| 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 06:41:36 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 May 2005 09:06:41 -0600, wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:45:39 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
ls
Unless you can cite that no policies or programs exist
for any of the executive departments, then such policies/programs do indeed
exist, and confirm my stance on the issue.
Prove that something doesn't exist or we must infer that it does exist?
It's called "proving a negative"---not worth doing much more than
laughing at.
IF something does not exist and another demands proof of it's nonexistance, I
agree this would be trying to "prove a negative".
Yet what I've provided to Mr Rosenbluth was a E.O. directive that required all
executive departments and agencies create policies/programs that promote
afirrmative actions for all minorites...including homosexuals.
Unless Mr Rosenbluth (or yourself) wish to review the policies/programs for each
of the executive departments and agencies, then yes, "we must infer that" the
departments/agengies have followed the directive as ordered. If you don't
believe this directive has been followed, he (or you) are free to prove it.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage, or INFO-SPUNKS "Stances" |
09 May 2005 10:03:47 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 May 2005 11:50:09 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
Unless you can cite that no policies or programs exist
for any of the executive departments, then such policies/programs do indeed
exist, and confirm my stance on the issue
InfoSpunkie, did it ever occur to you that what you "think" is
laugable?
Or, what your "stance" is on ANYTHING means little or nothing to----
just about everybody?
The Reagan Years: How Soon We Forget Real Corruption
Gleeful charges by Republicans that Whitewater is comparable to
Watergate and that the Clinton Administration is more corrupt than any
recent administration are ludicrous when compared to the actual record
of corruption in the Reagan-Bush administration and when it is noted
that the charges against Clinton result from goings-on in Arkansas
long before he became President.
With Reagan, scandals occured while he was President.
Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Haynes Johnson's book,
"Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years" (1991,
Doubleday), chronicles the U.S.'s fall from dominant world power to
struggling debtor nation during the Reagan years.
Johnson says "two types of problems typified the ethical misconduct
cases of the Reagan years, and both had heavy consequences to citizens
everywhere.
One stemmed from ideology and deregulatory impulses run amok; the
other, from classic corruption on a grand scale."
"By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been
convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official
investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In
terms of number of officials involved, the record of his
administration was the worst ever." (P. 184).
"Reagan's customary response to instances of wrongdoing by aides was
to criticize those who brought the charges or to blame the media that
reported them."
"Three great scandals stained the Reagan record, and they all involved
the age-old form of corruption formed by the connection between money
and politics.
What distinguished them in the Reagan years was the number of buyers
and sellers involved, and the amount of money there was to be made.
The sheer volume of both had multiplied beyond any previous measure.
Nothing better illustrated the problem than a case that connected some
of Reagan's closest associates, a score of top government officials in
several departments and agencies, and the kind of political corruption
that extended byack to the Washington of Grant and Harding:
influence peddling, government contracts, cash, bribes, kickbacks,
fraud and conspiracy.
Before it was ended, it had dragged Atty Gen. Meese, advisor Lyn
Nofziger, and many others into the net; led to indictments, trials,
and convictions; and besmirched the reputation of the Reagan
administration.
It became known, popularly, as the Wedtech case."
* Lyn Nofziger--convicted on charges of illegal lobbying of White
House in Wedtech scandal.
* Michael Deaver received three years' probation and was fined one
hundred thousand dollars after being convicted for lying to a
congressional subcomittee and a federal grand jury about his lobbying
activities after leaving the White House.
* E. Bob Wallach, close friend and law classmate of Atty General Edwin
Meese, was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $250,000 in
connection with the Wedtech influence-peddling scandal.
Then there was:
-- the Pentagon procurement scandal, which resulted from the
Republicans' enormous infusion of money too quickly into the Defense
Department after the lean Carter years.
-- Massive fraud and mismanagement in the Department of Housing and
Urban Development throughout Reagan's eight years. These were finally
documented in congressional hearings in spring 1989, after Reagan left
office. Cost the taxpayers billions of dollars in losses. What made
this scandal most shameful was that Reagans' friends and fixers
profited at the expense of the poor, the very people HUD and the
federal government were pledged to assist through low-income housing.
-- the Iran-Contra scandal. In June, 1984, at a National Security
Council meeting, CIA Director Casey urged President Reagan to seek
third-party aid for the Nicaraguan contras. Secretary of State Schultz
warned that it would be an "impeachable offense" if the U.S.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LeMod Pol" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
03 Apr 2005 11:26:50 AM |
|
|
original newsgroups restored
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Idiot Junkie will never concede no matter how many
cases you cite. He is only interested in trolling and
flaming those who deride him and his nonsense.
They already have declared gays a class in Romer, although not with the
same level of protection as blacks or women. Moreover, there is
Lawrence v. Texas, which relies on Romer.
