All Eyes On 6th District Appeals Court For Polygamy/gay Marriage/adoption

[JakeStarkey]

Sil's definitions are different than the norm, so take that into consideration. What she believes to be "fascism" concerning this issue as the courts and governments work out marriage equality certainly is no definition of fascism.

The feds are letting the states work out marriage within the guidance of SCOTUS.

NC will fall in line by the end of next week at the latest, and Sil continue complaining after every state is in the fold.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil's definitions are different than the norm, so take that into consideration. What she believes to be "fascism" concerning this issue as the courts and governments work out marriage equality certainly is no definition of fascism.

The feds are letting the states work out marriage within the guidance of SCOTUS.

NC will fall in line by the end of next week at the latest, and Sil continue complaining after every state is in the fold.

Translation, a few dudes in black robes are dictating to majorities in the tens of millions in the various states that they cannot set standards for marriage for themselves. Marriage is the bedrock of any society. Which behaviors may or may not be married actually defines bedrock norms of a society. That definition is being actively removed from the majority's power to self-govern.

Tell me again how this isn't fascism, de facto?....and of the most insidious and potent kind..?

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is the bedrock of any society. Which behaviors may or may not be married actually defines bedrock norms of a society. That definition is being actively removed from the majority's power to self-govern.

And gay marriage in no way effects straight marriages. Every straight marriage is still valid. Every right that straights enjoy before gay marriage they enjoy after.

Its not like marriage is a finite resource, where a bright eyed young man and woman are going to be turned away from the courthouse on their wedding day because they gays got the last of it. And no rational reason to deny gays and lesbians their place in the union. As they fulfill every requirement of marriage. And can share in its benefits.

Tell me again how this isn't fascism, de facto?....and of the most insidious and potent kind..?

Because it doesn't involve dictatorship, state sanctioned racism, belligerent nationalism, violent suppression of political opposition and the press, and strict economic controls. While fascism does.

Alas, words have actual meanings that are autonomous of you.

 

[Skylar]

Sil's definitions are different than the norm, so take that into consideration. What she believes to be "fascism" concerning this issue as the courts and governments work out marriage equality certainly is no definition of fascism.

The feds are letting the states work out marriage within the guidance of SCOTUS.

NC will fall in line by the end of next week at the latest, and Sil continue complaining after every state is in the fold.

The SCOTUS could be allowing the lower courts to define the issue in practice, while leaving the issue of the constitutionality of gay marriage bans nebulous in theory.....as a definitive SCOTUS ruling may have implications for the Federal/State relationship that make some USSC members uncomfortable.

They've upheld every single lower court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans. But have never actually addressed the issue directly.

 

[Silhouette]

And gay marriage in no way effects straight marriages. Every straight marriage is still valid. Every right that straights enjoy before gay marriage they enjoy after.

You must have skimmed my last post because you missed the point germane to what you just said. I didn't say gay marriage harms straight marriage. I said society not being able to set norms for itself in behaviors, the bedrock of which is marriage, is ripping away a discreet community's right to self-rule by majority.

This isn't about race. It isn't about what "harm" will be done to existing straight marriages. It's about what collective-harm will be done to society over time by enshrining a new bedrock of marriage that includes...LGBT? And what else again? Well one thing's for sure, the "what else" will no longer be able to be determined by the majority..

 

[Skylar]

You must have skimmed my last post because you missed the point germane to what you just said. I didn't say gay marriage harms straight marriage. I said society not being able to set norms for itself in behaviors, the bedrock of which is marriage, is ripping away a discreet community's right to self-rule by majority.

Society is able to set norms for itself. And the court is the mechanism we've chosen to set the boundaries on rights. The idea that the people can't vote away the rights of the individual is a pretty bedrock principle...and has been since the 14th amendment was passed.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And gay marriage in no way effects straight marriages. Every straight marriage is still valid. Every right that straights enjoy before gay marriage they enjoy after.

You must have skimmed my last post because you missed the point germane to what you just said. I didn't say gay marriage harms straight marriage. I said society not being able to set norms for itself in behaviors, the bedrock of which is marriage, is ripping away a discreet community's right to self-rule by majority.

This isn't about race. It isn't about what "harm" will be done to existing straight marriages. It's about what collective-harm will be done to society over time by enshrining a new bedrock of marriage that includes...LGBT? And what else again? Well one thing's for sure, the "what else" will no longer be able to be determined by the majority..

By specific design, according to the Constitution, "the majority" in this country determines elections of officials, and nothing else.

 

[Kosh]

And gay marriage in no way effects straight marriages. Every straight marriage is still valid. Every right that straights enjoy before gay marriage they enjoy after.

