constitution, and not society.

2. You also are trying to force you opinion into the law in support of discrimination, so join the club.
I am advocating for democracy, which by definition, causes laws to be passed that sometimes legally discriminate. It's the foundation this country was based upon.

3. Pleas cite where I've ever said that Judges should override the will of the people
All of your posts in this thread are advocating judges override the will of the People.

You don't seriously think that most people agree with your and the judges' opinions that same-sex marriage is beneficial to society, do you?

Is not the right to grieve against the government one of the rights of the people?
Huh? When did I claim it wasn't?

The arrogance of social authoritarians who want to make everyone live their lives in only the "government approved manner" is never ending.
:rolleyes: Please. Save your soapbox preaching for those who are confused about this issue.

Currently, gays can marry whomever they want. They are free to find a willing pastor and take their vows and live as a married couple. The only thing they don't have is government sanction of their marriages. You know, the 'government approved manner' which you referred to.

The one here advocating that gays live their lives in the 'government approved manner' is you.

IndyBec

April 7th, 2009, 9:14 am

Please, someone give me an argument against gay marriage that does not amount to some ridiculous morality plea or a weak slippery slope argument.

Some people want to change the definition of a legally-sanctioned marriage. Others do not.

snagswolf

April 7th, 2009, 9:27 am

I've read them. We work on democratic principles, but there is no doubt that the Founders were concerned primarily with the rights of individuals, not majorities.
Which is why they created a country that has a representative republic as its specific government.

What does that have to do with my use of the word 'democracy', and your reply with a post from Franklin, where him and I are obviously referring to two different definitions of the word?

It was obvious to you, right?

No. The correct translation is that individual rights trump the collective will *unless* there is a compelling state interest in abridging an individual's rights. "I don't like it" or "it's against my religion" is not a compelling interest to deny gay & lesbian couples equal protection under the law.
Nice strawman, but that's not the compelling interest argued.

And BTW, you do realize that your opinion of what may be a compelling interest may be different than someone else's, right? And you also realize that those other people are just as much a part of this democracy as you are, right?

I mean, you are concerned about their 'individual rights' too, right?

Guild-Sfire

April 7th, 2009, 10:10 am

A representative Republic is a beautiful thing :cool:

A Constitutionally limited, Representative Democratic Republic...is even more beautiful.

Pudge

April 7th, 2009, 11:08 am

Oh WorldWatcher, you silly librul.

:razz:

You avatar is making me want to listen to the Descendents.

Pudge

April 7th, 2009, 11:17 am

Which is why they created a country that has a representative republic as its specific government.

What does that have to do with my use of the word 'democracy', and your reply with a post from Franklin, where him and I are obviously referring to two different definitions of the word?

It was obvious to you, right?

At the time I responded you hadn't clarified your use of the term. I admit, when I hear people speak of democracy, I tend to cringe, because a tyranny of the majority is still tyranny no matter how you slice it. Majorities can and have been wrong on many occasions, and consensus is no reasonable basis by which to determine which individuals should have rights and which individuals shouldn't.

that's not the compelling interest argued.

And BTW, you do realize that your opinion of what may be a compelling interest may be different than someone else's, right? And you also realize that those other people are just as much a part of this democracy as you are, right?

I mean, you are concerned about their 'individual rights' too, right?

Only as far as their expression of it does not violate the individual rights of others.

My personal belief is that government has no business telling individuals who they can and cannot marry, nor do they have any business propping up some marriages in law while denying that same status to other couples because they don't fit a traditional, majority-sanctioned definition. If the compelling interest is children, well, there are gay & lesbian couples who raise children now. Why not make the legal status something that one must have children in order to obtain? But no, I don't even agree with that- just because you have kids doesn't mean that other couples and individuals who don't have children must subsidize the benefits of those who do.

A marriage should not be a license. It should be a simple contract between any two consenting adults who join as legal next of kin for purposes of property rights, inheritance, medical power of attorney, and so on. Anything else should be left to be defined by your own personal beliefs, religious or otherwise.

Marleysdaddy

April 7th, 2009, 11:43 am

Currently, gays can marry whomever they want. They are free to find a willing pastor and take their vows and live as a married couple. The only thing they don't have is government sanction of their marriages.

Isn't the government sanction of a marriage the part that grants my wife and I all the legal and civic benefits of marriage? Things like spousal privilege, power of attorney, the right of survivorship, all that good stuff...

WorldWatcher

April 7th, 2009, 1:49 pm

'Federal issue' means constitutional. How can the Constitution not have a problem with it 40 years ago, but have a problem with it now? The Constitution hasn't changed.

The FACT is the Constitution hasn't changed since 1971, which was the question in front of SCOTUS for Baker v Nelson.

You fantasies don't change that FACT.

Nice Strawman, I never said the Constitution has changed, I said the legal landscape has changed.

Fact – Baker v. Nelson, 1971
At that time there were no federal issues as there were was no Federal Doma and no States that recogonized Civil Same-sex Marriage.

Fact – DOMA passed 1996

Fact – 5 States since ~2000 now recognize Civil Same-Sex Marriage.

You attempt to ignore them doesn’t change those FACTs either.

Do you have a problem comprehending that the issue decided by SCOTUS in Baker v Nelson is that state laws that disallow opposite-sex marriages do not violate the U.S. Constitution?

All the 'changes' you talk about have nothing to do with that FACT.

Not in the least, in 1971 there were no federal issues, I agree.

FACT – Federal Laws have been passed since 1971 and 5 States now recognize Civil Same-Sex Marriage.

