Religions > Atheism > Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them..
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Daniel Joseph Min" |
| Date: |
18 Nov 2005 09:23:50 PM |
| Object: |
Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
"t...@...m" wrote:
Fri, 18 Nov 2005 02:45:13 -0000 from "c...@...m":
<s>
theories of
intelegent design and several different theories of evolution....neither of
which can be/have been proved.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
What I find most entertaining about all this, is that by next
year, what is being cleverly packaged as 'Intelligent Design'
will become mainstream curriculum in all public schools across
the country. And in every textbook that teaches the theory of
evolution in public schools, the theory of intelligent design
will be prominently included alongside it. I find that down-
right hilarious, and worthy of popping the cork on a rare old
bottle of champagne! (No, I'll wait until New Year's for that). :-D
Enjoy!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQ34QiZljD7YrHM/nEQL+swCfZu3lPSu1802M8Ab6hzebCucAqhYAn2PQ
BDG1Gj86bBaYD99bKKd/g6ZS
=YUOx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
19 Nov 2005 02:57:58 AM |
|
|
Daniel Joseph Min <Real.Min@Colorado.USA> writes:
"t...@...m" wrote:
Fri, 18 Nov 2005 02:45:13 -0000 from "c...@...m":
<s>
theories of
intelegent design and several different theories of evolution....neither of
which can be/have been proved.
What I find most entertaining about all this, is that by next
year, what is being cleverly packaged as 'Intelligent Design'
will become mainstream curriculum in all public schools across
the country. And in every textbook that teaches the theory of
evolution in public schools, the theory of intelligent design
will be prominently included alongside it. I find that down-
right hilarious, and worthy of popping the cork on a rare old
bottle of champagne! (No, I'll wait until New Year's for that). :-D
Given your track record of proclamations that never happen, this one will die
unnoticed just like the rest...a pity that you couldn't do the same.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Manitoba 5, Houston 4 (November 17)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 18 at Manitoba, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
20 Nov 2005 11:12:24 PM |
|
|
On 18 Nov 2005 21:23:50 -0000, Daniel Joseph Min
<Real.Min@Colorado.USA> wrote:
"t...@...m" wrote:
Fri, 18 Nov 2005 02:45:13 -0000 from "c...@...m":
<s>
theories of
intelegent design and several different theories of evolution....neither of
which can be/have been proved.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
What I find most entertaining about all this, is that by next
year, what is being cleverly packaged as 'Intelligent Design'
will become mainstream curriculum in all public schools across
the country. And in every textbook that teaches the theory of
evolution in public schools, the theory of intelligent design
will be prominently included alongside it. I find that down-
right hilarious, and worthy of popping the cork on a rare old
bottle of champagne! (No, I'll wait until New Year's for that). :-D
Enjoy!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQ34QiZljD7YrHM/nEQL+swCfZu3lPSu1802M8Ab6hzebCucAqhYAn2PQ
BDG1Gj86bBaYD99bKKd/g6ZS
=YUOx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I would like to download that episode, is this still possible?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Joseph Min" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
19 Nov 2005 01:41:42 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, chicagofan <me7@privacy.net> wrote:
Daniel Joseph Min wrote:
What I find most entertaining about all this, is that by next
year, what is being cleverly packaged as 'Intelligent Design'
will become mainstream curriculum in all public schools across
the country. And in every textbook that teaches the theory of
evolution in public schools, the theory of intelligent design
will be prominently included alongside it.
WHO says... ?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
After January 2006, once Bush's nominee judge Samuel Alito,
who is being rubber-stamped to succeed retiring ultra-left-
wing liberal justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the United States
Supreme Court will be the ones who say so, *that's* WHO! :-D
You see, the liberals are sure to filibuster the Alito vote,
thus Republicans shall simply invoke the so-called "nuclear"
option, which shall prove in actuality to be the perfectly-
constitutional option to effectively legislate and judicially
uphold, to impose by federal mandate, moderate-to-conservative
leaning federal laws which always supersede any state laws to
the contrary. It's already a Republican-dominated White House
and Congress, and soon enough Republicans will also dominate
the Supreme Court. Not much the liberals can do to stop them...
