So gay!!!

[Hopper]

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

That goes without saying. It's been on the books for 15 years with no constiutional challenge. Why should the govenor's "belief" that federal law prohibits such legislation be determinative. The judge's refusal to acknowledge Supreme Court cases upholding discrimination against gay marriage has already been noted. Yet you still want to pretend that your (and Schwarzenegger's) contrary naked assertion makes the 14th amendment say otherwise. Again, the degree of solipisism advocated here is quite disturbing.

 

[Hopper]

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).

Since I merely added it to a post you have already read, you may have missed this, Eric:

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.

 

[Hopper]

You mean, by testifying in favor of it or having his government defend the law he personally disagrees with?

I thought I had already made it clear that his testimony about his personal opinions is not only irrelevant, but that it would be legally impermissible to introduce it into evidence. So, no, that's not what I mean, and I think you know that. Yes, I do mean he should honor his oath to uphold and defend the California constitution EVEN IF he "personally disagrees with it." I find it very curious that you should think otherwise. Did George Wallace have a duty to block the school door because he didn't personally believe in integration?

Suppose a citizen in Alabama filed a complaint against Wallace, with a known "friendly" (i.e. KKK leader) federal judge, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of civil rights laws on the ground that they were unconstitutional. Would you praise and approve of Alabama's deliberate default in such a case, just to get (at least temporarily) an excuse to violate federal civil rights laws and oppress blacks? Somehow, I doubt it.

 

[One Brow]

That goes without saying. It's been on the books for 15 years with no constiutional challenge. Why should the govenor's "belief" that federal law prohibits such legislation be determinative. The judge's refusal to acknowledge Supreme Court cases upholding discrimination against gay marriage has already been noted. Yet you still want to pretend that your (and Schwarzenegger's) contrary naked assertion makes the 14th amendment say otherwise. Again, the degree of solipisism advocated here is quite disturbing.

I don't mind if you are disturbed. Nor am I troubled by the 15 years, as most anti-miscegenation statues were on the books considerably longer than that. Did that make those stautes constitutional, or was it just the delay until bigotry had subsided enough to recognize the unconstitutionality? That's why the lack of a secular rationale is so important.

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.”

How is this a secular justificaton against gay marriage? Because it's unpopular? Surely you don't support the notion you can determine what is or is not correct by a majority, even an overwhelming majority of experts.

Yes, I do mean he should honor his oath to uphold and defend the California constitution EVEN IF he "personally disagrees with it." I find it very curious that you should think otherwise. Did George Wallace have a duty to block the school door because he didn't personally believe in integration?

So, you are equating 1) taking an official stance in a court case with taking exceutive action concerning the law, and 2) taking an active position as opposed to a passive position, and then you expect to grant the situations are so similar that my opinion on them can't be diametrically opposed?

Suppose a citizen in Alabama filed a complaint against Wallace, with a known "friendly" (i.e. KKK leader) federal judge, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of civil rights laws on the ground that they were unconstitutional. Would you praise and approve of Alabama's deliberate default in such a case, just to get (at least temporarily) an excuse to violate federal civil rights laws and oppress blacks? Somehow, I doubt it.

I also do not equate "praise and approve" with "support the right of".

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

I thought I had already made it clear that his testimony about his personal opinions is not only irrelevant, but that it would be legally impermissible to introduce it into evidence.

It would be legally permissible if you had the given means at sanctuary trial. His testimony is only as good as his witness.

So, no, that's not what I mean, and I think you know that. Yes, I do mean he should honor his oath to uphold and defend the California constitution EVEN IF he "personally disagrees with it." I find it very curious that you should think otherwise. Did George Wallace have a duty to block the school door because he didn't personally believe in integration?

George Wallace always has a duty to block the school door, regardless of his beliefs. A constitution is a piece of paper. A governor is a man.

Suppose a citizen in Alabama filed a complaint against Wallace, with a known "friendly" (i.e. KKK leader) federal judge, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of civil rights laws on the ground that they were unconstitutional. Would you praise and approve of Alabama's deliberate default in such a case, just to get (at least temporarily) an excuse to violate federal civil rights laws and oppress blacks? Somehow, I doubt it.

