User Tag List

First 78910 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 94

  1. #81
    Senior Member cogdecree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    165
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
    If popular ruling of 70+% violates the Constitution, then yes. Such is the Supreme Court's freaking job description.

    If a national ballot yielded 90% of voters in favor of doing away with the Constitution, should that decision be allowed to stand?


    I think two separate branches of government are doing the trick just fine... As they have for 220 years.
    If the constitution is vague, as we agree, then the constitution itself is up for interpretation, and people can interpret the constitution in radically different ways, and thus what constitutes as a violation is vague. This is talking about the practice not the issue. Abortion could be made illegal because there is a “right to life”, under someone’s translation (view on life) this argument could be made to overturn popular vote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
    And dude, I'm not trying to flame you or engage in ad hominem, but could you please proofread your posts? I'm having a hard time understanding what you're asking or asserting in half of your posts.
    I am sorry for that, my grammar deteriorates when I'm tired (or lazy), that is not an excuse though. I'll proofread a little harder.

  2. #82
    Guerilla Urbanist Brendan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    If the constitution is vague, as we agree, then the constitution itself is up for interpretation, and people can interpret the constitution in radically different ways, and thus what constitutes as a violation is vague. This is talking about the practice not the issue. Abortion could be made illegal because there is a “right to life”, under someone’s translation (view on life) this argument could be made to overturn popular vote.
    Exactly, and a law passed by Congress could overturn that, as could an amendment to the Constitution. Which is in turn subject to Judicial discretion. So no state is permanent.

    This is what makes the Constitution so unique, it keeps the cycles moving with the tides.
    There is no such thing as separation from God.

  3. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    Not at all. You said

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    You're not serious are you? Male-female relations is the basis for the foundation of human society. It's hardly arbitrary.
    To say that the discrimination was not arbitrary, is to say that it was based on some very solid criteria.

    If reproduction was not that criteria, how would male-female relationships be materially distinguishable from male-male or female-female ones?

    I think the issue has been settled. Any attempt to debate it in the courts will end in a decisive defeat for the pro-discrimination side. It is only a matter of time before all states evict the law that was sneaked in through the back door.

  4. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    I think the issue has been settled. Any attempt to debate it in the courts will end in a decisive defeat for the pro-discrimination side. It is only a matter of time before all states evict the law that was sneaked in through the back door.
    Yes. Vermont gathered enough votes to overturn a veto from the gov today. So, gay marriage is now legal there. D.C. also said people that get married in other states, will have legal marriage rights there.

    2 states in one day. It's already beginning.

  5. #85
    Senior Member cogdecree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    165
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
    Exactly, and a law passed by Congress could overturn that, as could an amendment to the Constitution. Which is in turn subject to Judicial discretion. So no state is permanent.

    This is what makes the Constitution so unique, it keeps the cycles moving with the tides.
    The troubling issue here is, what makes one person's interpretation, more important than the interpretation of the masses?

    No system is perfect, I'm also sure we can agree with that as well, but this is one of the weaknesses within our system.

    I have no doubt within 50 years that gay marriage will be widely accepted within the US, consensus will eventually change, another fact of life, that’s why its important to place emphasis on holding onto democratic values, and to not rush actions by silencing the majority.

  6. #86
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
    Well, yeah, but that's kind of their job. It's not as though they have the power to decree this law is now in place and that one is overturned without precedent. They decide on a case to case basis. And for that matter, they don't even have the luxury of proposing or ratifying law, only overturning law which violates the constitution.
    Jurists are not supposed to have (or appropriate) effectively unlimited discretion; there must be general boundaries to judicial interpretation, or else there is neither rule of law nor "democracy" in the whole "liberal democracy" paradigm, ultimately undermining the security of all rights. For this reason, gray areas (and this IS a gray area) are supposed to be settled within the legislative arena, as happened in Vermont (the only good news-along with Washington D.C-in this entire fucking mess).

