| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 07:35:19 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote:
:|I am passing along what the Supreme Court said. Many people try to pass off
:|the "marriage is civil right" phrase without including the entire text. What
:|the court said is that "marriage AND procreation" combine to form a
:|fundamental right basic to the survival of the race. Simple logic proves
:|this. Can we survive without marriage? Sure we can. Can we survive without
:|procreation. Not for long. In the days that this decision was taken, society
:|frowned upon unwedded child bearing. Thus, when the Supreme Court decided a
:|number of cases on the basis that "procreation" was fundamental to our
:|survival, they included marriage as a matter of political correctness of the
:|times. When the homosexual community attempts to use a case that claims
:|"marriage is a civil right" as a basis for same sex marriage they are being
:|dishonest. Marriage is a contract between 3 separate entities. A husband, a
:|wife and a state. It is not a right. A person can give up a right, such as
:|"you have the right to remain silent, if you give up this right", without
:|government accompaniment. No one can give up a legal marriage without
:|government accompaniment. They have to get court approval to disolve the
:|marriage. Even if it was a common law marriage, if there is property or
:|children involved.
What formal training have you had in law?
Do you know the meaning of Issues, Facts, Holding, Held, Ruled, Ruling,
Dicta?
Let's look at some important things:
LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
[Holding]
Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on
the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection
and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-12.
206 Va. 924, 147 S. E. 2d 78, reversed.
*****************************************************************************
SOME MORE INFO:
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/214/
http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/love.shtml
http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/lov.shtml
Loving v. Virginia
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Loving%20v.%20Virginia
What Chief Justice Warren said
The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate
all official sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.
There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest
solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe
generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. At
the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial
classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to
the "most rigid scrutiny", and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be
shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state
objective, independent of the racial discrimination which was the object of
the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court
have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative
purpose...which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his
conduct is a criminal offense."
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very
existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so
unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these
statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all
the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth
Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by
invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to
marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual
and cannot be infringed by the State.
*********************************************************************************
The Marriage Cases
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1707576
f a law doesn't infringe on a fundamental rights or involve a "suspect
class", it can still be challenged as totally arbitrary and unreasonable.
As long as the government can advance a "rational basis" for a law, it
survives the test. The reason doesn't have to be based on evidence or
facts, it just has to make sense. In effect, the judge says, "Give me one
good reason why the government needs this law" and if a lawyer can make up
a good reason off the top of his head, then the law stands. Here Judge
Kramer's opinion rests on solid United States Supreme Court precedent. The
Supreme Court has thrown out a Colorado law which abolished local civil
rights laws protecting homosexuals (equal access to housing, employment,
etc.) using the "rational basis test". Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
Also, the Supreme Court has recognized that sexual activity between
consenting adults is a protected exercise of "liberty", and struck down
Texas' sodomy laws. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003). Technically,
Lawrence was a Due Process case, not an Equal Protection case, and the
Court stated that its holding did not extend to the issue of same-sex
marriage. Lawrence does foreclose, however, the easiest "rational basis"
argument the government could have made here: that sodomy is a crime and
prohibiting same-sex marriage helps fight crime.
Now that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, opponents of same-sex marriage
are struggling to find a rationale for their position which will stand up
in a court of law. "The Bible says so" is not a very effective legal
argument, especially in this case, where the Bible says no such thing. The
government, pointing out that California law already extends many of the
legal protections of marriage to same-sex couples, tried to make a case
that California was not discriminating against homosexuals, but asserted
that the government had an interest in reserving the term "marriage" for
couples who can procreate. Citing language in some 19th century California
cases, the government argued that it had a legitimate purpose in defining
"marriage" to include only couples who can procreate. Judge Kramer
dispensed with this argument by pointing out that opposite sex couples who
either cannot or do not want children are allowed to marry in California.
In California, the judge observed, "One does not have to be married in
order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married."
Moreover, Judge Kramer noted, the fact that same-sex couples enjoyed all
the benefits of marriage under California law, except the dignity of the
name of "marriage", suggests that there was no legitimate government
purpose for the law depriving them of that dignity. Tradition isn't enough,
when entire classes are being denied fundamental rights for no reason other
than tradition.
Opponents of same-sex marriage immediately stepped up to microphones to
call the decision "ludicrous", "mind-boggling", "activist", and "judicial
tyranny". Talking heads on the television announced in grave tones that the
decision "was certain to be appealed", suggesting there was something wrong
with it. In fact, while the decision will be appealed, it will be affirmed.
In light of controlling precedent from the United States Supreme Court and
similar California State Supreme Court rulings, it does not appear to me
that Judge Kramer (who is decribed to be a Catholic and Republican in his
personal life) had much choice in ruling the way he did, nor will the
California Supreme Court.
Judge Kramer's decision was expressly based on the Constitution of the
State of California. This has led some same-sex marriage opponents to
announce that they will seek to amend the state constitution. State
constitutions are easier to amend than the federal Constitution. Two bills
are pending before the California Legislature that would put a
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot,
and if the passage of Proposition 22 (one of the laws defining marriage in
California as between a man and a woman) is any indication, such an
amendment could succeed. State constitutional amendments prohibiting
same-sex marriage passed last year in a dozen states.
Amendments to state constitutions will not help in the inevitable battle at
the federal level. The cases cited by Judge Kramer —United States Supreme
Court decisions based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal
Constitution— show that his decision was compelled by the United States
Constitution. Thus, opponents of same-sex marriage will have to muster
better arguments to persuade the United States Supreme Court, or gather
together the super-majority (3/4) of state legislatures necessary to amend
the United States Constitution, if they expect to prevail in the end. A
dozen "red states" are not enough to amend the federal Constitution.
In the Supreme Court, the only plausible argument I can think of would be
something based on the New Federalism: the notion that some areas of law
are for the States to decide. Granted, this would sound a lot like the
"States Rights" arguments which were shot down in flames during the civil
rights movement. "States Rights" might be more acceptable to the Court now,
if it were limited to marriage and domestic relations laws, which in the
United States have always been the prerogative of state legislatures to
define and regulate, and which vary considerably from state to state. This
would require, however, some fancy legal footwork to distinguish Loving v.
Virginia, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas, and I don't give it a
snowball's chance in Hell. If the commentary on this case from the
Religious Right is any indication, they will certainly fail to persuade the
necessary supermajority of the American people. As Lincoln said, "You can
fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the
time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Sterilization, Eugenics, and Privacy
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_SkinnerOK.htm
Significance
In this decision, the Supreme Court held that the acts of marriage and
procreation were fundamental rights of all people, even though the
Constitution does not specifically list them as such. Thus, a private
sphere of conduct between individuals was being recognized.
*******************************************************************************************
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html
But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause,
though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the
foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which
involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are
fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to
sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating
effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are
inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no
redemption for the individual whom the law touches.
***********************************************************************************
Marriage and precreation does not mean procreation is required. It does
not mean even a potential for precreation is required.
It is absurb for you to imply or suggest otherwise. If they were so tests
would have to be made upon application fopr a marriage lic to ensure both
persons were capable of producing childern. They would have to swear they
wantd children and were going to try and have children.
Anyone who was infertile, or did not want to produce children would be,
based on your your position, denied the right to marry
How stupid your position is when actually looked at.
SUMMING UP
The Court's decisions have afforded constitutional protection to personal
decisions relating to marriage, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1,
procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, family relationships,
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, child rearing and education, Pierce
v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, and contraception, see, e.g., Griswold
v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, and have recognized the right of the
individual to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters
so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or
beget a child, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453. Roe's central
holding properly invoked the reasoning and tradition of these precedents.