Josh - While I was aware of the judgement in Lawrence I
had not read the judgement - it is a fascinating piece
of work. I would imagine that Rehnquist is very unhappy
with the way Kennedy shredded the Bowers judgement from
one end to the other. Also interesting is O'Connor's
flip flop with separate concurring judgements in both
cases. While I have not yet read her concurrences, it
seems that she has been doing a lot of that.
BTW - I hope you like that little gem below. It is from
a review of a new book about Clarence Thomas.
frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=17436
--
LP
"A little sunlight is the best disinfectant," Supreme
Court Justice Louis Brandeis commented. "Never
more so than when it exposes towering hypocrisy."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
03 Apr 2005 11:47:42 AM |
|
|
LeMod Pol wrote:
Josh - While I was aware of the judgement in Lawrence I
had not read the judgement - it is a fascinating piece
of work. I would imagine that Rehnquist is very unhappy
with the way Kennedy shredded the Bowers judgement from
one end to the other.
IMO, it is a brilliant, well-crafted opinion, although Stevens gets a
share of the credit. He formulated the basic thesis in his Bowers
dissent. Kennedy provided a much more forceful and elegant exposition
of that thesis.
Also interesting is O'Connor's
flip flop with separate concurring judgements in both
cases. While I have not yet read her concurrences, it
seems that she has been doing a lot of that.
She did not write a concurrence in Bowers. She did in Lawrence so that
she could agree in the judgment without reversing Bowers. Her reasoning
was that promoting morality is a legitimate state interest when it comes
to Due Process, but it is not a legitimate state interest when it comes
to Equal Protection afforded gays thanks to Romer.
I agree with the latter, but I find her unpersuasive on the former. I
cannot see how promoting morality in one context is verboten white it is
way cool in another.
BTW - I hope you like that little gem below. It is from
a review of a new book about Clarence Thomas.
frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=17436
I have never taken kindly to "natural law". It seems to me to be
arbitrary, even though Thomas tries to support what is covered by
natural law through the Declaration. The problem is the Declaration is
hopelessly vague.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
02 Apr 2005 12:49:43 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 23:38:37 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Maverick wrote:
Tell me why, after having gotten along quite well without same sex
marriage
for over 200 years, we need to change now.
Because if we don't then, 1) we will be discriminating against a class
of people, and 2) we will deny those people a right which is essential
to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the gay lifestyle that have
been unable to convince the majority of society to accept their lifestyle.
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the Presbyterian
lifestyle that have been unable to convince the majority of society to
accept their lifestyle.
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.
There is no Aricle XIV, so I assume you mean the 14'th amendment.
Yet the federal government does not recognize homosexuals as a "minority" as is
found wrt race nor gender,
And the 14'th amendment does not mention race or gender or minorities.
There goes your entire argument.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
02 Apr 2005 01:25:23 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 08:49:43 +0200, thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 23:38:37 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Maverick wrote:
Tell me why, after having gotten along quite well without same sex
marriage
for over 200 years, we need to change now.
Because if we don't then, 1) we will be discriminating against a class
of people, and 2) we will deny those people a right which is essential
to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the gay lifestyle that have
been unable to convince the majority of society to accept their lifestyle.
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the Presbyterian
lifestyle that have been unable to convince the majority of society to
accept their lifestyle.
Non Sequitur. Are there legislative attempts and court filings by the
"proponents of the Presbyterian lifestyle" to ensure they get classified as a
"minority"?
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.
There is no Aricle XIV, so I assume you mean the 14'th amendment.
Typo. This should be Article XIV. It's labeled by many as the 14th Amendment,
but is in fact Article XIV of the US Constitution.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
Yet the federal government does not recognize homosexuals as a "minority" as is
found wrt race nor gender,
And the 14'th amendment does not mention race or gender or minorities.
There goes your entire argument.
Try reading more. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.txt.
OTOH, I should have included Article XIX wrt women. My apologies.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
03 Apr 2005 09:26:21 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:25:23 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 08:49:43 +0200, thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 23:38:37 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Maverick wrote:
Tell me why, after having gotten along quite well without same sex
marriage
for over 200 years, we need to change now.
Because if we don't then, 1) we will be discriminating against a class
of people, and 2) we will deny those people a right which is essential
to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the gay lifestyle that have
been unable to convince the majority of society to accept their lifestyle.
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the Presbyterian
lifestyle that have been unable to convince the majority of society to
accept their lifestyle.
Non Sequitur. Are there legislative attempts and court filings by the
"proponents of the Presbyterian lifestyle" to ensure they get classified as a
"minority"?
They are, in fact, a minority. They do, in fact, have equal rights.
Nobody is being asked to accept anyone's lifestyle. People are
demanding the same civil rights as everyone else.
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.
There is no Aricle XIV, so I assume you mean the 14'th amendment.