  7. #87
    Guerilla Urbanist Brendan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Jurists are not supposed to have (or appropriate) effectively unlimited discretion; there must be general boundaries to judicial interpretation, or else there is neither rule of law nor "democracy" in the whole "liberal democracy" paradigm, ultimately undermining the security of all rights. For this reason, gray areas (and this IS a gray area) are supposed to be settled within the legislative arena, as happened in Vermont (the only good news-along with Washington D.C-in this entire fucking mess).
    But that's just it. The Constitution is the set of boundaries. How those boundaries are interpreted is up to the courts, and the Justices of those courts are appointed or elected, as we believe they will interpret in a way we agree with.

    Think of Brown v. Board of Ed. That was a matter of discrimination, did you support the Court's involvement in that matter? (Based purely on the issue of Judicial involvement in the legislative process, not on the issue of discrimination based on skin color).
    There is no such thing as separation from God.

  8. #88
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
    But that's just it. The Constitution is the set of boundaries. How those boundaries are interpreted is up to the courts, and the Justices of those courts are appointed or elected, as we believe they will interpret in a way we agree with.

    Think of Brown v. Board of Ed. That was a matter of discrimination, did you support the Court's involvement in that matter? (Based purely on the issue of Judicial involvement in the legislative process, not on the issue of discrimination based on skin color).
    A Constitution is only a set of boundaries if jurists adhere to some sort of originalist interpretation; otherwise, it can be twisted to say virtually whatever people want it to say, making it practically worthless. Over time, the cumulative effect of such casual disregard for constitutional boundaries make all legal judgements arbitrary and/or percieved as such.

    As for the rest:

    1.) Gay marriage is a matter of fulfilling the spirit of equality under law, not the technical aspects of the law. This is unlike Brown vs. Board of Education, where both the spirit of the law as well as the technical aspects of constitutional law were being violated. And yes, mere technicalities ARE that important as far as the judicial branch is concerned-its how we know judges are basing their decisions on legal principles rather than personal preferences.

    2.) Realistically, some (very rare) issues are in fact important or immediate enough to temporarily relax the standards a bit; unequal public accomadations on the basis of race (or racial restrictions on marriages, which is a MUCH better comparision, btw) would qualify, enspecially in light of potential to negatively impact other legal areas or to affect large numbers of people. However, the corrosive and unpredictable effects of judicial activism make it necessary to restrict such efforts on behalf of "light and/or transient" causes, and to put it bluntly, gay marriage doesn't pass that standard. Hell, stopping the criminalization of marijuania is far more important as far as preventing unnecessary aggregate pain on individuals is concerned...and that wouldn't qualify either.
    Last edited by lowtech redneck; 04-08-2009 at 10:56 PM. Reason: clarification

  9. #89
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    It makes me sad that Jeffster abandoned this thread. I was hoping for a response to my post, Jeffster, because you're the smartest anti-gay marriage person I think I've ever encountered.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #90
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    It makes me sad that Jeffster abandoned this thread. I was hoping for a response to my post, Jeffster, because you're the smartest anti-gay marriage person I think I've ever encountered.
    To the post about the separate elements of marriage? I didn't really have anything to add to that. Pretty much all you said seemed like pretty obvious to me.

    You're probly mistaken about me being smart, though. Because it also seems obvious to me that marriage involves a man and a woman.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

Similar Threads

  1. India Supreme Court reopens case on decriminalising gay sex
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-02-2016, 10:15 AM
  2. Iowa supreme court upholds woman's firing for being too attractive.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 12-24-2012, 05:24 PM
  3. Texas GOP Platform: Criminalize Gay Marriage and Ban Sodomy
    By Ginkgo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 07-05-2010, 10:40 PM
  4. Two Countries Overturn Gay Military Ban
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-07-2009, 09:51 PM
  5. Gay marriage, adoption, related issues -- Take 2
    By Zergling in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 01:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO