Gay Marriage a Symptom, Not a Disease

[The ClayTaurus]

You seem to be missing the point. We wouldnt be raising it if the left wasnt trying to freaking force it on us to begin with.

No, you seem to be missing the point. Either it's more important than the WOT and all the other stuff Hobbit was talking about, or it's not. If it's not, then the massive effort being spent on it is misplaced. You're saying "oh well if no one made a stink about it, it wouldn't be such an issue."

Well no shit! If terrorists didn't bomb us, terrorism wouldn't be such an issue. If everyone was rich, we wouldn't have to worry about the poor! If schools didn't suck, we wouldn't have to make them sucking such a big issue!

You can't treat something like the most important issue of the day, and then say "we have more important things to focus on." Well, I guess you can, but it seems silly to me.

 

[jasendorf]

Tell me how much more in violation of every constitutional principle regarding the separation of powers, the strict, specific limitations on the power of central government, and the devolution of power away from central government and to the people, we could get than a national policy on abortion - by judicial fiat.

The same way Rush Limbaugh can hide his drug transactions from prosecutors... but I digress...

But, if you want to battle for a state by state referendum on Abortion... go right ahead. Are you saying that you have to fight against Gay Marriage because of abortion?

Either you're for states' rights or you're against them. I'd be happy to have the states take on the issue of abortion...

 

[jasendorf]

since when has a government by the people been an authoritarian theocracy?

When the people choose to let it be so. Link to FOX news for more information on how the people can choose an authoritarian theocracy

Lets think about this:

Republicans want the people to have a say in their laws and government.

Democrats want judges to make engrain their pet issues into society by circumventing the people.

So who is supporting an authoritarian government?

So, you're opposed to Brown v. Board of Education? I get it.

When the USSC decides on cases and their Constitutionality... you then get to decide if they really did their job... because, uh, you're smarter then them... uh, or something...

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Why can't the things that actually matter get taken care of first?

same sex marriage is a very important issue.

Same sex marriage will be a further eroding of supporting strong families.
Liberals like to say how much divorce there is already, so what wrong with same sex marriage?
Thats like saying, half my house is on fire, so why shouldnt you allow me to pour gasoline on the rest of it?
and the fire that currently exists (high divorce rate) is mainly due to liberals instituting of no fault divorce.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

same sex marriage is a very important issue.

Same sex marriage will be a further eroding of supporting strong families.
Liberals like to say how much divorce there is already, so what wrong with same sex marriage?
Thats like saying, half my house is on fire, so why shouldnt you allow me to pour gasoline on the rest of it?
and the fire that currently exists (high divorce rate) is mainly due to liberals instituting of no fault divorce.

Fine by me. Just say it's important then.

 

[musicman]

Tell me how much more in violation of every constitutional principle regarding the separation of powers, the strict, specific limitations on the power of central government, and the devolution of power away from central government and to the people, we could get than a national policy on abortion - by judicial fiat.

The same way Rush Limbaugh can hide his drug transactions from prosecutors...

OK - your replies are descending deeper and deeper into dementia; you've lost contact with reality. This has no relevance to any point, anywhere. I thought you insinuated that you got bounced out of DU; it sounds like you need to sneak back there and recharge your batteries. Take a deep breath. Find your center. Focus your thoughts on a lame, idiotic liberal talking point; cling to it as you would a life raft...

Problem is that the Republicans hate the judiciary because the Judiciary is what keeps them from having the authoritarion theocracy they so desire.

There...isn't that better?

Either you're for states' rights or you're against them. I'd be happy to have the states take on the issue of abortion...

No, you wouldn't. The Supreme Court has already answered the question to your satisfaction; you said so yourself.

 

[jasendorf]

The supposed right to privacy which Rush Limbaugh based the protection of his medical records upon are the same rights upons which abortion is based. Completely and wholly relevant.