Nope. They are applying equal protect where it shouldn't be, because the states have decided that there is a compelling interest to discriminate.

So let me make sure I understand you correctly. The State passes a statutory law that is discriminatory, the measurement then of whether there is a compelling interest is to ask the state that passed the law to begin with?

Lets try that…

A state passes a law that says anyone can own a firearm, however, no one may own ammunition. When challenged in court the “State” says, “Why, because we say so.” The Judges response is supposed to then be “OK – case dismissed as we should take whatever the State says as true.”

Please learn to read. I'm not ignoring it.

Sure you are, just a few paragraphs ago you say that Judges should not apply Equal Protection to Homosexuals when they grieve against the government seeking Equal Treatment under the law.

Which is your opinion. Which you are entitled to. Just as others are enititled to their opinion.

And of course the same applies to you.

But of course, you don't want their opinions to count.

That’s not true. I think their opinions do “count”, the people have to ability to override the Judiciary in preventing discrimination.

When the people say all citizens are to be treated equally under the law (such as Iowa in their Constitution) and subordinate statutory law does not provide for that, then that discriminatory law should be struck down. If the people want to discriminate, then must enshrine that discrimination in their Constitution which is the measure the Judges are required to use.

So when it comes to amending their state Constitution, yes their opinions count. Should the Judges ignore their Constitution because of the perceived “will of the people” even though it conflicts with the law? No they shouldn’t.

The lame race comparison doesn't work, as I've pointed out earlier.

Actually it works pretty well, but I can understand why you would find it embarrassing.

Huh? Please learn to read.

Again. Learn to read. I'm not claiming they don't exist.

Must be fun to argue against strawmen instead of what I'm actually saying.

You said that Judges should not find for Homosexual under the Equal Protection Clause, you’ve said that Judges are making up “rights” that don’t exist.

I read just fine.

As always, there are exceptions to equal protection.

This isn't rocket science.

Of course there are.

That’s why there is a compelling interest measurement when law are clearly discriminatory.

In Iowa, the court found that the arguments presented by the government were weak, in other words there was no compelling interest to treat law abiding, tax paying, infertile same-sex couples differently then law abiding, tax paying, infertile, different-sex couples.

Found by liberal judges, after the laws have been on the books for a hundred years.

Oft times the wheels of Justice turn slowly.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No why?

So when the state makes laws that forbid criminals from owning guns, are they violating equal protection also? I mean, these criminals are citizens too. Could you please point out the where the exclusion clause is applicable to criminals making them not count as "all citizens"?

Depends, it it all criminals?

Criminal, someone that has violated the law. I received a speeding ticket, as a result I am therefore a criminal. Does that mean I can’t own a gun under your hypothetical?

Or are you taking only about certain classes of criminals? I think the State can make a fairly easy “compelling interest argument” about restricting gun ownership to murders, rapists, thieves, drug dealers, those who commit assault, etc…

A better example is denying Drivers Licenses to those who are visually impaired. Sure it’s discriminatory, however there is a compelling reason for such action.

The fact that there is no valid compelling reason for treating law abiding, tax paying, infertile same-sex couples differently then law abiding, tax paying, infertile, different-sex couples.

So what changed? Was it just the mind of the judges?

Probably people with the courage to challenge an unjust law used their right to grieve and presented the case to the courts.

Obviously not, since you advocate laws being passed by the un-elected judiciary. But you're ok with it this time because you happen to agree with the laws they're making. Next time that may not be the case.

Aren’t you the one citing Baker v. Nelson.

Funny how you don’t mind citing the courts when you happen to agree with the law their making. Next time that may not be the case.

Huh? How does having Obama on the ballot cause 70% of blacks to vote against Prop 8? All Obama did was increase the number of blacks showing up. It wouldn't change the percentage of blacks voting against it.

I didn’t say it changed the percentage of blacks voting against it, however if you increase the number the final count changes.

Simple math. Let’s say in an average election 100 black people show up and 70% will typically vote in a certain way (for example, to promote discrimination against homosexuals by the government). That’s 70 votes in favor of discrimination.

On the other hand let’s say we have the first black presidential candidate on the ballot, now 1,000 blacks turn out to vote. If they vote in terms of promoting discrimination at the same rate, then you now have 700 votes in the final tally.

I’m not sure if this will get through though to everyone though as some people seem to have difficulty with numbers. Like the fact that 1996 comes after 1971 and things that happened after 2000 were not in effect prior to 1971. But I tried.

Of course you do. Your opinion is that there is no compelling interest to discriminate, and you want that to be the law, regardless of other's opinions.

Your opinion is that there is a compelling interest to discriminate, and you want that to be the law, regardless of other's opinions.

So I guess we’re even.

However I do acknowledge the rights of citizens to enact law and I also recognize that there is a hierarchy of law such that Constitutional Law outranks Statutory Law. If the opinion of the people is to discriminate against homosexuals, they of course can, but to do so they have to amend constitutions, writing statutory laws that conflict with their Constitutions doesn’t hack it.

Obviously not, since you want them to disregard the law and make judgements based on their political and religious opinions.

Ugh????

The Iowa Constitution says people have the right to equal treatment under the law, I’ve not asked the Iowa Supreme Court to ignore that. I’m glad they ruled in accordance with the law.

You seem to be the one arguing that they should ignore the plan language of the law and rule based on what they “think” the “will of the people”.

Seems like you have that backwards.

>>>>

WorldWatcher

April 7th, 2009, 2:00 pm

Calling you a liberal is 'name calling'?

Yes. I’ve been a voting member of the GOP for over 30 years.

I’m much more aligned with Goldwater Conservatives then with the modern crowd of social authoritarian conservatives.

