Democrats & Liberals Archives

A couple of points about this article:

1. Your point about interracial marriage, while it may be correctly morally, is completely wrong legally. The Massachusetts supreme court used rational basis, the most permissive form of inquiry, to strike down the gay marriage ban. On the other hand, the race-marriage ban was struck down based on strict scrutiny, the most onerous form of scrutiny available to the court. This is because racial classifications, under equal protection analysis, get the highest level of scrutiny (sex-based get intermediate, and other classifications, like by sexual orientation get only rational basis). Personally, I do not like different “bases” of review (I want economic legislation struck down, and that only get rationale basis as well), but you should at least know the legal field you are playing on when you talk about these issues…

2. STOP PUSHING THIS THROUGH THE COURTS. I am serious. I agree with you on gay marriage, but this is a total mistake. If you are right (which you might be), and the 14th amendment can be read to require gay marriage, then the majority of the American people will only have one way to make their wishes known- by passing that horrible constitutional amendment.

The difference in the civil rights context was that there was not going to be any constitutional amendment to overturn Brown, because of the divide among the states (you needed 3/4ths of the states- and the north wasn’t going to overturn it). I would venture to say that every state but Vermont could currently muster a majority for such an amendment. Right now, moderate republicans are holding back the amendment in Congress, but if the Supremes does what you want them to do- its game over. A bunch of southern dems will join the conservative republicans, and the amendment will pass. Be careful- the supreme court always says that it must not get out TOO far in front of public opinion. Lawrence was a great way to start, what we need next is an incremental next-step (maybe something more like the Vermont Court’s decision…)

3. Thomas and Scalia have never showed any interest in striking down gay marriage laws- so their refusal to listen to the Massachusetts case is incredibly unsurprizing. Thomas’ opinion on these matters can be read in his dissent from Lawrence, where he says that he would vote to repeal the law, but he has no right to repeal it as a judge. Scalia’s view on things can be seen from his dissent in Lawrence where he said that the rationale for striking down “moral” legislation would extent to striking down laws against drug use, prostitution, and minimum wage laws. Now I happen to believe that drug use, prostitution and minimum wage laws are just as unconstitutional as banning gay marriage (that is, I think they all violate the 14th amendment), but you should at least try to understand the position of those you disagree with. Scalia is actually exactly right about the similarity of the rationales for these other laws and gay marriage (basically a declaration of “immorality” without a showing of individual wrong doing)- of course you probably LIKE minimum wage laws, so you don’t want to return the Lockner era where courts struck them down (Even though the reasoning of Lawrence exactly parallels Lockner…)

To take another example- Scalia has never said that he wants the court to outlaw abortion, in fact, this key line is that the court “should get out of this area.” I saw scalia talk at the Federalist Society convention, and many of us libertarian types at the convention were not happy with his speech for that very reason- we believe he would take too passive a role in protecting people’s rights from the bench because he has been so enraged at the liberal activist courts of recent years. We want judges who will recognize rights and then take the country STEP BY STEP to recognizing them- and scalia doesn’t want to go down that path even in areas where he agrees with us….

anyway, these are some LEGAL issues and general advice from someone who agrees with your goals here, but someone who knows the people you are railing against are the silly caricatures that you would want them to be.

correct: arent the sily caricatures..

I am tired of judges who intrude on our lives. I am tired of diversity, political correctness, victimhood, multicultural, the ACLU, distorted reasoning to sanctify, rationalize, etc. etc. I am tired of crooked CEOs, self-centered politicians,over paid spoiled athletes, dumb cops, the hard right and the flakey left, sports analysts who talk too much and constantly criticise every move, I am tired of dumb talk shows, reality TV, too many commercials, canned laughter, and all the slobs that seem to everywhere.

That’s the short list. I am too tired to go on.

D.LMonroe,

These judges who intrude on our lives are the same ones who give us our freedoms. The judicial branch in the US interpret the laws that are sent to them by the legislative branch.

So if it wasn’t for these judges, our freedoms would be stript.. Which is why the Presidents choice of who the Supreme Court Justices are is so important to us.

DL sounds like you need a nap.

Perhaps it’s time for a revolution. Careful, Mischa, you know what Shakespeare said about lawyers.

Bert —

The article you linked to about the “moral mandate” was scary as hell. I truly hope this guy is another Donald Wildmon and not actually representative of evangelical Christians.

I guess it must be comforting to believe you’re right all the time and you only need one book to tell you that.

So, the left dislikes activist judges who use their personal opinions instead of the Constitution when ruling against gay marriage, drugs etc…
The right dislikes activist judges who use their personal opinions instead of the Constitution when ruling against gun rights, religious activites etc…

Instead of fighting against ALL so-called activist judges though, both sides choose to ignore the arguments of the other.
Leaving us (the people) with un-Constitutional rulings and keeping us divided.

How can one side ask the other side to stop “activist judges” when they didn’t support them when they asked for help?

Misha,

1. I had a feeling I’d be hearing from you, fully expecting a thorough dress down from a well-versed jurist. All I wanted, was to be in the ballpark when it came to my civil rights assertion, which conversely is considered a ‘slam dunk’ by Coulter/Hannity/Limbaugh standards.

2. You still assume that I am an all proponent of Gay Marriage - I am not. I’ve always supported civil unions instead, feeling Gay Marriage a political mistake. However, I feel it important to point out where Gay Marriage opponents falter when it comes to the law, legal precedent and the Constitution.

