Cool idea....

[musicman]

From "Slouching Towards Gomorrah", by Robert Bork:

"It is arguable that the American judiciary-the Supreme Court, abetted by the lower federal courts and many state courts-is the single most powerful force shaping our culture.....The Court today is, as it always has been, a legal institution, but it also undertakes to decide hot button questions of culture and politics that are, strictly speaking, none of it's business."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the span of my lifetime, the judiciary, at all levels, has gone beyond it's constitutional mandate, preferring instead to engage in social engineering. Thus, a liberal agenda that most Americans find abhorrent is being forced upon them by an activist judiciary acting far outside it's powers.

As loath as I am to monkey with the Constitution, it might be the only remedy the American electorate have left. The will of the people was never meant to be circumvented in this way. The process has been perverted.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by Hobbit
For the last time, homosexuals do get equal protection. Marrying someone of the same sex is illegal, no matter what your orientation is. Also, these same arguments can be used to allow communal marriages and polygamy.

Whatever one feels about gay marriage, the argument that homosexuals are already guaranteed equal protection because they can marry from the opposite sex doesn't work. The Supreme Court did away with that kind of analysis fifty years ago or so - with good reason. That was also the argument that was applied to laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage. The Supreme Court uses a different kind of analysis for these issues now.

I am not saying that there aren't better arguments that prohibiting gay marriage doesn't violate the EP - but just that this isn't one of them.

Forgive me Hobbit if I misinterpreted what your EP argument was.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by musicman

Originally posted by Bern80
Though i oppose to gay marriage. I am starting to think that the governemtn should not recognized any marriage since it is a religious institution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And why should the government cease to recognize an institution it's people have prized for two hundred and twenty-eight years--because a loud, bigoted minority wishes to trample our religious freedoms?

Look, I'm not the one who said this is a Christian nation. That is an erroneous statement. This is, however, a nation founded by Christians. As such, it recogizes certain inalienable rights given us-not by creatures-but by the Creator.

No Christian sought then-nor do any seek now-to impose a Christian theocracy upon this nation. To state that they do shows a complete ignorance of Christianity. The principles which guided our founding fathers-that governments are the creations of imperfect men; that said governments are a necessary evil, to be kept on a short leash; that said leash should be held tightly and vigilantly by the governed; that men are only truly free when they may live and prosper according to their enterprise, bound only by just and civilized law-these principles are uniquely Christian.

In our two hundred plus years of existence (the historical equivalent of the blink of an eye) this nation has advanced mankind, in every way, more than the combined efforts of every other nation in recorded history. You're living in the greatest country on earth. Why not relax and enjoy it?

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

 

[YellowBirdy]

Originally posted by musicman
From "Slouching Towards Gomorrah", by Robert Bork:

"It is arguable that the American judiciary-the Supreme Court, abetted by the lower federal courts and many state courts-is the single most powerful force shaping our culture.....The Court today is, as it always has been, a legal institution, but it also undertakes to decide hot button questions of culture and politics that are, strictly speaking, none of it's business."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the span of my lifetime, the judiciary, at all levels, has gone beyond it's constitutional mandate, preferring instead to engage in social engineering. Thus, a liberal agenda that most Americans find abhorrent is being forced upon them by an activist judiciary acting far outside it's powers.

As loath as I am to monkey with the Constitution, it might be the only remedy the American electorate have left. The will of the people was never meant to be circumvented in this way. The process has been perverted.

Musicman, Bork is an idoit. I don't know if you remember his cofirmation hearings for the Supreme Court during the 80's. The Senate ripped him apart. Bork is from the school that we should interpret the Constitution in the manner in which the framers' intended.

What is the Framer's intent? Ask a law professor, and you won't get a satisfactory answer because the intent varies between the various framers at different times in their lives.

Bork was asked if he agreed with the Supreme Court ruling of Brown v. Board. He said he did. He was asked to justify the ruling based on his ideology. He couldn't. You can't.