You must have skimmed my last post because you missed the point germane to what you just said. I didn't say gay marriage harms straight marriage. I said society not being able to set norms for itself in behaviors, the bedrock of which is marriage, is ripping away a discreet community's right to self-rule by majority.

This isn't about race. It isn't about what "harm" will be done to existing straight marriages. It's about what collective-harm will be done to society over time by enshrining a new bedrock of marriage that includes...LGBT? And what else again? Well one thing's for sure, the "what else" will no longer be able to be determined by the majority..

By specific design, according to the Constitution, "the majority" in this country determines elections of officials, and nothing else.

Proof the far left does not understand the Constitution..

 

[Skylar]

And gay marriage in no way effects straight marriages. Every straight marriage is still valid. Every right that straights enjoy before gay marriage they enjoy after.

You must have skimmed my last post because you missed the point germane to what you just said. I didn't say gay marriage harms straight marriage. I said society not being able to set norms for itself in behaviors, the bedrock of which is marriage, is ripping away a discreet community's right to self-rule by majority.

This isn't about race. It isn't about what "harm" will be done to existing straight marriages. It's about what collective-harm will be done to society over time by enshrining a new bedrock of marriage that includes...LGBT? And what else again? Well one thing's for sure, the "what else" will no longer be able to be determined by the majority..

By specific design, according to the Constitution, "the majority" in this country determines elections of officials, and nothing else.

By design (at least at the federal level), the system originally allowed only direct election of House representatives. Senators, Presidents, judges and every cabinet member had nothing to do with the vote of the people.

On the state level, it varies. California, for example, has an initiative system that does allow direct voting on laws and amendments. But regardless of source of the legislation, the rights of minority can't simply be voted away.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And gay marriage in no way effects straight marriages. Every straight marriage is still valid. Every right that straights enjoy before gay marriage they enjoy after.

You must have skimmed my last post because you missed the point germane to what you just said. I didn't say gay marriage harms straight marriage. I said society not being able to set norms for itself in behaviors, the bedrock of which is marriage, is ripping away a discreet community's right to self-rule by majority.

This isn't about race. It isn't about what "harm" will be done to existing straight marriages. It's about what collective-harm will be done to society over time by enshrining a new bedrock of marriage that includes...LGBT? And what else again? Well one thing's for sure, the "what else" will no longer be able to be determined by the majority..

By specific design, according to the Constitution, "the majority" in this country determines elections of officials, and nothing else.

Proof the far left does not understand the Constitution..

Really?

Do you think we live in a Democracy?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And gay marriage in no way effects straight marriages. Every straight marriage is still valid. Every right that straights enjoy before gay marriage they enjoy after.

You must have skimmed my last post because you missed the point germane to what you just said. I didn't say gay marriage harms straight marriage. I said society not being able to set norms for itself in behaviors, the bedrock of which is marriage, is ripping away a discreet community's right to self-rule by majority.

This isn't about race. It isn't about what "harm" will be done to existing straight marriages. It's about what collective-harm will be done to society over time by enshrining a new bedrock of marriage that includes...LGBT? And what else again? Well one thing's for sure, the "what else" will no longer be able to be determined by the majority..

By specific design, according to the Constitution, "the majority" in this country determines elections of officials, and nothing else.

By design (at least at the federal level), the system originally allowed only direct election of House representatives. Senators, Presidents, judges and every cabinet member had nothing to do with the vote of the people.

On the state level, it varies. California, for example, has an initiative system that does allow direct voting on laws and amendments. But regardless of source of the legislation, the rights of minority can't simply be voted away.

Yep.

The fact that "Ballot Initiatives" exist anywhere is ridiculous, in my opinion. California is the worst about it, too.

 

[Kosh]

And gay marriage in no way effects straight marriages. Every straight marriage is still valid. Every right that straights enjoy before gay marriage they enjoy after.

You must have skimmed my last post because you missed the point germane to what you just said. I didn't say gay marriage harms straight marriage. I said society not being able to set norms for itself in behaviors, the bedrock of which is marriage, is ripping away a discreet community's right to self-rule by majority.

This isn't about race. It isn't about what "harm" will be done to existing straight marriages. It's about what collective-harm will be done to society over time by enshrining a new bedrock of marriage that includes...LGBT? And what else again? Well one thing's for sure, the "what else" will no longer be able to be determined by the majority..

By specific design, according to the Constitution, "the majority" in this country determines elections of officials, and nothing else.

Proof the far left does not understand the Constitution..

Really?

Do you think we live in a Democracy?

And the far left distracts..

However it is as it has always been throughout time, the political class vs the working class.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And gay marriage in no way effects straight marriages. Every straight marriage is still valid. Every right that straights enjoy before gay marriage they enjoy after.

