| 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 May 2005 01:20:15 PM |
|
|
On 16 May 2005 05:48:47 -0700, wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2005 23:04:51 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
You claimed the court ruled homosexuals were a "class" Mr Rosenbluth.
If that
were true, it would have not come from the legislative and executive
branches
but the judiciary.
Correct. The fact that gays are a class in the eyes of the law came
from the judiciary. But, that ruling has no impact on whether or not
gays get affirmative action. Affirmative action is something granted
by the other branches, not the courts. The courts only get a veto over
such a grant.
No Mr Rosenbluth, the courts did NOT declare homosexuals as a "class" as much as
you desire to belief it so. You mutiple posts claiming otherwise are but
"hand-waving" efforts to detract from the evidence provided you...but doesn't
change your error on this matter.
The Court did not reject the Equal Protection argument in
Lawrence. It
did not rule one way or the other on it (while strongly implying
it
agreed with the argument). Big difference.
The court indeed rejected that defense Mr Rosenbluth.
What a load of crap.
The evidence have been provided you several times Mr Rosenbluth. That
you
disagree with it doesn't mean it is false ("crap"), only that you
disagree.
The evidence from Lawrence:
"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 did indeed *consider* Equal Protection is a "tenable argument", yet
you're citing from the position "of the petitioners and some amici", whereas the
court rejected their argument by overturning Bowers. This is shown in the
section you intentionally left out, where the court noted; "The rationale of
Bowers does not withstand careful analysis."
The court's rejection of the Equal Protection argument resulted in the majority
ruling of what the case would be dependant upon: "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)
It is preposterous to conclude that The Court rejected the Equal
Protection argument. They merely chose not to rule one way or the
other. Others can decide for themselves.
The court overturned Bowers Mr Rosenbluth. You make all the claims and
interpretation of this case you desire, but the outcome remains unchanged...the
Equal Protection argument was rejected by the court in this case, and the
evidence has provided. Anything you wish read into the case amounts to "spin"
but irrelevant wrt their rulng.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 01:28:07 PM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 May 2005 05:48:47 -0700, wrote:
"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 did indeed *consider* Equal Protection is a "tenable
argument", yet
you're citing from the position "of the petitioners and some amici",
whereas
the court rejected their argument by overturning Bowers. This is
shown in
the section you intentionally left out, where the court noted; "The
rationale
of Bowers does not withstand careful analysis."
Bowers did not rely in any manner whatsoever on Equal Protection. In
rejecting Bowers, The Court did not reject the Equal Protection
argument.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
20 May 2005 05:39:36 AM |
|
|
On 16 May 2005 11:28:07 -0700, wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 May 2005 05:48:47 -0700, wrote:
"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 did indeed *consider* Equal Protection is a "tenable
argument", yet
you're citing from the position "of the petitioners and some amici",
whereas
the court rejected their argument by overturning Bowers. This is
shown in
the section you intentionally left out, where the court noted; "The
rationale
of Bowers does not withstand careful analysis."
Bowers did not rely in any manner whatsoever on Equal Protection. In
rejecting Bowers, The Court did not reject the Equal Protection
argument.
Understood. Bowers was overturned and the Equal Protection clause however
"tenable", was rejected as a defense in this case in favor of the Due Process
clause. This is shown in the portion you "snipped":
"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)
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
20 May 2005 02:58:40 PM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 May 2005 11:28:07 -0700, wrote:
Bowers did not rely in any manner whatsoever on Equal Protection.
In
rejecting Bowers, The Court did not reject the Equal Protection
argument.
Understood. Bowers was overturned and the Equal Protection clause
however
"tenable", was rejected as a defense in this case in favor of the Due
Process
clause. This is shown in the portion you "snipped":
"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)
All that quote shows is the Due Process argument was accepted. That
does not mean the Equal Protection argument was rejected. The Due
Process and Equal Protection arguments are not mutually exclusive.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
20 May 2005 06:52:51 PM |
|
|
<> wrote in message
news:1116619120.339087.34930@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 May 2005 11:28:07 -0700, wrote:
Bowers did not rely in any manner whatsoever on Equal Protection.
In
rejecting Bowers, The Court did not reject the Equal Protection
argument.