 

[YellowBirdy]

A thought on Gay marriage and the equal protection clause. When a case is appealed to an appellate court dealing with an Equal Protection (EP) issue, the court takes the following analysis.

1. What is the classification in question? (i.e., race, gender, age, sexual orientation.)

2. What is the level of scrutiny? (This means by which standard is the law judged. There are three standards.
*"Strict Scrutiny" - With something such as race, if the government is going to treat groups of people differently, the govt must show the law is necessary to acheive a compelling purpose.
*"Intermediate Scrutiny" - With something like gender, the government must show the law differenting male and females is substantially related to an important governmental purpose.
*"Rational Basis" - Here the person challenging the law must prove the law is not rationally related to a legitmitate purpose.

3. Does the classification survive the level of scrutiny?


The Supreme Court has not ruled which level of scrutiny sexual orientation recieves. However, the government, in deciding to outlaw gay marriage, will have to show some purpose, be it a "legit" or "compelling" one. So the arguement becomes, what interest does the governement have in outlawing gay marriage?

Name an interest based on the Constitution, (not the Bible) that the governement has in prohibiting gay marriage. From what I've seen, people opposed have an aversion to it, but have yet to articulate a sufficient reason for the governement to prohibit. Yes, there is history and tradition, but that won't satisfy a court.

So, what interest does the govt have in outlawing gay marriage other than the fact that people are disgusted by it.

Another thing. People sometimes say a slippery slope will occur and soon some guy will marry three wives at once and receive state recognition. This arguement doesn't work. The governement has an interest in keeping people from having multiple spouses - just think of the govt having to pay out death benefits to three wives of one guy all at once.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by YellowBirdy
Musicman, Bork is an idoit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is an extraordinary statement for you to make. Robert Bork is widely regarded as one of the preeminent legal scholars in the country. He was the guiding force behind the Contract with America-which restored America's faith in the political process, broke the Democrats' sixty-year stranglehold on the House of Representatives, and gave Bill Clinton a glimpse into his own political grave, which he escaped only by adopting the principles of the Republican revolution and claiming them as his own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:
I don't know if you remember his cofirmation hearings for the Supreme Court during the 80's. The Senate ripped him apart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's SOP for all conservative nominees. Bork scared the shit out of them. You can always spot a scared liberal-he's vicious.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:
Bork is from the school that we should interpret the Constitution in the manner in which the framers' intended.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That BASTARD!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------QUOTE:
What is the Framer's intent? Ask a law professor, and you won't get a satisfactory answer.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't doubt that-especially if he's an ivory tower-dwelling, America hating parasite, which seems as likely as not.

The US Constitution is a pretty straightforward document, if you ask me.

 

[musicman]

Yellowbirdy:
" The Supreme Court has not ruled which level of scrutiny sexual orientation receives."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean sexual preference, right? We're talking about a lifestyle choice, here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellowbirdy:
"Name an interest based on the Constitution (not the Bible) that the government [note from musicman: you mean, the Court, don't you?] has in prohibiting gay marriage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about a government of the people, by the people, and for the people? How about the will of the American electorate, the overwhelming majority of whom oppose gay marriage? How about if the Court just stays the hell out of it, goes back to it's job of determining the constitutionality of law, and lets the American people decide what's best for them, as is their right under the Constitution. Betcha thought I was going to say, BIBLE!-didn't you?

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by musicman
Yellowbirdy:

You mean sexual preference, right? We're talking about a lifestyle choice, here.

It is not yet clear whether homosexuality is purely a lifestyle choice or a biological predisposition.

How about a government of the people, by the people, and for the people? How about the will of the American electorate, the overwhelming majority of whom oppose gay marriage? How about if the Court just stays the hell out of it, goes back to it's job of determining the constitutionality of law, and lets the American people decide what's best for them, as is their right under the Constitution. Betcha thought I was going to say, BIBLE!-didn't you?