Pp. 846-853.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION TO PERSONAL DECISIONS RELATING TO MARRIAGE:
LOVING v VIRGINIA, PROCREATION: SKINNER v OKLAHOMA
Marriage is a fundamental right, precreation is a fundamenetal right.
However, unliKe what you are trying to sell, precreation is not a required
standard for marriage.
Check out Griswold v Connecticut.
************************************************************************
http://www.bpf.org/html/resources_and_links/statements/pdfs/samesexmarriage.pdf
Here are a few facts to consider:
• In 1967, when interracial marriage was legalized, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man [sic],
fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
• Civil marriage offers 1,049 federal protections and benefits. Hundreds
more are offered by every state. These include rights that cover medical
emergencies, taxes, financial issues, inheritance, burial decisions,
adoption, family law, employment benefits, immigration, Social Security,
housing, and veterans’ benefits.
• In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the ban on same-sex
marriage is unconstitutional, and the first state-sanctioned same-sex
marriages began on May 17, 2004.
• Some cities and states offer domestic partnership benefits, Vermont
offers civil unions, and Hawaii has “reciprocal beneficiaries.” However,
these forms of partnership fall short of civil marriage, offering only a
handful of state rights and responsibilities, which are not transferable to
another state, and no federal rights. • Same-gender couples already legally
marry in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada. The U.S. does not recognize
these marriages within the U.S.
• If ratified, the proposed U.S. constitutional amendment prohibiting
same-sex marriage would be the only constitutional amendment in history,
with the exception of Prohibition (which was repealed), to reduce civil
rights. Every other constitutional amendment has expanded civil rights.
• State-sanctioned marriage would not require any religious organization to
perform or recognize any marriage. No legislative enactment will change the
tenets of any religious faith. In the spirit of freedom, justice, civil
rights, and equal protection under the law for all human beings, the
Buddhist Peace Fellowship supports civil marriage for samegender couples
who choose to marry and to share fully and equally in the rights and
responsibilities of marriage. We oppose a U.S. constitutional amendment to
prohibit the basic civil right of marriage for same-gender couples.
*******************************************************************************
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833,851
(1992)
The following is how Justice Ling-Cohan follows up on the above point:
Under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions, it is beyond
question that the right to liberty, and the concomitant right toprivacy,
extend to protect marriage. The United States Supreme Court has long
recognized the fundamental importance of marriage. As early as 1888, in
Maynard v. Hill (125 US 190, 205, 211 [1888]), the Supreme Court stated
that marriage “creat[es] the most important relation in life” and is “the
foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be
neither civilization nor progress.”
In 1923, the Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399 (1923),
recognized that the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up
children” is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process
Clause. Nineteen years later, in Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 US at 541 (1942),
it described marriage as “fundamental to the very existence and survival of
the race.” In 1967, the Loving Court recognized marriage as a fundamental
right under the Constitution, striking down the state’s antimiscegenation
statute: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital
personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men... Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to
our very existence and survival.” 388 US at 12 (quoting Skinner, supraat
541).
One decade later, in Zablocki v. Redhail, (434 US at 384 [1978]), the Court
reaffirmed its holding in Loving, stating that “[a]lthough Loving arose in
the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of
this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for
all individuals.” Furthermore, the Supreme Court has noted that marriage is
a: “right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights – older than our
political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming
together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to a
degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life,
not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty,
not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a
purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
Griswold v. Conn., 381 US at 486 (emphasis supplied). The Supreme Court has
“long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and
family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.” Cleveland Bd of Ed v. LaFleur, 414 US 632,
639-40 (1974); see also Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (quoting Griswold, supra).
As stated by the Supreme Court: “At the heart of liberty is the right to
define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of
the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the
attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
Lawrence v.Texas, 539 US 558, 574 (2003) (quoting Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US at 851). The Court further
emphasized that “[t]hese matters, involving the most intimate and personal
choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal
dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment.” Id.
As other States have also observed, the right to marry "is not a privilege
conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against
unwarranted State interference." Goodridge v. Department of Public Health,
440 Mass at 345, 798 NE2d at 970 (Greaney, J. concurring). "[I]t is a
fundamental right of free men." Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal 2d at 714, 198 P2d
at 19.
The second aspect of the fundamental right to marry, which is what this
action concerns, is the right to choose whom one marries. The right to
choose one's spouse "resides with the individual." See Loving, 388 US at 12
(freedom to marry embraces the choice to select a partner across racial
lines which cannot be infringed by State);Perez, 32 Cal 2d 711, supra
(same); Goodridge, 440 Mass 309, supra (freedom to marry person of same
sex). "The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to
marry the person of one's choice..." Goodridge, 440 Mass at 227, 798 NE2d
at 958. See also Perez, 32 Cal 2d at 715, 198 P2d at 19 ("right to marry is
the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice"); Brause v.
Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743*6 (Alaska Super)(deciding whom to
marry is a fundamental right, whether decision results in traditional or
nontraditional choice), superseded by Alaska Const Art 1, § 25 (effective
Jan. 3, 1999) (providing that a valid marriage "may exist only between one
man and one woman").
Because the exclusion of same-sex couples from eligibility for civil
marriage infringes the fundamental right to choose one's spouse, such
exclusion may be sustained only if it serves a compelling state interest.
The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed that, since the freedom to
marry is a fundamental right, restrictions that “significantly interfere
with decisions to enter into the marital relationship” are subject to
“rigorous scrutiny” and “cannot be upheld unless ... supported by
sufficiently important state interests ...closely tailored to effectuate
only those interests.” Zablocki, 434 US at 386-388.
There are three decisions concerning the right of a gay couple to marry:
Hernandez, et al., v. Victor L Robles, City Clerk of the City of New York,
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, from Massachusetts, and Heather
Anderson and Leslie Christina; et al., v. King County, et al. from the
state of Washington. All three concur that marriage and the right to choose
one's partner in marriage, are fundamental rights protected by the U.S.
Constitution. All three confirm that it is unconstitutional to disallow gay
couples the right to marry.
.
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 Apr 2005 12:14:02 PM |
|
|
On 16 Apr 2005 06:55:33 -0700, wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 11 Apr 2005 09:28:38 -0700, wrote:
You continue to be stuck on the fallacy that protected status under
the
Civil Rights Act automatically implies preferential treatment.
Please
provide a specific reference within any of your links that
establishes
a *required* link between protected status and preferential
treatment.
(Sigh) Obviously you need to read what "implies" means Mr.
Rosenbluth. I've
provided several links. One example you obvious forgot was:
"Clinton Backs Affirmative Action for Homosexuals 6/29/1998
On May 28, President Bill Clinton signed an executive order that
essentially
made homosexuals eligible for affirmative action in federal hiring. "
(http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1004&department=CWA&categoryid=family)
All Clinton did was add sexual orientation to the list categories like
race, sex, handicap, religion . . . etc., for which discrimination is
illegal. That in no way implies preferential treatment.
How disingenuous of you Mr. Rosenbluth. You "snipped" the definition I provided
you wrt Affirmative Action:
"Affirmative action (US English), or positive discrimination (British English),
is a policy or a program providing advantages for people of a minority
group who are seen to have traditionally been discriminated against, with the
aim of creating a more egalitarian society. This consists of PREFERENTIAL access
to education, employment, health care, or social welfare." (emphasis mine)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action)
You're free to attempt at skewing or dismiss (such as through snippage) the
facts as provided you Mr Rosenbluth, but what Clinton did was attempt to bring
homesuxals to the same level as those "protected classes" as defined in the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Noted is your "snippage" of that which confirmed my points wrt "preferential
treatment" wrt the "protected class"...with evidence. How odd that in lieu of
providing refuting evidence, or even answering my questions to you (as asked),
you "snipped" such evidence (and my questions) in an obvious attempt to ignore
or dismiss it. ROTFLMHO
and where you "snipped" the following in your response:
'As well as Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) own words:
"ENDA will help put an end to this insidious discrimination by
EXTENDING to
sexual orientation the same federal employment discrimination
protections
already provided based on race, religion, gender, national origin,
age, and
disability."' (http://jeffords.senate.gov/issue_enda.html) (emphasis
mine)
What would be extended is equal treatment, not preferential treatment.