Enjoy!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQ35k75ljD7YrHM/nEQIDEQCfUvaNIS3FkXgJtXV0rvC+8nCSYYMAoJFS
jWKwfDQxms8T5M8/owDSNvK4
=NqYp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
21 Nov 2005 02:03:43 AM |
|
|
Daniel Joseph Min wrote:
After January 2006, once Bush's nominee judge Samuel Alito,
who is being rubber-stamped to succeed retiring ultra-left-
wing liberal justice Sandra Day O'Connor
O'Conner was appointed by Ronald Reagan, you moronic dimwit. Try to
get your facts straight before you open your stupid-***** mouth in
alt.atheism.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
21 Nov 2005 09:40:07 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
Daniel Joseph Min wrote:
After January 2006, once Bush's nominee judge Samuel Alito,
who is being rubber-stamped to succeed retiring ultra-left-
wing liberal justice Sandra Day O'Connor
O'Conner was appointed by Ronald Reagan, you moronic dimwit. Try to
get your facts straight before you open your stupid-***** mouth in
alt.atheism.
Presidents can make mistakes, several liberal judges have been appointed
my republicans who went on to be disappointed that they didn't give the
government free reign to do anything that was not explicitly prohibited
in the constitution.
That said, to call O'Conner ultra-left wing is indeed the sign of a
moronic dimwit
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
21 Nov 2005 10:31:15 PM |
|
|
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
Presidents can make mistakes,
Lying his way into a war, for example.
several liberal judges have been appointed my
republicans
*****.
Conservatives care about things like the separation of
powers, the separation of church & state and personal
liberties. What the nut jobs want are judges who will
rule the way you want, and to hell with what the
constitution actually says.
Example: No judge -- not even the most "conservative" --
could have ruled against gay marriage in the Massachusetts
case. The constitution expressly forbids discrimination
based on sex ("Gender"), and marriage licenses were
being granted or denied based entirely on the sex (genders)
of the applicants.
So, even the most "Conservative" judge would have been
forced to recognize the "Right" of gay people to marry.
Once having done that, in the absence of a compelling
reason to withhold that right, they had no choice but to
order that gay marriages be allowed.
That's simply what the constitution demanded.
What the neo-con nuts want are judges who don't give
a ***** what the constitution says. They want judges to
rule against things like gay marriage, regardless of the
constitutional issues involved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
22 Nov 2005 09:43:08 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Example: No judge -- not even the most "conservative" --
could have ruled against gay marriage in the Massachusetts
case. The constitution expressly forbids discrimination
based on sex ("Gender"), and marriage licenses were
being granted or denied based entirely on the sex (genders)
of the applicants.
The Goodridge majority rejected the idea that denying marriage licesnes
to same-sex couples was gender discrimination. Only one justice made
that argument.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
25 Nov 2005 01:42:04 AM |
|
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote
The Goodridge majority rejected the idea that denying
marriage licesnes to same-sex couples was gender
discrimination.
Cites?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
25 Nov 2005 02:53:21 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote
The Goodridge majority rejected the idea that denying
marriage licesnes to same-sex couples was gender
discrimination.
Cites?
http://www.malawyersweekly.com/signup/opinion.cfm?page=ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm
Look for Greaney's concurring opinion (he was the lone vote for gender
discrimination).
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
25 Nov 2005 03:20:21 AM |
|
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote
The Goodridge majority rejected the idea that denying
marriage licesnes to same-sex couples was gender
discrimination.
http://www.malawyersweekly.com/signup/opinion.cfm?page=ma/opin/sup/1017603.h
tm
Look for Greaney's concurring opinion (he was the lone vote for gender
discrimination).