I'm going to ignore that you think KKK members are "friendly". The point is that I would indeed praise and approve of the state of Alabama for such a decision, but I would not approve of the means of which they made that decision nor the parties involved.

 

[Hopper]

How is this a secular justificaton against gay marriage? Because it's unpopular? Surely you don't support the notion you can determine what is or is not correct by a majority, even an overwhelming majority of experts.

The question is about morals, not secular vs religious" reasons," remember? No, I don't think "correctness" is determined by majority vote. That doesn't mean that if a majority vote elects Obama, but I still don't think it's the "correct" choice, that he should be removed from office either, though, ya know?

I also do not equate "praise and approve" with "support the right of".

Are you trying to say that you would "support the right of" Alabama' to deliberately default in such a case, just to get (at least temporarily) an excuse to violate federal civil rights laws and oppress blacks?

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

The question is about morals, not secular vs religious" reasons," remember? No, I don't think "correctness" is determined by majority vote. That doesn't mean that if a majority vote elects Obama, but I still don't think it's the "correct" choice, that he should be removed from office either, though, ya know?

Right, but if the majority vote elects Obama and he's against the constitution, then maybe you have a point. But no one man is against the consitution, he is not an idea. He is flesh and bone.

Are you trying to say that you would "support the right of" Alabama' to deliberately default in such a case, just to get (at least temporarily) an excuse to violate federal civil rights laws and oppress blacks?

I am saying that a deliberately defaulted doodle would mean diddly doing double denominations.

 

[Hopper]

Eric, suppose the Supreme Court affirms in this case. Would that make gay marriage any more or less "correct?" Or would it simply make it "constitutional?"

Suppose the Supreme Court affirms, and, in response, an "overwhelming majority" bands together and amends the U.S constitution to prohibit gay marriage. Would that make gay marriage any more or less "correct?" Or would it just make it "unconstitutional?"

 

[Hopper]

If Meese is claiming that there was substantial evidence and plain common sense that Walker ignored, I would be interested in the specific details of that, if Meese can provide any.

Well, I suppose you could start by reading the article, if you're truly interested. He doesn't go into great detail, but he gives an indication (see below). You haven't even read the opinion. I have, but I also fully understand that the judge's written opinion is not a complete summary of the factual record--it basically says only what he chooses to say. I'm assuming Meese has looked at the record. Among other things, he says:

1. "Despite voluminous evidence and common sense pointing to the contrary, the judge also declared that opposite sexes were never part of the "historical core of the institution of marriage"

2. "Walker's opinion pretends that the voluminous evidence introduced on the side of Proposition 8 does not exist. It neither acknowledges nor attempts to distinguish the writings of renowned scholars presented at trial in support of Proposition 8, including that of anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, history professor Robina Quale and social scientist Kingsley Davis. It ignores the writings of legal giant William Blackstone and philosophers John Locke and Bertrand Russell. It even refused to address the fact that Congress, in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, defined marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

3. "The judge also declared,...without reference to the monumental evidence to the contrary, that it is beyond "any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes." These assertions appear in the opinion's "findings of fact" section, yet they are not facts. These "findings" derive from arbitrary and capricious non-analysis and are forcefully contradicted by evidence in the court record."

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

Craig, suppose the Supreme Court affirms in this case. Would that make gay marriage any more or less "correct?" Or would it simply make it "constitutional?"

Would it correct gay marriage? I don't know if it technically needs correcting. It might make MORE constitutional. But we really don't know until it's put into action by the judiciaries.

Suppose the Supreme Court affirms, and, in response, an "overwhelming majority" bands together and amends the U.S constitution to prohibit gay marriage. Would that make gay marriage any more or less "correct?" Or would it just make it "unconstitutional?"

