Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:55:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1608 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
For instance, show me in the Constitution the right to marry.
|
So you would have no objection if the Federal government enacted laws barring
Christians from marrying? I want you to go on record on this, with the
following qualifiers: You can’t claim “our country is based on Judeo-Christian
tradition” because you haven’t yet answered
my request for support of
that claim. You also can’t claim any entitlement due to long-standing
traditions of Christian marriage, since these are irrelevant to secular law.
The matter is not the “right to marry” in an of itself. The real and underlying
issue is addressed by the 14th amendment. The 9th amendment is also relevant,
and while we’re at it so is the 10th.
| |
| |
It is also not “legislating from the bench” to strike
down unconstitutional laws.
|
|
| |
But don’t you see? If you are creative enough, you can pull
unconstitutionality out of your butt!
|
A law is not unconstitutional simply because it doesn’t appear in the
Constitution. Laws that are unconstitutional are those laws that are in
opposition to the text of the Constitution.
| |
| |
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?
|
Because that is the definition of marriage.
|
You’re dissembling. Whose definition? And why can the definition not be
changed? In answering, I urge you to avoid chicken-little warnings like “it
will destroy the fabric of our society,” since these are not supported by any
evidence.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
When it’s convenient of course. Compared the lengths of governmental
paternity verses maternity leave lately?
|
What are you asking me? If I think that the family-leave laws are
discriminatory? Of course I do! I’m kind of surprised that you wouldn’t have
guessed that about me.
| |
What about when I get a $5000 tax deduction-- merely for having kids, and you
as a childless person get none? This is inequitable.
|
Also irrelevant to the current debate. Start another thread if you’d like to
explore this issue further.
| |
But it all ties together. Frist is pushing this amendment, knowing that if
some states recognize gay marriage, all states will be bound to recognize gay
marriages under the 14th Amendment against their will.
|
Good! If that’s what it takes to drag the states out of their homophobic
bigotry, then we absolutely must not allow Frist to succeed in enshrining this
discriminatory amendment in the text of the Constitution.
| |
| |
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.
|
But the fact remains that our society’s standards, as a whole, are
Judeo-Christian in origin.
|
Foul! You can’t use that claim unless you can support it, as I’ve
asked previously. Once
you’ve done so, then we may proceed.
| |
| |
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 reality is that once the state defines, all are forced to adhere. The
question is who will be the ones who get discriminated against.
|
If gays are allowed to marry, then who is being discriminated against?
| |
Marriage is the publically declared union of a man and woman with God as
their witness to live together in holy matrimony. That would be my ideal
definition of marriage. I realize that many if not most do not attain this
ideal, and many break their vows, but that is the ideal.
|
I accept your definition of marriage as a faith-imbued contract between man,
woman, and God. However, I don’t accept that your definition is relevant to the
marital contract under secular law. If Christianity (or any other faith or
group) wishes to impose greater restrictions on the members of that group, and
if the members of that group agree, then there’s no problem. The problem occurs
when a group wishes to legislate its doctrines upon society at large.
| |
| |
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.
|
But at some point you will prohibit, or else you are an anarchist (which I
don’t believe you are).
|
I will prohibit only at the point at which harm is inflicted upon an unwilling
person (or a person not able to act on his own behalf). Beyond that, let
freedom ring.
| |
| |
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.
|
Never underestimate a pack of twisted, creative lawyers on retainer:-)
|
Don’t dismiss it with a joke. You’re basing a lot of your argument on the
notion that the marriage of two men will lead inevitably to the marriage of a
man and a non-human animal (astute readers may insert their own Ann Coulter joke
here). If you seek to continue in that vein, then I must require you to
demonstrate how non-human animals are able to enter into legal contracts.
Otherwise, I want you to state on record that your example of man-animal
marriage is irrelevant.
| |
Once you say marriage is between 2 people, a collective of 3 people will
object. Make it 3, and 4 will protest. Make it N people, and 1 and his sheep
(sorry) will object. And so on.
|
Skipping the sheep, what is the problem? If N people are willing to be bound by
the marital contract, why should you care? Again, I mean in specific,
non-reactionary terms. If such communal marriages will damage/destroy society,
then present your evidence that this is so.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