Typo. This should be Article XIV. It's labeled by many as the 14th Amendment,
but is in fact Article XIV of the US Constitution.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
It is, in fact, the 14'th Amendment. Calling it an article is an
understandable oversight, but you make yourself look ridiculous by
insisting that you were right. If you had actually read the
Constitution, you would know that it could not be the 14'th article.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
08 Apr 2005 11:17:00 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 16:26:21 +0200, thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:25:23 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 08:49:43 +0200, thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 23:38:37 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Maverick wrote:
Tell me why, after having gotten along quite well without same sex
marriage
for over 200 years, we need to change now.
Because if we don't then, 1) we will be discriminating against a class
of people, and 2) we will deny those people a right which is essential
to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the gay lifestyle that have
been unable to convince the majority of society to accept their lifestyle.
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the Presbyterian
lifestyle that have been unable to convince the majority of society to
accept their lifestyle.
Non Sequitur. Are there legislative attempts and court filings by the
"proponents of the Presbyterian lifestyle" to ensure they get classified as a
"minority"?
They are, in fact, a minority. They do, in fact, have equal rights.
Nobody is being asked to accept anyone's lifestyle. People are
demanding the same civil rights as everyone else.
Noted is your failure to answer the questions as asked. FWIW, a "minority" may
also be those people that are considered *left-handed*. Yet the law does not
consider them, nor gays a "minority" that meet the criteria set down in the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Nor have I asked them to change their lifestyle. Unlike gays, neither the
*left-handers" nor the "Presbyterian(s)" proposing legislative attempts and
court filings to become classified as a "minority" at the same level as those
depicted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964...nor even "parallel" laws to equate to
the same. IOW, you comments remain non sequitur.
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.
There is no Aricle XIV, so I assume you mean the 14'th amendment.
Typo. This should be Article XIV. It's labeled by many as the 14th Amendment,
but is in fact Article XIV of the US Constitution.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
It is, in fact, the 14'th Amendment. Calling it an article is an
understandable oversight, but you make yourself look ridiculous by
insisting that you were right. If you had actually read the
Constitution, you would know that it could not be the 14'th article.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
LOL. I even provided you the URL that proved my comments with evidence. It is
in fact, as written, Article XIV. It was the fourteenth time the Constitution
had been offically amended since it's initial pasage, but within said legal
document, it is Article XIV.
By your writings, by stating "So your claim "There is no (Article) XIV", it's
not I that's "look(ing) ridiculous", but you failure to back your assertion with
the evidence that could contradict my own. ROLFLMHO
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
09 Apr 2005 02:48:29 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 04:17:00 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 16:26:21 +0200, thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:25:23 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 08:49:43 +0200, thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 23:38:37 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Maverick wrote:
Tell me why, after having gotten along quite well without same sex
marriage
for over 200 years, we need to change now.
Because if we don't then, 1) we will be discriminating against a class
of people, and 2) we will deny those people a right which is essential
to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the gay lifestyle that have
been unable to convince the majority of society to accept their lifestyle.
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the Presbyterian
lifestyle that have been unable to convince the majority of society to
accept their lifestyle.
Non Sequitur. Are there legislative attempts and court filings by the
"proponents of the Presbyterian lifestyle" to ensure they get classified as a
"minority"?
They are, in fact, a minority. They do, in fact, have equal rights.
Nobody is being asked to accept anyone's lifestyle. People are
demanding the same civil rights as everyone else.
Noted is your failure to answer the questions as asked. FWIW, a "minority" may
also be those people that are considered *left-handed*. Yet the law does not
consider them, nor gays a "minority" that meet the criteria set down in the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I was pointing out that your argument was invalid. Equal rights are
not withheld from a group or from an individual because the majority
does not like how they live. I could have possibly used the Quakers
or the Mormons as examples, since they actually were persecuted and
denied equal rights; because the majority did not like the way they
lived.
Nor have I asked them to change their lifestyle. Unlike gays, neither the
*left-handers" nor the "Presbyterian(s)" proposing legislative attempts and
court filings to become classified as a "minority" at the same level as those
depicted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964...nor even "parallel" laws to equate to
the same. IOW, you comments remain non sequitur.
The homosexuals are the ones being discriminated against. They are
the ones protesting against that discrimination. Your argument is
invalid; it is, in fact, basically the same one used against blacks,
i.e. the majority did not want them to be treated equally.
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.
There is no Aricle XIV, so I assume you mean the 14'th amendment.
Typo. This should be Article XIV. It's labeled by many as the 14th Amendment,
but is in fact Article XIV of the US Constitution.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
It is, in fact, the 14'th Amendment. Calling it an article is an
understandable oversight, but you make yourself look ridiculous by
insisting that you were right. If you had actually read the
Constitution, you would know that it could not be the 14'th article.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
LOL. I even provided you the URL that proved my comments with evidence. It is
in fact, as written, Article XIV. It was the fourteenth time the Constitution
had been offically amended since it's initial pasage, but within said legal
document, it is Article XIV.
