Well yeah, it's not a big issue to me either, but again, I see where he's coming from.JohnG@lt wrote:
I really don't see the big deal tbh. I'm not one of those people that circles the parking lot looking for a 'prime' spot. I park in the first open spot I see and walk my ass to the door. I need the exercise anywayTurquoise wrote:
We disagree on gay rights, but I can see where you're coming from on handicapped rights. I think far too many handicap parking passes are given out to people who don't really need them.lowing wrote:
Lets be honest, how many times have you seen the handicapped spots being used by someone that really needed that spot?
Handicapped should not be a limp, fat, old, mental disabilities, missing arms etc.
Handicapped spots should be restricted to wheelchair bound individuals and the families that take care of them for obvious reasons, room to operate their systems and get the chairs on and off, and lessen the distance to operate the wheelchair, especially the battery driven ones. Other than this, everyone else is just lazy and found a loophole for special treatment.
Everybody and their special rights, no group lacks the ability to take advantage of and abuse good intentioned laws meant to honestly help people. especially the "handicapped".
Poll
Do you agree with the ruling?
| Yes | 70% | 70% - 42 | ||||
| No | 20% | 20% - 12 | ||||
| No opinion | 10% | 10% - 6 | ||||
| Total: 60 | ||||||
As for gay marriage, I could care less.
But, I'm against the Federal ruling primarily based on states rights: marriage laws are the jurisdiction of the state ... I would guess that the "Equal Protection Clause" is being cited. My forecast is that the 9th circuit court will uphold the ruling (because they are the worst circuit court in the US), but the Supreme Court will eventually rule this a States Rights issue, and we'll have much ado over nothing.
The Prop will stand.
But, I'm against the Federal ruling primarily based on states rights: marriage laws are the jurisdiction of the state ... I would guess that the "Equal Protection Clause" is being cited. My forecast is that the 9th circuit court will uphold the ruling (because they are the worst circuit court in the US), but the Supreme Court will eventually rule this a States Rights issue, and we'll have much ado over nothing.
The Prop will stand.
You know in all of this I kind of feel sorry for the Mormons. They buckled to the pressure to conform to moral/social norms by dropping polygamy and instead of picking up that fight again to regain their individual freedoms to marry who they want and to follow their religious beliefs as they were practiced in the past (if they so desire), what they would rather do is poke the eye out of another group so that that group can experience the same hateful discrimination. equal means equal for everyone, including the gays and including the Mormons.
The Mormons pushed prop 8, I hope that they will give their heads a collective shake and take back some of things that they were forced to give up.
After all, individual freedom is a tenet of American society... and freedom is not defined by homogenization
The Mormons pushed prop 8, I hope that they will give their heads a collective shake and take back some of things that they were forced to give up.
After all, individual freedom is a tenet of American society... and freedom is not defined by homogenization
Uh... no. Some states used to ban interracial marriages. Those laws were overturned by federal laws. The same can be applied to Prop 8, because homosexuals are a federally protected class the same as racial minorities are.OrangeHound wrote:
As for gay marriage, I could care less.
But, I'm against the Federal ruling primarily based on states rights: marriage laws are the jurisdiction of the state ... I would guess that the "Equal Protection Clause" is being cited. My forecast is that the 9th circuit court will uphold the ruling (because they are the worst circuit court in the US), but the Supreme Court will eventually rule this a States Rights issue, and we'll have much ado over nothing.
The Prop will stand.
This ruling is perfectly in line with civil rights regulations on the federal level, so states' rights are not relevant here.
Good point... I support the legalization of polygamy, but I do believe we need to revise a few tax laws to properly address this legalization.Diesel_dyk wrote:
You know in all of this I kind of feel sorry for the Mormons. They buckled to the pressure to conform to moral/social norms by dropping polygamy and instead of picking up that fight again to regain their individual freedoms to marry who they want and to follow their religious beliefs as they were practiced in the past (if they so desire), what they would rather do is poke the eye out of another group so that that group can experience the same hateful discrimination. equal means equal for everyone, including the gays and including the Mormons.
The Mormons pushed prop 8, I hope that they will give their heads a collective shake and take back some of things that they were forced to give up.
