The Left Thinks Legally, The Right Thinks Morally?

[007]

was the law banning gay marriage ignored or declared illegal and unconstitutional? If it was, then the judges in question did their job. If they ignored the law without declaring it illegal or unconstitutional, then you would have my agreement in saying that they ruled against the law illegally.

Ruling against precedent or trying to rewrite laws from the bench is what you conservatives have called judicial activism, is it not? Then how is what judge owens did any different?

But I'm not talking about judicial activism. THAT is LEGAL. Although maybe not much better, one way or the other, it's still LEGAL.

 

[DKSuddeth]

But I'm not talking about judicial activism. THAT is LEGAL. Although maybe not much better, one way or the other, it's still LEGAL.

then you'll need to show what liberal judge broke what law by making a ruling WITHOUT saying it was unconstitutional. Otherwise, it would be judicial activism, which apparently is legal but frowned upon by the right wing when its done by liberal judges.

 

[007]

then you'll need to show what liberal judge broke what law by making a ruling WITHOUT saying it was unconstitutional. Otherwise, it would be judicial activism, which apparently is legal but frowned upon by the right wing when its done by liberal judges.

Nope. Wrong again DK. You've TWISTED until what you're saying is bunk.

You say if a judge, OVER STEPS THE LAW, but says, THE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, somehow that means he is no longer breaking the law with a simple statement? "JUDGES" can't AMEND the CONSTITUTION from the BENCH!!! And when LIBERAL judges declared homosexual marriage LEGAL, THEY WERE BREAKING THE LAW!!!

FUCK MAN, if you can't see that, you're one dense individual.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Nope. Wrong again DK. You've TWISTED until what you're saying is bunk.

You say if a judge, OVER STEPS THE LAW, but says, THE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, somehow that means he is no longer breaking the law with a simple statement? "JUDGES" can't AMEND the CONSTITUTION from the BENCH!!! And when LIBERAL judges declared homosexual marriage LEGAL, THEY WERE BREAKING THE LAW!!!

FUCK MAN, if you can't see that, you're one dense individual.

afraid not, I said the same thing you said, just used a case example that didn't favor you, whereas you used a case example that favored you. Funny how when it doesn't do what you want it to do, then its illegal.

 

[007]

afraid not, I said the same thing you said, just used a case example that didn't favor you, whereas you used a case example that favored you. Funny how when it doesn't do what you want it to do, then its illegal.

Fact is, the case you used didn't show that judge broke the law. Nothing funny about it.

You failed to show me a conservative judge that did anything so blantantly and colosally against the law as the liberal judges did with homosexual marriage.

I win, and rest my case.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Fact is, the case you used didn't show that judge broke the law. Nothing funny about it.

You failed to show me a conservative judge that did anything so blantantly and colosally against the law as the liberal judges did with homosexual marriage.

I win, and rest my case.

you didn't win shit. you didn't show me where a judge allowed gay marriage when it was constitutionally banned.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Libs use law to subvert the institutions and values that made our country great, conservatives use law to try to reinforce them. That's my dos equis. Woops, I mean two cents.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Libs use law to subvert the institutions and values that made our country great, conservatives use law to try to reinforce them. That's my dos equis. Woops, I mean two cents.

dos equis? 24 more hours, 24 more hours, I'm going on vacation, going on vacation.

 

[007]

you didn't win shit. you didn't show me where a judge allowed gay marriage when it was constitutionally banned.

This fucking court went AGAINST the STATES CONSTITUTION, and ruled it UNCONSTITUTIONAL which it had NO FUCKING POWER TO DO. Courts are supposed to UPHOLD the WRITTEN FUCKING LAW! What they did was ILLEGAL!!! FUCKING ILLEGAL!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/


Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional



(CNN) -- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to marry, ruling Tuesday that government attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right.

In a 4-3 ruling, the court gave the Massachusetts state Legislature six months to rewrite the state's marriage laws for the benefit of gay couples.

The ruling by the court on the Massachusetts Constitution could set new legal ground, and drew quick reaction from advocates on both sides of the issue. Massachusetts' governor immediately denounced Tuesday's decision and said he would work for a constitutional amendment to overturn it. But an openly gay U.S. congressman from the state said the amendment couldn't come before the voters before 2006, and by that time same-sex marriages will be law.

President Bush waded into the debate with a statement criticizing the ruling.

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said. "Today's decision ... violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

Bush stopped short of saying he would support an effort by some Republicans in Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, which would trump the Massachusetts court.

Analysts said the state Legislature could write laws legalizing same-sex marriages, or it could do nothing and let Tuesday's ruling go forward. Same-sex marriage opponents could also appeal Tuesday's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court during the next six months.