Gays are asking for the same protection that Jews and Judaism now
receive.
Now one might wonder why you "snipped" the very definition of Affirmative Action
provided you Mr Rosenbluth? That some politicians attempted to "extend" the
portections of those defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, culminating in the
eventual failure of ENDA, still doesn't equate in society (nor the legislature
nor courts) that homsexuals should be considered a "class" that equals of said
law.
Yet, your continuing attempts to inject "Jews and Judaism" into the argument has
been shown as fallacious at best, and only serves to confirm my comments in an
April 1st posting: "When such (a) diversionary tactic ("marriage" or "rights")
fails, some (gay advocates) will invariably attack their opponents through a
variety of fallacies that include religion, slavery, or interracial marriages."
Classes of people defined by their feelings (e.g., pacifists,
dog-lovers), get the lowest level of Equal Protection scrutiny
(rational basis). In Romer, The Court ruled that gays get a higher
level of protection (rational basis with bite). Why would they do
that, unless they think gays are an identifiable trait, and not just
a
feeling?
Oh my, what utter nonsense. Tell us Mr. Rosenbluth, what case has the
federal
courts adjudicated that defined a "class" of people based on any
"feelings",
beyond those as defined under the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Even you own URL noted; "The traditional rational basis test, as
applied in
cases such as Williamson v Lee Optical, is extremely
deferential--some would
call it a total abdication of judicial responsibility."
It also noted it was not the court, but "(s)ome commentators"
referred to the
Romer v Evans case as "rational basis with bite."
Had The Court used the Williamson standard, Amendment 2 would have been
upheld. Whatever it is called, Romer used a higher standard. In that
sense, gays have been defined as a class by The Court.
Your belief with on whether the "Williamson standard" would you would not "have
been upheld" is but your unsubstantiated opinion Mr Rosenbluth and not shown to
be logical, as you've presented no evidence to back such an assertion.
Your assertion wrt the court defining "gays...as a class" has previously been
shown as false...with evidence. You're free to believe otherwise Mr Rosenbluth,
yet this would be but your delusion.
Or from Lawrence: "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in
intimate
conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a
personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the
Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this
choice."
Does that sound like someone who thinks homosexuality is a
"feeling".
When dealing in the "private sphere" Mr. Rosenbluth, the court
agrees, as they
noted; "Petitioners' right to liberty under the Due Process Clause
gives them
the full right to engage in PRIVATE conduct without government
intervention.",
yet the court did not recognize that such a "feelling" that
homosexuals belonged
to a "protected status class" afforded those under the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.
(emphasis mine)
(http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html)
I have never said they went that far. But, The Court has afforded gays
as a class some level of protection. Would they have done that if they
felt homosexuality were a feeling rather than a trait?
You used a quote from Lawrence v Texas in an attempt to bolster your position
that "Classes of people defined by their feelings" Mr Rosenbluth, not I. I
showed your assertion that was false on this issue, as the court dealt with
this case on the basis of INDIVIDUAL "private conduct without government
intervention", and not a "class" as you attempted to falsely assert.
OTOH, you've yet to answer my question above Mr Rosenbluth. "what case has the
federal courts adjudicated that defined a "class" of people based on any
"feelings", beyond those as defined under the Civil Rights Act of 1964?"
I've already shown with evidence the falsity of your assertion wrt homosexuals
as a "class" in both rulings, but you're free to reject that provided you...as
you've done with the other evidence provided you (by "snippage").
WRT your question: One may speculate about many things Mr Rosenbuth, yet (in
Usenet at least) one should rely on facts and logic when doing so, rather than
the "snippage" of evidence, relying instead on fallacies, hyperbole, half-truths
and emotional rhetoric. YMMV.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 Apr 2005 06:33:09 PM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 Apr 2005 06:55:33 -0700, wrote:
All Clinton did was add sexual orientation to the list categories
like
race, sex, handicap, religion . . . etc., for which discrimination
is
illegal. That in no way implies preferential treatment.
How disingenuous of you Mr. Rosenbluth. You "snipped" the definition
I
provided you wrt Affirmative Action:
"Affirmative action (US English), or positive discrimination (British
English),
is a policy or a program providing advantages for people of a
minority
group who are seen to have traditionally been discriminated against,
with the
aim of creating a more egalitarian society. This consists of
PREFERENTIAL
access
to education, employment, health care, or social welfare." (emphasis
mine)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action)
Of course affirmative action is preferential treatment (duh). But, the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Clinton's actions, and ENDA do not require
affirmative action nor any other type of preferential treatment. Not
one of your links or quotes has shown how protected classes are
required to get preferential treatment. And as I have repeatedly
stated, Judaism is a counter-example that proves such a claim is wrong.
OTOH, you've yet to answer my question above Mr Rosenbluth. "what
case has
the federal courts adjudicated that defined a "class" of people based
on any
"feelings", beyond those as defined under the Civil Rights Act of
1964?"
No cases have defined classes of people based on feelings. But, Romer
gave gays greater than the lowest standard of protection. Therefore,
The Court views homosexuality as a trait, not a feeling.
I've already shown with evidence the falsity of your assertion wrt
homosexuals as a "class" in both rulings
You should have put evidence in quotes because you have provided none
relating to Romer nor Lawrence.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 Apr 2005 09:24:35 AM |
|
|
On 16 Apr 2005 16:33:09 -0700, wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 Apr 2005 06:55:33 -0700, wrote:
All Clinton did was add sexual orientation to the list categories
like
race, sex, handicap, religion . . . etc., for which discrimination
is
illegal. That in no way implies preferential treatment.
How disingenuous of you Mr. Rosenbluth. You "snipped" the definition
I
provided you wrt Affirmative Action:
"Affirmative action (US English), or positive discrimination (British
English),
is a policy or a program providing advantages for people of a
minority
group who are seen to have traditionally been discriminated against,
with the
aim of creating a more egalitarian society. This consists of
PREFERENTIAL
access
to education, employment, health care, or social welfare." (emphasis
mine)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action)
Of course affirmative action is preferential treatment (duh). But, the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Clinton's actions, and ENDA do not require
affirmative action nor any other type of preferential treatment. Not
one of your links or quotes has shown how protected classes are
required to get preferential treatment.
Since you snipped that provided you Mr Rosenbluth, your attempt to avoid the
following, is but one example (Notice the word "require" below Mr Rosenbluth):
"Congress' authority to "REQUIRE or authorize preferential treatment for those
likely disadvantaged by societal racial discrimination. Such legislation has
been sustained even without a requirement of findings of intentional racial
discrimination by those required or authorized to accord preferential treatment,
or a case-by-case determination that those to be benefited suffered from racial
discrimination." (emphasis mine)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=448&page=448#tt17
By your increasing snippage Mr Rosenbluth, it's becoming obvious your avoidance
and/or dismissal of the facts shows each of your previous assertions are false
and indefensible, as you begin to rely more on fallacious commentary. This
avoidance is even more obvious as you fail to address such questions posed to
you as asked:
1. 'How does one apply for a "special slice" of "contract set-asides" for a
"class", which in effect denies non-class group?'