Understood. Bowers was overturned and the Equal Protection clause
however
So, how can what was Constitutional in Bowers later be un-Constitutional?
Did the Constitution change during the 10 year period?
--
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people." ---10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States
Maverick
www.thelibertycommittee.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
20 May 2005 06:59:57 PM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
So, how can what was Constitutional in Bowers later be un-Constitutional?
Did the Constitution change during the 10 year period?
'The Bowers Court's initial substantive statement--"The issue presented
is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon
homosexuals to engage in sodomy ... ," 478 U. S., at 190--discloses the
Court's failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say
that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain
sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it
would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about
the right to have sexual intercourse.'
'Bowers' rationale does not withstand careful analysis. In his
dissenting opinion in Bowers Justice Stevens concluded that (1) the fact
a State's governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular
practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law
prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the
intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce
offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by due process. That
analysis should have controlled Bowers, and it controls here. Bowers was
not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby
overruled.'
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
20 May 2005 07:00:33 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 23:52:51 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@sbcglobal.com> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1116619120.339087.34930@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 May 2005 11:28:07 -0700, wrote:
Bowers did not rely in any manner whatsoever on Equal Protection.
In
rejecting Bowers, The Court did not reject the Equal Protection
argument.
Understood. Bowers was overturned and the Equal Protection clause
however
So, how can what was Constitutional in Bowers later be un-Constitutional?
Did the Constitution change during the 10 year period?
Yes, the Constitution changed. Didn't you get the memo?
<eye roll>
<the above is sarcasm>
<subtitles for the humor-challenged provided by Fifi DePrayved, the V
is silent>
Happy FOAD --
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
21 May 2005 07:44:23 AM |
|
|
"Bonnie *****" <321teerts@emases.moc> wrote in message
news:ibus8191km7omlo4f3k922ee8uoltf0n23@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 23:52:51 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@sbcglobal.com> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1116619120.339087.34930@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 May 2005 11:28:07 -0700, wrote:
Bowers did not rely in any manner whatsoever on Equal Protection.
In
rejecting Bowers, The Court did not reject the Equal Protection
argument.
Understood. Bowers was overturned and the Equal Protection clause
however
So, how can what was Constitutional in Bowers later be un-Constitutional?
Did the Constitution change during the 10 year period?
Yes, the Constitution changed. Didn't you get the memo?
<eye roll>
<the above is sarcasm>
<subtitles for the humor-challenged provided by Fifi DePrayved, the V
is silent>
Happy FOAD --
Bonnie *****
You don't add anything to this discussion wasted time. PLONK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie B." |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
22 May 2005 12:38:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:44:23 GMT, "MaverDICK"
<justgopub...@sbcglobal.com> wrote:
"Bonnie *****" <321teerts@emases.moc> wrote in message
news:ibus8191km7omlo4f3k922ee8uoltf0n23@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 23:52:51 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopub...@sbcglobal.com> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1116619120.339087.34930@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 May 2005 11:28:07 -0700, wrote:
Bowers did not rely in any manner whatsoever on Equal Protection.
In
rejecting Bowers, The Court did not reject the Equal Protection
argument.
Understood. Bowers was overturned and the Equal Protection clause
however
So, how can what was Constitutional in Bowers later be un-Constitutional?
Did the Constitution change during the 10 year period?
Yes, the Constitution changed. Didn't you get the memo?
<eye roll>
<the above is sarcasm>
<subtitles for the humor-challenged provided by Fifi DePrayved, the V
is silent>
Happy FOAD --
Bonnie *****
You don't add anything to this discussion wasted time. PLONK
P_K_B, douchebag.
Happy FOAD --
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
22 May 2005 10:51:21 AM |
|
|
"Bonnie B." <456eerts@emas.org> wrote in message
news:dj6091detf096pv3u35f4jicm80dpf9rgc@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:44:23 GMT, "MaverDICK"
<justgopub...@sbcglobal.com> wrote:
[snip]
You don't add anything to this discussion wasted time. PLONK
P_K_B, douchebag.