And I've been 'spanked'?

Why, yes you have.

Sorry, asking the government to sanction more types of marriages is in no way 'smaller government', no matter how much you fantasize that it is.

Sure it is, it’s getting the government out of attempting to restrict the activities of one unpopular group because the majority find them “icky” and allow them to make the same choices and have the same legal standing as other groups.

And as a conservative, I want the power that is retained by the People to stay with the People, not transferred to un-elected judges.

The people have the power, they can amend their Constitutions and remove the power from the Judges, the process works.

If you're willing to transfer the power of the People to un-elected judges, then yes, you're not interested in democracy. You're only interested in getting what you want passed into law, and screw democracy.

My, getting testy are we? :))

However to address your statements, I want the Judges to uphold the laws as enacted by the people. If the Constitution says that ALL Citizens deserve equal treatment under the law, then you are damn right I want the Judges to enforce that.

If on the other hand the people amend their Constitutions to tell the Judges this is how it should be, then so be it, that is the way it works in our Constitutional Republican form of government.

Now, show me one place where I’ve ever said that the people should not have the ultimate choice in making their Constitution?

The only thing you stand up for is turning personal activities into 'rights', and then abusing the power of the judiciary to use the force of law to force everyone else into following your opinions.

So are you saying homosexual should have the right to seek redress against the government when they perceive the government has violated their right to Equal Protection under the Law?

>>>>

WorldWatcher

April 7th, 2009, 2:30 pm

Of course. And the majority who have a different opinion don't get a say in this democracy.

Sure they do. The “majority” always hold dominant power as it is the power of the majority that amends constitutions.

Well, it's good to know that you recognize that is just your opinion, and not a fact.

I recognize many things as opinions v. fact.

For example, Shlitz Beer tastes bad, that’s opinion not fact.

How about another, 1996 occurred after 1971, that’s a fact not influenced by opinion.

So what about the rest of your fellow citizens, who don't share your opinion? Their voices in this democracy have been ignored by some un-elected judges.

Nice appeal to emotion fallacy, however the truth is, as in the case of Iowa, the court ruled in accordance with the State Constitution and did not ignore the law.

The fact is that if the people of Iowa don’t like the ruling they can override the Judges and amend their constitution.

That’s how a Constitutional Republic works, which of course is a form of democracy, but it seem to be a point you want to ignore in your rants.

But that's ok, right? Because you got what you wanted.

And you are OK with Baker v. Nelson because you think you got what you wanted.

So? Do all arguments presented here have to come from the latest case?

Pretty much as it is the most reacent, but it was a very well written decision and blew a wide whole in the state “compelling interest” arguments.

I can see why you would want to run away from it.

Weak. I presented a legal rebuttal against your 'infertile couple' argument, and the best you can come up with is that it wasn't part of the latest case?

You didn’t present a legal rebuttal as the Iowa Court found the comparison of similar situations to be one of the factors. The fact that not all heterosexuals choose or are able to procreate was one of those factors in establishing similar circumstances.

Yes, and some discrimination is legal.

Of course.

How many times do we have to go over this?

I don’t know, how many times do you want to claim that Judges found rights that didn’t exist when in fact, as in the most recent case and in CA also the State Constitution clearly guarantees all citizens the right to equal treatment under the law.

Once again, it is only your opinion that there is 'no valid reason'.

No actually not.

The California Supreme Court, the Connecticut Supreme Court, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and now the Iowa Supreme Court have found the same thing.

So it’s not just “my” opinion.

Most people disagree with you. I've presented a legal argument that disagrees with you. (Which you conveniently ignored.)

Shucks, I’m heart-broken.

I didn’t ignore your arguments, I found them to be poor justification for discriminating against my fellow Americans.

I prefer definition '1'. "the act of discriminating b: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently"

You of course are free to “prefer” anything you want. The courts though tend to apply definition #3 (“the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook”) as we are talking about people an not the difference between applying Ice Cream or Jalapeño Peppers to your tastebuds.

Once again, it's not rocket science. Society has the right to sanction activities it feels are beneficial, and they also have the right to not sanction activities they don't consider beneficial.

I agree, however if Society also says that all citizens (as the Iowa Constitution does) have the right to equal treatment under the law, then that society must modify it’s Constitution to permit discrimination against the “icky” group so they are not included in “all citizens” without a compelling interest.

Show me where in the past these laws were found to violate equal protection. It is only the judges opinions that have changed. Not the constitution, and not society.

You do realize it’s “Judges” who rule on laws in violation of equal protection right?

As you such you question makes no sense.

I am advocating for democracy, which by definition, causes laws to be passed that sometimes legally discriminate. It's the foundation this country was based upon.

I don’t disagree, I advocate for the same thing. Those laws must however be created at the proper level in the legal hierarchy, if you are goings to pass statutory laws that conflict with the Constitution, then those laws should be found void until such time as through the democratic process the Constitution is amended, in this case to enshrine discrimination as the American standard.

All of your posts in this thread are advocating judges override the will of the People.

Not once have I advocated that Judges override the will of the people, I’ve repeatedly mentioned that if the people want to discriminate against the “icky” group they are free to do so. However if their Constitution contains an Equal Protection clause, then the law that must first be changed is the Constitution through the democratic process.

Your Strawman fails miserably as I’ve said this multiple time.

You don't seriously think that most people agree with your and the judges' opinions that same-sex marriage is beneficial to society, do you?

Please quote me as to where I’ve ever said Civil Same-Sex Marriage is “beneficial” to society?