By your writings, by stating "So your claim "There is no (Article) XIV", it's
not I that's "look(ing) ridiculous", but you failure to back your assertion with
the evidence that could contradict my own. ROLFLMHO
I don't believe that I am actually debating such an obvious thing.
However, try taking a look at your own constitution. I have a copy of
it in front of me. You will discover that there are 7 articles, and
that they are referred to as articles and numbered I through VII.
After those 7 articles you will see that there are 14 amendments
numbered 1 through 14, and that they are referred to as amendments.
Is that clear enough for you, or are you of the opinion that there are
two sets of articles I through VII?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Praise The Lord!" |
|
| Title: Christ saves man from death |
09 Apr 2005 04:41:11 AM |
|
|
DOMESTIC TERRORIST SPARED
WASHINGTON, Apr. 8 -- God fearing Christian Eric Robert Rudolph,
America's "Most Wanted" domestic terrorist, accepted a plea bargaining
deal offered to him by sympathetic prosecutors. "Sure he's a murder,"
explained a spokesperson for the Justice Department, "But he's a right
wing murderer, and that ought to count for something."
Rudolph was charged with four bombing cases including attacking the
Atlanta Olympic Park in 1996, which most likely only hurt liberals,
but only managed to kill one of the bastards. Another 100 or more
people were merely injured, justifying life imprisonment instead of
a more appropriate death sentence, according to Bush's Justice
Department.
"This wasn't some tree hugger," explained the representative of
Bush's Justice Department. "This man was one of us, sharing our
values."
Rudolph was also credited with doing the Lord's work at a
family planning clinic in 1997 in Georgia, where more than 50
people were merely injured.
Unfortunately, his 1997 bombing on an Atlanta night club failed to
kill any gay people after one of his bombs failed to explode. In that
attack Rudolph had planted two bombs. The first was at the front of
the building and was intended to drive the Godless lesbians out
through the rear, where a second bomb (this one packed in nails)
was to detonate, slaughtering the shameless sinners as they fled
from the almighty God's vengence.
Rudolph, a Christian from North Carolina, will be allowed to
appear in Alabama and Georgia courts April 13, and plead guilty
to the charges instead of facing the death penalty. Contrast this to
God's punishment of the real sinners, like the man who received a
three year sentence for blasphamy, after making a joke about a
"burning Bush" in reference to our beloved President.
"Life in prison seems a bit harsh," admitted the spokesman for
Bush's Justice Department, "But he is technically a terrorists,
so we've got to make some kind of a show here."
In the deal offered by US prosecutors in Bush's Justice
Department, in Birmingham and Atlanta, Rudolph will be spared
a death sentence for his terrorist acts, and allowed to remain a
voice in the battle against liberals and other thought criminals,
and a symbol for all other right wing terrorists.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
09 Apr 2005 06:20:19 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 09:48:29 +0200, thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 04:17:00 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 16:26:21 +0200, thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:25:23 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 08:49:43 +0200, thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 23:38:37 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 09:24:06 -0800, wrote:
Maverick wrote:
Tell me why, after having gotten along quite well without same sex
marriage
for over 200 years, we need to change now.
Because if we don't then, 1) we will be discriminating against a class
of people, and 2) we will deny those people a right which is essential
to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the gay lifestyle that have
been unable to convince the majority of society to accept their lifestyle.
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the Presbyterian
lifestyle that have been unable to convince the majority of society to
accept their lifestyle.
Non Sequitur. Are there legislative attempts and court filings by the
"proponents of the Presbyterian lifestyle" to ensure they get classified as a
"minority"?
They are, in fact, a minority. They do, in fact, have equal rights.
Nobody is being asked to accept anyone's lifestyle. People are
demanding the same civil rights as everyone else.
Noted is your failure to answer the questions as asked. FWIW, a "minority" may
also be those people that are considered *left-handed*. Yet the law does not
consider them, nor gays a "minority" that meet the criteria set down in the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I was pointing out that your argument was invalid. Equal rights are
not withheld from a group or from an individual because the majority
does not like how they live.
So in conflict with your previous comments, you're claiming that gays (IYO a
minority), are not being discriminated against?
I could have possibly used the Quakers
or the Mormons as examples, since they actually were persecuted and
denied equal rights; because the majority did not like the way they
lived.
Your examples are invalid as Quakers and Mormons fall under the religious class
protected under Article XIV.
Nor have I asked them to change their lifestyle. Unlike gays, neither the
*left-handers" nor the "Presbyterian(s)" proposing legislative attempts and
court filings to become classified as a "minority" at the same level as those
depicted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964...nor even "parallel" laws to equate to
the same. IOW, you comments remain non sequitur.
The homosexuals are the ones being discriminated against. They are
the ones protesting against that discrimination.
How odd, as in a paragraph above you state; "Equal rights are not withheld from
a group or from an individual because the majority does not like how they live."
