S.F.: Marry anybody, marry a duck, marry a tree….
Question:
This means that it is all about homosexuality being unacceptable to you, and not about homosexuals being able do what they want just as long as they aren’t allowed to marry. It’s the homosexuality itself that you can not abide.
Possibly, if you’re really that illogical, but that’s not my problem. Marriage has always been about a man and women and the legitimacy of sexuality and child-bearing. That’s even true with polygamy, and for all I know, polyandry where that happens, too. That’s the way marriage is, and should continue to be. What it is about, to those of us who aren’t illogical or have special political motives such as you may have, that override logic, is that there is a norm and tradition, and what we now see with San Francisco is deliberate flouting of the law (compounded by scummy judicial activism, and that even after the fact, after the violations started!), and everything I have said has been correct, and in fact is being considered, just as polygamists have begun to sue for legitimacy given the sodomy ruling, and no doubt will do so if some scumbag activist "invent-a-new-law" judge decides to throw out the existing law, which has no defects with it whatsoever. I could just as easily argue for intruding into the other sex’s restroom facilities and locker rooms and shower facilities as with marrying. That, unlike your response, remains fully logical. As to what I believe, I’m straight (heterosexual), homosexuality is alien to me, but as long as someone doesn’t hit on me or do what is offensive even when done in public by straight couples — what’s private should not be overtly displayed or performed in public — I’ve never had a problem with homosexual people, and in fact if you care to do some research you can look up my name and find the word "gay" in its contemporary colloquial sense used by me along with the analogy of left-handedness versus right-handedness insofar as what it really amounts to in many ways, and how it may be seen by more people in the distant future. (They’re alien to us, while we’re alien to them. Next issue!) Dave Simpson
Response:
Actually, it refers clearly to a male and female couple. But lets assume that we want to change it to make everything "equal". Why only two? Do threesomes, foursomes, etc, not have equal rights? And what about concenting adults? Are two or three or 10 soblings over 18 not consenting adults?
You and I remain on issue, and extend the logic of the argument made by the law-flouters, unlike illogical Jane. So you would deny the same rights to a brother and sister than you would grant to two brothers or two sisters? What happened to the gender argument? I thought you were saying it was about consenting adults and genders didn’t matter! Are you changing that now?
She was being silly in bashing polygamy, while going into the issue of incest and harping on taboos (while not being more grown-up, not only in acknowledging the near-universality of taboos as well as much fundamental morality, but with the generic hazards of inbreeding), and trying to build up something of a straw man (a moralist) that in fact, compared to her, is iron rather than her butter. Laws change with prevailing social attitudes. When enough people think that marrying a duck (or your sister, or your fax machine) is ok, then it will become law. True. More likely is a constitutional amendment preventing the changing of definition.
What Jane sadly neglects is the dual problem of open flouting of the law, which is a law that is based on prevailing social attitudes, as well as the additional illegitimacy of having the judiciary invent new laws or strike down unpleasant laws, to secure results that wouldn’t stand a chance of being passed by a lagislature and made into the law the legitimate way — because they so go against the prevailing social attitudes (as opposed to the trivial fringe). You apparently confuse "fear" with "humor". :)
She’s confused about humor, and when she replies foolishly, the joke’s on her. Along with going against the great majority of people and the norm for centuries, Jane fails to acknowledge the illegitimacy of openly flouting the law, plus then seeking a judge to go around the legislature, which is the practice of less honorable of the losers of our society. Dave Simpson
Response:
It was written: Marriage is a partnership between consenting adults.
Sez who? Adultist! Speciesist! Animalist! Left-wing activists should have the "right" to marry a tree or even a rock, or the Earth, if they want, by the logic of you and the activists in San Francisco. Dave Simpson
Response:
Why go to the Moon or Mars, lefties, when you can marry it. Then you can sue the Bush administration for trying to exploit your spouse, and demand punitive damages for pain and suffering on behalf of you both! Dave Simpson
Response:
That what they said when Inter-racial marriage was originally approved.
Apples and oranges. It’s a man and woman. There’s also hypocrisy with the lefties, in related things, such as demanding that (often-voyeuristic) women get admitted to male athletes’ locker rooms, while men were prohibited from the corresponding women’s facilities. But that’s another episode, another vice of the Left… [additional quips, including equivocation using "married" and Jesus, deleted] Dave Simpson
Response:
I am just curious as to when exactly marriage became a right, rather than just the privilege that it actually is.