After all, individual freedom is a tenet of American society... and freedom is not defined by homogenization
Point is, you don't hear about people attacking and killing rich folk JUST because they are rich. Burgling? Sure. Beating and killing? Not really. Your point is taken though, and in my mind there is a line in the sand as far as my understanding of the desire for such laws. Killing a gay/black/white/jewish/whatever man JUST because they are gay/black/white/jewish/whatever is how I can understand the desire for the laws. I still do not support any measure that would arbitrarily increase the prison time just because of labels that can be applied after the fact. 'Hate crime' is such a label.lowing wrote:
Point is, you should not even understand it. to understand it, means there is an argument for it. just like you do not understand "rich rights". there simply isn't an argument for it. There is no understanding special treatment of certain groups. regardless of the group. Again except for the handicapped stipulations I mentioned
Lowing seems unable to understand that allowing gay marriage isn't a special right. It's the only version of a marriage right that is applicable to this federally protected class.
It's obtuse to behave as if gay marriage is a preferential right for gays -- it's simply a revision of an already existing institution that doesn't currently allow for all of the legal privileges of marriage to be available for a significant minority.
That's not preferential treatment -- it's a matter of adapting the system to modern needs and civil rights.
It's obtuse to behave as if gay marriage is a preferential right for gays -- it's simply a revision of an already existing institution that doesn't currently allow for all of the legal privileges of marriage to be available for a significant minority.
That's not preferential treatment -- it's a matter of adapting the system to modern needs and civil rights.
To give credit where credit is due...Turquoise wrote:
Lowing seems unable to understand that allowing gay marriage isn't a special right. It's the only version of a marriage right that is applicable to this federally protected class.
It's obtuse to behave as if gay marriage is a preferential right for gays -- it's simply a revision of an already existing institution that doesn't currently allow for all of the legal privileges of marriage to be available for a significant minority.
That's not preferential treatment -- it's a matter of adapting the system to modern needs and civil rights.
Lowing and I are arguing over my ability to understand the desire for hate crimes legislation for certain groups, since we both agree that hate crime laws are needless. Yes, arguing over my ability to see where the groups are coming from, but still not support them.lowing wrote:
Allow gay people the right to marry, if this is done all of this domestic partner BULLSHIT should disappear, I have no problem with that.
You hurt my feelings Turquoise, saying I am obtuse.Turquoise wrote:
Lowing seems unable to understand that allowing gay marriage isn't a special right. It's the only version of a marriage right that is applicable to this federally protected class.
It's obtuse to behave as if gay marriage is a preferential right for gays -- it's simply a revision of an already existing institution that doesn't currently allow for all of the legal privileges of marriage to be available for a significant minority.
That's not preferential treatment -- it's a matter of adapting the system to modern needs and civil rights.
I am all for gay marriage. I am also for bestiality marriage as well. I don't give a shit. What you do and who you do it with is none of govts. business, as long as it does not hinder the rights of anyone else.
Oh crap... see, you changed your position from the one you held not long ago. My bad...lowing wrote:
You hurt my feelings Turquoise, saying I am obtuse.Turquoise wrote:
Lowing seems unable to understand that allowing gay marriage isn't a special right. It's the only version of a marriage right that is applicable to this federally protected class.
It's obtuse to behave as if gay marriage is a preferential right for gays -- it's simply a revision of an already existing institution that doesn't currently allow for all of the legal privileges of marriage to be available for a significant minority.
That's not preferential treatment -- it's a matter of adapting the system to modern needs and civil rights.
I am all for gay marriage. I am also for bestiality marriage as well. I don't give a shit. What you do and who you do it with is none of govts. business, as long as it does not hinder the rights of anyone else.
I'm completely in favor of states rights, but that doesn't extend to allowing states to create discriminatory laws. The final arbiter of justice should be the highest court in the land.OrangeHound wrote:
As for gay marriage, I could care less.
But, I'm against the Federal ruling primarily based on states rights: marriage laws are the jurisdiction of the state ... I would guess that the "Equal Protection Clause" is being cited. My forecast is that the 9th circuit court will uphold the ruling (because they are the worst circuit court in the US), but the Supreme Court will eventually rule this a States Rights issue, and we'll have much ado over nothing.
