5 ms·

> judicial activism That's disingenuous bullshit. The spirit of the constitution protects individual rights, and there is no constitutional reason why an arbi

> judicial activism That's disingenuous bullshit. The spirit of the constitution protects individual rights, and there is no constitutional reason why an arbitrary religious definition of marriage should be respected over the rights of individuals. It's not activism to say that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional. Any feelings you have about the definition of marriage based on culture, tradition, or god's divine law are irreverent to the legal institution of marriage established by our secular government.

LordKano 11y ago
The spirit of the constitution protects individual rights Do you support polygamous marriage? It's not activism to say that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional. It's not bigotry to say that marriage is a societal institution and society can define it. Any feelings you have about the definition of marriage based on culture, tradition, or god's divine law are irreverent to the legal institution of marriage established by our secular government. You're projecting. I have no feelings about what the definition of marriage should be. I have feelings about who should decide such definitions. Furthermore, if you would like to take a few minutes to review my comment history to see if I have ever used "God" or religion as the basis for any argument, I'll wait. You're attempting to setup strawmen against which you can argue. Like I pointed out earlier. In states where marriage was redefined legislatively, there was nothing like Proposition 8. Haven't you wondered why that is?
- vectorpush 11y ago
  > Do you support polygamous marriage? Two different things. Polygamy is prohibited based on the total number of individuals, gay marriage prohibition is based on the identity of the individuals; it's a critical distinction as far as the protection of individual rights are concerned. When you prohibit gay marriage you're saying "these types of people cannot be married" you must evaluate their individual identity to enforce the prohibition, when you're prohibiting polygamy you're saying "a marriage cannot exceed two individuals" where specific qualities of the individuals have no bearing on the application of the prohibition. >It's not bigotry to say that marriage is a societal institution and society can define it. No it's not, so lets just dispense with that strawman. What is said of marriage is irrelevant; bigotry is denying people the legal right to be married because of their sexual orientation. Period. > You're projecting. I have no feelings about what the definition of marriage should be... Furthermore, if you would like to take a few minutes to review my comment history to see if I have ever used "God" or religion as the basis for any argument, I'll wait. You're attempting to setup strawmen against which you can argue. Wrong. I am not projecting or setting up a strawman, I am heading off common arguments in advance of their appearance in the discussion, that is why I said "culture", "tradition" OR "god's divine word". > I have feelings about who should decide such definitions.... Like I pointed out earlier. In states where marriage was redefined legislatively, there was nothing like Proposition 8. Haven't you wondered why that is? It is the prerogative of the courts to weigh in on the constitutionality of the law. It doesn't matter if society wants to prevent gay people from being married, the constitution is pretty clear about protecting the rights of individuals from the government as well as from the tyranny of the majority.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    Polygamy is prohibited based on the total number of individuals, gay marriage prohibition is based on the identity of the individuals; it's a critical distinction as far as the protection of individual rights are concerned. So then, it's not discrimination that you oppose. You just want to be the one to decide the target of the discrimination. Love is love, right? I am not projecting or setting up a strawman, I am heading off common arguments in advance of their appearance in the discussion, that is why I said "culture", "tradition" OR "god's divine word". None of which are among my justifications for my position. It is the prerogative of the courts to weigh in on the constitutionality of the law. That is true. It is also society's prerogative to overrule the courts via a constitutional amendment, if they so choose. However, this wouldn't be a concern if the underlying issue had been decided by the people in the first place. It doesn't matter if society wants to prevent gay people from being married, the constitution is pretty clear about protecting the rights of individuals from the government as well as from the tyranny of the majority. Don't delude yourself. Everything is subject to the tyranny of the majority, if two thirds of the elected officials can be persuaded.
    - vectorpush 11y ago
      > So then, it's not discrimination that you oppose. You just want to be the one to decide the target of the discrimination. Love is love, right? This response makes no sense. I didn't say anything about love or about wanting to decide the target of discrimination. If you pay close attention you can grasp my point. Once again, prohibition of polygamy says marriages that consist of more than two individuals are illegal, it doesn't matter who those individuals are, black, white, man, woman, gay, straight; the law applies evenly to all peoples regardless of who they are. Prohibition of gay marriage is the exact opposite, i.e. the identity of the individuals is the only determining factor with regard to whether or not the marriage is legal. > None of which are among my justifications for my position. Justifications which are also conveniently absent from the discussion. You keep bringing up who gets to decide, but we've already established and agreed that it is the role of the courts to determine if a law is constitutional and that's exactly what happened. > It is also society's prerogative to overrule the courts via a constitutional amendment, if they so choose. Which didn't happen. So to reiterate, you agree that it's the role of the courts to rule on the constitutionality of our laws, you've also failed to put forward any reasoning to rebut the court's determination that prohibition of gay marriage is unconstitutional (in fact, you stated you have no feelings either way) and you've further stated that the people could amend the constitution if they are so inclined... So where's the problem? Your use of the term 'judicial activism' implies that the judges are acting without regard for their duties as stewards of the constitution and are instead acting out of personal politics, but you haven't put forward any evidence to support that implication. > Don't delude yourself. Everything is subject to the tyranny of the majority, if two thirds of the elected officials can be persuaded. This isn't an argument, just a platitude; it's akin to saying "don't delude yourself, the 4th amendment won't protect you from unreasonable search and seizure if you piss off the wrong people". Well that's obvious, the point is that the intent of the constitution includes protection for the minority from the tyranny of the majority, claiming that this isn't true in practice doesn't add anything to a discussion about what judges should be doing.
- rmc 11y ago
  > In states where marriage was redefined legislatively, there was nothing like Proposition 8. Haven't you wondered why that is? Yes there was. Slovenia, within the last month.