Answer: Since the Left took up gay marriage as the cause du jour. The organized crime (law-violation) and attempted scummy judicial activism has happened, as is common in such causes du jour. Dave Simpson
Response:
While the losers hate seeing SFO called on the carpet for its scummy behavior, more substantial minds wonder: Why doesn’t the Left try to get the UN to perform the marriage ceremonies and claim they trump any authority within the United States (or anywhere else, except in nations that opposed the war with Iraq)? Dave Simpson
Response:
Hmmm — What’s next, marrying Gaia, and in mass ceremonies?
Why doesn’t the Left try to get the UN to perform the marriage ceremonies and claim they trump any authority within the United States (or anywhere else, except in nations that opposed the war with Iraq)? Perfect: Have the UN marry leftists and Gaia, while fellow lefties shed tears of joy. Dave Simpson
Response:
That what they said when Inter-racial marriage was originally approved. Apples and oranges. It’s a man and woman.
Actually, apples and oranges again. It is two thinking, caring, feeling, human beings at stake here. There’s also hypocrisy with the lefties, in related things, such as demanding that (often-voyeuristic) women get admitted to male athletes’ locker rooms, while men were prohibited from the corresponding women’s facilities.
I agree, we should correct this. :) But that’s another episode, another vice of the Left… [additional quips, including equivocation using "married" and Jesus, deleted]
Too bad, they are insights into the very institution that your perspective claims to originate from…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dave Simpson
Response:
I am just curious as to when exactly marriage became a right, rather than just the privilege that it actually is. Answer: Since the Left took up gay marriage as the cause du jour. The organized crime (law-violation) and attempted scummy judicial activism has happened, as is common in such causes du jour.
Wrong. There are actually rulings in America, to that affect. And they had nothing to do with gays, at the time… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dave Simpson
Response:
<snip What Jane sadly neglects is the dual problem of open flouting of the law, which is a law that is based on prevailing social attitudes, as well as the additional illegitimacy of having the judiciary invent new laws or strike down unpleasant laws, to secure results that wouldn’t stand a chance of being passed by a lagislature and made into the law the legitimate way — because they so go against the prevailing social attitudes (as opposed to the trivial fringe).
Hold on there, prevailing social attitudes, may not be right. A religious right group attempted a poll to prove that very stance, and when it hit 60% approved of Gay Marriage, they trashed it. As long as it backed their views, they were willing to sponsor it, as soon as it didn’t… they spiked it. So, all in all, "prevailing" becomes a rather unsupported, shaky posture. You apparently confuse "fear" with "humor". :) She’s confused about humor, and when she replies foolishly, the joke’s on her. Along with going against the great majority of people and the norm for centuries,
Who also supported Slavery, and beat their wives, and children, BTW… Jane fails to acknowledge the illegitimacy of openly flouting the law, plus then seeking a judge to go around the legislature, which is the practice of less honorable of the losers of our society.
Actually, in America, there stands some ruling about a law being unconstitutional, that it "unmakes" the law, all the way back to its inception. If you would like I could go look up the cite, for you. It, actually, is the grounds these Judges are standing upon. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dave Simpson
Response:
It was written: Marriage is a partnership between consenting adults. Sez who? Adultist! Speciesist! Animalist! Left-wing activists should have the "right" to marry a tree or even a rock, or the Earth, if they want, by the logic of you and the activists in San Francisco.
We covered this, already… A tree is not cognizant, there is no "Mutual Assent". Same with the rock, and the earth… and dogs and cats, and even Kids… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dave Simpson
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Actually, it refers clearly to a male and female couple. But lets assume that we want to change it to make everything "equal". Why only two? Do threesomes, foursomes, etc, not have equal rights? And what about concenting adults? Are two or three or 10 soblings over 18 not consenting adults? You and I remain on issue, and extend the logic of the argument made by the law-flouters, unlike illogical Jane. So you would deny the same rights to a brother and sister than you would grant to two brothers or two sisters? What happened to the gender argument? I thought you were saying it was about consenting adults and genders didn’t matter! Are you changing that now? She was being silly in bashing polygamy, while going into the issue of incest and harping on taboos (while not being more grown-up, not only in acknowledging the near-universality of taboos as well as much fundamental morality, but with the generic hazards of inbreeding), and trying to build up something of a straw man (a moralist) that in fact, compared to her, is iron rather than her butter.