I also believe that the proposed Gay Marriage Amendment Ban has as much a chance of getting off the ground, as the so-called ‘Amend for Arnold’ nonsense. Jerry Falwell and his gang are in for a rude awakening, if they think the GOP is going to hold it’s nose and usher through Congress a slew of intolerant, backward initiatives.

Even after the election, the White House gave a tepid endorsement of continuing the ban process, because all the bluster from the Right does not scare Karl Rove. What kind of revenge could they exact on the Republicans, when they discover it’s ‘lip service as usual’?

3. I thought it interesting that you’d spend two paragraphs on a supposed Scalia-Thomas connection, when I only mentioned their names in a sarcastic throwaway line. Nowhere else do I speculate (or care) as to how they would possibly rule on such a case. Although, being the only two dissenters in the case of illegal detainees at Gitmo, is indefensible.

Lastly, to avoid appearing like a ‘silly caricature’, one should not insist his advancement is based on merit and not race, lie about sexually harassment, and then call it an ‘electronic lynching’.

Gary: The “intruders” are the ones that legislate instead of interpreting. Big difference about who protects our freedoms.This is a major debate in this country.

Greg: Nap? True.

I find it hard to understand how a same-sex marriage can be legal in Mass., but if they move they are nolonger married ?

The term “marriage” is used in many federal laws, fed. income taxes, SS, ect.

Ok..get married in Mass., File fed joint income taxes one year, move to another state with a ban, Fed Gov. agreed you were married before, what do they now do, file married on Fed. forms but single on state? I don’t see how this can work.

Most state tax forms won’t allow you to be married on Fed. but single on state, they must match.
Are they auto. divorsed when they cross the state line ?
How about living in Mass. but working in another state ?
The employer of the other state collects the SS and Fed. taxes and sends it in, How the hell is this going to work ?

Any state without a ban, will soon have one to avoid changing every state form ect.

I think the Mass. thing is a major mess that likely hurt gays far more than it helped them.

My own state of Michigan has now baned civil unions also, now spouses of gay partners are losing their Ins. ect.

This whole mess will be forced into the S.C., and with 60-80 % nationally opposed to gay marriage, how do you think they will rule ?

If I was gay I would want that stupid judge tared and feathered !

Would it be sufficient if government allowed all things for
married men & women to married gays also,
but simply called it something different (say Civil Union) ?

I think a large part of this issue may be about
the money. Not just demands for equality.
Specifically, some primary issues are:
(1) Social Security for dependent spouses,
(2) health benefits extended to employees dependent spouses,
(3) property inheritance,
(4) hospital visitation,
(5) laws governing divorce,
(6) taxes

Personally, I’m somewhat indifferent about this same-sex marriage issue.
It could be that the same-sex marriage issue is being confused with
some basic rights violations (such as hospital visitation rights).

__________
(1) Social Security for dependent spouses:
S.S. is a membership program/contract of sorts;
Not an inalienable human right. S.S. was specifically
designed for married men and women and the
dependent spouse; gays pay social security taxes too;
while it sort of seems like trying to force the boy scouts to
allow girls into the boy scouts; it is hard to argue that
gays dependent partners should not receive benefits
from a system they also paid money into.
Since Social Security is already doomed, it is probably
a waste of time to oppose attempts to change the
Social Security Benefit laws to allow for gay dependent
spouses also;
Note: dependent children and adopted children are already
covered, so that’s not an issue;
__________
(2) health benefits extended to employees’ dependent spouses:
This is the choice of employers. employers don’t have to
to provide benefits to anyone if they do not want to;
if people don?t like it, don?t work at that company, and boycott the their products.

Note: dependent children are usually already covered, so that’s not an issue.
__________
(3) property inheritance:
I don’t have a problem with this applying to gays also; property can be
willed to anyone anyway;
__________
(4) hospital visitation;
I don’t see the problem with this either;
any patient should be able to designate
any visitors they wish (at the time or
in advance; people should have living wills also);
__________
(5) and laws governing divorce;
I don’t see the problem with this either;
divorce laws vary from state to state;
__________
(6) The marriage penalty tax:
I guess married gays will have to also pay the marriage
penalty tax like married men and women; the tax is wrong,
and two wrongs don’t make a right, but no one can be exempt.
Besides, where most taxes are concerned, their existence is already
based on a questionable premise.
_______________
It’s best to avoid the issue of morality.
There’s mounting evidence that some people are born this way.
Some may choose this way. Regardless, there is a basic
law that must be adhered to:
People can do whatever they want, as long as it does not
violate the inalienable human rights of another.
Force is never justified, except for self defense, and to bring criminals to justice.

they happen at the same time for tramadol me, the lyrics and the music really ambien building off one another. I need didrex to work with this, play with this. soma There’s something to be done with xenical it. Another point Phil made in an meridia entry - something to the effect of paxil that when a band splits / diverges fioricet

she also evinces a rare grasp of emotional order phentermine chemistry. This “fictional essay” on marriage phentermine prescription and adultery—really an impressionistic poetic phentermine 37 5 meditation—cuts more truly, more deeply than phentermine any plain-spoken confessional monolog, dramatizing buy phentermine inner and outer conflict with a precise, knowing phentermine online wit. The husband holds “Yes and No together with buy phentermine online one hand/ while parrying the words of wife.” cheap phentermine The wife marvels “at her husband’s ability to phentermine com

You could not be more right. Let’s get rid of these self-acting, moral-imposing, activist nutjobs who sit on the bench and tell the rest of the world we need to live according to their standars. In the spirit of America, we should let the people decide on this issue…oh wait…they already had their chance, and they did decide…0 out of 14. How dare these ‘activist’ judges back the will of the people! How absurd - especially in America!!!