| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/05/2010 05:09:58 PM · #4976 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
So Jason thinks a voting majority has the right to deny marriage to a class of people.
So Jason doesn't think a voting majority has the right to deny marriage to a class of people? You can't dodge the issue with word games. Sorry. |
I'll think that when the SCOTUS says that. Duh.
Hey Shannon, how about quoting the posts correctly? You will note I purposely left off your last sentence about marriage because I disagreed with it. You then went and manually re-entered it as your quote so that my reply looks different?!? That is so intellectually dishonest I can't believe you'd sink to that level. A new Shannon low...
Message edited by author 2010-08-05 17:13:42. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 05:46:50 PM · #4977 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hey Shannon, how about quoting the posts correctly? You will note I purposely left off your last sentence about marriage because I disagreed with it. You then went and manually re-entered it as your quote so that my reply looks different?!? That is so intellectually dishonest I can't believe you'd sink to that level. A new Shannon low... |
Wow- this is the first time I've ever seen someone claim "intellectual dishonesty" for quoting everything. It's usually guy who removes key parts of the quote who gets called out for being "low." You responded to my quoted post that, "The will of the people cannot take away fundamental liberties," and claimed to agree with it, yet now you protest that I restored the examples of voters taking away fundamental liberties that YOU removed because you disagreed with it. Hello?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll think that when the SCOTUS says that. |
Then you'd better start thinking that. The 14th amendment specifically prohibits states from depriving people of fundamental liberties, and SCOTUS has already upheld this principle repeatedly. The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving people (individual and corporate) of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive rights and procedural rights. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause later became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 05:53:48 PM · #4978 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hey Shannon, how about quoting the posts correctly? You will note I purposely left off your last sentence about marriage because I disagreed with it. You then went and manually re-entered it as your quote so that my reply looks different?!? That is so intellectually dishonest I can't believe you'd sink to that level. A new Shannon low... |
Wow- this is the first time I've ever seen someone claim "intellectual dishonesty" for quoting everything. It's usually guy who removes key parts of the quote who gets called out for being "low." You responded to my quoted post that, "The will of the people cannot take away fundamental liberties," and claimed to agree with it, yet now you protest that I restored the examples of voters taking away fundamental liberties that YOU removed because you disagreed with it. Hello?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll think that when the SCOTUS says that. |
Then you'd better start thinking that. The 14th amendment specifically prohibits states from depriving people of fundamental liberties, and SCOTUS has already upheld this principle repeatedly. The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving people (individual and corporate) of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive rights and procedural rights. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause later became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States. |
Fuck a duck Shannon. You know it was wrong to put that line back in and leave my response. Do note I responded that I agreed with "this sentence" (not "these sentences"). I removed it because the SCOTUS has not determined this in this situation and you know it. What you are stating is your opinion of how precedent applies and nothing more. YOU are not the SCOTUS and thus your opinion matters for nothing.
I'd demand an apology from you, but I doubt I'd get one. Next time you decide to change a quote, leave my fucking response off. OK? |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 06:00:39 PM · #4979 |
Hmm.. didn't see this post before...
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are twisting my words as per usual Shannon. |
Your words are generally twisted when uttered. I only highlight the nonsense.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) Walker was HIRED in the case of the Gay Olympics. He wasn't a judge, he was a lawyer. Completely different. |
If it was completely different, then it wouldn't have been a potential impartiality issue when he was nominated.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) We've already pointed out that one couldn't predict the outcome from a straight judge because the split of "straight" people in the country is roughly 50/50. |
If that's how it worked, then you would have missed predictions on desegregation, interracial marriage and teaching intelligent design in schools, too.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) "rational basis" BTW, is a specific legal level of scrutiny, not perhaps exactly what you think it means. |
Hehe... it fails even the simplest test.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
4) Since you claim a very uncynical view of justice, what would your explanation be for the predictability of how SCOTUS justices vote? |
Individual predictions are meaningless. I couldn't reliably predict the individual votes of SC members on certain validation requests (and I know them pretty well), but I can usually predict the final outcome. Likewise, I predicted the outcome of this battle two years ago: you will lose. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 06:02:46 PM · #4980 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause later became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States.[/i] |
Given the Roberts court's (ir)reverence for precedent (c.f. Citizens United) maybe they can use this as an excuse to undo Brown as well ... heck, maybe they'll nullify the Emancipation Proclamation as an over-reach of Executive authority and really get us back to living a Biblical lifestyle ... |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 06:03:44 PM · #4981 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do note I responded that I agreed with "this sentence" (not "these sentences"). |
You QUOTED my post that, "The will of the people cannot take away fundamental liberties," feigning agreement, and you're upset I put back examples of that? R O F L M A O !
