Supreme Court Appoints Bush for Second Term [Archive]

Chris Alger

11-19-2003, 09:44 AM

The Massachusetts Supreme Court. The language going to marriage as such makes this a much bigger case than the one in Vermont.

Campaigns used to be over "swing voters," those that waited until the last minute (after a two-year campaign) to figure out where they stand. But advances by campaign scientists and the inexorable toward mediocrity in all things that could protect us from them -- education, media, discourse --has allowed candidates to befuddle this group to the point where they vote, if at all, randomly.

So now the trend is to ensure the die-hards are sufficiently motivated. Won't be hard now. A legislative "repeal" of the Court's decision might not be in the offing, as it was in Alaska and Hawaii. Democratic presidential candidates can't back down form supporting for the gay/lesbian/biexual/transexual community. And there can't be many GLBT's or their supporters willing to abandon the GOP that haven't left a long time ago.

Which makes the decision a dunker for Bush, especially on the heels of Lawrence v. Texas, the Episcopalian schism threat and the possibility that the Supremes might well trike down the "Family Protection" thing as violative of the full faith and credit clause. If they do, I think it means that if you want the same rights as straight married couples in Virginia or Idaho and you're gay, just go to Massachusetts and get married.

Think of the commercials: voting Democratic means an abosolute right of homosexual access to children's bathrooms; if you and your wife die the government might force your kids to be raised by pedophiles. This is just off the top of my head. I'm sure Delay and co. will come up with much worse.

Other than that it's a great decision, and I don't mean this sarcastically.

Kurn, son of Mogh

11-19-2003, 10:51 AM

Chris, you and I have had some, shall we say, "sprited" disagreements on this board.

This topic won't be one of them.

Utah

11-19-2003, 10:58 AM

I have noticed in many of your posts that you think those who don't agree with you are stupid, uneducated, right wing zealots, or zombie watchers of Fox news.

Campaigns used to be over "swing voters," those that waited until the last minute (after a two-year campaign) to figure out where they stand. But advances by campaign scientists and the inexorable toward mediocrity in all things that could protect us from them -- education, media, discourse --has allowed candidates to befuddle this group to the point where they vote, if at all, randomly.
The reality is that a big majority of this group is uneducated and probably pretty left on the bell curve of intelligence. They have always been befuddled. It is amazing that people in this group can't name a single member of the supreme court, leaders in the house and senate, or even the vice president. What has changed is that the Internet and advances in technology has drastically shortened news cycles.

Democratic presidential candidates can't back down form supporting for the gay/lesbian/biexual/transexual community.
Nor can the Republicans. This is good as it will force open discussion. Bush has avoided this issue like the plague. Fred Barnes speculated last night that Bush is not against gay marriage but he can't come out and say it.

If they do, I think it means that if you want the same rights as straight married couples in Virginia or Idaho and you're gay I am for gay marriage. However, the legal arguments used by pro gay marriage forces are slim to non-existent. Gays in Virginia and Idaho currently have the exact same rights as straight people - how are their rights different? They both can marry someone of the opposite sex.

I think you are wrong on the Republican approach to this thing. The Republicans have been opening a huge can of whoop ass on the Democrats over the last couple of years. The Republicans need to tread very carefully so that they don't come off as far right religious nuts. There is even rumors that the Republicans are moving away from the support of the religous zealots as they are now seen as a liability to the party and they are no longer needed. If you read the National Review (very conservative), you would see that there is support by some conservative columnists for gay marriage. Additionally, those who are against have done so on grounds relating to legal justification, damage to stability in society (i.e., marriage was only meant as a vehicle to provide stability to child rearing), etc. I have yet to see a conservative article that attacks gay marriage as a violation of God's law or any crap like that. Therefore, I believe your Pedophilia comment is way off base on majority Republican thinking (although there are certainly the religious nuts who will attack gay marriage from a religious standpoint. However, I believe they as far right of the Republican mainstream as you are left of the democratic mainstream).

elwoodblues

11-19-2003, 11:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Gays in Virginia and Idaho currently have the exact same rights as straight people - how are their rights different? They both can marry someone of the opposite sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your analysis is slightly off. When the US Supreme Court decided the Loving case, the issue was whether it was Constitutional to ban inter-racial marriages. The Court concluded that it was a violation of the Constitution to disallow inter-racial marriages. Under your analysis, there would be no discrimination because Whites were treated the same as Blacks (the could marry someone of the same race). The analytical test that the court employed was closer to the following:

Woman X can marry Man A.
Man B cannot marry Man A.
Man B is discriminated against based on Sex/Gender (not sexuality) because Woman X can marry Man A and the only reason he can't marry Man A is because of his gender.