Happy FOAD --
Isn't that about the ninth time he's PLONKd you? :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie B." |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
22 May 2005 02:57:59 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:51:21 GMT, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
"Bonnie B." <456eerts@emas.org> wrote in message
news:dj6091detf096pv3u35f4jicm80dpf9rgc@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:44:23 GMT, "MaverDICK"
<justgopub...@sbcglobal.com> wrote:
[snip]
You don't add anything to this discussion wasted time. PLONK
P_K_B, douchebag.
Happy FOAD --
Isn't that about the ninth time he's PLONKd you? :)
But doesn't PLONK mean "I'm losing to you and now I'm really
embarrassed, so I'll be back for more because I'm too cheap to hire a
dominatrix IRL?"
Ein Prosit der GemŸtlichkeit --
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
22 May 2005 03:14:28 PM |
|
|
"Bonnie B." <456eerts@emas.org> wrote in message
news:c0p191d75dnnlcgc58e4ti3hb409ij3chu@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:51:21 GMT, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
"Bonnie B." <456eerts@emas.org> wrote in message
news:dj6091detf096pv3u35f4jicm80dpf9rgc@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:44:23 GMT, "MaverDICK"
<justgopub...@sbcglobal.com> wrote:
[snip]
You don't add anything to this discussion wasted time. PLONK
P_K_B, douchebag.
Happy FOAD --
Isn't that about the ninth time he's PLONKd you? :)
But doesn't PLONK mean "I'm losing to you and now I'm really
embarrassed, so I'll be back for more because I'm too cheap to hire a
dominatrix IRL?"
In Maverick's case, yes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie B." |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
22 May 2005 05:12:20 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:14:28 GMT, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
"Bonnie B." <456eerts@emas.org> wrote in message
news:c0p191d75dnnlcgc58e4ti3hb409ij3chu@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:51:21 GMT, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
"Bonnie B." <456eerts@emas.org> wrote in message
news:dj6091detf096pv3u35f4jicm80dpf9rgc@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:44:23 GMT, "MaverDICK"
<justgopub...@sbcglobal.com> wrote:
[snip]
You don't add anything to this discussion wasted time. PLONK
P_K_B, douchebag.
Happy FOAD --
Isn't that about the ninth time he's PLONKd you? :)
But doesn't PLONK mean "I'm losing to you and now I'm really
embarrassed, so I'll be back for more because I'm too cheap to hire a
dominatrix IRL?"
In Maverick's case, yes.
See? I am compassionate to the inbred, fucktarded, closeted-gay,
homse-schooled, Christofascist scumbags who are using MY oxygen to
live on.
And people say I'm mean. Sheesh!
Ein Prosit der GemŸtlichkeit --
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
21 May 2005 03:59:46 PM |
|
|
On 20 May 2005 12:58:40 -0700, wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 May 2005 11:28:07 -0700, wrote:
Bowers did not rely in any manner whatsoever on Equal Protection.
In
rejecting Bowers, The Court did not reject the Equal Protection
argument.
Understood. Bowers was overturned and the Equal Protection clause
however
"tenable", was rejected as a defense in this case in favor of the Due
Process
clause. This is shown in the portion you "snipped":
"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)
All that quote shows is the Due Process argument was accepted. That
does not mean the Equal Protection argument was rejected. The Due
Process and Equal Protection arguments are not mutually exclusive.
The Equal Protection clause was rejected Mr Rosenbluth, for if it were accepted,
the court would have allowed it as a defense....they did not. You're free to
tell yourself if wasn't rejected over and over, but you'd be only deluding
yourself.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 02:02:15 AM |
|
|
There seems to be considerable confusion going on here between the
concept of "affirmative action" (giving preference to a minority group
to make up for past institutionalized discrimination) and basic
equality (Brown v. Board, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.)
There are no affirmative action laws favoring gay people anywhere in
the United States, as far as I know. There are antidiscrimination laws
involving sexual orientation, but they protect gay and straight and
bisexual people equally. Similarly, the striking down of "sodomy laws"
in Lawrence protects same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples equally.
In some places, there is something called "domestic partnership," which
-- depending where you are -- may or may not be available to
heterosexual couples. Some people have chosen to see this as
"discrimination" against heterosexuals, which is just plain silly.