(Based on http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n3-x.html provided you)
2. 'what does a "preference" that applies only to a "protected-class"
mean to you Mr. Rosenbluth?' (refering to the URL proivided you;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=448&page=448#tt17)
3. How does one "recruit, promote and/or retain" those of the "protected class",
yet do not also "recruit, promote and/or retain" those of the non-protected
class? (Based on the URL provided you;
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/oh0300/ch1.htm)
And as I have repeatedly
stated, Judaism is a counter-example that proves such a claim is wrong.
Yes Mr Rosenbluth, so you "repeatedly" claim...without evidence, ergo relegating
your assertions to an unsubstantiated opinions. So let's continue...
For Jews, refer to question one above (and the URL provided) where:
"The Small Business Administration authorized Asian-Indians
for a special slice of federal largess through contract set-asides in 1982. Sri
Lankans were added in 1988, Indonesians and Tongans in 1989, followed by Hasidic
Jews..." (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n3-x.html)
Since you've now admitted; "Of course affirmative action is preferential
treatment (duh).". In doing so, you acknowledge that religion has a "protected
class" status per the Civil Rights Act, and unlike homosexuals, and Judaism, as
a religion, falls under the affirmative action programs that are derived from
said Civil Rights Act.
So, in spite your "repeatedly stated" assertions Mr Rosenbluth, your claims are
fallacious and false, as ALL those defined as a "protected class" status have
access to affirmative action programs, which you've now admitted "IS
preferential treatment". (emphasis mine). Your claims wrt "require" is based on
law Mr Rosenbluth, as shown by the example from the SBA, and any protestations
you may have on this, feel free to answer question 1 above.
OTOH, you've yet to answer my question above Mr Rosenbluth. "what
case has
the federal courts adjudicated that defined a "class" of people based
on any
"feelings", beyond those as defined under the Civil Rights Act of
1964?"
No cases have defined classes of people based on feelings.
Thanks for admitting that Mr Rosenbluth. Since no "gay gene" has been found,
your previous assertion that "Classes of people (are) defined by their feelings"
has been proven false (beyond the Civil Rights Act). Such a phrase may be true
between individuals and groups, but implementing such broad and sweeping
concepts into constitutional law are unworkable as nonsensical and
unjustifiable.
But, Romer
gave gays greater than the lowest standard of protection. Therefore,
The Court views homosexuality as a trait, not a feeling.
What is a "trait" Mr Rosenbluth?
"Trait:
Main Entry: trait
Pronunciation: 'trAt, British usually 'trA
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, literally, act of drawing, from Latin tractus -- more
at TRACT
1 a : a stroke of or as if of a pencil b : TOUCH, TRACE
2 a : a distinguishing quality (as of personal character) : PECULIARITY b : an
inherited characteristic
(http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=trait&x=5&y=12)
Let's look at the definitions, shall we?
1. Neither 1a nor 1b are applicable to civil rights.
2. Item 3 is not applicable, as there has been no evidence that homosexuals have
anything "inherited ", i.e. "gay gene".
3. Item 2a remains the only item that is applicable in this case. A "personal
character" is hardly definable anymore than being*left-handed* is in meeting
those standards as defined under the Civil Rights Act.
FWIW, I previously commented on this as I noted: 'The above comments (wrt trait)
are false, as such legislation was not "unprecedented" (unless he was referring
to Colorado alone), as at the federal level, such federal and state(s)
legislation denied blacks (physical) equal protections UNTIL Article XIV (14th
Amendment) was passed, and continued to deny women (gender) such equal
protections UNTIL Article XIX (19th Amendment) was passed.'
(Message-ID: <424eee23.21062270@news.ifx.net>)
I've already shown with evidence the falsity of your assertion wrt
homosexuals as a "class" in both rulings
You should have put evidence in quotes because you have provided none
relating to Romer nor Lawrence.
When one resorts to snippage to avoid and/or dismiss acknowledgement of and in
spite of evidence provided Mr Rosenbluth, one may claim many things don't exist.
That you reject such evidence is your concern not mine...but I suspect most
intelligent NG readers understand the facts as I've presented, and the fallacies
as you've presented them.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
17 Apr 2005 11:08:31 AM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 Apr 2005 16:33:09 -0700, wrote:
Of course affirmative action is preferential treatment (duh). But,
the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Clinton's actions, and ENDA do not require
affirmative action nor any other type of preferential treatment.
Not
one of your links or quotes has shown how protected classes are
required to get preferential treatment.
"Congress' authority to "REQUIRE or authorize preferential treatment
for
those likely disadvantaged by societal racial discrimination.
Congress has the *option* to pass laws which require preferential
treatment. They are not required to do so. They have not done so for
Judaism.
1. 'How does one apply for a "special slice" of "contract set-asides"
for a
"class", which in effect denies non-class group?'
(Based on http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n3-x.html provided
you)
As usual, all your links are irrelevant. They all describe what
preferential treatment is (duh). Not one of them provides any evidence
that a protected class per the Civil Rights Act must have preferential
treatement.
And as I have repeatedly
stated, Judaism is a counter-example that proves such a claim is
wrong.
"The Small Business Administration authorized Asian-Indians
for a special slice of federal largess through contract set-asides in
1982.
Sri Lankans were added in 1988, Indonesians and Tongans in 1989,
followed by
Hasidic Jews..."
(http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n3-x.html)
Hasidim are one very small sect of Jews. The larger class of Jews, and
Judaism, get no preferential treatment even though they are covered by
Civil Rights laws.
So, in spite your "repeatedly stated" assertions Mr Rosenbluth, your
claims
are fallacious and false, as ALL those defined as a "protected class"
status
have access to affirmative action programs
What utter nonsense. I am Jewish, but not Hasidic. I am a memeber of
a protected class, but do not have access to affirmative action.
No cases have defined classes of people based on feelings.
Thanks for admitting that Mr Rosenbluth. Since no "gay gene" has been
found,
your previous assertion that "Classes of people (are) defined by
their
feelings has been proven false (beyond the Civil Rights Act).
I have not asserted that classes of people have been defined by their
feelings. Quite the opposite, I said The Court doesn't do that. Yet,
they chose to give gays greater protection. Therefore, The Court
doesn't view homosexuality as a feeling.
But, Romer
gave gays greater than the lowest standard of protection.
Therefore,
The Court views homosexuality as a trait, not a feeling.
What is a "trait" Mr Rosenbluth?
2 a : a distinguishing quality (as of personal character)
3. Item 2a remains the only item that is applicable in this case.
Bingo. It's a distinguishing quality, not a feeling, according to The
Court.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
23 Apr 2005 05:38:48 AM |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2005 09:08:31 -0700, wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 Apr 2005 16:33:09 -0700, wrote:
Of course affirmative action is preferential treatment (duh). But,
the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Clinton's actions, and ENDA do not require
affirmative action nor any other type of preferential treatment.
Not
one of your links or quotes has shown how protected classes are
required to get preferential treatment.
"Congress' authority to "REQUIRE or authorize preferential treatment
for
those likely disadvantaged by societal racial discrimination.
Congress has the *option* to pass laws which require preferential
treatment. They are not required to do so. They have not done so for
Judaism.
How unfortunate you "snipped" the next line Mr Rosenbluth...in an obvious
attempt to dismiss that provided:
"Such (previous) legislation has been sustained even without a requirement of
findings of intentional racial discrimination by those required...".
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=448&page=448#tt17)
If Congress only used the "option" in lieu of "requiring" in their previous
legislation Mr Rosenbluth, why would the court refer to "such (previous)
legislation" if no legislation had ever been passed? ROTFLMHO
Your dismissal of that provided you doesn't make your assertions true, just your
refusal to accept the evidence provided. (See "federal contractors" below)
1. 'How does one apply for a "special slice" of "contract set-asides"
for a
"class", which in effect denies non-class group?'
(Based on http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n3-x.html provided
you)
As usual, all your links are irrelevant.