~Elwood

HDPM

11-19-2003, 11:44 AM

It is not clear at all that gays in Idaho have the same rights. Until the recent US Supreme Court case, homosexual sex in Idaho was a life sentence felony. Admittedly, it was never prosecuted except in cases involving children or other unusual circumstances in the context of a rape or something. The statute prohibiting it applied to all people engaging in anal or oral sex or bestiality. But the Idaho Supreme Court carved out an exception based on marital privacy so that married couples could have oral or anal sex and not be felons. That exception depended on marriage, and gays couldn't marry. So they did not have the right to have sex with the consenting adult of their choice. Gays still can't marry here, and thus do not get the benefits from marriage provided by law. I really do not understand people's hang ups about marriage. I think the government should stop doling out benefits on the basis of marriage or having kids. If the feds want to give subsidies to married people with kids, they should word the tax code in such a way that non-traditional relationships qualify for the subsidy. Better to get rid of the kid subsidy, etc..., but that is unlikely. Some states will allow gay marriage, and I think those should be recognized by other states. Having the "right" to marry somebody you don't want to is not a right at all.

When it comes right down to it, the idea that the government needs to regulate marriage at all is stupid. The arguments that "society" benefits from it are all based on tradition and emotion. Better to let people sort out their relationships themselves. To the extent the courts will be called upon to divide property and children up, that could be done without regard to the current definitions, etc...

elwoodblues

11-19-2003, 12:08 PM

This is a tricky one for state's rights folks who are also socially conservative. They don't like the idea of gay marriage because it violates their moral beliefs. They also don't like the Federal Government stepping into issues that are not expressly noted in the Constitution (Marital status is one area that the Federal Courts have routinely avoided absent extraordinary circumstances). So, then they fall back on their old position of "let the states decide." Now, crap, one of the states decided against what I would want...oh well, it's just one state, right? Not really, once one state allows for gay marriage, all other states would have to recognize that marriage under the Constitution which reads: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

There's the problem, one state can change it's laws and all other states would have to recognize the marriage...what is a social conservative who favors smaller federal government to do???

Kurn, son of Mogh

11-19-2003, 12:16 PM

Now, crap, one of the states decided against what I would want...oh well, it's just one state, right? Not really, once one state allows for gay marriage, all other states would have to recognize that marriage under the Constitution which reads: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

This is why this opens such a can of worms. The Defense of Marriage Act allows individual states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. If Mass. issues a valid marriage license, and another state doesn't recognize that marriage, then we have a court challenge to the DOMA.

As a libertarian, my belief is that from the state's perspective (removing religion from the equation), marriage is simply a contract. Thus the state cannot deny two individuals the freedom to enter into a contract based solely on the gender of those individuals. It is also my belief that the government has no business pro-actively redefining social institutions. Thus, I tend to favor the Vermont solution as a reasonable compromise.

Of course, expecting politicians to be reasonable is, well, unreasonable.

elwoodblues

11-19-2003, 12:23 PM

Could someone tell me how convervatives (small federal government, state's rights, strict construction of the Constitution, etc.) support the Defense of Marriage Act? Doesn't the statute, by its very terms, violate the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Constitution? Under what theory did the Federal Government have the power to enact DOMA???

adios

11-19-2003, 12:30 PM

"This is a tricky one for state's rights folks who are also socially conservative. They don't like the idea of gay marriage because it violates their moral beliefs."

I'll let others elaborate if they so choose why this highly revealing statement about your prejudices and biases is illogical and lacking in substantiation on your part.

Kurn, son of Mogh

11-19-2003, 12:43 PM

Under what theory did the Federal Government have the power to enact DOMA???

Under what theory did the fed Govt and the courts absolutely rape the constitution for the last 100 years?

Easy. The electorate doesn't understand the Constitution. People want instant gratification, so they like court decisions gradually changing the rules of governance.

The Constitution is supposed to be a "living document." Fine, I agree it's supposed to change with the times, but the means for doing that, the Amendment process, has been rejected because it's too hard and takes too long.

That's the whole idea. Changes to how we govern should be hard to make.

Easy E

11-19-2003, 01:14 PM

"The electorate doesn't understand the Constitution. People want instant gratification, so they like court decisions gradually changing the rules of governance.

The Constitution is supposed to be a "living document." Fine, I agree it's supposed to change with the times, but the means for doing that, the Amendment process, has been rejected because it's too hard and takes too long.

That's the whole idea. Changes to how we govern should be hard to make

The problem is how to interpret the gaps in what is written in the Constitution i.e. what is reasonable and what is angle-shooting? If the courts aren't the vehicle for that, along with legislation, then what is?
And do we really want to bog down the "living document" with 8,000 pages of nitpicking detail?

elwoodblues

11-19-2003, 01:32 PM

Because nobody else has yet chosen to elaborate your opinion for you...