No. That isn't the issue here. What I'd like is a cite demonstrating
that the majority REJECTED gender discrimination.
From what I've read, the fact that they avoided touching on
gender discrimination didn't surprise me. I admit, it was a
little strange, given that it's something a court would only do
to avoid "Strict Scrutiny," and strict scrutiny most definitely
does apply to marriage... according to all Supreme Court
precedents anyway. So there didn't seem much point to it.
But it's not surprising when a decision can be handed down
WITHOUT touching on issues centered on gender... or race.
It's something that courts normally try to avoid, only focusing
on it when it is *The* issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
25 Nov 2005 02:06:38 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote
No. That isn't the issue here. What I'd like is a cite demonstrating
that the majority REJECTED gender discrimination.
My initial claim was too strong. The Mass Court did not explicitly
reject gender discrimination. But by choosing to not base its ruling
on gender discrimination, IMO it strongly suggested it did not agree
with that reasoning (see below).
From what I've read, the fact that they avoided touching on
gender discrimination didn't surprise me. I admit, it was a
little strange, given that it's something a court would only do
to avoid "Strict Scrutiny," and strict scrutiny most definitely
does apply to marriage... according to all Supreme Court
precedents anyway. So there didn't seem much point to it.
I wouldn't characterize the court's choice to avoid gender
discrimination just as a "little strange". It was very, very unusual.
As Greaney notes - and you comment there "didn't seem much point to it"
- why didn't the court use traditional equal protection analysis which
first asks what level of scrutiny applies, rather than avoiding the
level-of-scrutiny question by ruling the law couldn't survive
rational-basis review. Moreover, laws almost always survive rational
basis analysis. The court's reasoning that Massachusetts' marriage
laws couldn't survive rational-basis review is very weak - I don't see
how it is consistent with precedent. But even if I were to concede the
ruling was sound, why do something that is very much out of the
ordinary instead of the obviously traditional as Greaney suggests?
The only conclusion I can reach is that the "point to it" was to figure
out a way to rule in favor of Goodridge without relying on something
the majority did not believe was true. And given Lawrence (and Limon -
which was judicated after Goodridge), it is very hard to see how
Massachusetts' marriage law ran afoul because of gender discrimination.
But it's not surprising when a decision can be handed down
WITHOUT touching on issues centered on gender... or race.
It's something that courts normally try to avoid, only focusing
on it when it is *The* issue.
Are you claiming that it is "not surprising" and "courts normally try
to avoid" heightened scrutiny when a decision can be decided on
rational-basis review? If so, please provide a citation.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
26 Nov 2005 07:10:40 AM |
|
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote
Are you claiming that it is "not surprising" and "courts normally try
to avoid" heightened scrutiny when a decision can be decided on
rational-basis review? If so, please provide a citation.
What kind of citation?
Articles where a court apparently has done exactly that?
http://www.fepproject.org/news/cipaargument.html
(paragraph 4)
The Massachusetts case specifically?
http://www.glad.org/marriage/californiamarriage.shtml
(under "Which Test to Apply in this Case?")
"Avoid Strict Scrutiny" in general?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22avoid+strict+scrutiny%22
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
26 Nov 2005 02:21:17 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote
Are you claiming that it is "not surprising" and "courts normally try
to avoid" heightened scrutiny when a decision can be decided on
rational-basis review? If so, please provide a citation.
What kind of citation?
A citation which supports the claim that such a practice is "not
surprising", or is the "normal" course of action.
Such a finding is crucial to conclude that the Goodridge court did not
implicitly reject using a higher standard - but rather chose the
"normal" course of using a lower standard without prejudice as to
whether a higher standard (gender discrimination) might also apply.
Articles where a court apparently has done exactly that?
http://www.fepproject.org/news/cipaargument.html
(paragraph 4)
It appears in this case, some of the justices at orals wanted to
*reject* the higher standard in favor of a lower one - not to use a
lower standard without prejudice towards a higher one.