I have said that similar grouping would be law abiding, tax paying, infertile same-sex couples and law abiding, tax paying, infertile, different-sex couples.

I think in terms of “society” they are on par, one group is allowed to Civilly Marry, one group is not. Hence the issues with equal treatment under the law.

Currently, gays can marry whomever they want. They are free to find a willing pastor and take their vows and live as a married couple. The only thing they don't have is government sanction of their marriages. You know, the 'government approved manner' which you referred to.

Try to keep up the discussion is about Civil Marriage.

If marriage was only a religious institution then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

The one here advocating that gays live their lives in the 'government approved manner' is you.

No I’m not telling gays anything, they can live their lives as they choose.

However if the government is going to create a legal status and then withhold that legal status without a compelling interest, then they are in violation of the law, for example Iowa’s Constitution.

You are advocating having the government tell gays they can’t get Civilly Married, I’m saying it’s none of the government’s business to make that choice it should be up to the couple.

>>>>

snagswolf

April 8th, 2009, 8:00 am

At the time I responded you hadn't clarified your use of the term.
A dictionary would have helped you, and common sense should have provided the context.

All those quotes I listed from historical politicians - did you assume they were talking about the specific form of democracy?

Only as far as their expression of it does not violate the individual rights of others.

My personal belief is that government has no business telling individuals who they can and cannot marry, nor do they have any business propping up some marriages in law while denying that same status to other couples because they don't fit a traditional, majority-sanctioned definition.
Sure they do. Society has the right to use laws to support any behavior they choose. We do it all the time.

If the compelling interest is children, well, there are gay & lesbian couples who raise children now. Why not make the legal status something that one must have children in order to obtain? But no, I don't even agree with that- just because you have kids doesn't mean that other couples and individuals who don't have children must subsidize the benefits of those who do.
Again, your opinions, and you're entitled to them. Just as others are entitled to disagree with you.

A marriage should not be a license. It should be a simple contract between any two consenting adults who join as legal next of kin for purposes of property rights, inheritance, medical power of attorney, and so on. Anything else should be left to be defined by your own personal beliefs, religious or otherwise.
More opinion.

As we live in a democracy, your opinion is one of millions.

snagswolf

April 8th, 2009, 8:03 am

Isn't the government sanction of a marriage the part that grants my wife and I all the legal and civic benefits of marriage? Things like spousal privilege, power of attorney, the right of survivorship, all that good stuff...
Yes, that would be the "government approved manner" that WorldWatcher was referring to.

That is society's legal sanction of an activity they approve of. If you want society to approve same-sex marriages, convince them that they should.

As I said, democracy is a beautiful thing.

blackcatrun

April 8th, 2009, 8:15 am

Spending millions of dollars in an attempt to deny people two states away some right has got to be the definition of stupid.

At the end of the day, homosexuals getting married has zero effect on you. It's pathetic that this issue gets so much attention when the only arguments voiced by the opposition are either weak slippery slope arguments (Gay marriage? What's next PEDO marriage!!? Apparently gays getting married changes the definition of a rational, consenting adult) or some variant of "Mah bible says right here..."

Please, someone give me an argument against gay marriage that does not amount to some ridiculous morality plea or a weak slippery slope argument.

I dont want my kids preached at that an abnormal sexual lifestyle is normal. Just for the reactions they will give back when told homosexuals are normal.

They already think it a gross lifestyle choice and make no quams about expressing that disgust.

snagswolf

April 8th, 2009, 8:42 am

Nice Strawman, I never said the Constitution has changed, I said the legal landscape has changed.

Fact – Baker v. Nelson, 1971
At that time there were no federal issues as there were was no Federal Doma and no States that recogonized Civil Same-sex Marriage.

Fact – DOMA passed 1996

Fact – 5 States since ~2000 now recognize Civil Same-Sex Marriage.

You attempt to ignore them doesn’t change those FACTs either.
FACT: The question in Baker v Nelson was, do state laws that prohibit same-sex marriages violate the U.S. Constitution?

The answer was 'no'.

All the other things you're bringing up have NOTHING to do with that question.

Again, please learn to read.

Not in the least, in 1971 there were no federal issues, I agree.

FACT – Federal Laws have been passed since 1971 and 5 States now recognize Civil Same-Sex Marriage.
FACT: 'Federal issue' means whether it violates the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution hasn't changed since 1971.

Again, learn to read.

So let me make sure I understand you correctly. The State passes a statutory law that is discriminatory, the measurement then of whether there is a compelling interest is to ask the state that passed the law to begin with?

Lets try that…

A state passes a law that says anyone can own a firearm, however, no one may own ammunition. When challenged in court the “State” says, “Why, because we say so.” The Judges response is supposed to then be “OK – case dismissed as we should take whatever the State says as true.”
In that case, that law would be violating a right actual written into the Constitution, not one made up by liberal judges.

But nice try.

Sure you are, just a few paragraphs ago you say that Judges should not apply Equal Protection to Homosexuals when they grieve against the government seeking Equal Treatment under the law.
Huh? When did I say that?

And of course the same applies to you.
Exactly right. ALL of us are entitled to our opinions in this democracy. We ALL have a right to have our voices be a part of it.

But being a 'part of it' means to have the democratic process work, and not be overridden by the courts.

That’s not true. I think their opinions do “count”, the people have to ability to override the Judiciary in preventing discrimination.

When the people say all citizens are to be treated equally under the law (such as Iowa in their Constitution) and subordinate statutory law does not provide for that, then that discriminatory law should be struck down. If the people want to discriminate, then must enshrine that discrimination in their Constitution which is the measure the Judges are required to use.