Are you honestly contending that social conservatives don't like the idea of gay marriage because it violates their moral beliefs? I didn't think that was too bold a statement...maybe I was wrong. I guess I'll just have to wait for someone else to elaborate.......

elwoodblues

11-19-2003, 02:43 PM

Maybe I'm misreading your criticism...Are you thinking that I meant that socially conservative folks are also state's rights folks...if so, you read me wrong. Let me re-phrase the first sentence:

"This is a tricky one for individuals who are both state's rights oriented as well as socially conservative." Does that clarify things, or am I still somehow revealing some mysterious (yet undefined) biases and prejudices?

Chris Alger

11-19-2003, 03:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Democratic presidential candidates can't back down form supporting for the gay/lesbian/biexual/transexual community."

Nor can the Republicans. This is good as it will force open discussion. Bush has avoided this issue like the plague. Fred Barnes speculated last night that Bush is not against gay marriage but he can't come out and say it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You either misunderstood or are trying to mislead. On several occasions Barnes has said and written that Bush "drew the line" at gay marriage and personally opposed it. He's elsewhere pointed out that Bush has been less clear, but that he expects this to change because Bush "recognizes it as a great issue to stir up social conservatives, who are a big part of his base." Fox. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93810,00.html) In this week's Weekly Standard he writes that Bush has to "address the concerns" of the Christian right regarding gay marriage because 4 million of them didn't vote last time around. Barnes is recommending that Bush adopt the very strategy I predict Bush will adopt.

As for Republican "support" for gay and lesbian issues, name one.

[ QUOTE ]
"However, the legal arguments used by pro gay marriage forces are slim to non-existent."

[/ QUOTE ]

So slim and non-existent that they've prevailed before the highest courts of three states, four if you include Vermont.

[ QUOTE ]
"Gays in Virginia and Idaho currently have the exact same rights as straight people - how are their rights different? They both can marry someone of the opposite sex."

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that is a dumb argument. Gays as such have the "same rights" as heterosexuals as long as they act like heterosexuals instead of gays.

[ QUOTE ]
"The Republicans have been opening a huge can of whoop ass on the Democrats over the last couple of years. The Republicans need to tread very carefully so that they don't come off as far right religious nuts."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it was called 9/11 but it's running out of steam, with long-term trends showing that Bush's approval ratings are headed past his pre-9/11 lows (where they are as of this week).

[ QUOTE ]
"I have yet to see a conservative article that attacks gay marriage as a violation of God's law or any crap like that."

[/ QUOTE ]

My first thought upon reading this was that there is no way in hell that Cal Thomas could restrain himself from writing "crap like that." Sure enough, just yesterday we see the following from this great pundit: <ul type="square">Marriage ... was established by God as the best arrangement for fallen humanity to organize and protect itself and create and rear children. ... The first mention of marriage is in Genesis 2:24: "a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling, which will be used by gay rights groups to lobby for striking down all laws limiting marriage to heterosexuals, is just the latest example of a society that has abandoned any and all authority outside of itself. ...

What is most disturbing about this latest affront to tradition and biblical wisdom is that those who would undermine the old have nothing new to offer in its place. It is like morally corrupt ancient Israel when there was no king "and everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).

Is that the way we should live? Do we get to vote? Not if the courts play God. Voters can decide in the next election if they want to continue in this direction, or pull the country back from the precipice. Marriage defined should be the social-issue centerpiece of the coming campaign. [/list]

Utah

11-19-2003, 09:06 PM

I get such a kick out of your posts. You are so full of blind rage that you only see what you want to see.

You either misunderstood or are trying to mislead Um...that is what I believe he said last night on Brit Humes (any idea where to get the transcript?). If you read carefully the Weekly Standard article you quote as contradicting this, you will see that it is more supportive to the stance that deep down Bush is not against gay marriage or other issues beholden to the religious right. Barnes is actaully taking him to task for not pandering to the religious right. For example, take Barnes attack on Bush for not pushing harder to ban abortion.

As for Republican "support" for gay and lesbian issues, name one. I mistated here - my bad (although there are probably hundreds of thousands or more Republicans that support gay marriage). None of the staff of NRO has written in favor of gay marriage. However: There was support for the Lawrence decision by NRO columnist Deroy Murdock article (http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock070703.asp). NRO columnist Jonah Goldberg supports same sex unions, although for maybe dubious reasons. NRO has also given space and debated those favoring gay marriage.

So slim and non-existent that they've prevailed before the highest courts of three states, four if you include Vermont. So what you are saying is that if a high court rules on something then it must be based on solid legal arguments. Interesting - lets take a logical extension of your argument shall we - The supreme court ruled in favor of Bush in Bush v. Gore. since the Supreme court is the highest court in the land, and since the highest court always uses solid legal justification for its decision, the democrats are wrong in crying foul and saying the ruling was unjustified? Very interesting indeed - especially given the title of this post.