Straight couples can get married and, as a result, receive well over a
thousand rights, privileges, benefits and protections. Straight people
in those places get a tiny handful of those protections, and cannot use
the word "marriage" to describe the institution: they get "domestic
partnership." Giving gay people fewer rights is, of course,
discrimination against gay people, not straight people.
--
Steven Capsuto
http://www.stevecap.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 02:05:43 AM |
|
|
Straight people
in those places get a tiny handful of those protections, and cannot
use
the word "marriage" to describe the institution: they get "domestic
partnership." Giving gay people fewer rights is, of course,
discrimination against gay people, not straight people.
Oops... the first word of that segment should, of course, be "gay," not
straight. That's what I get for posting at 3 a.m. while jetlagged.
--
Steven Capsuto
http://www.stevecap.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 07:38:30 AM |
|
|
On 16 May 2005 00:05:43 -0700, wrote:
Straight people
in those places get a tiny handful of those protections, and cannot
use
the word "marriage" to describe the institution: they get "domestic
partnership." Giving gay people fewer rights is, of course,
discrimination against gay people, not straight people.
Oops... the first word of that segment should, of course, be "gay," not
straight. That's what I get for posting at 3 a.m. while jetlagged.
Thanks for he correction as I missed it as well. (I've no "jetlag" excuse ;-)
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carmilla Karnstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 07:55:52 AM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 May 2005 00:05:43 -0700, wrote:
Straight people
in those places get a tiny handful of those protections, and cannot
use
the word "marriage" to describe the institution: they get "domestic
partnership." Giving gay people fewer rights is, of course,
discrimination against gay people, not straight people.
Oops... the first word of that segment should, of course, be "gay," not
straight. That's what I get for posting at 3 a.m. while jetlagged.
Thanks for he correction as I missed it as well. (I've no "jetlag" excuse ;-)
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
I like the Robert Jackson quote--I have an enormous respect for him....
--
.....with gloating eyes she drew me to her, and her hot lips travelled along my
cheek in kisses; and she would whisper, almost in sobs, "You are mine, you shall
be mine, you and I are one for ever."
'Carmilla'
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 07:37:21 AM |
|
|
On 16 May 2005 00:02:15 -0700, wrote:
There seems to be considerable confusion going on here between the
concept of "affirmative action" (giving preference to a minority group
to make up for past institutionalized discrimination) and basic
equality (Brown v. Board, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.)
There are no affirmative action laws favoring gay people anywhere in
the United States, as far as I know. There are antidiscrimination laws
involving sexual orientation, but they protect gay and straight and
bisexual people equally. Similarly, the striking down of "sodomy laws"
in Lawrence protects same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples equally.
In some places, there is something called "domestic partnership," which
-- depending where you are -- may or may not be available to
heterosexual couples. Some people have chosen to see this as
"discrimination" against heterosexuals, which is just plain silly.
Straight couples can get married and, as a result, receive well over a
thousand rights, privileges, benefits and protections. Straight people
in those places get a tiny handful of those protections, and cannot use
the word "marriage" to describe the institution: they get "domestic
partnership." Giving gay people fewer rights is, of course,
discrimination against gay people, not straight people.
I have no disagreement with your comments. Well said.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 08:20:41 AM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 May 2005 00:02:15 -0700, wrote:
There seems to be considerable confusion going on here between the
concept of "affirmative action" (giving preference to a minority
group
to make up for past institutionalized discrimination) and basic
equality (Brown v. Board, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.)
There are no affirmative action laws favoring gay people anywhere in
the United States, as far as I know. There are antidiscrimination
laws
involving sexual orientation, but they protect gay and straight and
bisexual people equally. Similarly, the striking down of "sodomy
laws"
in Lawrence protects same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples
equally.
I have no disagreement with your comments. Well said.
That's bizzare. Everything he said supports my position against yours.
Namely, there is no affirmative action for gays and
anti-discrimination laws (the state and local versions of ENDA) don't
provide affirmative action for gays.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 01:51:56 PM |
|
|
On 16 May 2005 06:20:41 -0700, wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 May 2005 00:02:15 -0700, wrote:
There seems to be considerable confusion going on here between the
concept of "affirmative action" (giving preference to a minority
group
to make up for past institutionalized discrimination) and basic
equality (Brown v. Board, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.)
