OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

[XXXIV]

If it is a sin, then that's between that couple and God, and none of my f***in business.

I agree with that 100%...

Why even have those bullshit votes if we just ignore them when we dont like the out come?

[pk500]

If it is a sin, then that's between that couple and God, and none of my f***in business.

Very well said.

What's more lawful in the eyes of the state or the loving eyes of God? A guy who beats his wife and cheats on her, or a guy who is loving and loyal to his male partner?

Marriage is a covenant between two people and God. Even though I'm not a fan of gay marriage, it's up to God to judge the two partners, not us.

Something tells me love and loyalty are the first two parameters that He considers before looking at the equipment in the respective groins.

Take care,
PK

[Teal]

The state of California decided to put it up for a vote. If the state of California doesn't intend to let a vote of the people stand, then the state of California doesn't need to have a vote. Just let the courts decide everything.

Look, if they voted to have the gay marriage thing (which I find personally deplorable, and I would have voted against it), then the will of the people spoke, and that's that. If I want it overturned, I petition to get it back on the ballot, and raise awareness and support, and try harder next time. I DON'T go running to a sympathetic court to get them to override what a majority of Californians decided.

And say what you will, there's not one damned shred of anything in the Constitution about gay marriage. Not one. Not one thing in the constitution about marriage at all. Wasn't even on the founding fathers' radar screen. So to rule, potentially (and it has happened before in that crazy court), that this vote was 'unconstitutional', is to continue to throw that word around for activism's sake, not truth. It's just like using the word 'offended'. People aren't 'offended' nearly as much as they know the word will shut people up and/or change the direction of something they don't like.

People need to grow up and accept that not everything goes their way. Obama is my president. That isn't what I wanted, but a few more than me did want it, and so there it is. No use crying over it.

The gay population makes up less than 5% of the country, and the lifestyle has not one thing to do with civil rights, not one thing to do with constitutionality insofar as marriage goes. If I want to marry a goat, I don't have a constitutional right to do so guaranteed to me in the document.

I have gay friends, before any of you start that particular line of bullshit. I love those people. I don't hold it over their heads. And if they rally to get the green light to have weddings, I won't like it. But if they win a majority of people to their cause, so be it. No reasonable court should stand in the way of that. Nor should they now that the shoe has been put on the other foot. Because the constitution doesn't play into it. Period.

This has nothing to do with my personal dislike of the gay marriage issue. It has everything to do with the overturning of the vote of the people for the sake of activism rather than constitutionality. Whoever said that even if it is a sin, it's none of my business is right. My stance on this has nothing to do with that. But if more people vote for the traditional stance on marriage in a state than don't, then that vote should count just as much as if it were the other way around, and in that state, at least...it hasn't so far.

[Brando70]

But again, what if California voted against something like interracial dating? Should that be allowed to stand?

I see this issue very much like the anti-miscegenation laws during the Jim Crow era. Those laws were wrong and unconstitutional, but it took the courts to overturn them because a majority of racist idiots wanted to have them on the books.

Regardless of what "the people" want, there are lines that democracy cannot be allowed to cross, because then you do have a form of tyranny. We have things like the Bill of Rights and some of our amendments to prevent that from happening. Since there is an official government recognition of married couples, and related benefits to be married, we have established a law that discriminates because of sexual orientation.

The arguments about marrying your pets don't hold water. Animals can't give consent. Children under the age of 18 (or whatever the age of consent is in a state) cannot legally give consent. Related men and women can be denied the right to marry on the grounds that it endangers the life of their child because of the genetic issues. Really, the only thing gay marriage opens the door for is polygamy, because it is rather arbitrary that we define marriage as between two people.

[GTHobbes]

Look, if they voted to have the gay marriage thing (which I find personally deplorable, and I would have voted against it), then the will of the people spoke, and that's that.
*****
I have gay friends, before any of you start that particular line of bullshit. I love those people. I don't hold it over their heads. And if they rally to get the green light to have weddings, I won't like it. But if they win a majority of people to their cause, so be it.

Not that it really matters, but I'm confused, Teal. Sounds from the above like you would vote against something that bans gay marriage, and that you would also be against something that legalizes it. Does that mean you do not take a position either way?

[GTHobbes]

But again, what if California voted against something like interracial dating? Should that be allowed to stand?

I see this issue very much like the anti-miscegenation laws during the Jim Crow era. Those laws were wrong and unconstitutional, but it took the courts to overturn them because a majority of racist idiots wanted to have them on the books.

Exactly...good posts, Brando.

