So gay!!!

[One Brow]

"Consider the argument that homosexual conduct is immoral...To the extent that these reasons are religious, Judge Walker rejects them on the ground that it is impermissible to base public policy on religious ideas...Judge Walker discards all the secular moral arguments on the basis of a puzzling assertion, repeatedly made in the opinion, that moral disapproval is “not enough” to justify a public policy."

Putting a sentence back in, Nagel said: "Of course, not all moral arguments against homosexuality are religiously based. Judge Walker discards all the secular moral arguments on the basis of a puzzling assertion, repeatedly made in the opinion, that moral disapproval is “not enough” to justify a public policy."

Doea Nagel ever list these non-religious arguments against homosexuality? I have been waiting to see some presented for years. If Nagel claims such arguments exist, but does not produce them, that makes his position far less credible.

 

[Hopper]

So, when the governer sees a state provision that he believes contradicts a federal provision, it's his duty to follow the federal provision.

This is a recurring claim in this thread, and I find it very puzzling. It is not a Governor's duty to follow what he personally believes SHOULD be the law. It is to enforce the law, whether he personally agrees with it or not. No federal law has held that bans against gay marriage are illegal. Quite the contrary.

 

[One Brow]

This is a recurring claim in this thread, and I find it very puzzling. It is not a Governor's duty to follow what he personally believes SHOULD be the law. It is to enforce the law, whether he personally agrees with it or not. No federal law has held that bans against gay marriage are illegal. Quite the contrary.

Unless there is a conflict with the 14th Amendment, that is.

 

[Hopper]

I have been waiting to see some presented for years. If Nagel claims such arguments exist, but does not produce them, that makes his position far less credible.

Waiting for years? Hmmm, not looking, just waiting? It may never come, that way. I think what you're really saying here Eric, is that if you don't hold a particular moral value, then it must be no more than a religious doctrine, without any reasonable basis.

 

[Hopper]

Unless there is a conflict with the 14th Amendment, that is.

NO! Absolutely wrong. Unless THE COURTS HAVE FOUND a conflict, OK? Not "because there is" and the reason I say there "is" is because I personally believe there is, or "should" be. That is NOT a Governor's job or his right. It is in fact a blatant violation of his duties to take that position.

 

[One Brow]

Waiting for years? Hmmm, not looking, just waiting? It may never come, that way. I think what you're really saying here Eric, is that if you don't hold a particular moral value, then it must be no more than a religious doctrine, without any reasonable basis.

If you choose to actively look for evidence of arguments that you doubt are accurate, fine. However, I don't see you making a lot of posts that include the results of such research. As far as I'm concerned, it the responsibility of those who claim such secular arguments exist to produce them. Yes, I did note you made no such claim.

NO! Absolutely wrong. Unless THE COURTS HAVE FOUND a conflict, OK? Not "because there is" and the reason I say there "is" is because I personally believe there is. That is NOT a Governor's job or his right. It is in fact a blatant violation of his duties to take that position.

If the California legislature, or voting public, agrees with you, I beleive they can remove the governor from office. Outside of that, your position stikes me as convenient posturing.

 

[Hopper]

"Defense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. Under the law, also known as DOMA, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state (DOMA, Section 2); the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (DOMA, Section 3)."

The willingness, I should perhaps say zealous eagerness, with which lawlessness on grounds of subjective belief is advocated is somewhat disturbing.

 

[Hopper]

If the California legislature, or voting public, agrees with you, I beleive they can remove the governor from office. Outside of that, your position stikes me as convenient posturing.

If the governor, in a fit of anger, guns down several legislators who have opposed him, I believe he can be removed from office. Any claim that his lawlessness should in any other way be opposed or halted is merely convenient posturing.

 

[Hopper]

Give me an honest answer to this question, Eric:

Suppose the situation was reversed. Suppose the voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment making gay marriage a right. Suppose the Supreme Court upheld that amendment. Now suppose the Governor stated that he didn't agree with the voters or the court, and he thought federal courts would disagree too. Does this relieve him of the duty to uphold and defend the law?

 

[Hopper]

If you choose to actively look for evidence of arguments that you doubt are accurate, fine. However, I don't see you making a lot of posts that include the results of such research. As far as I'm concerned, it the responsibility of those who claim such secular arguments exist to produce them. Yes, I did note you made no such claim.

The law professor you dismiss was writing a short op-ed piece. They did not want 136 pages from him, but you criticize him for not going through the court opinion line by line it seems. His claim was merely this: "Judge Walker discards all the secular moral arguments on the basis of a puzzling assertion, repeatedly made in the opinion, that moral disapproval is “not enough” to justify a public policy."

Have you even read the opinion? Have you seen where the judge repeatedly claims that (non-religious) moral arguments are "not enough?"


The Bible says thou shall not kill. Does that make all legal proscriptions against murder, and any supposed "morality" they are based on, merely an attempt to "establish" a religion, contrary to the constitution?



One excerpt from the opinion, if you haven't read it:

"Conjecture, speculation, and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.”

1. Notice here that the judge does not say moral disapprobation IF it is founded upon religious belief is "not enough." He's saying any and all moral disapproval is insufficient, i.e., that moral beliefs have no place in law.

2. Whether one's moral beliefs are founded upon religious belief or not is irrelevant for constitutional purposes.

 

[One Brow]

"Defense of Marriage Act ..."

The willingness, I should perhaps say zealous eagerness, with which lawlessness on grounds of subjective belief is advocated is somewhat disturbing.

The Defense of Marriage Act would still be subordinate to the Constitution.

If the governor, in a fit of anger, guns down several legislators who have opposed him, I believe he can be removed from office. Any claim that his lawlessness should in any other way be opposed or halted is merely convenient posturing.

Because gunning down legislators is exactly like forming a reasoned opinion of the protections offered by the 14th Amendment.

Give me an honest answer to this question, Eric:

Suppose the situation was reversed. Suppose the voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment making gay marriage a right. Suppose the Supreme Court upheld that amendment. Now suppose the Governor stated that he didn't agree with the voters or the court, and he thought federal courts would disagree too. Does this relieve him of the duty to uphold and defend the law?

You mean, by testifying in favor of it or having his government defend the law he personally disagrees with? Yes, I think that governor should stay out of that battle.

For that matter, IIRC Iowa has legal marriage by a court decree. Let's say the governor is planning on appealing that decree. In the mean time, a clerk refuses to grant a marriage application. As long as the issue is in dispute, I support the right of the governor to refuse to discipline or remove that clerk until the case has been decided.

 

[One Brow]

Have you even read the opinion? Have you seen where the judge repeatedly claims that (non-religious) moral arguments are "not enough?"

I have not read the opinion. More to the point, I have not read the secualr arguments against homosexual marriage. I did not expect Nagel to procude a line-by-line criticism. I would like to see some evidence that, at some time, he (or anyone else) presented an legitimately secular argument against same-sex marriage (as opposed to marriage in general).

The Bible says thou shall not kill. Does that make all legal proscriptions against murder, and any supposed "morality" they are based on, merely an attempt to "establish" a religion, contrary to the constitution?

I believe you can find many secular reasons for prohibiting murder.