There are no affirmative action laws favoring gay people anywhere in
the United States, as far as I know. There are antidiscrimination
laws
involving sexual orientation, but they protect gay and straight and
bisexual people equally. Similarly, the striking down of "sodomy
laws"
in Lawrence protects same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples
equally.
I have no disagreement with your comments. Well said.
That's bizzare. Everything he said supports my position against yours.
Namely, there is no affirmative action for gays and
anti-discrimination laws (the state and local versions of ENDA) don't
provide affirmative action for gays.
Not quite Mr Rosenbluth. Other than Clinton's E.O, which target's federal
employees under the Executive branch, homosexuals are not considered a "class"
under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and so there are currently no affirmative
action laws in existance that are recognized by the courts, Congress nor states
(federal laws applicable to states, not state laws). The law wrt affirmative
action that has been recognized by the Executive Branch is found in Executive
Order 13087 (signed May 28, 1998):
"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)
(Message-ID: <4260d218.186060@news.ifx.net>)
(This evidence was provided you in Message-ID: <427372cb.6907291@news.ifx.net>)
As well as the appointment of Scott Evertz as "the nation's first gay AIDS czar"
based on this E.O.: http://www.aegis.com/news/bayw/2001/BY010401.html
Your free to disagree, but the facts are there for all to plainly see...despite
whatever "spin" you wish to place upon it.
Should ENDA pass in Congress and become law, the next common sense, logical
extention of affirmative action is depicted in my comments (IMHO):
'When the federal government "classifies" gays as a "minorities" equal to others
that fall under the "protected class" status (Civil Rights Act of 1964), the
logical extension of affirmative action programs will be afforded them either
through said law or a new law, targeting a "different" type of "minority" which
would have to be addressed to avoid *discrimination* of said these *other*
"minorities" under a "protected class" status. Claiming otherwise is irrational
and usually found by those that focus on short-term thinking, false assertions
and fallacious and illogical rhetoric and/or ad hominem.'
(Message-ID: <42592bec.10798017@news.ifx.net>)
My opinion is verified by the very words of the primary sponsor of ENDA, Senator
J. Jeffords (I-VT), that admitted the same:
"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)
Your free to disagree with my comments and opinions Mr Rosenbluth, but the facts
do not favor your viewpoint, but more closely confirm my own:
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). ' This is seen in
the 2004 elections from the referendums in eleven (11) states...and is growing
in many others.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 02:09:02 PM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 May 2005 06:20:41 -0700, wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 May 2005 00:02:15 -0700, wrote:
There are no affirmative action laws favoring gay people anywhere
in
the United States, as far as I know. There are
antidiscrimination
laws involving sexual orientation, but they protect gay and
straight and
bisexual people equally.
I have no disagreement with your comments. Well said.
That's bizzare. Everything he said supports my position against
yours.
Not quite Mr Rosenbluth.
One the one hand, you "have no disagreement" with 's
comments that there isn't any current affirmative action for gays
(including Clinton's executive order) and that non-discrimination laws
(modeled on ENDA) do not provide affirmative action for gays.
On the other hand, you believe the exact opposite.
Make up your mind!
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
20 May 2005 06:04:33 AM |
|
|
On 16 May 2005 12:09:02 -0700, wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 May 2005 06:20:41 -0700, wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On 16 May 2005 00:02:15 -0700, wrote:
There are no affirmative action laws favoring gay people anywhere
in
the United States, as far as I know. There are
antidiscrimination
laws involving sexual orientation, but they protect gay and
straight and
bisexual people equally.
I have no disagreement with your comments. Well said.
That's bizzare. Everything he said supports my position against
yours.
Not quite Mr Rosenbluth.
One the one hand, you "have no disagreement" with 's
comments that there isn't any current affirmative action for gays
(including Clinton's executive order) and that non-discrimination laws
(modeled on ENDA) do not provide affirmative action for gays.
I have no argument with his comments from the "general" perspective Mr
Rosenbluth. There are no affirmative action laws provided to homosexuals that
may be applied to all states and businesses in the same manner as is required
for the "protected class" status of those under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Clinton's Executive order only applies to the those department and agencies
under the Executive branch of the federal government.