And, btw, a ruling doesn't prevent a state from passing any laws. The State of South Dakota proved that a couple months ago. They banned abortion.

Louisiana banned abortion today.

If there's a federal law in place allowing abortion... how are these states banning abortion?

But it's nice to watch you attempt to distract from gay marriage with an abortion deflection.

 

[musicman]

The supposed right to privacy which Rush Limbaugh based the protection of his medical records upon are the same rights upons which abortion is based. Completely and wholly relevant.

"Supposed" - that's an interesting choice of words. It sounds almost as if you consider this "right" a fabrication - a judicial fantasy.

And, btw, a ruling doesn't prevent a state from passing any laws. The State of South Dakota proved that a couple months ago. They banned abortion.

Louisiana banned abortion today.

If there's a federal law in place allowing abortion... how are these states banning abortion?

Then, the stage is set for the principal constitutional battle of our age. Which side are you on?

But it's nice to watch you attempt to distract from gay marriage with an abortion deflection.

The core issue in either debate is the size and scope of federal government. Do me a favor - get a few more posts under your belt before you start dictating USMB policy, mmmk?

 

[Avatar4321]

No, you seem to be missing the point. Either it's more important than the WOT and all the other stuff Hobbit was talking about, or it's not. If it's not, then the massive effort being spent on it is misplaced. You're saying "oh well if no one made a stink about it, it wouldn't be such an issue."

Well no shit! If terrorists didn't bomb us, terrorism wouldn't be such an issue. If everyone was rich, we wouldn't have to worry about the poor! If schools didn't suck, we wouldn't have to make them sucking such a big issue!

You can't treat something like the most important issue of the day, and then say "we have more important things to focus on." Well, I guess you can, but it seems silly to me.

Again you seem to be missing the point. We wouldnt be dealing with the gay marriage issue if the left wasnt trying to force it on us right now. It shouldnt be an issue because most of the country agrees that gays should not be allowed to marry.

But if you are trying to say its not important to protect marriage and the republican government was have as you know it, you are completely wrong. Marriage is a fundamental institution in society. Messing with it will create large and long term problems in society. What the heck is the point of winning the war on terror if the society we are trying to preserve gets screwed up by ignoring other important matters?

 

[Avatar4321]

The supposed right to privacy which Rush Limbaugh based the protection of his medical records upon are the same rights upons which abortion is based. Completely and wholly relevant.

And, btw, a ruling doesn't prevent a state from passing any laws. The State of South Dakota proved that a couple months ago. They banned abortion.

Louisiana banned abortion today.

If there's a federal law in place allowing abortion... how are these states banning abortion?

But it's nice to watch you attempt to distract from gay marriage with an abortion deflection.

No Rush's claim for protection of medical records were based on the Fourth amendment. The "right to privacy" upon which Abortion is based on comes from Griswold v. Connecticut which creates a general right to privacy in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due process clause. They arent at all the same. One claim is based on the words of an actual amendmenet. The other is based on a judicial activists interpretation of a cause that doesnt mention privacy at all.

The states are banning abortion but the laws are going to be struck down if the "right" found in Roe and Planned Parenthood is allowed to stand. The states have explicitly written the laws to challenge those decisions.

its nice to watch you try to argue constitutional issues, but you really need to study a bit more to be succesful.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Again you seem to be missing the point. We wouldnt be dealing with the gay marriage issue if the left wasnt trying to force it on us right now. It shouldnt be an issue because most of the country agrees that gays should not be allowed to marry.

Oh I understand your point just fine. The problem is it's a fallacious argument. There is a significant majority of the country in agreement on a plethora of different issues. Does that make them all not-important? Most of us agree that gang violence is bad, yet those silly gangs keep forcing their gang violence on us. Of course it wouldn't be an issue if the gangs would just stop. Nothing is an issue if there is no issue!