That are many diverse individuals and groups that may claim discrimination, yet
as previously noted, Article XIV doesn't protect them since they are not a
"class". Yet I only note gays pushing for legislation and court cases to become
classified as a "minority" or "protected class" as others under the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.
Your argument is
invalid; it is, in fact, basically the same one used against blacks,
i.e. the majority did not want them to be treated equally.
As I previously noted; "...same sex marriage proponents will invariably attack
their opponents through a variety of fallacies that include religion, slavery,
or interracial marriages. These diversions are to merely avoid the most
glaring legal issue that same sex marriage proponents wish to ignore..."
That gays do not met the level of criteria as set down by the legislative
branches of federal government, yet desire to extend the Civil Rights Act to
include them and/or create parallel laws to raise their status. Unlike the
definitive genetic and physical differences wrt race and gender, no differences
are found to exist to justify "preferntial" treament over heterosexuals, nor
place gays at the same level of minorities for "protected status".
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.
There is no Aricle XIV, so I assume you mean the 14'th amendment.
Typo. This should be Article XIV. It's labeled by many as the 14th Amendment,
but is in fact Article XIV of the US Constitution.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
It is, in fact, the 14'th Amendment. Calling it an article is an
understandable oversight, but you make yourself look ridiculous by
insisting that you were right. If you had actually read the
Constitution, you would know that it could not be the 14'th article.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
LOL. I even provided you the URL that proved my comments with evidence. It is
in fact, as written, Article XIV. It was the fourteenth time the Constitution
had been offically amended since it's initial pasage, but within said legal
document, it is Article XIV.
By your writings, by stating "So your claim "There is no (Article) XIV", it's
not I that's "look(ing) ridiculous", but you failure to back your assertion with
the evidence that could contradict my own. ROLFLMHO
Noted is your failure to back your assertion with evidence.
I don't believe that I am actually debating such an obvious thing.
However, try taking a look at your own constitution.
I provided you the URL, while you provide your opinion.
I have a copy of it in front of me.
Do you have a copy of the US Constitution? How does the writing in your copy
differ from the writing in the URL I provided you?
You will discover that there are 7 articles, and
that they are referred to as articles and numbered I through VII.
Since it's ratification, said document was amended fourteen (14) times. Now, go
look at the amendments and tell us what how these amendments are labeled in
*your* copy of the US Constitution.
After those 7 articles you will see that there are 14 amendments
numbered 1 through 14, and that they are referred to as amendments.
Is that clear enough for you, or are you of the opinion that there are
two sets of articles I through VII?
If said amendments are labeled a 1 - 14'th, you might want to get a "real" copy
of the US Constitution, as it's legal title is "Article XIV", as provided you in
the URL.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
09 Apr 2005 09:49:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:20:19 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 09:48:29 +0200, thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 04:17:00 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
snip
Noted is your failure to answer the questions as asked. FWIW, a "minority" may
also be those people that are considered *left-handed*. Yet the law does not
consider them, nor gays a "minority" that meet the criteria set down in the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I was pointing out that your argument was invalid. Equal rights are
not withheld from a group or from an individual because the majority
does not like how they live.
So in conflict with your previous comments, you're claiming that gays (IYO a
minority), are not being discriminated against?
There is nothing in my post that would lead any sane person to believe
that I said that.
I could have possibly used the Quakers
or the Mormons as examples, since they actually were persecuted and
denied equal rights; because the majority did not like the way they
lived.
Your examples are invalid as Quakers and Mormons fall under the religious class
protected under Article XIV.
The XIV Amendment does not mention class.
Nor have I asked them to change their lifestyle. Unlike gays, neither the
*left-handers" nor the "Presbyterian(s)" proposing legislative attempts and
court filings to become classified as a "minority" at the same level as those
depicted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964...nor even "parallel" laws to equate to
the same. IOW, you comments remain non sequitur.
The homosexuals are the ones being discriminated against. They are
the ones protesting against that discrimination.
How odd, as in a paragraph above you state; "Equal rights are not withheld from
a group or from an individual because the majority does not like how they live."
Obviously I was pointing out that it would not be a valid reason under
the US Constitution, which, of course, you knew.
That are many diverse individuals and groups that may claim discrimination, yet
as previously noted, Article XIV doesn't protect them since they are not a
"class". Yet I only note gays pushing for legislation and court cases to become
classified as a "minority" or "protected class" as others under the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.
The 14'th Amendment does not mention class. The equal treatment of
individuals is guaranteed not classes. You seem to notice many things
that have no objective existence.
Your argument is
invalid; it is, in fact, basically the same one used against blacks,
i.e. the majority did not want them to be treated equally.
As I previously noted; "...same sex marriage proponents will invariably attack
their opponents through a variety of fallacies that include religion, slavery,
or interracial marriages. These diversions are to merely avoid the most
glaring legal issue that same sex marriage proponents wish to ignore..."