The links are only irrelevent to those that dismiss challenges to their
preconcieved beliefs. This is confirmed by your "snippage" of the remaining two
questions asked of you, and may be why you avoid answering them. LOL.
They all describe what
preferential treatment is (duh). Not one of them provides any evidence
that a protected class per the Civil Rights Act must have preferential
treatement.
Oh my what utter nonsense. The evidence has been provided, whether you agree or
not is what is "irrelevant".
Previously provided you:
"For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action MUST BE TAKEN by
covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons
with disabilities, and covered veterans." (emphasis mine)
(http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/hiring/affirmativeact.htm)
Gee Mr Rosenbluth, how does one NOT REQUIRE affirmative action (as you admitted
"is preferential treatment (duh)"), when reading the words above "MUST BE TAKEN"
in the paragraph above? The wording above not an "option", but a *requirement*.
It's no wonder you dismiss the links that refute your comments. You're free to
keep your eyes closed Mr Rosenbluth...it appears the light of truth hurts them.
And as I have repeatedly
stated, Judaism is a counter-example that proves such a claim is
wrong.
"The Small Business Administration authorized Asian-Indians
for a special slice of federal largess through contract set-asides in
1982.
Sri Lankans were added in 1988, Indonesians and Tongans in 1989,
followed by
Hasidic Jews..."
(http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n3-x.html)
Hasidim are one very small sect of Jews. The larger class of Jews, and
Judaism, get no preferential treatment even though they are covered by
Civil Rights laws.
You continue avoid to the questions asked of you Mr Rosenbluth:
1. 'How does one apply for a "special slice" of "contract set-asides" for a
"class", which in effect denies a non-class group?'
2 'what does a "preference" that applies only to a "protected-class"
mean to you Mr. Rosenbluth?' (refering to the URL proivided you;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=448&page=448#tt17)
3. How does one "recruit, promote and/or retain" those of the "protected class",
yet do not also "recruit, promote and/or retain" those of the non-protected
class? (Based on the URL provided you;
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/oh0300/ch1.htm)
"For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action MUST BE TAKEN by
covered employers to RECRUIT AND ADVANCE qualified minorities*, women, persons
with disabilities, and covered veterans." (emphasis mine)
(http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/hiring/affirmativeact.htm)
*minorites include race, color, religion and national origin per the Civil
Rights Acf.
So, in spite your "repeatedly stated" assertions Mr Rosenbluth, your
claims
are fallacious and false, as ALL those defined as a "protected class"
status
have access to affirmative action programs
What utter nonsense. I am Jewish, but not Hasidic. I am a memeber of
a protected class, but do not have access to affirmative action.
Should you meet all other qualifications in a bid for a federal contract over a
non-minority group, your comment would be patently proven false...especially if
you made it clear you were a member of the "protected_class". This is noted in
the evidence (again) provided above (see "federal contractors").
Else, you will of course, prove you have attempted this and failed, and provide
this NG the basis of your failure to receive the federal contract you bid for
was NOT due to any other qualifications, won't you?
You claim you are Jewish but this doesn't mean you "do not have access to
affirmative action", rather you haven't taken advantage of affirmative action.
IF you've intentionally refused to go that *route*, I applaud you, but your
assertions have been proven false...again.
No cases have defined classes of people based on feelings.
Thanks for admitting that Mr Rosenbluth. Since no "gay gene" has been
found,
your previous assertion that "Classes of people (are) defined by
their
feelings has been proven false (beyond the Civil Rights Act).
I have not asserted that classes of people have been defined by their
feelings. Quite the opposite, I said The Court doesn't do that. Yet,
they chose to give gays greater protection. Therefore, The Court
doesn't view homosexuality as a feeling.
I provided your own quote Mr Rosenbluth, as you refered to "levels of
protection" in Message-ID:
<1113236918.875920.68620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
The court did not give "gays greater protection" Mr Rosenbluth, no matter how
many times you wish to repeat it. The court said Colorado attempted to *remove*
"...the protection of general laws and policies that prohibit arbitrary
discrimination in governmental AND PRIVATE SETTINGS." (emphasis mine) and the
denial of the said protections through all "general laws and polices" in
"private settings" afforded to everyone else, whether they belong to a class or
not, is where the court objected, and Lawrence v Texas confirmed that point.
But, Romer
gave gays greater than the lowest standard of protection.
Therefore,
The Court views homosexuality as a trait, not a feeling.
What is a "trait" Mr Rosenbluth?
2 a : a distinguishing quality (as of personal character)
3. Item 2a remains the only item that is applicable in this case.
Bingo. It's a distinguishing quality, not a feeling, according to The
Court.
A "distinguishing quality" may also be attributed to a well-known liar or a
person that wears outlandish style of clothing Mr Rosenbluth... neither which
meet the criteria of the Civil Rights Act nor would they be considered a "class"
anymore than homosexuals.
Your claims that the courts declared homosexuals a "class" (Romer vs Evans) has
been refuted multiple times with evidence in my previous posts. Not that you
will agree nor admit to the evidence (as you "snipp" away that you refuse to
address), but you're free to remain deluded as you wish Mr Rosenbluth.
Q: If, as you claimed, the federal court considered homosexuals a "class", where
are all the federal courts cases won by homosexuals for "class" discrimination
under the Civil Rights Act?
A: There aren't any such cases, else such cases would be citing Romer v Evans
wrt homosexuals as a "class", not referencing Romer v Evans wrt INDIVIDUAL
"private conduct without government intervention".
My original post in this thread on April 1st remains unrefuted:
'That a minority of people would expect, by demand, intimidation or stealth, to
attempt and change the very foundations that make up the majority of
"society"...,based on a "feeling" that this group should be placed on the same
level in society, not on genetic or physical differences, but on their
"feelings", may see a backlash against this (hypocrisy). '
(and)
"When...diversionary tactic ("marriage" or "rights") fails, some (gay
advocates) will invariably attack their opponents through a variety of fallacies
that include religion, slavery, or interracial marriages.
(Message-ID: <3f0ddf58.1147...@news.ifx.net >)
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
23 Apr 2005 08:16:23 AM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On 17 Apr 2005 09:08:31 -0700, wrote:
Congress has the *option* to pass laws which require preferential
treatment. They are not required to do so. They have not done so for
Judaism.
How unfortunate you "snipped" the next line Mr Rosenbluth...in an obvious
attempt to dismiss that provided:
"Such (previous) legislation has been sustained even without a requirement of
findings of intentional racial discrimination by those required...".
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=448&page=448#tt17)
This line supports my assertion that Congress *may* pass, but is not
*required* to pass, legislation that mandates preferential treatment.
If Congress only used the "option" in lieu of "requiring" in their previous
legislation Mr Rosenbluth, why would the court refer to "such (previous)
legislation" if no legislation had ever been passed? ROTFLMHO
I cannot parse your sentence.
You continue avoid to the questions asked of you Mr Rosenbluth:
1. 'How does one apply for a "special slice" of "contract set-asides" for a
"class", which in effect denies a non-class group?'
2 'what does a "preference" that applies only to a "protected-class"
mean to you Mr. Rosenbluth?' (refering to the URL proivided you;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=448&page=448#tt17)
3. How does one "recruit, promote and/or retain" those of the "protected class",
yet do not also "recruit, promote and/or retain" those of the non-protected
class? (Based on the URL provided you;
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/oh0300/ch1.htm)
We've already gone over these statements. They only define what a
preference is, not who is eligible for them.
"For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action MUST BE TAKEN by
covered employers to RECRUIT AND ADVANCE qualified minorities*, women, persons
with disabilities, and covered veterans." (emphasis mine)
(http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/hiring/affirmativeact.htm)
*minorites include race, color, religion and national origin per the Civil
Rights Acf.