[RobVarak]

I share Epstein's view pretty much to the letter:

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/11/ ... stein.html

Today's harsh skirmishing over Prop 8 starts from the common assumption that the state has the right to issue marriage licenses, so that the only question worth asking is whether it can discriminate between gay and straight couples. But to the libertarian, the antecedent inquiry is whether the state has any proper role in issuing marriage licenses at all.

[XXXIV]

Im for keeping the bill of rights. All of them. Even ones that I dont like.

I am not yet your dictator.

[Jackdog]

Hey JD,

I've been away from this thread because I needed break, but I just read about Dom's travails. I am glad the ridiculous conduct at his former school at least led to a happy ending at Saint Thomas. Although, as an all-male Catholic school graduate myself, his sense of smell is in for a beating The fart quotient will be up at least 400%.

The race stuff is just infuriating. My father-in-law taught for 31 years at Waukegan High School in Illinois, a predominantly black high school. He sadly saw much of the same "acting white" BS from underachieving black kids. The minute someone showed promise, the others ganged up to say they were acting white. That attitude just plays into racist stereotypes and ensures that the cycle of black poverty will continue. You have to better yourself if you want to better your station in life.

It is also quite sad that we are so hung up on race. The fact that Obama is considered "black" because he has a black father is a perfect example. I read Mark Twain's Pudd'nhead Wilson when I was in college, and the novel really tweaks the notion that people in America are defined as black if they have any black ancestors--the old "one-drop" rule. The concept was used as a tool to support the "superiority" of the white race, and yet, more than 100 years since that novel was published, it still defines someones race. It's even more depressing to see black Americans turn around and use the same twisted logic against those who have white ancestors. You would think they would know better.

Well, I hope things go well for Dom at his new school and that you guys make some headway against the old one.

Thanks brother. Sadly,I think my grandkids are going to have to deal with the same bullshit. Unreal.

[Teal]

Look, if they voted to have the gay marriage thing (which I find personally deplorable, and I would have voted against it), then the will of the people spoke, and that's that.
*****
I have gay friends, before any of you start that particular line of bullshit. I love those people. I don't hold it over their heads. And if they rally to get the green light to have weddings, I won't like it. But if they win a majority of people to their cause, so be it.

Not that it really matters, but I'm confused, Teal. Sounds from the above like you would vote against something that bans gay marriage, and that you would also be against something that legalizes it. Does that mean you do not take a position either way?

I don't give a s*** about the moral issue, one way or the other. I have my opinions about it, but my opinions don't come into play here. I would always vote for the traditional (as in, from the beginning of time) definition of marriage not to be infringed upon. If my vote went another way, my opinion wouldn't change, but I wouldn't go crying to a judge to overturn, based solely on the fact that I don't like the outcome, the vote of the people.

My issue is with votes being overturned by judges with a track record of activism to the contrary of the vote. A town near where I live recently held a wet/dry referendum up for a vote. Time and again, in the past, the vote has gone dry. This last time, it went wet. The voters, including my dad, who wanted it to stay dry, are trying to petition to get another vote. It would be stupid and the wrong course of action for them to complain to a sympathetic court(and they have one in the county seat there) to overturn a majority vote of the people of that town and county. It's unethical, and it would null and void the vote. If they can do that, I ask again..why vote?

[Jared]

My issue is with votes being overturned by judges with a track record of activism to the contrary of the vote. A town near where I live recently held a wet/dry referendum up for a vote. Time and again, in the past, the vote has gone dry. This last time, it went wet. The voters, including my dad, who wanted it to stay dry, are trying to petition to get another vote. It would be stupid and the wrong course of action for them to complain to a sympathetic court(and they have one in the county seat there) to overturn a majority vote of the people of that town and county. It's unethical, and it would null and void the vote. If they can do that, I ask again..why vote?

But courts can't just nullify votes because they want to. If the Alabama or federal constitution don't speak to laws about the sale of alcohol, then it's up to the legislatures and/or voters. But if there was an amendment prohibiting the sale of alcohol in the state/nation, then it's the job of the court to rule on this.

People can vote on whatever they want, but if it violates state or federal constitutions, then it can't stand. I don't think there's anything in the Constitution (of the US or Alabama) that speaks to alcohol sales. But there is debate as to whether the Constitution speaks to Prop 8. Hence why it goes up to the courts.

[Slumberland]

I would always vote for the traditional (as in, from the beginning of time) definition of marriage not to be infringed upon.

I fully agree, and plan to take multiple simultaneous wives like my main man Abraham.

I'm hearing you as a bit hung up on the supposed and inarguable sanctity of the will of the people. Discrimination is discrimination, courts gotta do what they do. Yes, "why vote" might be a valid question, but is there a mechanism for determining the consitutional viability of a proposal ahead of time? My super layman's understanding of things is that sometimes s*** gets passed and then the courts provide the check-and-balance. Maybe Rob could speak to that and clarify.