The Massachusetts case specifically?
http://www.glad.org/marriage/californiamarriage.shtml
(under "Which Test to Apply in this Case?")
This just rehashes what the Goodridge Court did. It does not provide
evidence for whether it is a common practice for courts to avoid
analyzing if heightened scrutiny should apply.
Also note that in the California case, the judge *did* examine whether
heightened scrutiny applied, and concluded that it did because - in part
- there was gender discrimination. I can only conclude that the
Goodridge Court disagreed, and so do I given Lawrence and Limon (the
latter judicated after the California court decision).
"Avoid Strict Scrutiny" in general?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22avoid+strict+scrutiny%22>
Can you point to which hit provides an on-point citation?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
27 Nov 2005 02:20:22 AM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
A citation which supports the claim that such a practice is "not
surprising", or is the "normal" course of action.
Well I just provided you with citations.
If you want some type of study -- and one doesn't exist -- that's
your clue to get cracking!
Alternatively, you could produce a "Citation" which demonstrates
the opposite. But whatever you do, don't hold me to some standard
which you yourself fail miserably.
Otherwise, you've seen many of the articles I've read which
raise the subject. If you want to continue this exchange, feel
free to refute the rational in any one of the articles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
27 Nov 2005 03:34:55 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
A citation which supports the claim that such a practice is "not
surprising", or is the "normal" course of action.
Well I just provided you with citations.
I detailed how those citations don't support the claim.
Alternatively, you could produce a "Citation" which demonstrates
the opposite. But whatever you do, don't hold me to some standard
which you yourself fail miserably.
In Loving, Zablocki and Turner (the three salient federal marriage
cases), The Court first analyzed the level of scrutiny. The state
courts in Alaska, Hawaii and Vermont did likewise when confronted with
same-sex marriage. Those cases are strong evidence that it is not
normal for courts to rule based on rational-basis review without passing
judgment - one way or the other - on what level of scrutiny should apply.
Thus, it is only the Goodridge court which ruled based on rational-basis
review without supposedly passing judgment on whether a higher level of
scrutiny should apply. One of the justices in the majority (Greaney),
went out of his way in a concurrence to point out that the court's
ruling should not have done that - and for good reason: it suggests the
court doesn't think a higher level of scrutiny applies, that the court
doesn't believe this is a case of gender discrimination.
Otherwise, you've seen many of the articles I've read which
raise the subject. If you want to continue this exchange, feel
free to refute the rational in any one of the articles.
I have provided refutations to the articles you have provided - with no
rebuttal from you - in the parts of my reply you snipped. If you care
to rebut, please do so by referring to my already on-the-record refutations.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
27 Nov 2005 07:46:25 AM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
One of the justices in the majority (Greaney),
went out of his way in a concurrence to point out that the court's
ruling should not have done that - and for good reason: it suggests the
court doesn't think a higher level of scrutiny applies, that the court
doesn't believe this is a case of gender discrimination.
That doesn't make sense, because "strict scrutiny" applies to marriage.
Period. So unless you also think that they were saying that strict
scrutiny doesn't apply to marriage, your solution is no better than my
own.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
30 Nov 2005 01:32:50 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
It makes no sense for the Goodridge court to
rule on a tenuous rational-basis argument if
it has a slam-dunk strict-scrutiny case.
YES or NO:
Does marriage fall under "Strict Scrutiny"?
Hint: The answer is, "Yes."
No matter what, no matter how you slice it, the court DID
pass on "Strict Scrutiny," though it applied.
Whatever explanations you've offered have FAILED to
account for this blaringly obvious fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
30 Nov 2005 01:54:39 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
It makes no sense for the Goodridge court to
rule on a tenuous rational-basis argument if
it has a slam-dunk strict-scrutiny case.
YES or NO:
Does marriage fall under "Strict Scrutiny"?
Hint: The answer is, "Yes."