Now that is a dumb argument. Gays as such have the "same rights" as heterosexuals as long as they act like heterosexuals instead of gays. Of course its not a dumb argument and it is perfectly logical (although that doesn't mean its legally defensable, as a different poster pointed out). You mouthed off again but failed to provide an argument why this is stupid as you call it. What can a heterosexual do that a gay person can't do? Can a heterosexual marry someone of the same sex but a gay person can't? Maybe homosexuals don'y like the same rights bestowed on everyone because they can't perform a certain activity they prefer(i.e. marry someone from the same sex). However, they are not given any different rights. Prove otherwise.

Also, are you suggesting that incest (poligamy, etc.) is also okay? For kicks lets just reword you statement - "Now that is a dumb question. Those who want to marry their brother have the same rights as straight non-incest oriented people - as long as they act like straight non-incest oriented people." Therefore, incest oriented homosexuals (or straight people who lets say want to marry their daughter) are being denied their rights and the court needs to more to protect them?

Yeah, it was called 9/11 but it's running out of steam, with long-term trends showing that Bush's approval ratings are headed past his pre-9/11 lows (where they are as of this week). Well see. I forget..wasn't Bush elected before 9/11? This is a gambling site - care to wager $100 that Bush hwill have higher approval ratings Feb. 1st than he does now?

My first thought upon reading this was that there is no way in hell that Cal Thomas could restrain himself from writing "crap like that." As I said, there are certainly those out there that will take this stance - I just don't believe it is mainstream conservative thinking. I did a search on NRO and Weekly Standard and found no such articles (might be there but it certainly isn't the central thrust)

Chris Alger

11-20-2003, 03:59 AM

"If you read carefully the Weekly Standard article you quote as contradicting this, you will see that it is more supportive to the stance that deep down Bush is not against gay marriage or other issues beholden to the religious right."

Nothing in that article says anything of the sort. Barnes says that Bush has to "address the concerns" of the religious right and that he made a mistake by not favoring an outright abortion ban. Barnes offers no speculation that contradicts his prior statements that Bush outright opposes gay marriage, and not someone who "deep down," as you say, secretly favors it.

Here's Bush's own reaction to the Massachusetts decision: "In a statement on Tuesday, President Bush said only that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that he would "do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage." "Conservatives Mobilize Against Ruling on Gay Marriage," NY Times, 11/20/3. Sound like someone who "deep down" thinks it should be legal?

Of course the White House isn't chomping at the bit to identify with the right-wing homophobes, racists and other crazies they need to win elections. Bush is unopposed for the nomination. But when the inevitable close race emerges in the GE (unless there's another terrorist attack), Bush will paint himself as the "savior" of marriage, and there won't be a damn thing the Democrats can do about it.

"So what you are saying is that if a high court rules on something then it must be based on solid legal arguments."

That's the pattern, unless you think that high courts are more likely to get things wrong or that Bush v. Gore is a typical decision. Besides, your vague description of the legal arguments as "slim and non-existent" with no analysis as to why is just cheap rhetoric.

"Of course its not a dumb argument and it is perfectly logical (although that doesn't mean its legally defensable, as a different poster pointed out). You mouthed off again but failed to provide an argument why this is stupid as you call it."

Because it's a silly semantic non-sequitur. Of course they have the same rights if you dishonestly define it so that the two groups are no longer different and prefer hetero partners. Then there is no "gay" preference to be considered. The difference in rights is that only one side gets to marry people of the sex they prefer. If you define it otherwise, you are merely postulating a circumstance where the differences between the two groups -- a preference of same-sex versus other-sex marriage partners --no longer exist, which means that "two groups" no longer exist, so that of course people in the same group have the same rights. This is no different than saying that black people had the same rights under Jim Crow as long as they appeared to be white, or as long as white people appear to be black.

Incest, polygamy, cannibalism, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia and the other bugaboos of the religious right have nothing to do with this issue because they involve either (1) predatory, exploitive or non-consensual conduct or (2) raise a host of social policy concerns that have nothing to do with overcoming the unreasoned fear and hatred of consensual homosexuality and the mass victimization and suffering those attitudes have caused.

"I forget..wasn't Bush elected before 9/11?"

Good argument. The President is popular with voters because voters showed they like him less than any President in over a century, most of them voting against him, his election being the result of constitutional anachronism, bad vote counting and a slippery, lucky court decision.

"This is a gambling site - care to wager $100 that Bush hwill have higher approval ratings Feb. 1st than he does now?"

I won't take the wager because voters rally around leaders during times of crisis and Bush's administration has an deplorable record of "dropping the ball," or perhaps hiding the ball, when it comes to preventing domestic terrorism.

