The costs of gay marriage

[babe]

For the same reason it would be good for one state to call interracial unions marriage, and bad for another state to reject calling interracial unions marriage. In our culture, we accept that there are individual rights, and that among these is the right to participate in state-recognized institutions such as marriage. The will of the majority is not considered sufficient, in and of itself, to abridge those rights.



A constitution is not allowed to contradict itself.



Those 9 appointees are the people's method of protecting the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority, among other things.



You had three really good questions, and then followed it up with this false garbage. Ugh.

The Constitution of the United States originally conferred upon the Federal government only certain specifically-delegated powers. . . . those enumerated withing the Constitution itself. . . . and reserved all other powers to the States, or to the People.

A Constitution is what it is. If it needs fixing, it can only be fixed by an Amendment, not by nine totalitarians wearing black robes.

Those nine unelected Judges are subject to the direction of Congress. Congress has the specifically enumerated power to write the laws and to limit the Court's jurisdiction. And both are subject to the law of the Land, the Constitution, which is supposed to be amended only by the prescribed method of Amending it. . . . .

you sometimes are devoted to fact, but often more devoted to agenda.

 

[babe]

Are you baiting for the the conservative/fascist comeback, or do you really believe this rhetorical vitriol?

Do you really believe this "conservative/fascist" vitriol you spew, and do you really want to be made to look like an idiot????

The communist call for social change is a matter I can document, as well as the progressive agenda call for it. It's not vitriol per se. It's the damn fact. Vitriol???? anybody can hate words, I suppose.

Irony. .. . the way I responded. . . . showing the irony of our general media take and the way some folks are constructing this argument. . . . is something else.

 

[babe]

By the way. . . . .


The Judges themselves, including some of most liberal ones, have let out some comments diplaying skepticism about whether it would be healthy for them to rule in a way that would pre-empt the societal process of change. . . .

Sorta saying they are going to defer to the court of public opinion on this one. . . .

Maybe throw the ball back into the Legislative process . .. . ..

 

[Stoked]

Are you baiting for the the conservative/fascist comeback, or do you really believe this rhetorical vitriol?

Way to take the high road!

 

[Scat]

Way to take the high road!

We have a high road here?!?

 

[Stoked]

We have a high road here?!?

Not on Jazzfanz but it always amuses me when people (general term) use the same tactics that they bash their opposition for using.

 

[One Brow]

Not so, otherwise Prop 8 wouldn't be @ the Supreme Court, while the Maryland vote was celebrated.

You didn't accept the result of the vote on Proposition 8?

The goal is the recognition of the rights. Why should whether this happens by election, legislation, executive action, or, judicial finding matter? They are all valid ways to have rights recognized.

The only one that applies to marriage is Loving vs. Virginia ...

I was referring to the more general notion of civil rights that had been not previously recognized.

They also weren't already granted all the same legal rights under Virginia Law as same-race couples had.

If they have all the same rights, then a different name is segregation without a function. Segregation is always unequal, even when it has no functional implication.

Nonsense. They have all the same rights under California law.

Then there's no need fo ra different name. The only reason to impose a different name is convey a status of separation, hence inequality in that regard.

No, hundreds of thousands of citizens voiced their cultural rejection, ...

Were the issue resubmitted today, it would lose. The cultural feedback continues.

Redefining marriage ain't a basic freedom.

There's no universal definition of marriage to redefine, just unions that have been recognized as marriages by various cultures at various times.

 

[Stoked]

You didn't accept the result of the vote on Proposition 8?

The goal is the recognition of the rights. Why should whether this happens by election, legislation, executive action, or, judicial finding matter? They are all valid ways to have rights recognized.
I was referring to the more general notion of civil rights that had been not previously recognized.

If they have all the same rights, then a different name is segregation without a function. Segregation is always unequal, even when it has no functional implication.

Then there's no need fo ra different name. The only reason to impose a different name is convey a status of separation, hence inequality in that regard.


Were the issue resubmitted today, it would lose. The cultural feedback continues.



There's no universal definition of marriage to redefine, just unions that have been recognized as marriages by various cultures at various times.

That depends on where, and what scale, it was submitted. It would most certainly lose in Utah, Texas, Idaho, Tennesse, Arkansas, North Dakota...while it would probably win in places like Rhode Island, Maryland, Washington and Hawaii.

I think on a national scale it would come down to the wire.

 

[One Brow]

The Constitution of the United States originally conferred upon the Federal government only certain specifically-delegated powers. . . . those enumerated withing the Constitution itself. . . . and reserved all other powers to the States, or to the People.

This was deemed insufficient, and less than 100 years later, the 14th Amendment was passed, which held that state governments were required to respect individual rights in the same way the federal government was.

A Constitution is what it is. If it needs fixing, it can only be fixed by an Amendment, not by nine totalitarians wearing black robes.

I don't know of any cases that have 'fixed the Constitution' or are intended to do so.

you sometimes are devoted to fact, but often more devoted to agenda.

As long as the agenda is not contraindicated by fact.

 

[One Brow]

That depends on where, and what scale, it was submitted.

You are correct. I meant specifically California, but was not clear enough.

 

[PearlWatson]

You didn't accept the result of the vote on Proposition 8? The goal is the recognition of the rights. Why should whether this happens by election, legislation, executive action, or, judicial finding matter? They are all valid ways to have rights recognized.

You've already acknowledged the goal of the homosexual lobby as being cultural acceptance rather than any so called rights.

I was referring to the more general notion of civil rights that had been not previously recognized.

I was being specific.

If they have all the same rights, then a different name is segregation without a function. Segregation is always unequal, even when it has no functional implication.
Then there's no need fo ra different name. The only reason to impose a different name is convey a status of separation, hence inequality in that regard.

Sorry, I don't buy those statements either.

Were the issue resubmitted today, it would lose. The cultural feedback continues.

The vote in The People's Republic of Maryland barely passed midst efforts to re-elect Obongo Zedongo.

There's no universal definition of marriage to redefine, just unions that have been recognized as marriages by various cultures at various times.

Now suddenly we have to consider the universe, Iran, and France in the renaissance? How about we stick with the here and now, or we could go with Iran in the year 1980 if you prefer, but my statement doesn't change.

 

[One Brow]

You've already acknowledged the goal of the homosexual lobby as being cultural acceptance rather than any so called rights.

Not "rather than", but "as a result of". You can't get the former without the latter.

Sorry, I don't buy those statements either.

I'm not responsible for your refusal to accept human nature.

Now suddenly we have to consider the universe, Iran, and France in the renaissance? How about we stick with the here and now, or we could go with Iran in the year 1980 if you prefer, but my statement doesn't change.

The point is that cultures have been redefining marriage for eons. So your complaint about changing the definition yet again carries little weight.