Since the Legislative branch has not classified homosexuals as meeting the
criteria of the "protected class" as defined under the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
there are no "non-discrimination laws (modeled on ENDA)".
On the other hand, you believe the exact opposite.
I've made my comments quite clear Mr Rosenbluth, else I'd suggest you request
clarification on a specific issue. If your comments imply your need for
clarification, I hope my clarification have removed your confusion.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
09 May 2005 10:29:15 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:45:39 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
The courts get involved when someone sues
The courts "allow" or "deny" only after a lawsuit
brought
What InfoSpunkie doesn't quite get, is that the Judiciary is hearing
case law dealing with a legal system that allows people to come to
court to argue "theories" of law in a court venue.
Legislatures write law to do specific things. Just because a
legislature enacts laws THEY think are, (or should be) calculated to
do specific things, the entire body of PAST laws can (and are) applied
to "interpret" what the law "means" It occurs by either convincing a
jury OR a Judge.
Easiest caselaw to understand is Roe v. Wade. The suit deals with
PRIVACY and the right of a state to interfere in Doctor/patient
privacy.
Since 1973, the "doctrine" applicable to Roe has stood. Adverse
appeals to that "doctrine" (of privacy) has withstood any attempt to
classify it as "abortion rights", but HAS been modified (without
tossing the "doctrine") to allow states to enter in when THEY show a
compelling reason (such as minors, etc). They do so in court. They
present a "theory" why, and is, or is not, ruled on.
Info-dude has consistently argued that if it's not literally spelled
out (such as HIS interpretation of the constitution) then it's
"unconstitutional"
His whining and moaning about "social policy" is predicated on "no
such language in the constitution exists----therefore denies...." is
indicative of a "federalist society" adherent.
Everyone keeps trying to tell him that a unilateral "Belief" that
"what the founders thought/wrote" carries a degree of legal weight is
stunningly stupid. Those who do believe in a literal interpretaton
and/or assign the "federalist papers" some higher weight are in such a
small minority that it's almost embarassing---which is why Judge Bork
was "borked" and why the 10 (or so) present idiots are being hassled.
Keeping those who believe as InfoMan does off any appellate bench is
important. For no other reason than just to think about what would
have happened had "strict constructionists" prevailed over 200 years
(let alone the last 70)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 06:50:20 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 May 2005 09:29:15 -0600, wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:45:39 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
The courts get involved when someone sues
The courts "allow" or "deny" only after a lawsuit
brought
What InfoSpunkie doesn't quite get, is that the Judiciary is hearing
case law dealing with a legal system that allows people to come to
court to argue "theories" of law in a court venue.
Legislatures write law to do specific things. Just because a
legislature enacts laws THEY think are, (or should be) calculated to
do specific things, the entire body of PAST laws can (and are) applied
to "interpret" what the law "means" It occurs by either convincing a
jury OR a Judge.
Easiest caselaw to understand is Roe v. Wade. The suit deals with
PRIVACY and the right of a state to interfere in Doctor/patient
privacy.
Since 1973, the "doctrine" applicable to Roe has stood. Adverse
appeals to that "doctrine" (of privacy) has withstood any attempt to
classify it as "abortion rights", but HAS been modified (without
tossing the "doctrine") to allow states to enter in when THEY show a
compelling reason (such as minors, etc). They do so in court. They
present a "theory" why, and is, or is not, ruled on.
Info-dude has consistently argued that if it's not literally spelled
out (such as HIS interpretation of the constitution) then it's
"unconstitutional"
Nowhere have I stated that. This is YOUR misinterpretation.
His whining and moaning about "social policy" is predicated on "no
such language in the constitution exists----therefore denies...." is
indicative of a "federalist society" adherent.
All of the above has been addressed in another thread.
Everyone keeps trying to tell him that a unilateral "Belief" that
"what the founders thought/wrote" carries a degree of legal weight is
stunningly stupid. Those who do believe in a literal interpretaton
and/or assign the "federalist papers" some higher weight are in such a
small minority that it's almost embarassing---which is why Judge Bork
was "borked" and why the 10 (or so) present idiots are being hassled.
"Everyone" would be...you? ROTFLMHO.