"I just don't believe it is mainstream conservative thinking. I did a search on NRO and Weekly Standard and found no such articles (might be there but it certainly isn't the central thrust)"

Name one right-wing writer besides Andrew Sullivan (who's gay) in favor of gay marriage. There's hardly any spectrum of opinion among the right. Cal Thomas's crude religiosity appeals to a different crowd than Buckley's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to change to full faith and credit clause, so that state that wish to preserve the prohibition against gay marriage can do so.

In the final analysis, the GOP will make gay marriage a campaign issue by coming out firmly against it, while principled Democrats won't pander to such prejudices. That issue by itself, as Barnes points out, will likely win Bush several hundred thousand, perhaps millions of votes. And that's all that will probably be needed to send one of the most hated men on the planet back to the White House.

MMMMMM

11-20-2003, 09:42 AM

"Name one right-wing writer besides Andrew Sullivan (who's gay) in favor of gay marriage."

Tammy Bruce, maybe? (don't know, just guessing that she might be in favor of gay marriage. Also, I think she is Libertarian. Many liberals seem to consider many Libertarian ideals to be right-wing, so perhaps she would qualify in this regard).

Kurn, son of Mogh

11-20-2003, 10:05 AM

Incest, polygamy, cannibalism, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia and the other bugaboos of the religious right have nothing to do with this issue

OK. This is making me uncomfortable. I agree with you again. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Name one right-wing writer besides Andrew Sullivan (who's gay) in favor of gay marriage.

depends on your definition of "right-wing." I'm certain Cathy Young, who defines herself as a "libertarian conservative" (like me) would not oppose it.

brad

11-20-2003, 12:52 PM

tammy bruce is lesbo

Utah

11-20-2003, 07:09 PM

In a statement on Tuesday, President Bush said only that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that he would "do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage." No point in speculating on this any further. My guess is that Bush will do the bare minimum he can to pacify the republicans. We'll see.

Besides, your vague description of the legal arguments as "slim and non-existent" with no analysis as to why is just cheap rhetoric. Fair enough. I have stated the reasons in the past. Do a search if you are interested. My main problem with the ruling is that the justices invented rights that can't be found in the constitution. The supreme court justices are only supposed to decide the constitutionality of a law. They have no basis for "correcting" laws that they deem as unjust. Legislatures pass laws, not judges.

Incest, polygamy, cannibalism, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia and the other bugaboos of the religious right have nothing to do with this issue because they involve either (1) predatory, exploitive or non-consensual conduct or (2) raise a host of social policy concerns that have nothing to do with overcoming the unreasoned fear and hatred of consensual homosexuality and the mass victimization and suffering those attitudes have caused. I think you are exactly right in indentifying the criteria. I think we can agree with and dispense with Point 1 concerning predatory/exploitive/non-consentual behavior.

point 2 is the crux of the matter and it is in this realm that the debate should reside. How can you say that homosecual marriage does not raise a boatload of social policy concerns? If you read the NRO you will see that this is where they attack gay marriage. Lets start with a simple one - raising children. Is it better for a kid to have a father and a mother or will two moms suffice? Will these kids face hardships other kids will not face? etc. etc.? My point is not in the answer of these questions, but rather that these questions exist in the first place.

Back to incest. Lets say I want marry my brother (which I dont cause he really is kind of an [censored]). Assuming we agree there are no point one issues, what social policy concerns here exist that don't exist with homosexuals?

The President is popular with voters because voters showed they like him less than any President in over a century, most of them voting against him, his election being the result of constitutional anachronism, bad vote counting and a slippery, lucky court decision First, can we agree that Bush v. Gore was bad law (for the moment ignoring your deference to high court decisions) and that it did not hand Bush the election since Bush still would have won if the court had refused the case or hard ruled against Bush? Second, what the heck do you mean by constitutional anarchism and bad vote counting? Thats a new one.

I won't take the wager because voters rally around leaders during times of crisis and Bush's administration has an deplorable record of "dropping the ball," or perhaps hiding the ball, when it comes to preventing domestic terrorism.

Okay. I can feel the wind from your backpeddling from the statement: Yeah, it was called 9/11 but it's running out of steam, with long-term trends showing that Bush's approval ratings are headed past his pre-9/11 lows (where they are as of this week).

There's hardly any spectrum of opinion among the right. You mean say compared to "Democrats against Abortion" or the powerful liberal group "Democrats Against Affirmative Action"?

while principled Democrats won't pander to such prejudices I'll make you a deal. I'll show you a conservative in favor of gay marriage if you can point out one principled democrat. Democrats won't play to such prejudices!!!???? All they have done over the last 20 years in race bait and play to such predjudices.

Democrats won't pander to such prejudices - Redux So are you saying that these principled democrats are going to come out firmly in support of gay marriage? or are they going to pander to these prejudices by staddling the fence with b.s. talk about being in favor of civil unions but not marriage?