But if you are trying to say its not important to protect marriage and the republican government was have as you know it, you are completely wrong. Marriage is a fundamental institution in society. Messing with it will create large and long term problems in society. What the heck is the point of winning the war on terror if the society we are trying to preserve gets screwed up by ignoring other important matters?

I don't care if you say it is or it isn't important. Just make up your mind. If its important, than fine. But don't go saying "there's more important things to attend to" unless you're willing to agree that therefore the efforts on gay marriage are being misplaced.

It looks silly to spend all this effort on not allowing gay marriage and then turn around and say "if only we could move on and deal with more pressing issues." If there's more pressing issues, deal with them NOW!

Man! If I could just take care of this hang nail, I could get around to healing my broken arm!

I don't care if gay marriage is the hang nail or the broken arm to you, but lets just agree that the broken arm needs to get the attention first, and it's stupid to look at the hang nail all while bitching about how its holding you up from looking at your arm.

 

[jasendorf]

"Supposed" - that's an interesting choice of words. It sounds almost as if you consider this "right" a fabrication - a judicial fantasy.

Then, the stage is set for the principal constitutional battle of our age. Which side are you on?

The core issue in either debate is the size and scope of federal government. Do me a favor - get a few more posts under your belt before you start dictating USMB policy, mmmk?

Don't get in a tizzy because I called you on your deflection technic... it was a masterful played move. Obviously losing on the the debate over gay marriage? Switch gears and move to abortion. Nice work.

I'll admit, I find it funny when people ignore the right to privacy when they want one outcome (seeing Rush Limbaugh's medical records be rummaged through) and then crying bloody murder when they have a different desired outcome (being allowed to have an abortion) (and vice versa for that matter). Same goes for the volleyball people turn "Free Speech" into. They'll scream bloody murder if you try to call giving money to a political candidate anything other than "speech"... but try and burn a flag and suddenly that's an "action"? (and, once again, vice versa)

I think abortion should be legal in every state... and, I think that outlawing it in any particular state will turn that state into a ghost town (south Dakota didn't have to worry about that possibility since it already is a ghost town). Leave it to the States. Fine by me.

"Supposed" is the proper word if you ask me... it's not in the Constitution, but it is in the case law. And to assume that law only exists in laws is to ignore our system of Justice which has (eventually) ended up with some pretty good stuff. Then again, since it isn't in the Constitution, that means that Congress has no power to restrict our right to privacy... and our right to marry for that matter... the Constitution tells the branches what they can do, not what we can't do... and it explicitly says so in the 10th Amendment.


Now... the USSC "making laws" and "legislating from the bench"... explain to me how South Dakota and Louisiana were able to pass laws banning abortion if what you said was true.

 

[Hobbit]

At this point I'd like interject this epiphany I had. If anybody in Congress actually cared about the sanctity of marriage, then how come nobody's even suggested repealing laws allowing no fault divorce. While gay marriage would indeed tarnish the institution, I think it would be to a far lesser extent than no fault divorce did. Imagine what Hollywood would be like if there were statute defined conditions under which a divorce was allowable, none of which included such lame excuses "He just doesn't make me happy anymore," "We got tired of each other," and Oprah's infamous "The love ran out." Maybe people would think twice about marrying some airheaded "f***buddy" if they knew they'd be stuck with that person far after age had taken away all of their attractive qualities.

 

[jillian]

At this point I'd like interject this epiphany I had. If anybody in Congress actually cared about the sanctity of marriage, then how come nobody's even suggested repealing laws allowing no fault divorce. While gay marriage would indeed tarnish the institution, I think it would be to a far lesser extent than no fault divorce did. Imagine what Hollywood would be like if there were statute defined conditions under which a divorce was allowable, none of which included such lame excuses "He just doesn't make me happy anymore," "We got tired of each other," and Oprah's infamous "The love ran out." Maybe people would think twice about marrying some airheaded "f***buddy" if they knew they'd be stuck with that person far after age had taken away all of their attractive qualities.

might be a better idea if everyone just governed their own lives according to their own beliefs and stopped trying to legislate relationships. No fault divorce is actually better in the long run than forcing people to say terrible things about each other in court. Having to substantiate allegations of emotional/physical abuse or abandonment/constructive abandonment or adultery simply makes the process nastier and makes it more difficult for the couple to move on after and do what's right for the children of the marriage.