Keeping those who believe as InfoMan does off any appellate bench is
important. For no other reason than just to think about what would
have happened had "strict constructionists" prevailed over 200 years
(let alone the last 70)
One may speculate ad infinitum based on "what if" questions. Yet such questions
are usually found in the games children play. Mature adults deal with reality,
and only speculate outcomes based on the available facts, while reviewing the
short and long term consequences of their actions.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lord is My Shepherd" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 07:59:37 AM |
|
|
"Info Junkie" <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote in message
news:4288870a.6351567@news.ifx.net...
On Mon, 09 May 2005 09:29:15 -0600,
wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:45:39 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
The courts get involved when someone sues
The courts "allow" or "deny" only after a lawsuit
brought
What InfoSpunkie doesn't quite get, is that the Judiciary is hearing
case law dealing with a legal system that allows people to come to
court to argue "theories" of law in a court venue.
Legislatures write law to do specific things. Just because a
legislature enacts laws THEY think are, (or should be) calculated to
do specific things, the entire body of PAST laws can (and are) applied
to "interpret" what the law "means" It occurs by either convincing a
jury OR a Judge.
Easiest caselaw to understand is Roe v. Wade. The suit deals with
PRIVACY and the right of a state to interfere in Doctor/patient
privacy.
Since 1973, the "doctrine" applicable to Roe has stood. Adverse
appeals to that "doctrine" (of privacy) has withstood any attempt to
classify it as "abortion rights", but HAS been modified (without
tossing the "doctrine") to allow states to enter in when THEY show a
compelling reason (such as minors, etc). They do so in court. They
present a "theory" why, and is, or is not, ruled on.
Info-dude has consistently argued that if it's not literally spelled
out (such as HIS interpretation of the constitution) then it's
"unconstitutional"
Nowhere have I stated that. This is YOUR misinterpretation.
His whining and moaning about "social policy" is predicated on "no
such language in the constitution exists----therefore denies...." is
indicative of a "federalist society" adherent.
All of the above has been addressed in another thread.
Everyone keeps trying to tell him that a unilateral "Belief" that
"what the founders thought/wrote" carries a degree of legal weight is
stunningly stupid. Those who do believe in a literal interpretaton
and/or assign the "federalist papers" some higher weight are in such a
small minority that it's almost embarassing---which is why Judge Bork
was "borked" and why the 10 (or so) present idiots are being hassled.
"Everyone" would be...you? ROTFLMHO.
Keeping those who believe as InfoMan does off any appellate bench is
important. For no other reason than just to think about what would
have happened had "strict constructionists" prevailed over 200 years
(let alone the last 70)
One may speculate ad infinitum based on "what if" questions. Yet such
questions
are usually found in the games children play. Mature adults deal with
reality,
and only speculate outcomes based on the available facts, while reviewing
the
short and long term consequences of their actions.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
The gay marriage matter is nothing more than an ego trip for a few
antagonist homosexual types. Most homosexuals couldn't care less. Once gay
marriage goes away, the same fanatics will have some other matter they will
use to stroke their egos. Their efforts are best ignored but as long as the
media can use them to sell time and space they will keep the fires stroked.
Prudent people will carry on their lives without giving a second thought to
such foolishness.
--
If our creator would have wanted us to embrace
same sex marriage, we would have all been born
the same gender.
The Lord is my Shepherd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 May 2005 08:57:09 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 May 2005 12:59:37 GMT, "The Lord is My Shepherd"
<thelordismyshepherd@heaven.com> wrote in message
<YO0ie.439450$R24.294813@fe05!news.easynews.com>
The gay marriage matter is nothing more than an ego trip for a few
antagonist homosexual types. Most homosexuals couldn't care less. Once gay
marriage goes away, the same fanatics will have some other matter they will
use to stroke their egos. Their efforts are best ignored but as long as the
media can use them to sell time and space they will keep the fires stroked.
Prudent people will carry on their lives without giving a second thought to
such foolishness.
Homosexual marriage has no significant effect on society. The
hysteria has been generated by the republicans simply to get the
bigoted fundie homophobe vote. These people, uneducated and
simple-minded as they are, are very easy to manipulate.
--
Boy Toy
Toxic Toyz 4 Nasty Boyz
http://www.boytoyvideos.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lord is My Shepherd" |
| | | | | | |