Under Equal Protection jurisprudence, the will of the people is not a sufficient rational basis for denying rights to persons. That, in fact, is why the Equal Protection clause is in the Constitution. Thus, 51% (or even 75%) of Americans can't pass laws segregating racial minorities, even if it is the will of the majority of the people.

However, to be fair on the issue, public morality is considered a rational basis for laws (although probably wouldn't pass strict scrutiny if that were applied) - and that is one way that a ban on homosexuality or gay marriage (although I would disagree with such a ban) could survive the EP clause.

As for the Court staying out of it, the USSC will only be involved in the matter if someone is contesting whether a law discriminating against homosexuals violates the Constitution (exactly the acceptable situation you envisage). Thus, you should be happy, as the Court is presently "stay[ing] the hell out of it."

 

[musicman]

Hello Reilly,

I hope this morning finds you well.

When you say, "It is not yet clear whether homosexuality is purely a lifestyle choice or a biological predisposition", you are, I'll wager, speaking of Simon LeVar's neurological studies. You and I have discussed this before, I believe. I've had a chance to look at them a little more closely, and I remain unconvinced. It is quite clear to me that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. I find LeVar's studies, and others like it, loaded and dubious.

As to the court's involvement in the gay marriage issue-the whole question started when Texas' sodomy law was struck down as unconstitutional, right? Don't you think this whole mess is headed for the Supreme Court eventually?

 

[YellowBirdy]

Originally posted by musicman
Yellowbirdy:
" The Supreme Court has not ruled which level of scrutiny sexual orientation receives."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean sexual preference, right? We're talking about a lifestyle choice, here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*How come not one gay person I know made a choice to be gay? How come all of them say something to the effect that they always knew something was different about them from an early age, long before they explored their sexuality? Sure, they decided to be gay back then, before they ever thought about such things as kissing.

And taking aside preference / orientation, what does it matter from a constitutional standpoint? People have all sorts of "preferences" - from politcs to shoe brands. Should the law be able to treat Reebok owners different from Nike owners?



Yellowbirdy:
"Name an interest based on the Constitution (not the Bible) that the government [note from musicman: you mean, the Court, don't you?] has in prohibiting gay marriage.

*No, I mean the government. The govt has laws against gay marriage. When a law (which is passed by the gvt) is challenged in court, the gvt needs to show a justification of the law. The adequacy of the justification is linked to the classification. The govt's reason must be one which the govt has at the minimum a legitiate interest in.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about a government of the people, by the people, and for the people? How about the will of the American electorate, the overwhelming majority of whom oppose gay marriage?

*Will of the electorate means nothing to a court. The majority should not be able to oppress a minority, even if the majority expressly consents. Back when segregation was declared unconstitution a lot of people brought up the same arguements you are now. I'm not trying to group you in with those people but there is a point to be learned. Majoritarian whims cannot circumvent constitutitional protections for minority groups.
There is a reason many judges are given life tenure - it is to avoid the wrath of the majority. When politicians make decisions that turn out to be unpopular, voters can kick the politician out of office. Judges are insulated from this - so that they can make tough decisions without regard for the mobs of protestors outside the courtroom. A judiciary another way would be a mere rubber stamp for the legislative whims.


How about if the Court just stays the hell out of it, goes back to it's job of determining the constitutionality of law, and lets the American people decide what's best for them, as is their right under the Constitution. Betcha thought I was going to say, BIBLE!-didn't you?

*Wouldn't ruling on a marriage law fall within the court's purview to determine the constitutionality of said law? How is that any different than if a court were to rule on the constititionality of a law restricting free speech? Where in the Constitution does it say that American people can decide what's best for them and to be unchecked?
So, you still haven't given a compelling reason for the govt to ban gay marriages other than the fact that most people don't want it. My point is this, under constitutional law analysis, you need to show a government interest in banning gay marriage. Polls don't equate to a government interest.

And Bork, you forgot his Saturday Night Massacre. That's why a lot of people don't like him.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You can wiggle around and say they have equal protection. Yes. They can marry members of the opposite sex, but they can't marry who they love. Don't they have the right to love who they want, regardless of other people's biblically based opinion?