 

[CockySOB]

Does anyone see a need to cherry pick when the Constitution says the judiciary has the final say?

You failed to respond the last time I provided you instruction, so perhaps you'll avoid this instance as well.

The judiciary does NOT have the final say. Are you that frellin' daft? The judiciary has the authority to decide cases based on existing law, or in the case of SCOTUS, to determine the Constitutionality of a law. That does NOT make the the final say. When a law fails the Constitutionality test, Congress has every right to go back and revisit the wording of the legislation, and the executive branch gets a chance to approve the revision. then the judiciary gets its chance to provide input on the law. It's a never-ending cycle you pea-brained twit. The three branches should be separate but equal in power, and when they each exercise their power and authority properly, the system works. However, we have seen judicial activists whose rulings exceed the scope of judicial power and intrude on the exercise of Congressional power by effectively writing legislation from the bench.

BTW, the "separate but equal" part precludes any one branch from having the "final say" in case you were needing it spelled out, and my money says you do....

 

[Abbey Normal]

At this point I'd like interject this epiphany I had. If anybody in Congress actually cared about the sanctity of marriage, then how come nobody's even suggested repealing laws allowing no fault divorce. While gay marriage would indeed tarnish the institution, I think it would be to a far lesser extent than no fault divorce did. Imagine what Hollywood would be like if there were statute defined conditions under which a divorce was allowable, none of which included such lame excuses "He just doesn't make me happy anymore," "We got tired of each other," and Oprah's infamous "The love ran out." Maybe people would think twice about marrying some airheaded "f***buddy" if they knew they'd be stuck with that person far after age had taken away all of their attractive qualities.

Hobbit, the divorce rate may decline, but the murder rate may go up. :bangheads

 

[jillian]

You failed to respond the last time I provided you instruction, so perhaps you'll avoid this instance as well.

The judiciary does NOT have the final say. Are you that frellin' daft? The judiciary has the authority to decide cases based on existing law, or in the case of SCOTUS, to determine the Constitutionality of a law. That does NOT make the the final say. When a law fails the Constitutionality test, Congress has every right to go back and revisit the wording of the legislation, and the executive branch gets a chance to approve the revision. then the judiciary gets its chance to provide input on the law. It's a never-ending cycle you pea-brained twit. The three branches should be separate but equal in power, and when they each exercise their power and authority properly, the system works. However, we have seen judicial activists whose rulings exceed the scope of judicial power and intrude on the exercise of Congressional power by effectively writing legislation from the bench.

BTW, the "separate but equal" part precludes any one branch from having the "final say" in case you were needing it spelled out, and my money says you do....

That's actually a pretty fair assessment. The judiciary has the final say on a given piece of legislation or government action, but government can then always modify to try to find a constitutional solution.

I disagree with you about the "court writing legislation". I think judges on both sides of the spectrum are "activist" in the sense that they shape things to suit their political philosophy. They always have ... and to say otherwise is kind of wearing blinders. And if one assumes that under normal circumstances, the court is not to interfere with legislative action except under extraordinary circumstances, and one defines activism as the frequency with which a particular justice votes to overturn legislative action, then "conservatives" Justices are far more "activist" than so-called "liberal" justices.

Hint... Thomas has voted to overturn legislative enactments more than any other justice on the Court; Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the least number of times.

 

[musicman]

Don't get in a tizzy because I called you on your deflection technic... it was a masterful played move. Obviously losing on the the debate over gay marriage? Switch gears and move to abortion. Nice work.