You must have skimmed my last post because you missed the point germane to what you just said. I didn't say gay marriage harms straight marriage. I said society not being able to set norms for itself in behaviors, the bedrock of which is marriage, is ripping away a discreet community's right to self-rule by majority.

This isn't about race. It isn't about what "harm" will be done to existing straight marriages. It's about what collective-harm will be done to society over time by enshrining a new bedrock of marriage that includes...LGBT? And what else again? Well one thing's for sure, the "what else" will no longer be able to be determined by the majority..

By specific design, according to the Constitution, "the majority" in this country determines elections of officials, and nothing else.

Proof the far left does not understand the Constitution..

Really?

Do you think we live in a Democracy?

And the far left distracts..

However it is as it has always been throughout time, the political class vs the working class.

That's a very Marxist sort of thing to say, tovarisch.

 

[Kosh]

You must have skimmed my last post because you missed the point germane to what you just said. I didn't say gay marriage harms straight marriage. I said society not being able to set norms for itself in behaviors, the bedrock of which is marriage, is ripping away a discreet community's right to self-rule by majority.

This isn't about race. It isn't about what "harm" will be done to existing straight marriages. It's about what collective-harm will be done to society over time by enshrining a new bedrock of marriage that includes...LGBT? And what else again? Well one thing's for sure, the "what else" will no longer be able to be determined by the majority..

By specific design, according to the Constitution, "the majority" in this country determines elections of officials, and nothing else.

Proof the far left does not understand the Constitution..

Really?

Do you think we live in a Democracy?

And the far left distracts..

However it is as it has always been throughout time, the political class vs the working class.

That's a very Marxist sort of thing to say, tovarisch.

And one again the far left distracts and shows another thing they do not know anything about...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil's definitions are different than the norm, so take that into consideration. What she believes to be "fascism" concerning this issue as the courts and governments work out marriage equality certainly is no definition of fascism.

The feds are letting the states work out marriage within the guidance of SCOTUS.

NC will fall in line by the end of next week at the latest, and Sil continue complaining after every state is in the fold.

Translation, a few dudes in black robes are dictating to majorities in the tens of millions in the various states that they cannot set standards for marriage for themselves. Marriage is the bedrock of any society. Which behaviors may or may not be married actually defines bedrock norms of a society. That definition is being actively removed from the majority's power to self-govern.

Tell me again how this isn't fascism, de facto?....and of the most insidious and potent kind..?

You are in company with Jackson who hated what he saw as an ultra nationalistic court and with Roosevelt who believed the court was uber conservative.

Can't have Jacksonian democracy forcing judges' accountability to political parties. Surest way to party dictatorship.

We have a lot of that in ultra conservative Utah.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And gay marriage in no way effects straight marriages. Every straight marriage is still valid. Every right that straights enjoy before gay marriage they enjoy after.

You must have skimmed my last post because you missed the point germane to what you just said. I didn't say gay marriage harms straight marriage. I said society not being able to set norms for itself in behaviors, the bedrock of which is marriage, is ripping away a discreet community's right to self-rule by majority.

This isn't about race. It isn't about what "harm" will be done to existing straight marriages. It's about what collective-harm will be done to society over time by enshrining a new bedrock of marriage that includes...LGBT? And what else again? Well one thing's for sure, the "what else" will no longer be able to be determined by the majority..

By specific design, according to the Constitution, "the majority" in this country determines elections of officials, and nothing else.

Proof the far left does not understand the Constitution..

Proof why we can't have far right politics defining the boundaries of what is good for America.

 

[Silhouette]

Yep.

The fact that "Ballot Initiatives" exist anywhere is ridiculous, in my opinion. California is the worst about it, too.

Yes, how completely silly it is for citizens to cast votes in order to self-rule! What does California think this country is? A democracy?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I happen to agree with Sil that ballot initiatives, a great progressive tool, are good things in making sure neither far right nor far left good out of hand.

However, no successful initiative can impede on SCOTUS' Constitutional rulings.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, how completely silly it is for citizens to cast votes in order to self-rule! What does California think this country is? A democracy?

Citizens can't vote away the rights of their fellow citizens. Its just not an authority they possess.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, how completely silly it is for citizens to cast votes in order to self-rule! What does California think this country is? A democracy?

Citizens can't vote away the rights of their fellow citizens. Its just not an authority they possess.

They can if they're about behaviors repugnant to the majority. Where in the constitution is sodomy expressly protected? Compulsive theft? Drug addiction? Rape?

Decriminalizing sodomy in Lawrence v Texas did not rewrite the constitution to say sodomy is specially protected behavior. It's legal to smoke cigarettes too. Just not everywhere all the time. A majority votes to say where and when your cigarette smoking is allowed or not allowed.