As I answered in the part you snipped, Zablocki established a subset of
conditions (which do not include same-sex marriage) in which strict
scrutiny applies to marriage and declared that strict scrutiny does not
always apply. But, Zablocki did not specify the specific cases in
which strict scrutiny does not apply, and thus leaves us guessing as to
whether strict scrutiny applies to same-sex marriage.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
30 Nov 2005 03:03:35 PM |
|
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote
As I answered in the part you snipped, Zablocki established
a subset of conditions (which do not include same-sex
marriage)
So you're claiming that strict scrutiny doesn't apply to marriage,
if the couple applying for a marriage license fails the sex test?
And this makes sense to you?
I've got news for you. The contortions the courts have gone
through in attempt after attempt to avoid applying strict scrutiny
in cases involving homosexuality are well know to
EVERYBODY following the Civil Rights struggle.
The Massachusetts case is hardly unique.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
30 Nov 2005 03:07:25 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote
As I answered in the part you snipped, Zablocki established
a subset of conditions (which do not include same-sex
marriage)
So you're claiming that strict scrutiny doesn't apply to marriage,
if the couple applying for a marriage license fails the sex test?
IMO, strict scrutiny should apply to same-sex marriage because of the
fundamental nature of marriage and is soundly based on precedent.
However, that is not established law. In contrast on the question of
gender discrmination (which would require intermediate scrutiny),
precedent (Limon relying on Lawrence) strongly suggests there is not
gender discrimination.
I've got news for you. The contortions the courts have gone
through in attempt after attempt to avoid applying strict scrutiny
in cases involving homosexuality are well know to
EVERYBODY following the Civil Rights struggle.
The Massachusetts case is hardly unique.
Firstly, I am not sure what point you are making. Secondly, after you
clarify that point, please provide citations in support of it.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
30 Nov 2005 03:34:55 PM |
|
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote
IMO, strict scrutiny should apply to same-sex marriage because
of the fundamental nature of marriage and is soundly based on
precedent.
I go further. Strict scrutiny DOES apply to same-gender marriage,
even if a court is negligent.
However, that is not established law.
It is, actually. What you're literally arguing is that the courts by
default must take the other side.
You see, it's really up to the other side to make the case of the
other side, not the courts. Strict Scrutiny applies to marriage.
Period. Strict Scrutiny applies to sex discrimination. Period.
If the OTHER SIDE wants to try to make a case that this isn't
somehow an issue about legislation on marriage, or not involving
sex discrimination, then good luck to them.
I've got news for you. The contortions the courts have gone
through in attempt after attempt to avoid applying strict scrutiny
in cases involving homosexuality are well know to
EVERYBODY following the Civil Rights struggle.
The Massachusetts case is hardly unique.
Firstly, I am not sure what point you are making. Secondly, after you
clarify that point, please provide citations in support of it.
Hello? We're talking about one right now. CO2 is another, the
one that seems to have set something of a precedent.
Good luck!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
30 Nov 2005 03:48:50 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote
IMO, strict scrutiny should apply to same-sex marriage because
of the fundamental nature of marriage and is soundly based on
precedent.
I go further. Strict scrutiny DOES apply to same-gender marriage,
even if a court is negligent.
That's an opinion (one I agree with), not a fact.
However, that is not established law.
It is, actually. What you're literally arguing is that the courts by
default must take the other side.
I am saying that as a matter of factually established case law it is
not known - one way or the other - whether strict scrutiny applies to
same-sex marriage. Given that fact, lower courts may take either side.
You see, it's really up to the other side to make the case of the
other side, not the courts. Strict Scrutiny applies to marriage.
Period.
This repeated assertion in the face of evidence to the contrary
(Zablocki) is lame.
Strict Scrutiny applies to sex discrimination. Period.
Close. Intermediate scrutiny applies, not strict scrutiny.