So when it comes to amending their state Constitution, yes their opinions count. Should the Judges ignore their Constitution because of the perceived “will of the people” even though it conflicts with the law? No they shouldn’t.

Judges should follow their constitutions and what is written in them, not make things up that aren't there.

Actually it works pretty well, but I can understand why you would find it embarrassing.
Learn to read. I didn't say it was embarrassing. I said it was lame.

And the black voters in California disagree that it 'works pretty well'.

You said that Judges should not find for Homosexual under the Equal Protection Clause

I read just fine.
Obviously not, since I never said that.

I said that society has the right to pick and choose which behaviors they want to support.

you’ve said that Judges are making up “rights” that don’t exist.
Yes, they are.

There is no 'right' in the Constitution for two people of the same sex to marry. If you think it's there, please show it to me.

Of course there are.

That’s why there is a compelling interest measurement when law are clearly discriminatory.

In Iowa, the court found that the arguments presented by the government were weak, in other words there was no compelling interest to treat law abiding, tax paying, infertile same-sex couples differently then law abiding, tax paying, infertile, different-sex couples.
Yes, liberal judges used equal protection to overturn a law they personally disagreed with.

Oft times the wheels of Justice turn slowly.
:)) :)) :))

And oft times, liberal judges write law from the bench.

Depends, it it all criminals?

Criminal, someone that has violated the law. I received a speeding ticket, as a result I am therefore a criminal. Does that mean I can’t own a gun under your hypothetical?

Or are you taking only about certain classes of criminals? I think the State can make a fairly easy “compelling interest argument” about restricting gun ownership to murders, rapists, thieves, drug dealers, those who commit assault, etc…

So you're saying that equal protection doesn't apply toward these citizens?

That's odd. You just said this:

Could you please point out where the exclusion clause is applicable to homosexuals making them not count as "all citizens", silly me when it says "all citizens", I would interpret that to mean - well - "all citizens".

So please point out the exclusion clause that is applicable to criminals? I asked you for this already and you dishonestly ignored it.

The fact that there is no valid compelling reason for treating law abiding, tax paying, infertile same-sex couples differently then law abiding, tax paying, infertile, different-sex couples.
Sorry, no matter how much you think it's true, that's not a 'fact'.

You really do need to understand the differences between what is fact and what is your opinion.

But that's the problem with all liberals. They think their opinions are facts, a therefore should be made into law regardless of what other people think.

Probably people with the courage to challenge an unjust law used their right to grieve and presented the case to the courts.
So you're admitting the Constitution didn't change, and it was just some people's opinions.

Nice to see we can amend constitutions just by a few people changing their minds.

Aren’t you the one citing Baker v. Nelson.

Funny how you don’t mind citing the courts when you happen to agree with the law their making. Next time that may not be the case.
Huh? Baker v Nelson didn't 'write' any laws. They upheld current law. They upheld the idea this country was founded upon - that states get to choose their own laws.

You're obviously confused.

I didn’t say it changed the percentage of blacks voting against it, however if you increase the number the final count changes.

Simple math. Let’s say in an average election 100 black people show up and 70% will typically vote in a certain way (for example, to promote discrimination against homosexuals by the government). That’s 70 votes in favor of discrimination.

On the other hand let’s say we have the first black presidential candidate on the ballot, now 1,000 blacks turn out to vote. If they vote in terms of promoting discrimination at the same rate, then you now have 700 votes in the final tally.
And I referred to a percentage, not to the total number.

Again, please learn to read.

I’m not sure if this will get through though to everyone though as some people seem to have difficulty with numbers. Like the fact that 1996 comes after 1971 and things that happened after 2000 were not in effect prior to 1971. But I tried.
Please point out where I said that 1971 comes before 1996.

I think your primary problem is reading comprehension.

Your opinion is that there is a compelling interest to discriminate, and you want that to be the law, regardless of other's opinions.

So I guess we’re even.
Wrong. I accept the FACT that we ALL have a voice in this democracy, and ALL of our opinions should be heard through the normal representive channels. I've already stated that if this democracy decides to choose to sanction same-sex marriages, I have no problem with that.

Unlike you, I don't think the courts should be used to force any minority opinions I may have upon the rest of society.

Unlike you, I hold our democracy in higher regard than any single issue.

However I do acknowledge the rights of citizens to enact law and I also recognize that there is a hierarchy of law such that Constitutional Law outranks Statutory Law. If the opinion of the people is to discriminate against homosexuals, they of course can, but to do so they have to amend constitutions, writing statutory laws that conflict with their Constitutions doesn’t hack it.
Only in the gelatinous minds of liberals do these laws violate the Constitution.

Ugh????

The Iowa Constitution says people have the right to equal treatment under the law, I’ve not asked the Iowa Supreme Court to ignore that. I’m glad they ruled in accordance with the law.

You seem to be the one arguing that they should ignore the plan language of the law and rule based on what they “think” the “will of the people”.

Seems like you have that backwards.
Liberals love to stand on their heads and claim the world is upside down.

It's been the law for over a hundred years. Only now do liberals stand on their heads and claim it's unconstitutional, without revising the Constitution.

snagswolf

April 8th, 2009, 8:57 am

Yes. I’ve been a voting member of the GOP for over 30 years.

I’m much more aligned with Goldwater Conservatives then with the modern crowd of social authoritarian conservatives.
You're a liberal on this issue.

And it's embarrassing to have someone claiming to be a conservative advocating liberal judges overturning the will of the People.

Why, yes you have.
:)) :)) :))

Just like a liberal. Post a bunch of B.S. and then do a victory dance.