It's even funnier that you routinely resort to personal attacks rather than face your own contradictions. Have you even recognized that whether that sentence stays or goes doesn't change the point? Better to yammer on about examples than address the actual issue, huh...
Message edited by author 2010-08-05 18:11:43. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 06:04:41 PM · #4982 |
Okay you two:
 scalvert  DrAchoo
Calm down. Take a breather.
You're better than that (at least one of you is).
This is Rant, but try to keep it in the adult realm. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 06:14:18 PM · #4983 |
Oh boy. Here we go again.
Guys. Guys! Why not try a little trick of mine:
In normal situations, praise people when they please you, but critique non-personal, external things when they don't please you. Like, you know, ideas and facts.
- I praise DrAchoo where appropriate.
- I critique conservatives or their side or these merits when I disagree with something.
- I rarely call out someone's character directly unless it's en masse, part of a criticism of a group.
- If I'm truly desperate to make a snide comment, I invert the critique and work in a little sarcastic self-deprecation, letting irony make my point for me without even mentioning the other party.
Exceptions can be made (sometimes people are undeniable tools), and maybe I'm forgetting stuff, but I think that my posts have avoided collecting a lot of the personal attacks that I see directed towards others here. Pretty amazing considering I'm the guy with The Problem according to many. (See what I did there?) I'd like to think that my approach and the responses I get are correlated. I'd also like to think it helps keep a discussion from devolving into squabbling, where showing the other to be a fool trumps making your own points.
I don't post my legal updates to trigger yet another pissing match. Why not try my advice out for a bit? Pretend you're in a period drama, if it helps. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 06:18:43 PM · #4984 |
You're a crescent wrench, Mousie. (kidding) ;-P
I'm somewhat amused that Jason is blowing a blood vessel over a sentence that's basically irrelevant. Removing it from my post changes nothing, but he went nuts over its inclusion. Weird. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 06:29:04 PM · #4985 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll think that when the SCOTUS says that. Duh.
|
Perhaps you meant to say I'll accept it when the SCOTUS says that? To think would imply something else and it seems you're content on just relying on someone else for the answer.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 06:29:59 PM · #4986 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You're a crescent wrench, Mousie. (kidding) ;-P
I'm somewhat amused that Jason is blowing a blood vessel over a sentence that's basically irrelevant. Removing it from my post changes nothing, but he went nuts over its inclusion. Weird. |
Ok, I'm taking a deep breath. I've never known you to retreat an inch in Rant Shannon, so this is about as good as it's gonna get. I know you know it was bad form to adjust the quote and leave my response. I hope you will not quickly do it again.
The two sentences are, of course, quite different. The first ("The will of the people cannot take away fundamental liberties. That's the way the constitution operates, and the courts of the land are supposed to follow suit.") is a general principle and one I agree with. The second, ("No matter how overwhelming the majority, voters do not have the right to prohibit a class of people (blacks, gays, asians...) from marrying.") is a specific application of that principle and one that is up for debate until the SCOTUS officially rules. I do not agree with it. Not all SCOTUS justices agree with it either. To quote Scalia in Romer vs. Evans "Since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this subject [homosexuality], it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions."