[Slumberland]

And am I the only one who sees Jared's latest avatar, is reminded of one of JackB1's old avatars and instinctually glosses over his posts, before realizing it's actually Jared and worth reading with some care?

[GTHobbes]

Discrimination is discrimination, courts gotta do what they do. Yes, "why vote" might be a valid question, but is there a mechanism for determining the consitutional viability of a proposal ahead of time? My super layman's understanding of things is that sometimes s*** gets passed and then the courts provide the check-and-balance. Maybe Rob could speak to that and clarify.

It's called ripeness.

"Because Federal Courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy) legal actions cannot be brought before the challenged law or government action has produced a direct threat to the party suing. Before then, the matter is said to be not yet "ripe" for judicial resolution."

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/ripe

[XXXIV]

And am I the only one who sees Jared's latest avatar, is reminded of one of JackB1's old avatars and instinctually glosses over his posts, before realizing it's actually Jared and worth reading with some care?

I do not know what you mean.

[Teal]

My issue is with votes being overturned by judges with a track record of activism to the contrary of the vote. A town near where I live recently held a wet/dry referendum up for a vote. Time and again, in the past, the vote has gone dry. This last time, it went wet. The voters, including my dad, who wanted it to stay dry, are trying to petition to get another vote. It would be stupid and the wrong course of action for them to complain to a sympathetic court(and they have one in the county seat there) to overturn a majority vote of the people of that town and county. It's unethical, and it would null and void the vote. If they can do that, I ask again..why vote?

But courts can't just nullify votes because they want to. If the Alabama or federal constitution don't speak to laws about the sale of alcohol, then it's up to the legislatures and/or voters. But if there was an amendment prohibiting the sale of alcohol in the state/nation, then it's the job of the court to rule on this.

People can vote on whatever they want, but if it violates state or federal constitutions, then it can't stand. I don't think there's anything in the Constitution (of the US or Alabama) that speaks to alcohol sales. But there is debate as to whether the Constitution speaks to Prop 8. Hence why it goes up to the courts.

The debate is over what is popularly known as 'nuance', which proponents of stuff like this being federally protected always roll out when the constitution doesn't provide for it in any normally discernable way.

And I disagree as to why it's going to the courts. They didn't like the outcome, cried like babies, and went running to Big Daddy.

[Teal]

I would always vote for the traditional (as in, from the beginning of time) definition of marriage not to be infringed upon.

I fully agree, and plan to take multiple simultaneous wives like my main man Abraham.

I'm hearing you as a bit hung up on the supposed and inarguable sanctity of the will of the people. Discrimination is discrimination, courts gotta do what they do. Yes, "why vote" might be a valid question, but is there a mechanism for determining the consitutional viability of a proposal ahead of time? My super layman's understanding of things is that sometimes s*** gets passed and then the courts provide the check-and-balance. Maybe Rob could speak to that and clarify.

I prefer blondes. Therefore, I discriminate against all others. Haul my ass into court!

[Jared]

What if two racehorses wanted to get married? Actually, are the civil rights of horses "infringed" when they are "forced" to race and possibly injure themselves and be sent to the "glue factory""? Wouldn't they be pursuing life, liberty, and happiness better in a field with some hay and sugarcubes????? (Hey, where is Bjork doing now???) Sadly, I think that we care more about watching the race and less about the

horses.

Though if there's one thing we can all agree on, is that I'm bored at work, and that

.

http://www.animatedflagspotplace.net/at ... league.gif[/img]

[webdanzer]

LOL

Awesome.

[bdunn13]

"Related men and women can be denied the right to marry on the grounds that it endangers the life of their child because of the genetic issues."

Last time I checked, a gay couple could not produce a healthy child naturally either.

Heterosexual couples get benefits from the gov b/c of the fact that producing children is beneficial for society. There is no suck benefit from a gay couple.... naturally at least.

If two guys want to corn hole each other or a couple of women want to have a hair pie eating contest, let them. However, they should get no reward from the gov for doing so.

[fsquid]

It is simple in this country. If you want to get married, don't be gay. If you don't like it, go to Scandinavia.

[Slumberland]

There is no suck benefit from a gay couple...

I beg to differ!

[RobVarak]

There is no suck benefit from a gay couple...

I beg to differ!

This is the single greatest page in the history of the politics thread.

[bdunn13]

WOW! I could not write that even if I wanted too

[GameSeven]

Jared's post = win

Slumber's a close second