If the OTHER SIDE wants to try to make a case that this isn't
somehow an issue about legislation on marriage, or not involving
sex discrimination, then good luck to them.
I made the case (Limon through Lawrence) that marriage law which
excludes same-sex couples is not gender discrimination. How do you
rebut my argument?
I've got news for you. The contortions the courts have gone
through in attempt after attempt to avoid applying strict scrutiny
in cases involving homosexuality are well know to
EVERYBODY following the Civil Rights struggle.
The Massachusetts case is hardly unique.
Firstly, I am not sure what point you are making. Secondly, after you
clarify that point, please provide citations in support of it.
Hello? We're talking about one right now.
You said "the Massachusetts case is hardly unique." You need to cite
cases other than Goodridge to support your assertion (which I still
don't understand).
CO2 is another, the one that seems to have set something of a precedent.
How does Romer (Colorado's Amendment 2 case) support your assertion,
whatever that assertion was supposed to mean?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
30 Nov 2005 04:53:34 PM |
|
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote
I go further. Strict scrutiny DOES apply to same-gender marriage,
even if a court is negligent.
That's an opinion (one I agree with), not a fact.
Oh it's a fact alright. It may be a fact that the courts bend over
backwards to not recognize, but it's a fact.
I am saying that as a matter of factually established case law it is
not known - one way or the other - whether strict scrutiny applies to
same-sex marriage.
What I'm pointing out is that you have to go through all sorts of
contortions just to pretend that slapping "same-sex" in the front
changes everything.
As a matter of fact, you are REQUIRING the courts to perform a
sex test.
Without knowing the genders of the parties, a court has no way
of knowing if "strict scrutiny" applies... according to you.
And I agree.
The only difference between you & me is I'm willing to
state the obvious: The courts aren't supposed to do this.
Any court that does do this is reaching FAR beyond the
law, the constitution and their powers.
You see, it's really up to the other side to make the case of the
other side, not the courts. Strict Scrutiny applies to marriage.
Period.
This repeated assertion in the face of evidence to the contrary
(Zablocki) is lame.
That's not "Evidence."
Look, history is filled to the brim with examples of the courts
doing the wrong thing for all the wrong reasons. "Dred Scott,"
anyone?
Bad decisions don't mean that we are stuck with bad decisions.
Bad decisions mean we have to replace the judges with people
who will follow the law & the constitution, instead of "legislating
from the bench."
I made the case (Limon through Lawrence) that marriage law
which excludes same-sex couples is not gender discrimination.
How do you rebut my argument?
Easy.
Take ten applications for a marriage license, five mixed-gender
and five same-gender, and earase all references to gender &
gender-specific names. Ask the court to decide in which cases
"Strict Scrutiny" does not apply.
They can't do it! And the test -- the determination -- isn't on
sexual orientation, it IS on gender and gender alone!
Does knowing the genders mean that you know who
the homosexuals are?
Of course not!
Gay people have been marrying people of the opposite gender
for as long as there's been marriage. Most simply to hide the
fact that they are gay... including to their spouse.
For many (and certainly in more modern times) the spouses
have often been in on the act.
And there's no shortage of scenarios were a couple of
same-gender heterosexuals might choose to become married.
Chief amongst them would be to take "Next of kin" status
away from family -- in legal matters and for inheritance --
and place it into the hands of a person they are very close to.
So in the absence of some way of ALWAYS identifying
gay people -- and always being accurate -- the courts are
ALWAYS limited to a sex test, and NEVER basing anything
on sexual orientation.
You said "the Massachusetts case is hardly unique."
I did. And I immediately offered you a second one, one
that was seen as something of a precedent...
CO2 is another, the one that seems to have set something of
a precedent.
How does Romer (Colorado's Amendment 2 case) support your assertion,
whatever that assertion was supposed to mean?