That gays do not met the level of criteria as set down by the legislative
branches of federal government, yet desire to extend the Civil Rights Act to
include them and/or create parallel laws to raise their status. Unlike the
definitive genetic and physical differences wrt race and gender, no differences
are found to exist to justify "preferntial" treament over heterosexuals, nor
place gays at the same level of minorities for "protected status".
Preferential treatment is not being asked for, equal treatment, as
guaranteed by the 14't Amendment, is.
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.
There is no Aricle XIV, so I assume you mean the 14'th amendment.
Typo. This should be Article XIV. It's labeled by many as the 14th Amendment,
but is in fact Article XIV of the US Constitution.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
It is, in fact, the 14'th Amendment. Calling it an article is an
understandable oversight, but you make yourself look ridiculous by
insisting that you were right. If you had actually read the
Constitution, you would know that it could not be the 14'th article.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
LOL. I even provided you the URL that proved my comments with evidence. It is
in fact, as written, Article XIV. It was the fourteenth time the Constitution
had been offically amended since it's initial pasage, but within said legal
document, it is Article XIV.
By your writings, by stating "So your claim "There is no (Article) XIV", it's
not I that's "look(ing) ridiculous", but you failure to back your assertion with
the evidence that could contradict my own. ROLFLMHO
Noted is your failure to back your assertion with evidence.
I don't believe that I am actually debating such an obvious thing.
However, try taking a look at your own constitution.
I provided you the URL, while you provide your opinion.
I have a copy of it in front of me.
Do you have a copy of the US Constitution? How does the writing in your copy
differ from the writing in the URL I provided you?
You will discover that there are 7 articles, and
that they are referred to as articles and numbered I through VII.
Since it's ratification, said document was amended fourteen (14) times. Now, go
look at the amendments and tell us what how these amendments are labeled in
*your* copy of the US Constitution.
After those 7 articles you will see that there are 14 amendments
numbered 1 through 14, and that they are referred to as amendments.
Is that clear enough for you, or are you of the opinion that there are
two sets of articles I through VII?
If said amendments are labeled a 1 - 14'th, you might want to get a "real" copy
of the US Constitution, as it's legal title is "Article XIV", as provided you in
the URL.
I see. In that case you must believe that there is one set of
articles numbered I thorough VII and then another set of articles in
the same document numbered I through XIV. I have to admit that that
is a unique bit of silliness.
There are really only two possibilities:
You are an amazing loon; or
You are a troll.
Considering your other comments, I think troll is the most likely; but
the difference between the two categories is really very minimal.
After all who but a loon would want to be a troll?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
10 Apr 2005 10:30:42 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:49:05 +0200, thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:20:19 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 09:48:29 +0200, thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 04:17:00 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
snip
Noted is your failure to answer the questions as asked. FWIW, a "minority" may
also be those people that are considered *left-handed*. Yet the law does not
consider them, nor gays a "minority" that meet the criteria set down in the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I was pointing out that your argument was invalid. Equal rights are
not withheld from a group or from an individual because the majority
does not like how they live.
So in conflict with your previous comments, you're claiming that gays (IYO a
minority), are not being discriminated against?
There is nothing in my post that would lead any sane person to believe
that I said that.
That IS what you posted, eh? Although admittedly I was being sarcastic, one may
only read what you write. 'Nuff said.
I could have possibly used the Quakers
or the Mormons as examples, since they actually were persecuted and
denied equal rights; because the majority did not like the way they
lived.
Your examples are invalid as Quakers and Mormons fall under the religious class
protected under Article XIV.
The XIV Amendment does not mention class.
No, but the Equal Protection Clause (Article XIV) is from where the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 is dervied, eh? US laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, are
supposedly based on a constitutional power delegated to the federal government.
In this case, said law is derived from Article XIV...In 1964 Congress passed the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, (offically known as Public Law 82-352 (78 Stat. 241):
"In the 1960s, Americans who knew only the potential of "equal protection of the
laws" expected the president, the Congress, and the courts to fulfill the
promise of the 14th Amendment. In response, all three branches of the federal
government--as well as the public at large--debated a fundamental constitutional
question: Does the Constitution's prohibition of denying equal protection always
ban the use of racial, ethnic, or gender criteria in an attempt to bring social
justice and social benefits? ... Today, according to the U. S. Government
Manual of 1998-99, the EEOC enforces laws that prohibit discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age in hiring,
promoting, firing, setting wages, testing, training, apprenticeship, and all
other terms and conditions of employment. Race, color, sex, creed, and age are
now protected classes. "
(http://www.archives.gov/digital_classroom/lessons/civil_rights_act/civil_rights_act.html)
So, once again, my comment that; 'your examples are invalid as Quakers and
Mormons fall under the religious class protected under Article XIV' (via the
Civil Rights Act of 1964), remains unrefuted.