And that's all that will probably be needed to send one of the most hated men on the planet back to the White House. Isn't this kinda contradictory?

HDPM

11-20-2003, 07:31 PM

"How can you say that
homosecual marriage does not raise a boatload of social policy concerns? If you read the NRO you will see
that this is where they attack gay marriage. Lets start with a simple one - raising children. Is it better for a kid
to have a father and a mother or will two moms suffice? Will these kids face hardships other kids will not face?
etc. etc.? My point is not in the answer of these questions, but rather that these questions exist in the first
place."

See, this is the place where problems start. Is it better if kids are raised as Christians, Jews, or Pagans? Is it better if they are vegans or go to McDonalds? Is it better if they have sex education or not? Is it better if they are taught abstinence or something else? is it better if they conform by playing video games and dressing in current styles or if they rebel and dress in some way that gets them teased? Is it better if they play sports or not?

It is a never ending question and it really isn't any of anyone's business, including the government. the fact that the government sometimes steps in and provides welfare or subsidies doesn't make it the government's business either. the simple solution is to stop regulating people's lives in stupid ways and to stop subsidizing them. Yeah, it sucks if you are the kid raised by homosexuals and get teased. But it sucks to be the kid raised a Christian in the Bible Belt when it comes right down to it. One is totally accepted even though it is arguably an inherently abusive upbringing in some ways, the other isn't inherently so. but it is a problem that "society" can't fix and shouldn't try to. "Social policy problems" are often just people's emotional biases grafted on to an authoritarian system. The simple solution is to get rid of the authoritarian system, and a lot of the "social policy" concerns just go away or are mitigated.

brad

11-20-2003, 07:50 PM

if i recall correctly utah was admitted to the union only after they agreed to ban polygamy.

if i were a mormon i would be pissed as polygamy has a biblical basis but homosexual union does not.

funny how as society supposedly gets more 'permissive', anything christian (im being very general here) is more and more 'regulated'.

eg, i was shocked to learn that a high school down the road has a gay/lesbian group (i thought that sort of perversion was only in colleges heh), but that any kind of bible study or christian group was not allowed in the (public) high school.

John Cole

11-20-2003, 08:13 PM

brad, here's a link:

http://www.zuberfowler.com/levlaw.html

You might enjoy reading up on some of the other Levitical laws; of course, if you're going to be Biblical about it, you'd probably want to get rid of that down jacket if you have one.

brad

11-20-2003, 08:15 PM

!

hey i know about that mixed fabrics thing!

100% cotton baby !

M.B.E.

11-20-2003, 08:41 PM

I wonder whether the people criticizing the decision in this thread have actually read it. The Court was not, in this case, just making up what it thought the law should be. The Court was obligated to determine whether the legislature's law concerning marriage was invalid because it contravened a superior law (the Massachusetts state constitution). In particular, the state Constitution includes this clause:

"All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin."

In my view, clauses like this were intended to be given a generous interpretation that best achieves their object of guaranteeing equality to all citizens. However, even if you disagree with that, and you think that constitutional rights should be interpreted narrowly by the courts, you should be able to see that the law in question would still violate the state constitution. The state constitution says, "equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex...". But that's exactly what the marriage law did. It denied a woman the right to marry another woman, whereas a man would be permitted to.

You can't blame the Massachusetts court for reaching the decision it did. On any theory of constitutional interpretation, its decision is the correct one.

You can read the decision here (pdf) (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf) or here (html) (http://www.malawyersweekly.com/archives/ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm).

There is a good article about it here (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20031120.html).

Chris Alger

11-21-2003, 05:44 AM

1. Social policy. The degree of radical change that gay marriage represents -- obviously significant -- doesn't correlate to the degree that social policies are implicated. Much of it amounts to a legal blessing and means of dispute resolution under rules that already exist, but can now be applied by lawyers and courts to gay couples. It's unfair and arbitrary to impose concerns about child raising on gay couples that the state never imposes in other situations, such as households run by single or incompetent (but not criminally abusive) parents. But even if I'm wrong here, legalized gay marriage doesn't mean that courts can't consider, for example, evidence concerning the impact of such relationships in determining the "best interests" of children in custody or adoption disputes, assuming such evidence exists. In other words, if there's evidence that gay relationships create concrete problems for third parties, legalizing gay marriage need not create some presumption to the contrary.

Incest isn't analogous to gay marriage, it's analagous to gay sex. The difference is important because legalizing gay marriage won't necessary have an impact an the amount of gay sex that's going on. (In fact, it could well reduce it).