Sure it is, it’s getting the government out of attempting to restrict the activities of one unpopular group because the majority find them “icky” and allow them to make the same choices and have the same legal standing as other groups.
So, getting the government involved in gay marriages is 'less government'?

Wow.

Inane.

The people have the power, they can amend their Constitutions and remove the power from the Judges, the process works.
The ability to amend the Constitution was set at a higher bar than normal laws by our founders for a reason. It's not the normal democratic process of passing laws.

It's why Jefferson warned us about the judiciary. He knew it would be hard to overcome judges who accumulated power to themselves.

My, getting testy are we? :))
Just pointing out the truth.

However to address your statements, I want the Judges to uphold the laws as enacted by the people. If the Constitution says that ALL Citizens deserve equal treatment under the law, then you are damn right I want the Judges to enforce that.

If on the other hand the people amend their Constitutions to tell the Judges this is how it should be, then so be it, that is the way it works in our Constitutional Republican form of government.
We've already gone over the 'all citizens' discussion. I've proven beyond a doubt that discriminating against a certain subset of citizens is legal if society has a compelling interest to do so.

You claim you understand this, but you keep bringing up 'all citizens' as if you've never heard of compelling interest.

At this point, I'm thinking it's less about reading comprehension and more about dishonest debate.

Now, show me one place where I’ve ever said that the people should not have the ultimate choice in making their Constitution?
Strawman. I never claimed you said that.

But nice try.

So are you saying homosexual should have the right to seek redress against the government when they perceive the government has violated their right to Equal Protection under the Law?
Huh?

You keep asking me if I said something I never said.

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

snagswolf

April 8th, 2009, 9:44 am

Sure they do. The “majority” always hold dominant power as it is the power of the majority that amends constitutions.
And it is the majority that makes laws.

It should not take the high bar of constitutional amendment to have laws the majority agrees upon.

How about another, 1996 occurred after 1971, that’s a fact not influenced by opinion.
You seem to have a obsession with these dates.

Nice appeal to emotion fallacy, however the truth is, as in the case of Iowa, the court ruled in accordance with the State Constitution and did not ignore the law.
Of course they did. They found something in the Constitution that hadn't been there in the 100 years it's existed.

The fact is that if the people of Iowa don’t like the ruling they can override the Judges and amend their constitution.

That’s how a Constitutional Republic works, which of course is a form of democracy, but it seem to be a point you want to ignore in your rants.
Wrong. A democracy works by the representatives of the people enacting laws that represent the majority.

The high bar of constitutional amendment was never intended to be involved in normal lawmaking.

And you are OK with Baker v. Nelson because you think you got what you wanted.
You're obviously misunderstanding my position. (What a surprise!)

I'm OK with Baker v Nelson because it upheld the idea that states get to decide for themselves what their laws should be.

Pretty much as it is the most reacent, but it was a very well written decision and blew a wide whole in the state “compelling interest” arguments.

I can see why you would want to run away from it.
And you're STILL attempting to dodge the legal argument I posted by claiming it's not a part of the most recent case, when this entire discussion is about the legalities of gay marriage, not the Iowa case.

Lame. You can't debate it, so just ignore it.

You didn’t present a legal rebuttal as the Iowa Court found the comparison of similar situations to be one of the factors. The fact that not all heterosexuals choose or are able to procreate was one of those factors in establishing similar circumstances.
Huh? I didn't present a legal rebuttal?

I presented a decision from a court precisely dealing with the issue of procreation.

That's not a legal rebuttal? :)) :)) :))

I don’t know,
I guess you don't.

how many times do you want to claim that Judges found rights that didn’t exist when in fact, as in the most recent case and in CA also the State Constitution clearly guarantees all citizens the right to equal treatment under the law.
All citizens?

I thought we went over this?

No actually not.

The California Supreme Court, the Connecticut Supreme Court, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and now the Iowa Supreme Court have found the same thing.

So it’s not just “my” opinion.
Yes, a bunch of liberal judges agree with you.

That alone should set off warning signs if you are a conservative as you claim to be.

I didn’t ignore your arguments, I found them to be poor justification for discriminating against my fellow Americans.
Of course. And like every liberal, when you find 'poor justification' that's all you need to make it a law.

You of course are free to “prefer” anything you want. The courts though tend to apply definition #3 (“the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook”) as we are talking about people an not the difference between applying Ice Cream or Jalapeño Peppers to your tastebuds.
Huh?

No they don't.

They obviously apply the definition I used, because they DO recognize 'compelling interest', and recognize that some discrimination is understandable, because the two 'stimuli' ARE different.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I agree, however if Society also says that all citizens (as the Iowa Constitution does) have the right to equal treatment under the law, then that society must modify it’s Constitution to permit discrimination against the “icky” group so they are not included in “all citizens” without a compelling interest.
And again, just because you disagree with the logic behind the compelling interest, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

How many times do I have to repeat that 'compelling interest' is an opinion? There is no 'fact' that compelling interest doesn't exist. Society gets to determine what their compelling interests are. And the way we determine that is through our democratic process.

You do realize it’s “Judges” who rule on laws in violation of equal protection right?

As you such you question makes no sense.
And the way they rule on equal protection is by defining what our 'compelling interests' are, even though those 'compelling interests' they come up with have nothing to do with the 'compelling interests' of the majority.

It is the job of the judges to determine what society's compelling interests are, not create them for them.

I don’t disagree, I advocate for the same thing. Those laws must however be created at the proper level in the legal hierarchy, if you are goings to pass statutory laws that conflict with the Constitution, then those laws should be found void until such time as through the democratic process the Constitution is amended, in this case to enshrine discrimination as the American standard.
Again, it is only in the muddled mind of liberals that these laws violate the Constitution.