What utter nonsense. I am Jewish, but not Hasidic. I am a memeber of
a protected class, but do not have access to affirmative action.
Should you meet all other qualifications in a bid for a federal contract over a
non-minority group, your comment would be patently proven false...especially if
you made it clear you were a member of the "protected_class".
You believe that I can take advantage of affirmative action because I am
a non-Hasidic Jew!!?? Please show evidence that I am eligible for such
programs (and no, that above quote is not evidence that non-Hasidic Jews
are eligible).
Your claims that the courts declared homosexuals a "class" (Romer vs Evans) has
been refuted multiple times with evidence in my previous posts. Not that you
will agree nor admit to the evidence (as you "snipp" away that you refuse to
address), but you're free to remain deluded as you wish Mr Rosenbluth.
Q: If, as you claimed, the federal court considered homosexuals a "class", where
are all the federal courts cases won by homosexuals for "class" discrimination
under the Civil Rights Act?
As I have repeatedly said, The Court did not declare homosexuals as a
class per the Civil Rights Act. They did however provide them with
greater protection (rational basis with bite) than the default (rational
basis).
My original post in this thread on April 1st remains unrefuted:
'That a minority of people would expect, by demand, intimidation or stealth, to
attempt and change the very foundations that make up the majority of
"society"...,based on a "feeling" that this group should be placed on the same
level in society, not on genetic or physical differences, but on their
"feelings", may see a backlash against this (hypocrisy). '
The Court would not have provided gays greater protection if they felt
homosexuality was just a feeling.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
24 Apr 2005 08:13:42 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 09:16:23 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 17 Apr 2005 09:08:31 -0700, wrote:
Congress has the *option* to pass laws which require preferential
treatment. They are not required to do so. They have not done so for
Judaism.
How unfortunate you "snipped" the next line Mr Rosenbluth...in an obvious
attempt to dismiss that provided:
"Such (previous) legislation has been sustained even without a requirement of
findings of intentional racial discrimination by those required...".
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=448&page=448#tt17)
This line supports my assertion that Congress *may* pass, but is not
*required* to pass, legislation that mandates preferential treatment.
I've not said Congress is "required" to pass such legislation Mr Rosenbluth.
You've claimed "They have not done so for Judaism.". Yet the Civil Rights Act
(among others) is legislation which Congress DID pass, and from which
affirmation action programs, including the "protected class" and "preferential
treatment", was derived and has been sustained by the courts. Judaism as a
religion, falls under the "protected class" status.
If Congress only used the "option" in lieu of "requiring" in their previous
legislation Mr Rosenbluth, why would the court refer to "such (previous)
legislation" if no legislation had ever been passed? ROTFLMHO
I cannot parse your sentence.
My poor phasing Mr Rosenbluth. IOW, Congress has passed legislation that
supports preferential treatment for those that meet the qualifications of the
Civil Rights Act. Such "qualifications" include religion, while homosexuals do
not meet that criteria.
You continue avoid to the questions asked of you Mr Rosenbluth:
1. 'How does one apply for a "special slice" of "contract set-asides" for a
"class", which in effect denies a non-class group?'
2 'what does a "preference" that applies only to a "protected-class"
mean to you Mr. Rosenbluth?' (refering to the URL proivided you;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=448&page=448#tt17)
3. How does one "recruit, promote and/or retain" those of the "protected class",
yet do not also "recruit, promote and/or retain" those of the non-protected
class? (Based on the URL provided you;
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/oh0300/ch1.htm)
We've already gone over these statements. They only define what a
preference is, not who is eligible for them.
You've made that assertion twice Mr Rosenbluth, but fail to back your assertion
with evidence. That a definition is provided is but partial truth, whereas the
remainder you ignore/dismiss is where such programs are spelled out in broad
terms wrt *implementation* of affirmative action programs. It is from this
implementation from where my questions are derived Mr Rosenbluth. For example:
"Equal employment opportunity efforts are formally set out in affirmative action
programs. In recent years affirmative action programs have been established to
identify, recruit, promote and/or retain qualified women, members of minority
groups, and the people with disabilities in employment opportunities.
(http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/oh0300/ch1.htm)
'3. How does one "recruit, promote and/or retain" those of the "protected
class", yet do not also "recruit, promote and/or retain" those of the
non-protected class?'
The remaining two URLs include that which is "required", one citing a court
case. Should a court case ONLY refer to "defining what a preference is", (as
you claimed) there would not have been a ruling in the case, eh? ROTFLMHO
Yet whom is "eligible" for "preference" is defined in the Civil Rights Act
(among others) and subsequent policies and procedures for affirmative actions
programs, all of which are derived from the law(s).
Now try answering the questions as asked Mr Rosenbluth, else the NG readers may
easily conclude you can not answer them without fallacies, "snippage" and
avoidance, and your assertions have no basis in fact.
"For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action MUST BE TAKEN by
covered employers to RECRUIT AND ADVANCE qualified minorities*, women, persons
with disabilities, and covered veterans." (emphasis mine)
(http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/hiring/affirmativeact.htm)
*minorites include race, color, religion and national origin per the Civil
Rights Acf.
What utter nonsense. I am Jewish, but not Hasidic. I am a memeber of
a protected class, but do not have access to affirmative action.
So you're claiming the quoted information above is "utter nonsense"? Oh my.
Please Mr Rosenbluth, tell the NG readers:
How are members of the "protected class" as defined by law(s) exempted from the
affirmative action programs that are derived from these same law(s)? Please
provide in your answer the evidence to back your assertion. Failure to provide
such evidence will confirm you have nothing but your unsubstantiated (and
flawed) opinion.
Should you meet all other qualifications in a bid for a federal contract over a
non-minority group, your comment would be patently proven false...especially if
you made it clear you were a member of the "protected_class".
You believe that I can take advantage of affirmative action because I am
a non-Hasidic Jew!!?? Please show evidence that I am eligible for such
programs (and no, that above quote is not evidence that non-Hasidic Jews
are eligible).
Why Mr Rosenbluth, are you claiming that as a person of the Jewish faith, but
because you're not a Hasidic Jew, you're NOT a "minority"? Yet you claim you
are of the "protected_class"? Before you "snip" or answer, you might ponder
with the answer requested of you above, i.e.;
'How are members of the "protected class" as defined by law(s) exempted from the
affirmative action programs that are derived from these same law(s)?'
The above quote refering to federal contractors includes religion, not *just*
Hasidic Jews, as THAT quote was from a different URL (that you snipped even in
your post). So your assertion the above "is not evidence" is false, as you again
make an unsubstantiated opinion without evidence to back your assertion.
One may speculate that your "snippage" regarding my comment that; 'IF you've
intentionally refused to go that *route* (affirmative action), I applaud you'.
It would appear you're trying to get me to tell you how to access such
affirmative action programs for your personal benefit. How sad.
FWIW, and in spite of ANOTHER of your deliberate "snips" to avoid answering
questions as asked; (based on the "federal contractors" URL provided you)
( 2nd request):
'Gee Mr Rosenbluth, how does one NOT REQUIRE affirmative action (as you admitted
"is preferential treatment (duh)"), when reading the words above "MUST BE
TAKEN"...?
Your claims that the courts declared homosexuals a "class" (Romer vs Evans) has
been refuted multiple times with evidence in my previous posts. Not that you
will agree nor admit to the evidence (as you "snipp" away that you refuse to
address), but you're free to remain deluded as you wish Mr Rosenbluth.
Q: If, as you claimed, the federal court considered homosexuals a "class", where
are all the federal courts cases won by homosexuals for "class" discrimination
under the Civil Rights Act?