This is tragic, jasendorf. My initial assessment was wrong; you've shot right past divorcement from reality, and are rushing headlong toward drooling irrationality. Would you mind telling me how I could be losing a debate whose topic Ive not even ADDRESSED, beyond its relevance to the size and scope of federal government? What color is the sky in your world?

I'd comment on the rest of your post, but Avatar4321 and CockySOB have demolished your ramblings so completely, I'm not finding an awful lot to do.

 

[CockySOB]

That's actually a pretty fair assessment. The judiciary has the final say on a given piece of legislation or government action, but government can then always modify to try to find a constitutional solution.

That'd be me, fair, balanced and right!

I disagree with you about the "court writing legislation". I think judges on both sides of the spectrum are "activist" in the sense that they shape things to suit their political philosophy. They always have ... and to say otherwise is kind of wearing blinders. And if one assumes that under normal circumstances, the court is not to interfere with legislative action except under extraordinary circumstances, and one defines activism as the frequency with which a particular justice votes to overturn legislative action, then "conservatives" Justices are far more "activist" than so-called "liberal" justices.

You disagree, yet you come out and say that judges on both sides of the political aisle are "activist." Which is it honey? Or are you simply reading stuff into my post that isn't there? I want strict Constitutionalists on the Federal bench, and not activists from either side of the aisle.

Hint... Thomas has voted to overturn legislative enactments more than any other justice on the Court; Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the least number of times.

And now you show a lack of understanding of what judicial activism is. Overturning a legislative enactment is not implicitly an activist action. Legislation can be overturned or set aside because it fails to meet Constitutional muster. Your claim regarding Thomas and Ginsberg are non sequiter at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Back to the thread topic now. Constitutionally, the issue of homosexual marriage should be left as a matter for each State legislature to decide as the issue of marriage licences is the jurisdiction of the State. The Federal Codes only visit the issue of marriage in a few instances (taxes being the most prominent) and the specifics of what constitutes a marriage are not contained within the Federal codes. My personal preference is for a total rewritie of the tax codes in a flat tax format, which would likely include the removal of all mention of marriage from the Federal tax codes and removing the issue of marriage from Federal jurisdiction entirely. But that's me, a minimalist of a Federalist.

 

[jillian]

That'd be me, fair, balanced and right!

you mean.... right wing, no?

You disagree, yet you come out and say that judges on both sides of the political aisle are "activist." Which is it honey? Or are you simply reading stuff into my post that isn't there? I want strict Constitutionalists on the Federal bench, and not activists from either side of the aisle.

I disagreed with your assessment that only liberals are "activist" and "write legislation" with their decisions. Didn't have to read anything into your post, snookums.

And now you show a lack of understanding of what judicial activism is. Overturning a legislative enactment is not implicitly an activist action. Legislation can be overturned or set aside because it fails to meet Constitutional muster.

I don't lack "understanding", hon. What you aren't admitting is that you define activism as the Court doing anything you don't like. The Court overturning the act of a co-equal branch of government is activist.

Your claim regarding Thomas and Ginsberg are non sequiter at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Non sequitur....because you have no response.

Not intellectually nor factually dishonest...Intellectual dishonesty is turning oneself into a pretzel to try to justify every activist act which doesn't suit your political pov and disavow those which don;t.

You don't get to toss around terms in a derrogatory fashion and leave them undefined.

Back to the thread topic now. Constitutionally, the issue of homosexual marriage should be left as a matter for each State legislature to decide as the issue of marriage licences is the jurisdiction of the State. The Federal Codes only visit the issue of marriage in a few instances (taxes being the most prominent) and the specifics of what constitutes a marriage are not contained within the Federal codes. My personal preference is for a total rewritie of the tax codes in a flat tax format, which would likely include the removal of all mention of marriage from the Federal tax codes and removing the issue of marriage from Federal jurisdiction entirely. But that's me, a minimalist of a Federalist.

Back to the thread topic? lol...funny you just moved on to the tax codes.