Not once have I advocated that Judges override the will of the people,
Sure you have. You've advocated judges overturning laws that the will of the People have created.

Please quote me as to where I’ve ever said Civil Same-Sex Marriage is “beneficial” to society?
Then why would there be a compelling interest for society to sanction it?

I have said that similar grouping would be law abiding, tax paying, infertile same-sex couples and law abiding, tax paying, infertile, different-sex couples.
And I've presented legal arguments on why there is no symmetry in the Constitution for the propogation issue.

I think in terms of “society” they are on par, one group is allowed to Civilly Marry, one group is not. Hence the issues with equal treatment under the law.
Wrong. 'Society' defines marriage as between a man and a woman. 'Society' has determined that, because of that definition, marriage is beneficial to society and shoud be sanctioned. 'Society' has also determined that two people of the same sex do not fit the definition of marriage, and therefore they don't want to sanction that.

You can fantasize about 'society' in other terms, but it would just be your fantasy.

Try to keep up the discussion is about Civil Marriage.

If marriage was only a religious institution then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Yes, Civil Marriage. Marriage in the 'government approved manner'.

You're obviously confused. On one hand, you talk about "The arrogance of social authoritarians who want to make everyone live their lives in only the "government approved manner" is never ending", and on the other, you want gays to be involved in marriages in a 'government approved manner'.

You need to pick a side and stick to it.

No I’m not telling gays anything, they can live their lives as they choose.
I didn't say you were 'telling' gays anything. I said you were advocating that gays have 'government approved' marriages.

Again, learn to read.

However if the government is going to create a legal status and then withhold that legal status without a compelling interest, then they are in violation of the law, for example Iowa’s Constitution.
Only in the mind of a confused liberal.

You are advocating having the government tell gays they can’t get Civilly Married, I’m saying it’s none of the government’s business to make that choice it should be up to the couple.
I'm advocating that society gets to determine what sanctioned marriage is.

Yes, it's that damned democracy again. It can be a bitch to you liberals.

WorldWatcher

April 8th, 2009, 10:08 am

You're a liberal on this issue.

And it's embarrassing to have someone claiming to be a conservative advocating liberal judges overturning the will of the People.

I don't claim to be a moral conservative on this issue. However, I don’t think standing against injustice is a “liberal” stance either.

As I said, I think I think more along the lines of Barry Goldwater.

I don't know specifically if he addressed Same-sex marriage, however he did say…

“The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people's private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.” http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.html

I think that gives us a pretty good idea how what he would say and I agree with him.

You appear to have the view of an authoritarian moral conservative.

And it's embarrassing to have someone claiming to be a conservative advocating liberal judges overturning the will of the People.

You’ve stated this lie multiple times.

Please show me one place where I have ever expressed the opinion that Judges should overturn the “will of the People” as they have expressed in their Constitution.

Just like a liberal. Post a bunch of B.S. and then do a victory dance.

Why yes, I do think it is a victory for liberty and justice when we end government discrimination for no compelling reason.

So, getting the government involved in gay marriages is 'less government'?

Why yes it is, because it, because it removes the ability of one group to tell another group, you can’t have Civil Marriage and Equal Treatment under the Law because the larger group finds it “icky”.

As Goldwater said, “Government should stay out of people private lives”. Well the decision on who you want to Civilly Marry is one of those private decisions when that decision is (a) not illegal, or (b) when there is no compelling state interest as to why that intrusion into the private lives of citizens is warranted.

The ability to amend the Constitution was set at a higher bar than normal laws by our founders for a reason. It's not the normal democratic process of passing laws.

Exactly, and you notice something else, no where in the Federal Constitution is there Direct Democracy, in each case either laws or amendments are passed through the Republican form of government.

We've already gone over the 'all citizens' discussion. I've proven beyond a doubt that discriminating against a certain subset of citizens is legal if society has a compelling interest to do so.

I’ve never disagreed with it. I’ve provided examples of such.

However there is not compelling reasons for treating law abiding, tax paying, infertile same-sex couples differently then law abiding, tax paying, infertile different-sex couples.

You claim you understand this, but you keep bringing up 'all citizens' as if you've never heard of compelling interest.

No, I bring up “all citizens” to show that homosexuals were included under the Equal Protection Clause of the Iowa Constution and there was no special exclusion of them, such as “all citizens (except homosexuals) are…”

At this point, I'm thinking it's less about reading comprehension and more about dishonest debate.

Well you can try to improve your honesty (such as calling me a liberal as an attempted ad hominem or by lying and saying I’m for judges overturning the will of the people which they have expressed in their Constitutions).

But I won’t hold my breath.

You keep asking me if I said something I never said.

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

You have said multiple times that Judges should not have recognized Equal Protection for homosexuals on the Civil Marriage issue.

Nothing wrong with me, but thanks for asking.

>>>>

WorldWatcher

April 8th, 2009, 10:53 am

And it is the majority that makes laws.

It should not take the high bar of constitutional amendment to have laws the majority agrees upon.

Sure it should, that's why the founder placed the bar higher.

You seem to have a obsession with these dates.

No obsession really, they just show some things have changed since Baker v. Nelson.

Of course they did. They found something in the Constitution that hadn't been there in the 100 years it's existed.

It had always been their before, it’s just recently that the injustice was challenged.

Wrong. A democracy works by the representatives of the people enacting laws that represent the majority.

Correct, in the Constitutional Republican form of democracy, those laws must either conform to the Constitution as enacted by the will of the people or the Constitution must be changed to allow what would have been unconstitutional making it Constitutional.