As I have repeatedly said, The Court did not declare homosexuals as a
class per the Civil Rights Act. They did however provide them with
greater protection (rational basis with bite) than the default (rational
basis).
That is your repeated assertion Mr Rosenbluth...and it remains a lie, as your
false assertion has been refuted with evidence multiple times, as the "rational
basis with bite" was the opinion of "(s)ome commentators", but not from the
evidence provided you from the SCOTUS, nor as confirmed in Lawrence v Texas,
which was in my rhetrocial answer (see below). This is evident when you
"snipped" my posted rhetorical answer by substituting your own; whereas my
rhetorical answer was :
'A: There aren't any such cases, else such cases would be citing Romer v Evans
wrt homosexuals as a "class", not referencing Romer v Evans wrt INDIVIDUAL
"private conduct without government intervention". '
How disengenuous you've become in your responses Mr Rosenbluth.
Tell us Mr Rosenbluth, how does individual, "private conduct without government
intervention" become a "class" of people as confirmed by Lawrence v Texas?
My original post in this thread on April 1st remains unrefuted:
'That a minority of people would expect, by demand, intimidation or stealth, to
attempt and change the very foundations that make up the majority of
"society"...,based on a "feeling" that this group should be placed on the same
level in society, not on genetic or physical differences, but on their
"feelings", may see a backlash against this (hypocrisy). '
The Court would not have provided gays greater protection if they felt
homosexuality was just a feeling.
That you "snipped" my comment refering to a "distinguishing quality" as you've
"snipped" the evidence provided you that the court didn't provide homosexuals
"greater protection", your assertions remains false.
This is what happens Mr Rosenbluth, when one has a preconceived notion based on
false assertions, and to keep those false assertions, one must "snip" to avoid
answering questions as asked and/or evidence that refutes those assertions.
Beyond *your* interpretation and that of "some (unnamed) commentators", you've
provided no evidence to refute that provided you other than your unsubstantiated
opinion.
Feel free to come back when you're ready to answer the questions as asked of you
without fallacies Mr Rosenbluth. To date, your increasing use of "snippage"
shows you've no answers beyond your unsubstantiated opinion. OTOH, my opinion
(previously posted) has been backed by the evidence provided. Whether you agree
or not is what is irrelevant...until you can provide evidence to refute my own.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
24 Apr 2005 10:18:22 AM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 09:16:23 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Why Mr Rosenbluth, are you claiming that as a person of the Jewish faith, but
because you're not a Hasidic Jew, you're NOT a "minority"? Yet you claim you
are of the "protected_class"? Before you "snip" or answer, you might ponder
with the answer requested of you above, i.e.;
'How are members of the "protected class" as defined by law(s) exempted from the
affirmative action programs that are derived from these same law(s)?'
The laws which establish "protected classes" only define the *potential*
set of groups who are eligible for affirmative action. The government
has discretion as to which minorities named in the Civil Rights Act are
eligible for affirmative action.
For example from one of your quotes, "[f]or federal contractors and
subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to
recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with
disabilities, and covered veterans." But then you slip up by claiming,
"minorities include race, color, religion and national origin per the
Civil Rights Act."
You have incorrectly concluded that *all* minorities (including Jews,
Catholics, Southern Baptists, and people whose national origin is
French, Belgian or Swiss) get affirmative action. Under your logic,
most people (maybe the overwhelming majority) would get affirmative
action, because most people are a member of at least one minority group
named in the Civil Rights Act. Kinda silly, huh?
As I have repeatedly said, The Court did not declare homosexuals as a
class per the Civil Rights Act. They did however provide them with
greater protection (rational basis with bite) than the default (rational
basis).
That is your repeated assertion Mr Rosenbluth...and it remains a lie, as your
false assertion has been refuted with evidence multiple times, as the "rational
basis with bite" was the opinion of "(s)ome commentators", but not from the
evidence provided you from the SCOTUS, nor as confirmed in Lawrence v Texas,
which was in my rhetrocial answer (see below). This is evident when you
"snipped" my posted rhetorical answer by substituting your own; whereas my
rhetorical answer was :
'A: There aren't any such cases, else such cases would be citing Romer v Evans
wrt homosexuals as a "class", not referencing Romer v Evans wrt INDIVIDUAL
"private conduct without government intervention". '
From Lawrence:
"The second post-Bowers case of principal relevance is Romer v. Evans
[...] There the Court struck down class-based legislation directed at
homosexuals as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. [...] As an
alternative argument in this case, counsel for the petitioners and some
amici contend that Romer provides the basis for declaring the Texas
statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. That is a tenable
argument, but we conclude the instant case requires us to address
whether Bowers itself has continuing validity. Were we to hold the
statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause some might question
whether a prohibition would be valid if drawn differently, say, to
prohibit the conduct both between same-sex and different-sex participants."
The Court wanted to invalidate all sodomy laws, not just same-sex
prohibitions, and hence relied on (the stronger) Due Process rather than
(the weaker) Equal Protection. But, they clearly implied they would
invalidate a same-sex sodomy law on Equal Protection grounds using Romer.
In her concurrence, O'Connor (who did not want to overrule Bowers) was
explicit in referencing not only Romer, but also Moreno, Cleburne and
Eisenstadt: "[w]hen a law exhibits such a desire to harm a politically
unpopular group, we have applied a more searching form of rational basis
review to strike down such laws under the Equal Protection Clause."
The Court would not have provided gays greater protection if they felt
homosexuality was just a feeling.
That you "snipped" my comment refering to a "distinguishing quality"
As I replied, a "distinguishing quality" is not a feeling.
Also, consider these words from Lawrence:
"The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the
right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their
homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free
persons."
While those words in no way say anything (one way or the other) about
whether homosexuals get any class-based protection (it is a Due Process
argument), they clearly show The Court believes homosexuality is not
just a feeling.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
25 Apr 2005 06:29:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:18:22 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 09:16:23 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Why Mr Rosenbluth, are you claiming that as a person of the Jewish faith, but
because you're not a Hasidic Jew, you're NOT a "minority"? Yet you claim you
are of the "protected_class"? Before you "snip" or answer, you might ponder
with the answer requested of you above, i.e.;
'How are members of the "protected class" as defined by law(s) exempted from the
affirmative action programs that are derived from these same law(s)?'
The laws which establish "protected classes" only define the *potential*
set of groups who are eligible for affirmative action. The government
has discretion as to which minorities named in the Civil Rights Act are
eligible for affirmative action.
True, not *all* self-proclaimed "minorities" are considered members of the
"protected class". To date, they (and in at least eleven states) such a status
has not been *granted* to homosexuals. Which is why I originally stated:
'By failing to convince the majority, the proponents of the gay lifestyle have
opted to challenge society, by challenging the laws-on-the-books through the
court system in an attempt to have their beliefs adjudicated as a bonfide
minority status at the same level as blacks or women based on Article XIV.'
For example from one of your quotes, "[f]or federal contractors and
subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to
recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with
disabilities, and covered veterans." But then you slip up by claiming,
"minorities include race, color, religion and national origin per the
Civil Rights Act."
No "slip up" at all Mr Rosenbluth...when taken in context of the acclaimed
reasons for affirmative actions programs (in the US). See below.
You have incorrectly concluded that *all* minorities (including Jews,
Catholics, Southern Baptists, and people whose national origin is
French, Belgian or Swiss) get affirmative action. Under your logic,
most people (maybe the overwhelming majority) would get affirmative
action, because most people are a member of at least one minority group
named in the Civil Rights Act. Kinda silly, huh?
When viewed in the light of the definition previously provided you:
"Affirmative action (US English), or positive discrimination (British
English), is a policy or a program providing advantages for people of a minority
group who are seen to have traditionally been discriminated against..."