I have problems with gay activists and how they try to put their lifestyle in people's faces for shock and awe, but if we lose this election due to this gay intolerance, I will be coming for you homophobes.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Being gay is due to hormone levels in the blood during fetal development.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
You can wiggle around and say they have equal protection. Yes. They can marry members of the opposite sex, but they can't marry who they love. Don't they have the right to love who they want, regardless of other people's biblically based opinion?

I have problems with gay activists and how they try to put their lifestyle in people's faces for shock and awe, but if we lose this election due to this gay intolerance, I will be coming for you homophobes.

They dont have any more rights to love the person they want than Pedophiles are. I dont see you advocating "equal" rights for them.

You cant lose on an issue that is supported by the majority.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Being gay is due to hormone levels in the blood during fetal development.

I think the jury is still out on that one. Both sides can quote scientific analysis to prove they are right.....

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
I think the jury is still out on that one. Both sides can quote scientific analysis to prove they are right.....

What scientific evidence proves it's a choice?

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
What scientific evidence proves it's a choice?

Hate to use a liberal tactic of answering a question with a question, but what indisputable evidence proves it isn't?:

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by musicman
Hello Reilly,

I hope this morning finds you well.

When you say, "It is not yet clear whether homosexuality is purely a lifestyle choice or a biological predisposition", you are, I'll wager, speaking of Simon LeVar's neurological studies. You and I have discussed this before, I believe. I've had a chance to look at them a little more closely, and I remain unconvinced. It is quite clear to me that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. I find LeVar's studies, and others like it, loaded and dubious.

As to the court's involvement in the gay marriage issue-the whole question started when Texas' sodomy law was struck down as unconstitutional, right? Don't you think this whole mess is headed for the Supreme Court eventually?

Good morning Musicman. As for the Simon LeVar study, yes, that is one of the studies that I am referring to, among others. I personally think that homosexuality is biologically determined (more a hunch than anything), but I would agree with you if you said that no one has done a good job of making the case scientifically yet. My guess is this will be an open issue for many years to come - especially if you are right and it is purely a choice (it being damn hard to prove a negative).

As for the USSC ruling on the Texas sodomy law, that had actually slipped my mind and I guess in a sense you are correct that the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue. However, just so the case isn't overstated, the Texas sodomy law wasn't struck down because the USSC said that people have the right to be gay (or even that being gay is acceptable in society). It hinged on privacy rights and the acceptable intrusion of the state into private consensual activity (including oral sex in some states, God forbid). If I am correct, the same basis was applied to strike down laws against contraception thirty years ago. A fine line, I grant you, but the EP question is much more squarely a case about the rights of homosexuals as homosexuals. Anyway, just wanted to acknowledge that I was wrong when I said the USSC hadn't weighed in on the issue. It obviously has to some degree.

As for you last question, yes, I definitely think that this will be headed to the Supreme Court some day.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

http://www.vernonjohns.org/nonracists/dvissues.html


Development of the Male

The differentiation of sexual orientation or status is a sequential process. The prenatal stage of this process, with a possible brief neonatal extension, takes place under the aegis of brain hormonalization. It continues postnatally under the aegis of the senses and social communication and learning. (Money, 1988:49)

In the early stages of the development of the mammalian embryo, the fetus is sexually bipotential. The undifferentiated gonads can differentiate into either testes or ovaries. On several important dimensions, male and female brains develop differently. In the brain the principle of feminization takes priority over the principle of masculinization. Something must be added to induce masculinization. (Money, 1988:14-15) remarks that this puts Eve first, then Adam! In mammals male specialization hinges on testosterone slowing the developmental pace of the left hemisphere. Hucker and Bain, 1990:93-95

In mammals the ability of the male to display masculine behavior depends on two processes, masculinization and defeminisation (Goodman, 1987:33). Masculinsation behaviors consist of mounting the female, penetrating her vagina, thrusting, and ejaculation, and depend on E (converted from T) and DHT. Defeminsation is the obliteration of feminine behaviors, e. g. presenting, lordosis, and allowing penetration, in a male.