Keep in mind, this was AFTER the court in Colorado said
that Strict Scrutiny did apply:
| Plainly, the Court did not want to recognize homosexuals as a new
| "suspect" class meriting added judicial protection. Yet the
| initiative was abhorrent - it reflected nothing but animus toward
| gays - and the majority, in an opinion authored by Justice Anthony
| Kennedy, recognized that. Accordingly, it found it unconstitutional
| under the rational basis standard
| http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20030626.html
This cite actually talks about the Colorado ruling, which applied
Strict Scrutiny. That Colorado ruling is online, if you want the
nitty gritty and not just what I'm basing my statements on...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws7.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
30 Nov 2005 06:05:55 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote
Strict Scrutiny applies to marriage. Period.
This repeated assertion in the face of evidence to the contrary
(Zablocki) is lame.
That's not "Evidence."
How is it not evidence?
Look, history is filled to the brim with examples of the courts
doing the wrong thing for all the wrong reasons. "Dred Scott,"
anyone?
Bad decisions don't mean that we are stuck with bad decisions.
Bad decisions mean we have to replace the judges with people
who will follow the law & the constitution, instead of "legislating
from the bench."
How is Zablocki a bad decision?
I made the case (Limon through Lawrence) that marriage law
which excludes same-sex couples is not gender discrimination.
How do you rebut my argument?
Easy.
Take ten applications for a marriage license, five mixed-gender
and five same-gender, and earase all references to gender &
gender-specific names. Ask the court to decide in which cases
"Strict Scrutiny" does not apply.
They can't do it! And the test -- the determination -- isn't on
sexual orientation, it IS on gender and gender alone!
What about Limon? In that case, an 18-year old boy had consensual sex
with a 14-year old boy. Under Kansas law, had the gender of the
parties been one-male/one-female, the sentence would have been at most
15 months. But because the genders were both male, the sentence was 17
years. Is that gender discrimination?
How does Romer (Colorado's Amendment 2 case) support your assertion,
whatever that assertion was supposed to mean?
Keep in mind, this was AFTER the court in Colorado said
that Strict Scrutiny did apply:
| Plainly, the Court did not want to recognize homosexuals as a new
| "suspect" class meriting added judicial protection. Yet the
| initiative was abhorrent - it reflected nothing but animus toward
| gays - and the majority, in an opinion authored by Justice Anthony
| Kennedy, recognized that. Accordingly, it found it unconstitutional
| under the rational basis standard
| http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20030626.html
OK. Now, can you explain what your assertion is, and how Romer
supports it?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
30 Nov 2005 09:14:47 PM |
|
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote
What about Limon? In that case, an 18-year old boy had
consensual sex with a 14-year old boy. Under Kansas
law, had the gender of the parties been one-male/one-female,
the sentence would have been at most 15 months. But
because the genders were both male, the sentence was 17
years. Is that gender discrimination?
Yes. And most of the modern world has already corrected
such discrimination in the application of their law, with the
United States lagging behind as always.
Quite clearly, a sex (gender) test is being applied.
OK. Now, can you explain what your assertion is, and how Romer
supports it?
No, sorry, I'm not going to stop every so many articles to bring
you up to date...
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
30 Nov 2005 09:58:22 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote
What about Limon? In that case, an 18-year old boy had
consensual sex with a 14-year old boy. Under Kansas
law, had the gender of the parties been one-male/one-female,
the sentence would have been at most 15 months. But
because the genders were both male, the sentence was 17
years. Is that gender discrimination?
Quite clearly, a sex (gender) test is being applied.
Yet, the Kansas Supreme Court
(http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/supct/2005/20051021/85898.htm)
explicitly considered the classification (if any) that the law
discriminated against. Their conclusion: the law discriminated on the
basis of sexuality (and gays in particular), not gender.
Moreover, the Kansas Court directly applied SCOTUS precedent from
Lawrence (the Texas sodomy case where same-sex sodomy was illegal, but
not oppoiste-sex sodomy, another case where I suppose you think there
is gender discrimination) to reach its conclusion.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
02 Dec 2005 10:51:15 PM |
|
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote
explicitly considered the classification (if any) that
the law discriminated against. Their conclusion:
the law discriminated on the basis of sexuality (and
gays in particular), not gender.
And? Go on?
Seriously. After saying again & again that I can no longer
be surprised by the contortions that the courts go through
in order to avoid applying heightened scrutiny to cases
involving gay people, you must understand that there's
nothing that you could say which would surprise me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
03 Dec 2005 01:23:56 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote
explicitly considered the classification (if any) that
the law discriminated against. Their conclusion:
the law discriminated on the basis of sexuality (and
gays in particular), not gender.
And? Go on?
Seriously. After saying again & again that I can no longer
be surprised by the contortions that the courts go through
in order to avoid applying heightened scrutiny to cases
involving gay people, you must understand that there's
nothing that you could say which would surprise me.
The correct way of applying heightened scrutiny to discrimination
against gays is to declare sexuality a suspect class. The incorrect
way is to falsely claim that discrimination against gays - as seen in
Limon, Lawrence or marriage law - is gender discrimination.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
27 Nov 2005 01:46:01 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
One of the justices in the majority (Greaney),
went out of his way in a concurrence to point out that the court's
ruling should not have done that - and for good reason: it suggests the
court doesn't think a higher level of scrutiny applies, that the court
doesn't believe this is a case of gender discrimination.
That doesn't make sense, because "strict scrutiny" applies to marriage.
Period. So unless you also think that they were saying that strict
scrutiny doesn't apply to marriage, your solution is no better than my
own.
It makes no sense for the Goodridge court to rule on a tenuous
rational-basis argument if it has a slam-dunk strict-scrutiny case. As
with gender discrimination, I can only conclude that the Goodridge
court does not believe the Massachusetts marriage law was subject to
strict scrutiny in spite of your claim that strict scrutiny always
applies to marriage.
If you look further at precedent (Zablocki), you see that strict
scrutiny does not always apply to marriage and whether it applies to
same-sex couples is not established law (and this must be the case or
we would have already seen a rash of court cases including at the
federal level saying as much):
"It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the
same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation,
childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. As the facts of
this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right
of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with
respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the
foundation of the family in our society. [...] Surely, a decision to
marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive
equivalent protection. [...] By reaffirming the fundamental character
of the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state
regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or
prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. To
the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly
interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may
legitimately be imposed."
Thus, the extent of strict scrutiny is (so far) limited to laws which
"significantly interfere with decisions" to marry in the context of
procreation and the traditional family. It looks like the Goodridge
court did not want to push the envelope any further.
IMO, the Goodridge court was mistaken in that determination, but it was
correct on the issue of gender discrimination.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: South Park openly taunting Cruise and Scientology to Sue them.. |
22 Nov 2005 05:33:00 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
Presidents can make mistakes,
Lying his way into a war, for example.
several liberal judges have been appointed my
republicans
*****.
Conservatives care about things like the separation of
powers, the separation of church & state and personal
liberties. What the nut jobs want are judges who will
rule the way you want, and to hell with what the
constitution actually says.
Example: No judge -- not even the most "conservative" --
could have ruled against gay marriage in the Massachusetts
case. The constitution expressly forbids discrimination
based on sex ("Gender"), and marriage licenses were
being granted or denied based entirely on the sex (genders)
of the applicants.
So, even the most "Conservative" judge would have been
forced to recognize the "Right" of gay people to marry.
Once having done that, in the absence of a compelling
reason to withhold that right, they had no choice but to
order that gay marriages be allowed.
That's simply what the constitution demanded.
What the neo-con nuts want are judges who don't give
a ***** what the constitution says. They want judges to
rule against things like gay marriage, regardless of the
constitutional issues involved.
Of course. No judge has ever made any decision that the president who
appointed them disagreed with. I stand corrected
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