LordKano 11y ago

The spirit of the constitution protects individual rights Do you support polygamous marriage? It's not activism to say that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional. It's not bigotry to say that marriage is a societal institution and society can define it. Any feelings you have about the definition of marriage based on culture, tradition, or god's divine law are irreverent to the legal institution of marriage established by our secular government. You're projecting. I have no feelings about what the definition of marriage should be. I have feelings about who should decide such definitions. Furthermore, if you would like to take a few minutes to review my comment history to see if I have ever used "God" or religion as the basis for any argument, I'll wait. You're attempting to setup strawmen against which you can argue. Like I pointed out earlier. In states where marriage was redefined legislatively, there was nothing like Proposition 8. Haven't you wondered why that is?

vectorpush 11y ago
> Do you support polygamous marriage? Two different things. Polygamy is prohibited based on the total number of individuals, gay marriage prohibition is based on the identity of the individuals; it's a critical distinction as far as the protection of individual rights are concerned. When you prohibit gay marriage you're saying "these types of people cannot be married" you must evaluate their individual identity to enforce the prohibition, when you're prohibiting polygamy you're saying "a marriage cannot exceed two individuals" where specific qualities of the individuals have no bearing on the application of the prohibition. >It's not bigotry to say that marriage is a societal institution and society can define it. No it's not, so lets just dispense with that strawman. What is said of marriage is irrelevant; bigotry is denying people the legal right to be married because of their sexual orientation. Period. > You're projecting. I have no feelings about what the definition of marriage should be... Furthermore, if you would like to take a few minutes to review my comment history to see if I have ever used "God" or religion as the basis for any argument, I'll wait. You're attempting to setup strawmen against which you can argue. Wrong. I am not projecting or setting up a strawman, I am heading off common arguments in advance of their appearance in the discussion, that is why I said "culture", "tradition" OR "god's divine word". > I have feelings about who should decide such definitions.... Like I pointed out earlier. In states where marriage was redefined legislatively, there was nothing like Proposition 8. Haven't you wondered why that is? It is the prerogative of the courts to weigh in on the constitutionality of the law. It doesn't matter if society wants to prevent gay people from being married, the constitution is pretty clear about protecting the rights of individuals from the government as well as from the tyranny of the majority.
- LordKano 11y ago
  Polygamy is prohibited based on the total number of individuals, gay marriage prohibition is based on the identity of the individuals; it's a critical distinction as far as the protection of individual rights are concerned. So then, it's not discrimination that you oppose. You just want to be the one to decide the target of the discrimination. Love is love, right? I am not projecting or setting up a strawman, I am heading off common arguments in advance of their appearance in the discussion, that is why I said "culture", "tradition" OR "god's divine word". None of which are among my justifications for my position. It is the prerogative of the courts to weigh in on the constitutionality of the law. That is true. It is also society's prerogative to overrule the courts via a constitutional amendment, if they so choose. However, this wouldn't be a concern if the underlying issue had been decided by the people in the first place. It doesn't matter if society wants to prevent gay people from being married, the constitution is pretty clear about protecting the rights of individuals from the government as well as from the tyranny of the majority. Don't delude yourself. Everything is subject to the tyranny of the majority, if two thirds of the elected officials can be persuaded.
  - vectorpush 11y ago
    > So then, it's not discrimination that you oppose. You just want to be the one to decide the target of the discrimination. Love is love, right? This response makes no sense. I didn't say anything about love or about wanting to decide the target of discrimination. If you pay close attention you can grasp my point. Once again, prohibition of polygamy says marriages that consist of more than two individuals are illegal, it doesn't matter who those individuals are, black, white, man, woman, gay, straight; the law applies evenly to all peoples regardless of who they are. Prohibition of gay marriage is the exact opposite, i.e. the identity of the individuals is the only determining factor with regard to whether or not the marriage is legal. > None of which are among my justifications for my position. Justifications which are also conveniently absent from the discussion. You keep bringing up who gets to decide, but we've already established and agreed that it is the role of the courts to determine if a law is constitutional and that's exactly what happened. > It is also society's prerogative to overrule the courts via a constitutional amendment, if they so choose. Which didn't happen. So to reiterate, you agree that it's the role of the courts to rule on the constitutionality of our laws, you've also failed to put forward any reasoning to rebut the court's determination that prohibition of gay marriage is unconstitutional (in fact, you stated you have no feelings either way) and you've further stated that the people could amend the constitution if they are so inclined... So where's the problem? Your use of the term 'judicial activism' implies that the judges are acting without regard for their duties as stewards of the constitution and are instead acting out of personal politics, but you haven't put forward any evidence to support that implication. > Don't delude yourself. Everything is subject to the tyranny of the majority, if two thirds of the elected officials can be persuaded. This isn't an argument, just a platitude; it's akin to saying "don't delude yourself, the 4th amendment won't protect you from unreasonable search and seizure if you piss off the wrong people". Well that's obvious, the point is that the intent of the constitution includes protection for the minority from the tyranny of the majority, claiming that this isn't true in practice doesn't add anything to a discussion about what judges should be doing.
rmc 11y ago
> In states where marriage was redefined legislatively, there was nothing like Proposition 8. Haven't you wondered why that is? Yes there was. Slovenia, within the last month.