Her consistant inconsistancy should be apparent to her. Laws change with prevailing social attitudes. When enough people think that marrying a duck (or your sister, or your fax machine) is ok, then it will become law. True. More likely is a constitutional amendment preventing the changing of definition. What Jane sadly neglects is the dual problem of open flouting of the law, which is a law that is based on prevailing social attitudes, as well as the additional illegitimacy of having the judiciary invent new laws or strike down unpleasant laws, to secure results that wouldn’t stand a chance of being passed by a lagislature and made into the law the legitimate way — because they so go against the prevailing social attitudes (as opposed to the trivial fringe).
True, but that technique has been the basis of liberal politics for a generation now. You apparently confuse "fear" with "humor". :) She’s confused about humor, and when she replies foolishly, the joke’s on her.
Why do so few liberals have a sense of humor? Along with going against the great majority of people and the norm for centuries, Jane fails to acknowledge the illegitimacy of openly flouting the law, plus then seeking a judge to go around the legislature, which is the practice of less honorable of the losers of our society. Dave Simpson
Agreed. William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip What Jane sadly neglects is the dual problem of open flouting of the law, which is a law that is based on prevailing social attitudes, as well as the additional illegitimacy of having the judiciary invent new laws or strike down unpleasant laws, to secure results that wouldn’t stand a chance of being passed by a lagislature and made into the law the legitimate way — because they so go against the prevailing social attitudes (as opposed to the trivial fringe). Hold on there, prevailing social attitudes, may not be right. A religious right group attempted a poll to prove that very stance, and when it hit 60% approved of Gay Marriage, they trashed it. As long as it backed their views, they were willing to sponsor it, as soon as it didn’t… they spiked it. So, all in all, "prevailing" becomes a rather unsupported, shaky posture.
That’s why it’s intentionally difficult to change the constitution. If you want to do something so radical, it takes far more than simply a majority favoring it. This is NOT a democracy, never was and hopefully never will be. The monority has the same constitutional rights as the majority. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -You apparently confuse "fear" with "humor". :) She’s confused about humor, and when she replies foolishly, the joke’s on her. Along with going against the great majority of people and the norm for centuries, Who also supported Slavery, and beat their wives, and children, BTW… Jane fails to acknowledge the illegitimacy of openly flouting the law, plus then seeking a judge to go around the legislature, which is the practice of less honorable of the losers of our society. Actually, in America, there stands some ruling about a law being unconstitutional, that it "unmakes" the law, all the way back to its inception. If you would like I could go look up the cite, for you. It, actually, is the grounds these Judges are standing upon.
The problem with activist judges is they they legislate. They make laws where no laws exist. That’s not their job. William R. James
Response:
<snip Actually, in America, there stands some ruling about a law being unconstitutional, that it "unmakes" the law, all the way back to its inception. If you would like I could go look up the cite, for you. It, actually, is the grounds these Judges are standing upon. The problem with activist judges is they they legislate. They make laws where no laws exist. That’s not their job.
Well, it is, in a way. When a judge "rules" he in effect interprets law…. not creates it. But, interpretations, to an extent, create law.. Someone online here did a wonderful research on it, tracing it back to the Common English Law in Origin.. But, when a Judge rules a law unconstitutional, it isn’t actually creating -new- law, just over-throwing bad old ones. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip Actually, in America, there stands some ruling about a law being unconstitutional, that it "unmakes" the law, all the way back to its inception. If you would like I could go look up the cite, for you. It, actually, is the grounds these Judges are standing upon. The problem with activist judges is they they legislate. They make laws where no laws exist. That’s not their job. Well, it is, in a way. When a judge "rules" he in effect interprets law…. not creates it. But, interpretations, to an extent, create law..
Wrong. Interpretation is accurate translation. It is not making changes. It’s not common, but there have been supreme court rulings overturning previous supreme court runing on the same constitutional questions. Both "interpretations" cannot be correct. Someone online here did a wonderful research on it, tracing it back to the Common English Law in Origin..