Successful development of the male actually depends on two processes that affect the brain: defeminization and masculinization. This development proceeds largely via two different types of gonadal hormones normally secreted by the male baby's own testicles. One of these two masculinizing hormones is actually a defeminizing hormone, mullerian-inhibiting hormone (MIH). It atrophies the embryonic mullerian ducts and thus prevents them from growing into a uterus (Money, 1988:15). The second hormone, testosterone, is a masculinizing hormone and induces the growth of masculine sexual organs.

The stage in development when hormones influence the differentiation of the human brain as dimorphically male or female remains to be discovered. It may be in the third trimester of pregnancy, or it may extend through the first three postnatal months of age when, in boys, there is a transient surge of testosterone released from the testicles to circulate in the bloodstream, which would carry it to the brain. (Money, 1988:23)

The critical importance of testosterone and in effects on personality can be illustrated in the case of fraternal twins of different sexes. Females situated near males have more aggression later in life, while those further away have less, due to being exposed to T that is secreted from the fetal male testis. Goodman, 1987:35

Brain dimorphism as regards sex is especially located in hypothalamus, more specifically, the interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus (Money, 1988:23). The nucleus is larger in men than in women, the male's containing slightly more than twice as many cells. Scientists are not sure of its function, but it is located within an area that is essential for gonadotropin release and sexual behavior in other mammals.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by YellowBirdy
*How come not one gay person I know made a choice to be gay? How come all of them say something to the effect that they always knew something was different about them.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on! You never felt different? I never did? It's called self- awareness. Understanding one's uniqueness is a central part of the common human experience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:
Should the law be able to treat Reebok owners different from Nike owners?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only if either uses their shoes in the furtherance of sexual perversion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:
*Will of the electorate means nothing to a court. The majority should not be able to oppress a minority, even if the majority expressly consents. Back when segregation was declared unconstitution a lot of people brought up the same arguements you are now. I'm not trying to group you in with those people but there is a point to be learned. Majoritarian whims cannot circumvent constitutitional protections for minority groups.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're comparing apples and oranges. Human rights must be defended. This does not afford constitutional protection to immoral, destructive behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:
There is a reason many judges are given life tenure - it is to avoid the wrath of the majority. When politicians make decisions that turn out to be unpopular, voters can kick the politician out of office. Judges are insulated from this - so that they can make tough decisions without regard for the mobs of protestors outside the courtroom. A judiciary another way would be a mere rubber stamp for the legislative whims.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your choice of terms is interesting. Majoritorian whims. Legislative whims. Yeah, what the hell. We're only talking about a supposedly self-governing people and their duly elected representatives. What protection do we have against judiciary whims?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:
So, you still haven't given a compelling reason for the govt to ban gay marriages other than the fact that most people don't want it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, you're quite right. And I'm certainly not one to question the wisdom of our founding fathers. However, they clearly believed that the appointment of judges would be carried out by statesmen who appreciated the gravity of their actions. I'm no legal scholar, as you've doubtless surmised. But all I have to do is look around me to see that the judiciary is out of control, and is trying to circumvent the will of the American people by forcing a liberal social agenda down their throats.

A quote from US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer: " The US Constitution will need to evolve in order to fit with the documents of other nations." Doesn't it sound like something is out of whack here? As further proof of the wisdom of our founding fathers, I recall a phrase that said when the actions of a government become intolerable, it becomes "The right and the duty of the people to alter or abolish it."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:
And Bork, you forgot his Saturday Night Massacre. That's why a lot of people don't like him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't rightly give a shit whether a lot of people like Bork or not. His is a courageous voice of reason; he is a tireless defender of the US Constitution.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

can heterosexuality be immoral and destructive if practiced a certain way?