See the difference? See how your placing back into the quote completely changes the light of my response? See how it was wrong? I don't expect people to agree with me on everything (or anything), but I do expect a level of respect for the general decorum of debate. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 06:35:43 PM · #4987 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll think that when the SCOTUS says that. Duh.
|
Perhaps you meant to say I'll accept it when the SCOTUS says that? To think would imply something else and it seems you're content on just relying on someone else for the answer. |
Good point, although in a way I do rely on them because I lack legal expertise. This speaks only to the constitutionality of something rather than any moral/ethical considerations. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 06:50:20 PM · #4988 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The two sentences are, of course, quite different. The first ("The will of the people cannot take away fundamental liberties. That's the way the constitution operates, and the courts of the land are supposed to follow suit.") is a general principle and one I agree with. |
If you agree with that statement then how can you support taking away the legal right to marry from a whole class of people? Do you feel that some liberties are ok to snatch away so long as it's not fundamental? If so what's fundamental and where in the Constitution does it make that distinction?
As a side question, would you support or have ever supported the removal of a right that you personally share? Would you be fine if the government targeted just the citizens of your state, tapping phone lines, recording your emails, etc simply because the rest of the country just didn't trust you guys? Would you be onboard with that?
Message edited by author 2010-08-05 18:55:34.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 06:54:51 PM · #4989 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll think that when the SCOTUS says that. Duh.
|
Perhaps you meant to say I'll accept it when the SCOTUS says that? To think would imply something else and it seems you're content on just relying on someone else for the answer. |
Good point, although in a way I do rely on them because I lack legal expertise. This speaks only to the constitutionality of something rather than any moral/ethical considerations. |
Yes I was referring to just the constitutionality.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 07:39:52 PM · #4990 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The two sentences are, of course, quite different. The first ("The will of the people cannot take away fundamental liberties. That's the way the constitution operates, and the courts of the land are supposed to follow suit.") is a general principle and one I agree with. |
If you agree with that statement then how can you support taking away the legal right to marry from a whole class of people? Do you feel that some liberties are ok to snatch away so long as it's not fundamental? If so what's fundamental and where in the Constitution does it make that distinction? |
As with most issues like this, the difference is at a completely fundamental level. If phrased like you ask, I don't support it at all. But, as has been stated many times before on this thread, it depends on the definition of "marry". If you believe that definition simply means a legal contract between two consenting adults, it's hard to deny a class of individuals that right. If you believe that "marriage" carrys a specific meaning backed up by tradition and culture, then it doesn't compute.
This is why the two sides talk past each other and nobody changes their mind. Most of the divisive social issues of our day have a similar disconnect. Abortion hinges on whether a fetus possesses "personhood" (ie. human rights). Gun control hinges on your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Gay marriage hinges on whether you think calling two men "married" makes any more sense than renaming a banana an orange. If this is within our pervue as masters of English then it's great. If a banana is always a banana no matter what we think, then it's not.
So if marriage has been declared a fundamental right, and I believe it has (although I'm taking people's word for it), then the question that remains for the SCOTUS is whether a state can declare two men (or women) to be "married" or whether gay men are allowed the fundamental right of marriage, but only to women because that's what "marriage" means.
Please note I'm not making arguments here but only summarizing. I have no desire to launch into these things all over again.
Message edited by author 2010-08-05 19:41:48. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 08:20:14 PM · #4991 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you believe that definition simply means a legal contract between two consenting adults, it's hard to deny a class of individuals that right. If you believe that "marriage" carrys a specific meaning backed up by tradition and culture, then it doesn't compute. |
That's all marriage is as far as the state is concerned. It is a legal contract outlining certain legal rights and responsibilities entered into by two qualified individuals. No church or other private group is being asked to "recognize" anything, only that the state apply the benefits and requirments of married couples equally two any pair of individuals.
If the state it to let a contract for, say, road paving, do you think it legal for the state to deny the contract to one bidder merely because of the bidder's gender? This is really no different, and the spectre of long-held repugnance for "homosexual behavior" is really disguising a basic case of gender discrimination, already well-established as unconsitutional.
Picture this scene at the marriage bureau:
(Note: all cast members are unmarried, competent, citizens above the age of majority, legally entitled to marry)
Person A: I'd like to marry Person B.
Clerk: OK, fill out this form please.
Person B: You know A, I don't think I love you enough to make this commitment -- let's reconsider.
(six months later)
Person A: I'd like to marry Person C.
Clerk: I'm sorry, you can't.
Person A: Why not -- last time you just asked me to fill out a form?
Clerk: Because Person C is a man/woman.
How is this not discrimination solely on the basis of gender? |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 08:27:21 PM · #4992 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The two sentences are, of course, quite different. The first ("The will of the people cannot take away fundamental liberties. That's the way the constitution operates, and the courts of the land are supposed to follow suit.") is a general principle and one I agree with. |
If you agree with that statement then how can you support taking away the legal right to marry from a whole class of people? Do you feel that some liberties are ok to snatch away so long as it's not fundamental? If so what's fundamental and where in the Constitution does it make that distinction? |
As with most issues like this, the difference is at a completely fundamental level. If phrased like you ask, I don't support it at all. But, as has been stated many times before on this thread, it depends on the definition of "marry". If you believe that definition simply means a legal contract between two consenting adults, it's hard to deny a class of individuals that right. If you believe that "marriage" carrys a specific meaning backed up by tradition and culture, then it doesn't compute.
This is why the two sides talk past each other and nobody changes their mind. Most of the divisive social issues of our day have a similar disconnect. Abortion hinges on whether a fetus possesses "personhood" (ie. human rights). Gun control hinges on your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Gay marriage hinges on whether you think calling two men "married" makes any more sense than renaming a banana an orange. If this is within our pervue as masters of English then it's great. If a banana is always a banana no matter what we think, then it's not.
So if marriage has been declared a fundamental right, and I believe it has (although I'm taking people's word for it), then the question that remains for the SCOTUS is whether a state can declare two men (or women) to be "married" or whether gay men are allowed the fundamental right of marriage, but only to women because that's what "marriage" means.
Please note I'm not making arguments here but only summarizing. I have no desire to launch into these things all over again. |
This is why personal beliefs have no place in matters of law. Your personal belief on marriage, or anything else for that matter shouldn't triumph over mine or anyone elses regardless of what side of the debate you fall under. That's the real disconnect here. I'm pro-life. I can't make a legal argument against abortion nor have I seem anyone else so why should I try and force my beliefs down your throat and accept them as law? What gives me the right to do that? I noticed you left off the questions I asked in my post. If the light was focused on you and it was your rights being infringed would you suddenly pull a 180 and start using the arguments mousie and others have used to defend your right to equality?
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 08:40:11 PM · #4993 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you believe that definition simply means a legal contract between two consenting adults, it's hard to deny a class of individuals that right. If you believe that "marriage" carrys a specific meaning backed up by tradition and culture, then it doesn't compute. |
That's all marriage is as far as the state is concerned. It is a legal contract outlining certain legal rights and responsibilities entered into by two qualified individuals. No church or other private group is being asked to "recognize" anything, only that the state apply the benefits and requirments of married couples equally two any pair of individuals.
If the state it to let a contract for, say, road paving, do you think it legal for the state to deny the contract to one bidder merely because of the bidder's gender? This is really no different, and the spectre of long-held repugnance for "homosexual behavior" is really disguising a basic case of gender discrimination, already well-established as unconsitutional.
Picture this scene at the marriage bureau:
(Note: all cast members are unmarried, competent, citizens above the age of majority, legally entitled to marry)
Person A: I'd like to marry Person B.
Clerk: OK, fill out this form please.
Person B: You know A, I don't think I love you enough to make this commitment -- let's reconsider.
(six months later)
Person A: I'd like to marry Person C.
Clerk: I'm sorry, you can't.
Person A: Why not -- last time you just asked me to fill out a form?
Clerk: Because Person C is a man/woman.
How is this not discrimination solely on the basis of gender? |
Nor is there a federal definition defining it to be between a man and a woman hence the attempt to push through the Federal Marriage Amendment back in 2006, which obviously failed. This has been mentioned many times but appears to fall on death ears. My impression is Jason wants society to be ruled by personal beliefs, but only if they align with his. I've yet to see him put forth a single rational argument that wasn't based on some personal belief as to how things ought to be.
That's the difference between the two sides. One can put forth a rational, legal argument supporting gay marriage and the other side can not. This is why gay marriage continues to gain support while its' opposition sees it's numbers steadly drop. Since Jason likes to gamble maybe he's willing to put money down on that trend changing this time next year and the year after and so on.
Message edited by author 2010-08-05 20:46:40.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 08:43:06 PM · #4994 |
Now I'm dying to know exactly what being a crescent wrench entails.
Is it an idiom or something? |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 08:54:03 PM · #4995 |
Originally posted by yanko:
That's the difference between the two sides. One can put forth a rational, legal argument supporting gay marriage and the other side can not. This is why gay marriage continues to gain support while its' opposition sees it's numbers steadly drop. Since Jason likes to gamble maybe he's willing to put money down on that trend changing this time next year and the year after and so on. |
Maybe I'll use the winnings from Shannon as I magically predict individual decisions for justices like Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg.
I'm not really going to reply to your post because you simply continue to frame it at a fundamental level in the way you want. Why don't we just let the legal decision be made by the SCOTUS? Like I said yesterday, if they decide in favor, then so let it be written and so let it be done.
Message edited by author 2010-08-05 20:54:33. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 08:59:42 PM · #4996 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
That's the difference between the two sides. One can put forth a rational, legal argument supporting gay marriage and the other side can not. This is why gay marriage continues to gain support while its' opposition sees it's numbers steadly drop. Since Jason likes to gamble maybe he's willing to put money down on that trend changing this time next year and the year after and so on. |
Maybe I'll use the winnings from Shannon as I magically predict individual decisions for justices like Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg.
I'm not really going to reply to your post because you simply continue to frame it at a fundamental level in the way you want. Why don't we just let the legal decision be made by the SCOTUS? Like I said yesterday, if they decide in favor, then so let it be written and so let it be done. |
Well I have no choice but to let them decide but that's all it is, a decision. They may get it right or they may not.
Message edited by author 2010-08-05 21:13:12.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 09:00:02 PM · #4997 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Now I'm dying to know exactly what being a crescent wrench entails.
Is it an idiom or something? |
I would hazard a guess at maybe someone who is "Open" or "Adjustable"...but best that Scalvert provide the meaning he ascribes to the term. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 09:10:33 PM · #4998 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Now I'm dying to know exactly what being a crescent wrench entails. |
You said that sometimes people are undeniable tools. Must we now debate the traditional definition of tool? ;-) |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 09:13:26 PM · #4999 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
That's the difference between the two sides. One can put forth a rational, legal argument supporting gay marriage and the other side can not. This is why gay marriage continues to gain support while its' opposition sees it's numbers steadly drop. Since Jason likes to gamble maybe he's willing to put money down on that trend changing this time next year and the year after and so on. |
Maybe I'll use the winnings from Shannon as I magically predict individual decisions for justices like Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg.
I'm not really going to reply to your post because you simply continue to frame it at a fundamental level in the way you want. Why don't we just let the legal decision be made by the SCOTUS? Like I said yesterday, if they decide in favor, then so let it be written and so let it be done. |
Well I have no choice but to let them decide but that's all it is, a decision. They may get it right or they may not. |
What troubles me is you seem so willing to just accept anything so long as it's an appointed authority doing the talking. I know you said you're not a legal expert as your reason in this case but you seem to bulk the responsibility in other areas as well, IMO. Sometimes in these threads it feels like CS Lewis, Hume, is posting using your account rather than you Jason. Granted I get that impression from many others here as well. I think Shannon's middle name is Wiki. In fact I'm pretty sure of that. Now I'm certainly no exception but the fact that I can acknowledge it means I can change it. These debates only go on for so long because like you say people are talking past each other. Few are listen and even fewer are thinking for themselves.
Message edited by author 2010-08-05 21:15:02.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 09:45:56 PM · #5000 |
Hey, I'm just here to point out how gay rights are evolving (and act as a living rebuttal to any arguments that gays are lesser beings by being my usual lovable self)!
|
|