The high bar of constitutional amendment was never intended to be involved in normal lawmaking.

Never said it was, however if you are going to use the law to remove equal treatment for an “icky” group, when the Constitution contains an Equal Protection Clause, then yes you do need an amendment.

I'm OK with Baker v Nelson because it upheld the idea that states get to decide for themselves what their laws should be.

Of course you are.

I have no issue with Baker v. Nelson as it stood in 1971.

And you're STILL attempting to dodge the legal argument I posted by claiming it's not a part of the most recent case, when this entire discussion is about the legalities of gay marriage, not the Iowa case.

And I’ve pointed out the weakness of your legal argument of Baker v. Nelson.

It was a decision in 1971, at that time I agree, there was no fundamental legal question for two reasons: (a) the Federal DOMA (passed in 1996) didn’t exist yet, and (b) at the time there were “0” states that recognized same sex marriage.

That situation has changed as such the basic premise that State should get to decide who is Civilly Married has been overrode by the Federal Government (via DOMA) which creates a Federal Question that did not exist before.

In addition we now have 6 States that recognize Civil Marriages of Same-sex Couples in some fashion (CA, CT, NY, MA, IA, VT). Since these States NOW recognize same-sex marriages (in some fashion) and none did before, then there are NOW Equal Treatment and Full Faith and Credit issues that did not exist before.

Lame. You can't debate it, so just ignore it.

Actually anyone reading these posts will know that the statement above is false I have shown how new issues have been raised that did not exist in Baker v. Nelsons time.

Huh? I didn't present a legal rebuttal?

I presented a decision from a court precisely dealing with the issue of procreation.

That's not a legal rebuttal? :)) :)) :))

Not really as I’ve never made the claim that procreation is a requirement of marriage.

IIRC you provided a section of the dismissal that noted that vary thing.

Let’s make it clear – I’ve never said procreation was a requirement of marriage, it specifically is not and as a matter of fact that is also noted in the Iowa Supreme Courts decision because it was the GOVERNMENT that was trying to say in that case that marriage was about procreation.

All citizens?

I thought we went over this?

We did, in the California and Iowa decisions the courts found that Homosexuals were included in “all citizens”.

Was there anything else?

They obviously apply the definition I used, because they DO recognize 'compelling interest', and recognize that some discrimination is understandable, because the two 'stimuli' ARE different.

Ummm – if they were using your definition then the plaintiffs would have lost the case in Iowa and California, yet they won.

Go figure.

And again, just because you disagree with the logic behind the compelling interest, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Again it’s not just me, even though you try to make it about me…

It’s the Judges ruling on the Law in the case of the California Supreme Court, Iowa Supreme Court, Massachusetts Supreme Court, Connecticut Supreme Court and now what appears to be the legislature of the State of Vermont.

So you can try to make this about “me”, but your logic fails.

How many times do I have to repeat that 'compelling interest' is an opinion? There is no 'fact' that compelling interest doesn't exist. Society gets to determine what their compelling interests are. And the way we determine that is through our democratic process.

Correct, I don’t disagree. And through the democratic process society sets that criteria. If the Judges rule on a case, society can use that process to override the Judges.

I support that 100%.

And the way they rule on equal protection is by defining what our 'compelling interests' are, even though those 'compelling interests' they come up with have nothing to do with the 'compelling interests' of the majority.

It is the job of the judges to determine what society's compelling interests are, not create them for them.

In other words you disagree with the Judges and that discrimination against homosexuals in regards to Civil Marriage should have continued.

OK, that’s you opnion and you are welcome to it.

I disagree, however, and my opinion is that (as in the Iowa Case) the Judges did a great job of explaining exactly why the governments argument of compelling interest was weak and did not justify continued discrimination.

Sure you have. You've advocated judges overturning laws that the will of the People have created.

Again you repeat this lie.

Please show me one time where I have advocated that Judges should overturn the will of the People as expressed in their respective Constitutions.

I have repeated said that if the “will of the People” is to discriminate against homosexuals they are free to do that, however if their Constitution says they can’t then the proper route to that discrimination is to amend their Constitutions.

Then why would there be a compelling interest for society to sanction it?

Equal Treatment does not require “compelling interest” to sanction – well – Equal Treament.

Discrimination requires “compelling interest” to – well – discriminate.

And I've presented legal arguments on why there is no symmetry in the Constitution for the propogation issue.

Exactly, which is why the governments arguments about procreation and marriage were dismissed as in both the California and Iowa cases.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Wrong. 'Society' defines marriage as between a man and a woman. 'Society' has determined that, because of that definition, marriage is beneficial to society and shoud be sanctioned. 'Society' has also determined that two people of the same sex do not fit the definition of marriage, and therefore they don't want to sanction that.

Actually the societies of CA, CT, VT, IA, and MA have defined Civil Marriage as between two consenting adults.

You're obviously confused. On one hand, you talk about "The arrogance of social authoritarians who want to make everyone live their lives in only the "government approved manner" is never ending", and on the other, you want gays to be involved in marriages in a 'government approved manner'.

You need to pick a side and stick to it.

I’m on the side of Equal Treatment and against discrimination.

Seems pretty clear to me.

I'm advocating that society gets to determine what sanctioned marriage is.

Yes, it's that damned democracy again. It can be a bitch to you liberals.

Sure they do, however in the case when Constitutions guarantee Equal Treatment under the Law to it’s citizens without a compelling interest, then that society must then amend their Constitutions to enshrine discrimination.

Pretty simple really.

>>>>