(Message-ID: <4260d218.186060@news.ifx.net>)
Mr Rosenbluth, neither "Catholics, Southern Baptists" are subgroups under the
inclusive banner of of "Chirstianity", they are hardly considered a "minority"
group in the US. Nor are "...people whose national origin is French, Belgian or
Swiss" ever (at least since the ratification of Article XIV) considered
"traditionally been discriminated against" (in the US), which is the acclaimed
reason for enacting such affirmative action programs in the first place. The
"majority" of people in the US do not meet that criteria. It appears you're
"grasping-at-straws", and are looking "kinda silly"
As I have repeatedly said, The Court did not declare homosexuals as a
class per the Civil Rights Act. They did however provide them with
greater protection (rational basis with bite) than the default (rational
basis).
That is your repeated assertion Mr Rosenbluth...and it remains a lie, as your
false assertion has been refuted with evidence multiple times, as the "rational
basis with bite" was the opinion of "(s)ome commentators", but not from the
evidence provided you from the SCOTUS, nor as confirmed in Lawrence v Texas,
which was in my rhetrocial answer (see below). This is evident when you
"snipped" my posted rhetorical answer by substituting your own; whereas my
rhetorical answer was :
'A: There aren't any such cases, else such cases would be citing Romer v Evans
wrt homosexuals as a "class", not referencing Romer v Evans wrt INDIVIDUAL
"private conduct without government intervention". '
From Lawrence:
"The second post-Bowers case of principal relevance is Romer v. Evans
[...] There the Court struck down class-based legislation directed at
homosexuals as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. [...] As an
alternative argument in this case, counsel for the petitioners and some
amici contend that Romer provides the basis for declaring the Texas
statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. That is a tenable
argument, but we conclude the instant case requires us to address
whether Bowers itself has continuing validity. Were we to hold the
statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause some might question
whether a prohibition would be valid if drawn differently, say, to
prohibit the conduct both between same-sex and different-sex participants."
Note it refers to an "individual" issue wrt "privacy", not a "class" issue. Non
sequitur
The Court wanted to invalidate all sodomy laws, not just same-sex
prohibitions, and hence relied on (the stronger) Due Process rather than
(the weaker) Equal Protection. But, they clearly implied they would
invalidate a same-sex sodomy law on Equal Protection grounds using Romer.
Again, an "individual" wrt "privacy", not a "class" issue. No sequitur
In her concurrence, O'Connor (who did not want to overrule Bowers) was
explicit in referencing not only Romer, but also Moreno, Cleburne and
Eisenstadt: "[w]hen a law exhibits such a desire to harm a politically
unpopular group, we have applied a more searching form of rational basis
review to strike down such laws under the Equal Protection Clause."
(Sigh). Should you look at the case Mr Rosenbluth, it is full of references to
the *individual;" While the quote you cite may be indeed "her" opinion, you'll
also note; "The rationale of Bowers does not withstand careful analysis.",
despite whether she wanted to refrain from overruling Bowers or not....she
failed and Bowers was overruled.
Yet, the majority considered; " We conclude the case should be resolved by
determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the PRIVATE
CONDUCT" in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution." (emphasis mine)
(http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html)
Your free to continue to "spin" it anyway you wish Mr Rosenbluth...but it
remains "spin" and not fact, as homosexuals, as a group, are not considered a
"class", but in fact may not be discriminated against in the "confines of their
homes", or their "private lives". Neither of which constitutes actions of a
"protected class" as defined in the Civil Rights Act.
The Court would not have provided gays greater protection if they felt
homosexuality was just a feeling.
That you "snipped" my comment refering to a "distinguishing quality"
As I replied, a "distinguishing quality" is not a feeling.
As I noted, 'A "distinguishing quality" may also be attributed to a well-known
liar or a person that wears outlandish style of clothing Mr Rosenbluth...
neither which meet the criteria of the Civil Rights Act nor would they be
considered a "class" anymore than homosexuals.' Yet you "snipped" it as if to
dismiss/ignore it. Now why would that be? LOL.
Also, consider these words from Lawrence:
"The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the
right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their
homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free
persons."
While those words in no way say anything (one way or the other) about
whether homosexuals get any class-based protection (it is a Due Process
argument), they clearly show The Court believes homosexuality is not
just a feeling.
Glad to see you admit such behaviour is (not based on gender nor physical
attributes) to allow people to retain their "distingushing quality" within the
"confines of their homes", and "private lives" Mr Rosenbluth. None of which
rises to the level of a "protected class" status. IOW, in addition to that
provided you, your own post included quoted material from Lawrence vs Texas that
refutes any "class" status wrt homosexuals, as focused on the privacy issue.
OTOH, A "distinguishing quality" that may be attributed to a well-known liar or
a person that wears an outlandish style of clothing Mr Rosenbluth. They are
equally protected within the "confines of their homes", and their "private
lives", but neither they nor homosexuals are considered a "class", nor eligible
to have "preferential treatment" (via federal contacts for example) as are those
defined by per the Civil Rights Act, nor are they considered as such by the
federal government.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
25 Apr 2005 07:20:02 PM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:18:22 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Mr Rosenbluth, neither "Catholics, Southern Baptists" are subgroups under the
inclusive banner of of "Chirstianity", they are hardly considered a "minority"
group in the US. Nor are "...people whose national origin is French, Belgian or
Swiss" ever (at least since the ratification of Article XIV) considered
"traditionally been discriminated against" (in the US), which is the acclaimed
reason for enacting such affirmative action programs in the first place. The
"majority" of people in the US do not meet that criteria. It appears you're
"grasping-at-straws", and are looking "kinda silly"
Catholics, Southern Baptists, and people whose national origin are
French, Belgian or Swiss are protected by the Civil Rights Act from
discrimination. But none are offered affirmative action. My point
being that if the same protections of the Civil Rights Act are afforded
to gays, preferential treatment does not automatically follow.
From Lawrence:
"The second post-Bowers case of principal relevance is Romer v. Evans
[...] There the Court struck down class-based legislation directed at
homosexuals as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. [...] As an
alternative argument in this case, counsel for the petitioners and some
amici contend that Romer provides the basis for declaring the Texas
statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. That is a tenable
argument, but we conclude the instant case requires us to address
whether Bowers itself has continuing validity. Were we to hold the
statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause some might question
whether a prohibition would be valid if drawn differently, say, to
prohibit the conduct both between same-sex and different-sex participants."
Note it refers to an "individual" issue wrt "privacy", not a "class" issue. Non
sequitur
Not this part of Lawrence. Individual privacy rights are Due Process,
not Equal Protection. This portion is specifically about Equal
Protection not Due Process.
Yet, the majority considered; " We conclude the case should be resolved by
determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the PRIVATE
CONDUCT" in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution." (emphasis mine)
(http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html)
As I said, The Court ruled on the basis of Due Process. But The Court
clearly would have also ruled on the basis of Equal Protection (see above).
As I replied, a "distinguishing quality" is not a feeling.
As I noted, 'A "distinguishing quality" may also be attributed to a well-known
liar or a person that wears outlandish style of clothing Mr Rosenbluth...
neither which meet the criteria of the Civil Rights Act nor would they be
considered a "class" anymore than homosexuals.' Yet you "snipped" it as if to
dismiss/ignore it. Now why would that be? LOL.
Also, consider these words from Lawrence:
"The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the
right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their
homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free
persons."
You are free to believe that when The Court used the phrase "homosexual
persons", they meant a distinguishing quality based only on behavior.
The rest of us, including Scalia, know they meant that homosexuality is
who you are, not what you do. Scalia mocked the notion that a law
prohibiting same-sex sodomy discriminated against a class of persons
known as homosexuals:
'Of course the same could be said of any law. A law | | | | | | | | | | |