Nor have I asked them to change their lifestyle. Unlike gays, neither the
*left-handers" nor the "Presbyterian(s)" proposing legislative attempts and
court filings to become classified as a "minority" at the same level as those
depicted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964...nor even "parallel" laws to equate to
the same. IOW, you comments remain non sequitur.
The homosexuals are the ones being discriminated against. They are
the ones protesting against that discrimination.
How odd, as in a paragraph above you state; "Equal rights are not withheld from
a group or from an individual because the majority does not like how they live."
Obviously I was pointing out that it would not be a valid reason under
the US Constitution, which, of course, you knew.
One may only conclude your assertions from what you write. If you wish to
elucidate further for clarification, feel free to do so. Hence my comment, "How
odd". Yet if your comments were strictly held, there would be no need for ANY
"protected class" as depicted under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
OTOH, the US Constitution's Equal Protection Clause does protect "minorities" as
classified under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gays do not meet that criteria,
ergo, no protection for gays (as a "minority") under Civil Rights Act of 1964
(as derived from Article XIV).
That are many diverse individuals and groups that may claim discrimination, yet
as previously noted, Article XIV doesn't protect them since they are not a
"class". Yet I only note gays pushing for legislation and court cases to become
classified as a "minority" or "protected class" as others under the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.
The 14'th Amendment does not mention class. The equal treatment of
individuals is guaranteed not classes. You seem to notice many things
that have no objective existence.
I've not said Article XIV mentioned "class". Try re-reading again, this time
for comprehension, as I specifically stated "protected class" wrt the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, which was derived from Article XIV. When you're done, try
refuting, wih evidence, the remainder of my paragaph.
Your argument is
invalid; it is, in fact, basically the same one used against blacks,
i.e. the majority did not want them to be treated equally.
As I previously noted; "...same sex marriage proponents will invariably attack
their opponents through a variety of fallacies that include religion, slavery,
or interracial marriages. These diversions are to merely avoid the most
glaring legal issue that same sex marriage proponents wish to ignore..."
Glad to see this comment remains unrefuted, instead you're relying on "a variety
of fallacies" including "Quakers" and "Presbyterian(s)", and finally including
ad hominem, as you did at the end of your post. ROTFLMHO.
That gays do not met the level of criteria as set down by the legislative
branches of federal government, yet desire to extend the Civil Rights Act to
include them and/or create parallel laws to raise their status. Unlike the
definitive genetic and physical differences wrt race and gender, no differences
are found to exist to justify "preferntial" treament over heterosexuals, nor
place gays at the same level of minorities for "protected status".
Preferential treatment is not being asked for, equal treatment, as
guaranteed by the 14't Amendment, is.
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.
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.
There is no Aricle XIV, so I assume you mean the 14'th amendment.
Typo. This should be Article XIV. It's labeled by many as the 14th Amendment,
but is in fact Article XIV of the US Constitution.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
It is, in fact, the 14'th Amendment. Calling it an article is an
understandable oversight, but you make yourself look ridiculous by
insisting that you were right. If you had actually read the
Constitution, you would know that it could not be the 14'th article.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
LOL. I even provided you the URL that proved my comments with evidence. It is
in fact, as written, Article XIV. It was the fourteenth time the Constitution
had been offically amended since it's initial pasage, but within said legal
document, it is Article XIV.
By your writings, by stating "So your claim "There is no (Article) XIV", it's
not I that's "look(ing) ridiculous", but you failure to back your assertion with
the evidence that could contradict my own. ROLFLMHO
Noted is your failure to back your assertion with evidence.
I don't believe that I am actually debating such an obvious thing.
However, try taking a look at your own constitution.
I provided you the URL, while you provide your opinion.
I have a copy of it in front of me.
Do you have a copy of the US Constitution? How does the writing in your copy
differ from the writing in the URL I provided you?
You will discover that there are 7 articles, and
that they are referred to as articles and numbered I through VII.
Since it's ratification, said document was amended fourteen (14) times. Now, go
look at the amendments and tell us what how these amendments are labeled in
*your* copy of the US Constitution.
After those 7 articles you will see that there are 14 amendments
numbered 1 through 14, and that they are referred to as amendments.
Is that clear enough for you, or are you of the opinion that there are
two sets of articles I through VII?
If said amendments are labeled a 1 - 14'th, you might want to get a "real" copy
of the US Constitution, as it's legal title is "Article XIV", as provided you in
the URL.
I see. In that case you must believe that there is one set of
articles numbered I thorough VII and then another set of articles in
the same document numbered I through XIV. I have to admit that that
is a unique bit of silliness.
It is not what *I* "believe", but what is written and provided you as evidence.
When one reads for comprehension, the only "unique bit of silliness" one notes
is your failure, especially in light of the evidence provided you, to provide
the evidence to refute it. You've yet to do so...