Legalizing incest is problematic because it almost always concerns an older sibling or parent and a pre-existing nonsexual emotional relationship. Acknowledging a "right" of incest could incite exploitive sexual conduct and tend to undermine the bonds of trust and companionship in all sibling and family relationships. Moreover, there is no organized demand for "incest rights" against which to balance these concerns, certainly nothing on the scale of gay and lesbian lives and culture.

2. Bush v. Gore. My understanding was that subsequent statewide recounts by the media showed that Bush should have lost the Florida popular vote, and that if the precincts that Gore wanted recounted were recounted, that Gore would have won. So the decision did hand Bush his victory. By "Constitutional archaism" I mean the electoral college originally served to limit popular control over the presidential elections when the franchise was more restricted, and also to give states more power over the selection process. It's archaic because these are not considered worthy goals by modern Americans.

3. Spectrum of opinion. There is almost certainly a broader spectrum of opinion among the Republican rank-and-file regarding this issue than among their Democratic counterparts concerning abortion. "Affirmative action" is too tricky to define (quotas vs. any "action"). Still, it isn't saying much because the Republican Christian right considers gay rights to anathema that there is no possiblity of an organized alternative to their views among the Republicans. The Christian veto over the abortion plank in the GOP platform is a good example of this, despite the consternation it causes among the libertarians and moderate women in the party. You can expect as much GOP diversity of opinion about gay marriage as you can about abortion: nothing significant aside from some "big tent" rhetoric.

Kurn, son of Mogh

11-21-2003, 09:49 AM

the electoral college originally served to limit popular control over the presidential elections when the franchise was more restricted

I think the answer is even simpler than that. When the Constitution was drafted, the States were pretty contentious among themselves about many things. I don't think the founding fathers ever envisioned a situation where there would be a) only 2 candidates, or b) that any one candidate would get a majority of the popular vote.

I can't help but think that they envisioned the majority of elections to be decided by the House, which would make sense as the system here would then somewhat mimic the British parliamentary system.

Besides, if we got a Constitutional amendment for direct election of the President, what would the networks do with all their color-coded graphics?

elwoodblues

11-21-2003, 10:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Lets start with a simple one - raising children. Is it better for a kid to have a father and a mother or will two moms suffice? Will these kids face hardships other kids will not face? etc. etc.? My point is not in the answer of these questions, but rather that these questions exist in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this has what to do with whether the individuals can get married?

elwoodblues

11-21-2003, 10:58 AM

To paraphrase an earlier thread: You don't have to read the decision if you live in Massachussetts /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Utah

11-21-2003, 11:17 AM

I think I'll let this debate rest for now as we have discussed it at length. Again, to summarize, I am pro gay marriage. I just don't think you can simply and easily dismiss the social issues outright. Also, I also believe it is up to the legislative branch to make the determination on gay marriage - not judges.

Finally, I think you, and Gay Right Supporters in general, would do better with this type of argument: Conservative, "I have social issues with gay marriage". Gay Rights Supporter, "Those concerns are unjustified and let me tell you why"

Than with this: Conservative, "I have social issues with gay marriage". Gay Rights supporter, "You are a hateful homophobic religous zealot and an uneducated moron"

My understanding was that subsequent statewide recounts by the media showed that Bush should have lost the Florida popular vote, and that if the precincts that Gore wanted recounted were recounted, that Gore would have won. Here is the study recap from CNN Article (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html). The one suprise to me is that if Gore had gotten the Palm Beach standard across all counties (which he obviously would not have), he would have won. To the Palm Beach ballot issue - this is really offset by the Bush loss of 10,000 votes in the Panhandle do to the election being called early. However, Palm Beach and the Panhandle are not the issue here. Had the court allowed a recount (even if only in the six counties Gore asked for) Bush still would have one.

brad

11-22-2003, 12:46 PM

'Had the court allowed a recount (even if only in the six counties Gore asked for) Bush still would have one.
'

weve posted about this before. what about the 70,000 blacks not allowed to vote? (illegally kept off voter rolls)

Wake up CALL

11-22-2003, 01:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
'Had the court allowed a recount (even if only in the six counties Gore asked for) Bush still would have one.
'

weve posted about this before. what about the 70,000 blacks not allowed to vote? (illegally kept off voter rolls)

[/ QUOTE ]

Brad would you mind naming those blacks not allowed to vote? Plus how do you know who they would have voted for in the first place? They (if they even really exist) might have been republicans.

brad

11-22-2003, 05:45 PM

look for my reply to poster about usa today article that bush won recount. about a month agol.

Wake up CALL

11-22-2003, 05:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
look for my reply to poster about usa today article that bush won recount. about a month agol.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I doubt it lists their names either or who they would have voted for in the election. Guess I'll write this one off as another brad suposition but thanks for the reply.

Utah

11-22-2003, 06:43 PM

weve posted about this before. what about the 70,000 blacks not allowed to vote? (illegally kept off voter rolls) Like a good little democrat, you try to obfuscate the issue.