The Prop will stand.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Never. I never change my position. ask anyoneTurquoise wrote:
Oh crap... see, you changed your position from the one you held not long ago. My bad...lowing wrote:
You hurt my feelings Turquoise, saying I am obtuse.Turquoise wrote:
Lowing seems unable to understand that allowing gay marriage isn't a special right. It's the only version of a marriage right that is applicable to this federally protected class.
It's obtuse to behave as if gay marriage is a preferential right for gays -- it's simply a revision of an already existing institution that doesn't currently allow for all of the legal privileges of marriage to be available for a significant minority.
That's not preferential treatment -- it's a matter of adapting the system to modern needs and civil rights.
I am all for gay marriage. I am also for bestiality marriage as well. I don't give a shit. What you do and who you do it with is none of govts. business, as long as it does not hinder the rights of anyone else.
I have always been a proponent for same sex marriage, that is to say, I have always been a proponent for big govt. staying the fuck out of private lives.
I don't know how it will play out, and (yes) there is a strong case for the Equal Protection Clause winning out.Turquoise wrote:
Uh... no. Some states used to ban interracial marriages. Those laws were overturned by federal laws. The same can be applied to Prop 8, because homosexuals are a federally protected class the same as racial minorities are.OrangeHound wrote:
As for gay marriage, I could care less.
But, I'm against the Federal ruling primarily based on states rights: marriage laws are the jurisdiction of the state ... I would guess that the "Equal Protection Clause" is being cited. My forecast is that the 9th circuit court will uphold the ruling (because they are the worst circuit court in the US), but the Supreme Court will eventually rule this a States Rights issue, and we'll have much ado over nothing.
The Prop will stand.
This ruling is perfectly in line with civil rights regulations on the federal level, so states' rights are not relevant here.
But, I'm remembering that the Supreme Court has already intervened in this matter back in January, and that was HIGHLY unusual for them to act without it first getting to the 9th circuit court ... remember that 5-4 ruling? Remember how they put the thumb on Walker?
The Supreme Court doesn't like Walker, and it doesn't typically like the rulings of the 9th circuit court.
Interracial marriage bans were upheld by the Supreme Court in 1950 ... only after the anti-segregation movement was successful did they finally rule against them in the late 1960's. I would imagine that the same path will be taken by the Court with regard to same-sex marriage. They will reject them over the next 10-15 years, but as the public warms to them and more and more states allow them, then the Supreme Court will finally say that they cannot be prohibited.
The court is not separated from the will of the people as much as some might think ...
Lowing you love big government? Most of your other debates are for more police and more laws. You may say that you aren't for big government but you stand by it.
I can honestly say, I could give a shit less about what other people want. The only thing that Gay Marriage is protecting is the corporations pockets, it would give more leeway to benefits given and allow pensions to be shared to a spouse or partner. The religious people can keep there own positions about it and the gays don't have to be married under their god/gods..
I can honestly say, I could give a shit less about what other people want. The only thing that Gay Marriage is protecting is the corporations pockets, it would give more leeway to benefits given and allow pensions to be shared to a spouse or partner. The religious people can keep there own positions about it and the gays don't have to be married under their god/gods..
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-08-06 11:38:15)
States have tons of discriminatory laws ... we make these laws under the assumption that we are "protecting" people, or helping people, or protecting some fundamental value. But they discriminate.JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm completely in favor of states rights, but that doesn't extend to allowing states to create discriminatory laws. The final arbiter of justice should be the highest court in the land.OrangeHound wrote:
As for gay marriage, I could care less.
But, I'm against the Federal ruling primarily based on states rights: marriage laws are the jurisdiction of the state ... I would guess that the "Equal Protection Clause" is being cited. My forecast is that the 9th circuit court will uphold the ruling (because they are the worst circuit court in the US), but the Supreme Court will eventually rule this a States Rights issue, and we'll have much ado over nothing.
The Prop will stand.
For example, why can't all adults drink alcohol legally in the United States. Age discrimination.