Vermont is the only state in the United States that allows same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Vermont calls them civil unions, rather than marriage. California's State Assembly recently passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but it stops short of allowing gays to marry. (States determine marriage laws)

 

[rtwngAvngr]

dos equis? 24 more hours, 24 more hours, I'm going on vacation, going on vacation.

Awesome!

 

[007]

dos equis? 24 more hours, 24 more hours, I'm going on vacation, going on vacation.

You may not believe this DK but, HAVE A GOOD ONE BUB!!!

 

[Merlin1047]

dos equis? 24 more hours, 24 more hours, I'm going on vacation, going on vacation.

PLEASE tell me that you're NOT going to California!!

 

[DKSuddeth]

This fucking court went AGAINST the STATES CONSTITUTION, and ruled it UNCONSTITUTIONAL which it had NO FUCKING POWER TO DO. Courts are supposed to UPHOLD the WRITTEN FUCKING LAW! What they did was ILLEGAL!!! FUCKING ILLEGAL!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/


Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Its massachusetts for crying out loud, you expect me to logically explain a states decision that would keep kennedy and kerry for senators? NOBODY can do that!!!!!

 

[DKSuddeth]

You may not believe this DK but, HAVE A GOOD ONE BUB!!!

thanks. After the last few months, I need a good one.

 

[DKSuddeth]

PLEASE tell me that you're NOT going to California!!

Nope, going to the carribbean. Isla Mujeres, Mexico.

 

[007]

Its massachusetts for crying out loud, you expect me to logically explain a states decision that would keep kennedy and kerry for senators? NOBODY can do that!!!!!

Sorry... I should have realized that...

 

[Bonnie]

Its massachusetts for crying out loud, you expect me to logically explain a states decision that would keep kennedy and kerry for senators? NOBODY can do that!!!!!

And have a great vacation!!!

 

[Merlin1047]

www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/printdp20040921.shtml

within America itself--one must understand the vast diffrences between leftists and rightist worldviews and between secular and religious values.

One of the most important of these differences is their attitudes toward law. Generally speaking, the Left and the secularists venerate, if not worship, law. They put their faith in law--both national and international. Law is supreme good. for most on the Left, "Is it legal"? is usually the question that determines whether an action is right or wrong.

Obviously it is somewhat inaccurate to make a sweeping generalization of the right or the left because there are people of principle and conscience on both sides. Allow me to narrow the parameters a bit and let's talk about liberal secularists.

Liberal secularists are the folks who give me most of my heartburn, especially when that secularism is combined with atheism. These are the people who lack any significant degree of constancy in their moral or ethical beliefs. That is not to say that they are devoid of morals or ethics, it's just that to a liberal secular atheist, what is wrong today may be right tomorrow. Their frame of reference for morals or acceptable behavior is constantly being re-defined and therefore tends to become confused and inconsistent. Their frame of reference is based on the effect which the actions of others may have on them. Their basic philosphy is "if it's done between consenting adults, it's ok" and "as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others, it's ok".

Because secular atheists have no biblical constant to rely upon, the only standard which they can apply is the law of man to judge if any given act is right or wrong. We all know that the law is a transitory thing. What is acceptable in the eyes of the law today may well be illegal tomorrow and vice versa.

So I believe that it is a fair statement that someone who bases his value system on a religious foundation is more likely to view right and wrong in the context of justice and religious ethic. While liberal secularist atheists must rely on the question "Is it legal?" simply because they have no other standard by which they can measure.

 

[Merlin1047]

Nope, going to the carribbean. Isla Mujeres, Mexico.

Hmmm - would like to hear about that when you get back. Have a great trip. Don't get too sunburned - unless you want to.

 

[Bonnie]

Obviously it is somewhat inaccurate to make a sweeping generalization of the right or the left because there are people of principle and conscience on both sides. Allow me to narrow the parameters a bit and let's talk about liberal secularists.

Liberal secularists are the folks who give me most of my heartburn, especially when that secularism is combined with atheism. These are the people who lack any significant degree of constancy in their moral or ethical beliefs. That is not to say that they are devoid of morals or ethics, it's just that to a liberal secular atheist, what is wrong today may be right tomorrow. Their frame of reference for morals or acceptable behavior is constantly being re-defined and therefore tends to become confused and inconsistent. Their frame of reference is based on the effect which the actions of others may have on them. Their basic philosphy is "if it's done between consenting adults, it's ok" and "as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others, it's ok".

Because secular atheists have no biblical constant to rely upon, the only standard which they can apply is the law of man to judge if any given act is right or wrong. We all know that the law is a transitory thing. What is acceptable in the eyes of the law today may well be illegal tomorrow and vice versa.

So I believe that it is a fair statement that someone who bases his value system on a religious foundation is more likely to view right and wrong in the context of justice and religious ethic. While liberal secularist atheists must rely on the question "Is it legal?" simply because they have no other standard by which they can measure.

Wow I like the way you explained your point of view