The question at hand is: did the Supreme Court decision hand the election to Bush. The answer of course is no.

The question didn't have anything to do with black voters not being able to vote. However, since you bring it up, lets address this silly notion. There is zero hard evidence to support this. I challenge you to provide any. I believe illegally denying someone the right to vote is a felony. Has there been a single prosecution? Ya would think logically - black voters illegially denied right to vote, someone (or many) specifically caused this action, a felony has taken place. That person (or people) need to be prosecuted. Whose head(s) exactly are the Democrats calling for?

I did a search and I didn't find anything except for this little gem by you:

• Thousands of voters may have mistakenly cast votes for two candidates, spoiling their ballots. (A USA TODAY analysis of these so-called overvotes is forthcoming.)
okay - so people are too stupid to vote correctly. So what?

• Many registered African-American voters say registration foul-ups prevented their voting. Typical Democrat bland overly general statement that says nothing. Gives specifics and then they can be discussed. Otherwise, this is a bunch of b.s.

• Oversees military personnel found their votes tossed out thanks to a variety of state and federal problems.
Um...correct me if I wrong, nbut wan't it the Democrats who were trying to throw these votes out since the military is overly Republican?

• Felons and other illegitimate voters cast ballots — as many as 400 in Broward County, alone, according to a study by the Voting Integrity Project.
Yeah. I feel bad for the Democrats here. They only received an extra 5,000 votes from felons when they probably expected more.

• Palm Beach County's confusing "butterfly" ballot design may have caused many Gore supporters to inadvertently cast votes for Pat Buchanan.
correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that ballot designed by a Democrat. Again, don't blame republicans because Democrats are stupid.

Why do democrats so easily forget the panhandle incident? Imagine if the panhandle was predominately black and fox news called the election early causing the Democrats 10,000 or more votes.

brad

11-22-2003, 07:41 PM

'
• Many registered African-American voters say registration foul-ups prevented their voting. Typical Democrat bland overly general statement that says nothing. Gives specifics and then they can be discussed. Otherwise, this is a bunch of b.s.
'

not b.s. it is totally documented see greg palast. it is admitted.

true the usatoday is b.s. since the headline of article was that bush won recount, then towards end it concluded that because of all that stuff it will never be known. heh.

Chris Alger

11-23-2003, 01:24 AM

Okay, so the learned justices of the highest court did not hand Bush his victory. His victory was handed to him, and the country was saddled with Bush's "mandate," by, as you put it, people who are "too stupid to vote correctly."

I'll concede this.

Utah

11-23-2003, 04:25 AM

His victory was handed to him, and the country was saddled with Bush's "mandate," by, as you put it, people who are "too stupid to vote correctly." Sadly, in a sense that is very likely the case. In reality though, this was just a very small factor in the overall scheme of things. However, a very small factor in this election was enough to turn the tide. The real and biggest factor, I'm afraid, is that the democrats fielded a really crappy candidate (who was beat by another really crappy candidate). I am not a huge Chris Mathews fan but I think he summed it up perfectly before the election (to paraphrase) "If this was a like national debate contest neither of these guys would have even made it to the regional level."

It looks again like the Democrats are going to be unable to field a good candidate with a good vision to counter Bush. In my opinion, the Democrat Party has terrible and corrupt leadership that has led the party completely astray. Which is really too bad.

Wake up CALL

11-23-2003, 02:31 PM

Your source is Greg Palast? LMAO at Brad! You really should get out more often Brad and you might realize he is a British reporter, has never been to Florida, is trying to sell his book and pretty mch has no clue.

This is from greg himself in the same article as the other quotes below:

"When Ted Koppel investigated voter theft in Florida, he concluded that blacks lost votes because they weren’t well educated, and made mistakes that whites hadn‘t."

and

"If you commit a felony in Florida, you lose your right to vote there, and you‘re “scrubbed” from the rolls. You become a non-citizen, like in the old Soviet Union. "

Sound impartial? Who you gonna trust? Greg Palast or Ted Koppel? Nevermind Brad, you are gonna believe a liberal British kook rather than a well respected liberal American kook! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

and

"My office carefully went through the scrub list and discovered that at minimum, 90.2 percent of the people were completely innocent of any crime – except for being African American. We didn’t have to guess about that, because next to each voter’s name was their race. "

If you really believe all this brad answer Utah's question. Why was not one single person prosecuted? I'll tell you why it never happened! DOH!!

Here is one more from Greg Palast (probably my favorite lie of his):

"It wasn’t reported in mainstream press, but the NAACP sued Harris and the gang for the black purge, and won. The state threw up its hands immediately and said, ‘You got us! We’ll put these people back as soon as we can.’ We’re still waiting. "

Again where is the record of this dastardly deed Brad?