English common law had no constitution. The federal corts are subject to the constitution. Their duty is to the constitution, NOT their opinions, their feelings, ot their political agendas. But, when a Judge rules a law unconstitutional, it isn’t actually creating -new- law, just over-throwing bad old ones.
See, that’s the problem. Your statement presumes the judge is a god, incapable of error or evil intent. Would you say that if the Supreme court ruled that there is no right to free speech? When you give absolute power to any party, don’t be surprised when that power if used against you. William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip What Jane sadly neglects is the dual problem of open flouting of the law, which is a law that is based on prevailing social attitudes, as well as the additional illegitimacy of having the judiciary invent new laws or strike down unpleasant laws, to secure results that wouldn’t stand a chance of being passed by a lagislature and made into the law the legitimate way — because they so go against the prevailing social attitudes (as opposed to the trivial fringe). Hold on there, prevailing social attitudes, may not be right. A religious right group attempted a poll to prove that very stance, and when it hit 60% approved of Gay Marriage, they trashed it. As long as it backed their views, they were willing to sponsor it, as soon as it didn’t… they spiked it. So, all in all, "prevailing" becomes a rather unsupported, shaky posture. You apparently confuse "fear" with "humor". :) She’s confused about humor, and when she replies foolishly, the joke’s on her. Along with going against the great majority of people and the norm for centuries, Who also supported Slavery, and beat their wives, and children, BTW… Jane fails to acknowledge the illegitimacy of openly flouting the law, plus then seeking a judge to go around the legislature, which is the practice of less honorable of the losers of our society. Actually, in America, there stands some ruling about a law being unconstitutional, that it "unmakes" the law, all the way back to its inception. If you would like I could go look up the cite, for you. It, actually, is the grounds these Judges are standing upon.
There is a vast difference between ruling a law unconstitutional and making new law by judicial fiat. Yes, the SCotUS can rule a law unconstitutional, however, they must stop there. They cannot, I repeat, CANNOT rewrite that law in their ruling. That is judicial activism, and as a concept is more repugnant to the Constitution than almost anything. That is a major difference between Conservative (or constructionist) and Liberal judges. The Conservatives either uphold or strike down laws, the Liberals like to also rewrite them. Raz —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
The San Francisco lunacy only makes us wonder what’s next. As someone else has said, if any two people can marry, then it’s time to accept polygamy, incest, and why can’t someone marry a duck? Julia Butterfly Hill once "adopted" a tree, which she named Luna. Can she now claim she has the "right" to marry Luna the tree and go to San Francisco to get the marriage performed (regarding Luna, "in abstentia")? What’s next, marrying Gaia, and in mass ceremonies? Dave Simpson
I am just curious as to when exactly marriage became a right, rather than just the privilege that it actually is. Raz —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The San Francisco lunacy only makes us wonder what’s next. As someone else has said, if any two people can marry, then it’s time to accept polygamy, incest, and why can’t someone marry a duck? Julia Butterfly Hill once "adopted" a tree, which she named Luna. Can she now claim she has the "right" to marry Luna the tree and go to San Francisco to get the marriage performed (regarding Luna, "in abstentia")? What’s next, marrying Gaia, and in mass ceremonies? Dave Simpson I am just curious as to when exactly marriage became a right, rather than just the privilege that it actually is. Raz
I think of more as punishment. I want the same protection from it that the homos have! :) William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The San Francisco lunacy only makes us wonder what’s next. As someone else has said, if any two people can marry, then it’s time to accept polygamy, incest, and why can’t someone marry a duck? This means that it is all about homosexuality being unacceptable to you, and not about homosexuals being able do what they want just as long as they aren’t allowed to marry. It’s the homosexuality itself that you can not abide. To you, being attracted to, expressing joy, love and affection for another human being (and wanting to enter into lifelong partnership with that other person), no matter what their sex, is equivalent to: 1) another species, 2) a member of your immediate family, 3) a religious cult. Marriage is a partnership between consenting adults. That eliminates animal lovers marrying pigeons. Two have to enter the contract (you want covenant of marriage, do it in a church)
Filed under: Judicial Activism
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.