Interesting hypothetical. I would probably give the same answer but with one key variation: the judge who issued the precinct would alleviate the need for rounded-edged court documents.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

Well, I suppose you could start by reading the article, if you're truly interested. He doesn't go into great detail, but he gives an indication (see below). You haven't even read the opinion. I have, but I also fully understand that the judge's written opinion is not a complete summary of the factual record--it basically says only what he chooses to say. I'm assuming Meese has looked at the record. Among other things, he says:

1. "Despite voluminous evidence and common sense pointing to the contrary, the judge also declared that opposite sexes were never part of the "historical core of the institution of marriage"

2. "Walker's opinion pretends that the voluminous evidence introduced on the side of Proposition 8 does not exist. It neither acknowledges nor attempts to distinguish the writings of renowned scholars presented at trial in support of Proposition 8, including that of anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, history professor Robina Quale and social scientist Kingsley Davis. It ignores the writings of legal giant William Blackstone and philosophers John Locke and Bertrand Russell. It even refused to address the fact that Congress, in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, defined marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

3. "The judge also declared,...without reference to the monumental evidence to the contrary, that it is beyond "any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes." These assertions appear in the opinion's "findings of fact" section, yet they are not facts. These "findings" derive from arbitrary and capricious non-analysis and are forcefully contradicted by evidence in the court record."

The thing about fact is the reader of said fact may not consider it such if bias clouds the intellectual prowess of said reader using unsaid brain. I agree with you on John Locke and Bertrand Russell, their writings have been ignored for centuries on the subject, even though they truly are relevant. However, there is no need for panic. We have been assured via occam's razor that the raindeer effect is in place. All we have to do is wait.

 

[One Brow]

The question is about morals, not secular vs religious" reasons," remember?

My stated question with Nagel's article was whether he could justify claiming there were non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage. If you choose to to pursue that, fine. We can then dispense with that article.

Are you trying to say that you would "support the right of" Alabama' to deliberately default in such a case, just to get (at least temporarily) an excuse to violate federal civil rights laws and oppress blacks?

If Alabama chooses to to defend the case, that is their right to make that choice. If no one defends the case, segregation returns. However, I find it like some highly motivated group, for teh sake of the discussion the Alabama NAACP, would intervene and defend the case, similar to what happened to in California. Besides, if the judge allows his bias from his KKK membership to make the decision, it doesn't matter much what the state does, eh? In fact, if the state executives are to anti-integration, the state is much less likely to appeal a bad decision than the NAACP, and the cause of integration is better served by the state not being involved.

Eric, suppose the Supreme Court affirms in this case. Would that make gay marriage any more or less "correct?" Or would it simply make it "constitutional?"

It would not change the correctness. It would remove a justification that could be used by a governor to ignore Proposition 8.

Suppose the Supreme Court affirms, and, in response, an "overwhelming majority" bands together and amends the U.S constitution to prohibit gay marriage. Would that make gay marriage any more or less "correct?" Or would it just make it "unconstitutional?"

As above.

1. "Despite voluminous evidence and common sense pointing to the contrary, the judge also declared that opposite sexes were never part of the "historical core of the institution of marriage"

If there have been homosexual marriages recognized continualy throught history, the judge would be correct.

2. "Walker's opinion pretends that the voluminous evidence introduced on the side of Proposition 8 does not exist. It neither acknowledges nor attempts to distinguish the writings of renowned scholars presented at trial ...

The writings of scholars are evidence?

3. "The judge also declared,...without reference to the monumental evidence to the contrary, that it is beyond "any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes." These assertions appear in the opinion's "findings of fact" section, yet they are not facts. These "findings" derive from arbitrary and capricious non-analysis and are forcefully contradicted by evidence in the court record."

I haven't seen nor heard of any studies where having two same-sex genedered parent has produced different outcomes than two opposite-sexed parents. So far, all the studies seem to say there is no difference. So, I find the declaration of "monumental evidence" by Meese to be faulty.

However, at least we know now of a connection between Meese and Beatown.

Despite ample evidence introduced into the record that only a union of a man and woman can produce offspring (as if that needs proof), Walker's opinion denied the relevance of that biological fact. That difference has been the main reason civilization recognized the uniqueness of marriage as between a man and woman, and why courts have repeatedly relied on that common-sense truth.