For your edification, within the URL provided you the first time a legal change
to the Constitution that starts with the word "Amendment", followed by Roman
numerals is "Amendment XXII". Had you actually read the evidence provided you,
you would have known that. It's becoming obvious you've no intention of
providing contrary evidence...as you don't have any...
There are really only two possibilities:
You are an amazing loon; or
You are a troll.
Now you move on to fallacies of distraction. So, based on your email address in
Usenet, one may only conclude you are new to Usenet (compared to many others).
seeing that you may live in Denmark (yahoo.dk?), one may begin to see you've no
true understanding of the US Constitution nor the law.
So, at least for Usenet, let me help you out "newbie":
"Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning
about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait."
(http://www.drbbs.com/jsw/jargon/jargon_35.html)
To date, your posts in response to me read more like the word "troll" as defined
above than my posts towards you, as you've attempted to focus on the phrase
"14'th amendment", a phrase which is non-existant in the US Constitution (not
spelled THAT way)
Your assertion "There is no (Article) XIV", has been shown as false... with
evidence. Yet you continue to prattle on without even reading the evidence
provided you that easily contradicts your nonsensical "14'th amendment" term
from the legal sense as it is written (and shown above). So in light of your
continued use of a non-existant term:
"Basically, to avoid being put in the "hit-and-run" category, you should support
your assertions. No one is going to be convinced by the rote repetition of an
opinion, therefore you should always back up your opinions with evidence and
logic. Posting an unsupported assertion is a sure way to induce flames. Doing it
numerous times will completely destroy your credibility. [CS]
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-welcome.html)
Considering your other comments, I think troll is the most likely; but
the difference between the two categories is really very minimal.
After all who but a loon would want to be a troll?
Your opinion, like your failure to read the evidence provided you, your failure
to provide evidence that refutes that provided you, and your injection of
fallacies and ad hmominem, shows which of us is the "troll" and a "loon".
I suggest you learn how to conduct yourself in Usenet "newbie", as you may
actually learn something. If you desire to at least pretend to post
intelligently on a topic in us.talk.constitution and
alt.politics.usa.constitution NGs, try obtaining a "real" copy of the US
Constitution , eh?
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
16 Apr 2005 06:15:16 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:49:05 +0200, thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:20:19 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 09:48:29 +0200, thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 04:17:00 GMT, (Info Junkie)
wrote:
snip
Noted is your failure to answer the questions as asked. FWIW, a "minority" may
also be those people that are considered *left-handed*. Yet the law does not
consider them, nor gays a "minority" that meet the criteria set down in the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I was pointing out that your argument was invalid. Equal rights are
not withheld from a group or from an individual because the majority
does not like how they live.
So in conflict with your previous comments, you're claiming that gays (IYO a
minority), are not being discriminated against?
There is nothing in my post that would lead any sane person to believe
that I said that.
That IS what you posted, eh? Although admittedly I was being sarcastic, one may
only read what you write. 'Nuff said.
I could have possibly used the Quakers
or the Mormons as examples, since they actually were persecuted and
denied equal rights; because the majority did not like the way they
lived.
Your examples are invalid as Quakers and Mormons fall under the religious class
protected under Article XIV.
The XIV Amendment does not mention class.
No, but the Equal Protection Clause (Article XIV) is from where the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 is dervied, eh? US laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, are
supposedly based on a constitutional power delegated to the federal government.
In this case, said law is derived from Article XIV...In 1964 Congress passed the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, (offically known as Public Law 82-352 (78 Stat. 241):
"In the 1960s, Americans who knew only the potential of "equal protection of the
laws" expected the president, the Congress, and the courts to fulfill the
promise of the 14th Amendment. In response, all three branches of the federal
government--as well as the public at large--debated a fundamental constitutional
question: Does the Constitution's prohibition of denying equal protection always
ban the use of racial, ethnic, or gender criteria in an attempt to bring social
justice and social benefits? ... Today, according to the U. S. Government
Manual of 1998-99, the EEOC enforces laws that prohibit discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age in hiring,
promoting, firing, setting wages, testing, training, apprenticeship, and all
other terms and conditions of employment. Race, color, sex, creed, and age are
now protected classes. "
(http://www.archives.gov/digital_classroom/lessons/civil_rights_act/civil_rights_act.html)
So, once again, my comment that; 'your examples are invalid as Quakers and
Mormons fall under the religious class protected under Article XIV' (via the
Civil Rights Act of 1964), remains unrefuted.
Nor have I asked them to change their lifestyle. Unlike gays, neither the
*left-handers" nor the "Presbyterian(s)" proposing legislative attempts and
court filings to become classified as a "minority" at the same level as those
depicted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964...nor even "parallel" laws to equate to
the same. IOW, you comments remain non sequitur.
The homosexuals are the ones being discriminated against. They are
the ones protesting against that discrimination.
How odd, as in a paragraph above you state; "Equal rights are not withheld from
a group or from an individual because the majority does not like how they live."
Obviously | | | | | | | | |
