Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:46:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1616 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
Let’s establish henceforth that any time a debater uses “activist judges” as
a means to trump an argument, then the debater has forfeited the argument.
|
“Activist judge” = “Hitler”? This is big, Dave!
|
My objection is to the use of the terms “activist judge” or “judicial activism”
as short-hand subsitutions for actual debate. Too often Conservative pundits
have decried judicial rulings as “activist” without presenting any legitimate
arguments against those rulings.
| |
I think you are underestimating the arguments against legislating from the
bench.
|
It is not “legislating from the bench” to recognize that people are being denied
their rights. It is also not “legislating from the bench” to strike down
unconstitutional laws.
Further, it is not sufficient to claim that the judge is “activist” simply
because he or she has ruled against the perceived “will of the people,” no
matter how much Scalia (and others) may wish this were the case.
| |
I’m curious-- how would you respond to an act of congress that went something
like this: “The courts are not to rule on matters that have to do with the
definition of marriage.”
|
Clearly, that’s an unconstitutional over-reaching by the Congress. If the
Congress enacts a law that is unconstitutional, then the judiciary is entirely
correct in striking it down. That goes for Left-favoring as well as
Right-favoring legislation. Congress can’t simply declare itself or its laws
off-limits for judicial review; that way monarchy lies.
| |
| |
The Left has *not* forced the issue. One state’s judiciary has rightly
identified the laws of that state to be contrary to the Constitution, and
that judiciary has removed an impediment to equal protection under the law.
|
We disagree. Every person has the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex.
|
Why must you add the qualifier “of the opposite sex” to your formulation of the
right? Why must this disciminatory prohibition be included as part of the
formulation?
| |
How more equal can you get? Or are you suggesting that the States
discriminate based on sex, religion, or sexual preference? It cuts both
ways...
|
Not at all. It is not discrimination to allow someone access to legal rights.
And if the recognition of the rights of Group A is uncomfortable for Group B,
then too bad for Group B. One’s own rights do not extend to the denial of
others’ rights, and one group’s preferences have no power to supersede another
group’s rights.
| |
| |
The Right has forced this issue to waste 3+ legislative days, apparently
with the intent (failed) of creating a wedge issue.
|
Mayors issuing gay marriage licenses started this thing. You know that that
is the first step to forcing other states to recognize those marriages under
the 14th Amendment. Sorry, this was very deliberately begun by the Left.
|
I think we were talking about two different aspects of the issue: you were
addressing the overall push for recognition of gay marriage, whereas I was
discussing Bill Frist’s (et al) choice to take up the Senate’s time with an
ill-conceived Constitutional amendment. However, I’m content to discuss it on
your terms, too, so I’ll stick to the issue at large, rather than isolating it
to the Senate.
With that in mind, I am proud to be part of the Left that has forced this long
overdue issue.
| |
| |
How so? Explain to me in very precise terms how homosexual marriage
threatens the future of America. If you’d claim that it will change the
fundamental structure of our culture, then you’ve opened up the argument to
include women’s suffrage and the abolition of slavery, both of which changed
the fundamental structure of our culture.
|
First off, I’m sure that there are a lot of women and blacks who would be
offended by your outrageous analogy.
|
Too bad for them. I wasn’t given a checklist to determine which qualifications
must be met before a given group is sufficiently discriminated against to merit
a change to our culture. When I receive that checklist, I’ll be happy to review
it here.
| |
That aside, what I am talking about has nothing per se to do with homosexual
marriage, but the redefing of the institution of marriage. This is not a
gay issue.
|
This is the point on which we apparently cannot agree. Let me restate that I
absolutely 100% support a the right of a church/faith/etc. to set the criteria
for legitimate marriage within that church/faith/etc. However, those criteria
are entirely separate from the legal criteria under the Constitution. By all
means, let the individual private groups set their standards, but they have no
business forcing their own views upon society as a whole.
The state has no business defining the tradition of marriage, which would be
tantamount to endorsing a religion of its own. I’m not talking about your
religion or mine (so to speak): I mean that, by enshrining traditions as
untouchable legal principles to which all people are forced to adhere, then the
state would thereby be establishing a religion-of-state.
The state may choose to recognize certain forms of contract, but the standards
by which the state rejects certain contracts must be consistent with the state’s
charter, in this case the Constitution.
| |
| |
Why? Where is the defense of marriage, if the essence of marriage is not
being defended? If you claim that it is irrelevant. then you must
demonstrate the reasons that it is irrelevant. How does this amendment
differ from anti-miscegenation laws?
|
Again, we are talking about protecting the definition of marriage, not the
quality of particular marriages.
|
Okay, now we’re getting somewhere, which is better than dismissing my point as
“irrelevant!” Again, we may disagree, but I need to clarify your stance. Do
you define the institution of marriage as the union, dissoluable at will and
unharmed by adultery, between one man and one woman? If so, then your
definition is indeed strong, though still discriminatory. If I’m incorrect in
my framing, could you provide your definition?
As far as I’m concerned, the pervasiveness of heterosexual divorce and
heterosexual infidelity are causing far more significant changes to the
institution of heterosexual marriage than homosexual marriage ever could hope to
do. Not that that’s entirely negative--if the institution needs to change in
order to remain relevant, then I say let it change!
| |
| |
And it’s not a total redefinition; it’s the existing definition minus a
biogoted restriction against a certain subset of the population.
|
“A certain subset of the population”? Which subset would that be? Just
remember that anytime you define something, you have by definition
discriminated something from something else and set it apart.
|
If the removal of prohibitions against freedom is indeed discriminatory, then
call me discriminatory. I will always favor greater access to rights rather
than greater restriction of rights.
However, if the recognition of marital rights is uncomfortable for a certain
group, then tough for that group. The recognition of one group’s rights to
marry does not restrict another group’s rights, unless the “recognition” is
formulated in such a way as to restrict the latter group’s rights by definition.
| |
| |
I find the
definition provided by NOLO to be quite useful:
The legal union of two people.
|
The presupposition that a man and a women are equal is a complete and total
lie. Men and women are not equal! They have equal rights, but they
are not just “people” with interchangable sexual organs. To deny this
profound truth is amazingly twisted and disingenuous, merely to serve a
political agenda. There is no other explanation for its complete stupidity.
|
Hey, keep up that attitude, and I may quote
Cheney at
you.
Other than posts in which I have asserted that they are granted equal rights,
please point me to the post in which I claimed that men and women are literally
equal, Since I have made no such claim, and since the definition I cited made
no such claim, I reject your digression here as tangential to the argument at
hand.
| |
Polygamy aside, what about unions of brothers and brothers and sisters and
horses, etc?
|
I’ve already stated my view regarding the brother/sister unions--would you like
me to give you the link? I hadn’t explicitly commented on brother/brother
unions, but now that you mention it, I have no problem with those unions,
either.
Also, your eager embrace of animals in this context is an attempt to blur the
issue. You must first establish that animals are able to enter into legally
binding contracts. Once you have done this, then I will discuss the more
specific issue of human/animal marital contracts.
| |
You are merely trading one discriminated group for another.
|
How so?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