Why do some minorities get to define their own laws, such as establishing gambling casinos ... Native Americans get to do lots of stuff that other racial groups cannot. Why do we have hiring laws that don't apply to all races? Racial discrimination.
Why does the Federal Government get to award contracts based on the gender or race of the company owner? Gender and racial discrimination.
The laws change as the values change, but we have lots of examples of laws where equality is not applied. My point is that these "values" vary from one part of the country to another ... that's the essence of states rights.
wow. of all my postings you think I am for big govt and more police?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Lowing you love big government? Most of your other debates are for more police and more laws. You may say that you aren't for big government but you stand by it.
I can honestly say, I could give a shit less about what other people want. The only thing that Gay Marriage is protecting is the corporations pockets, it would give more leeway to benefits given and allow pensions to be shared to a spouse or partner. The religious people can keep there own positions about it and the gays don't have to be married under their god/gods..
Well to set the record straight, I am not for big govt. I am for smaller central govt. and more states rights. I am also not for more police, I am for more latitude in policing fuckheads that think drunk driving is harmless, and do so, as well as others that break the law, especially violent crime laws. I am not for more laws, I am for enforcing existing laws and adhering to those laws by the citizens. I am also for steep punishment for those who break laws that interfere in the rights of others.
That's surely a possibility, but I think the difference here is that even the conservatives of the current Court are not especially socially conservative on most issues. Scalia is more focused on economic conservatism and constitutionalism than he is on social conservatism. While it is true that he favors states' rights, I don't see how he could defend that argument with the Equal Protection Clause in place.OrangeHound wrote:
I don't know how it will play out, and (yes) there is a strong case for the Equal Protection Clause winning out.
But, I'm remembering that the Supreme Court has already intervened in this matter back in January, and that was HIGHLY unusual for them to act without it first getting to the 9th circuit court ... remember that 5-4 ruling? Remember how they put the thumb on Walker?
The Supreme Court doesn't like Walker, and it doesn't typically like the rulings of the 9th circuit court.
Interracial marriage bans were upheld by the Supreme Court in 1950 ... only after the anti-segregation movement was successful did they finally rule against them in the late 1960's. I would imagine that the same path will be taken by the Court with regard to same-sex marriage. They will reject them over the next 10-15 years, but as the public warms to them and more and more states allow them, then the Supreme Court will finally say that they cannot be prohibited.
The court is not separated from the will of the people as much as some might think ...
Chances are, Scalia will break with Thomas and Roberts on this one. Roberts might even surprise us as well.
You're correct about the variability of values, but all of these examples can be explained.OrangeHound wrote:
States have tons of discriminatory laws ... we make these laws under the assumption that we are "protecting" people, or helping people, or protecting some fundamental value. But they discriminate.JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm completely in favor of states rights, but that doesn't extend to allowing states to create discriminatory laws. The final arbiter of justice should be the highest court in the land.OrangeHound wrote:
As for gay marriage, I could care less.
But, I'm against the Federal ruling primarily based on states rights: marriage laws are the jurisdiction of the state ... I would guess that the "Equal Protection Clause" is being cited. My forecast is that the 9th circuit court will uphold the ruling (because they are the worst circuit court in the US), but the Supreme Court will eventually rule this a States Rights issue, and we'll have much ado over nothing.
The Prop will stand.
For example, why can't all adults drink alcohol legally in the United States. Age discrimination.
Why do some minorities get to define their own laws, such as establishing gambling casinos ... Native Americans get to do lots of stuff that other racial groups cannot. Why do we have hiring laws that don't apply to all races? Racial discrimination.
Why does the Federal Government get to award contracts based on the gender or race of the company owner? Gender and racial discrimination.
The laws change as the values change, but we have lots of examples of laws where equality is not applied. My point is that these "values" vary from one part of the country to another ... that's the essence of states rights.
Agism has always been a problem for nearly every society. It probably will continue to be because of its temporary nature.
Native Americans get certain consolations that are based around the decimation of their ancestors. While it is true that this is technically favoritism, it's not really a situation that is applicable to gay marriage because we don't have a history of killing off gay people or taking their land. Gay marriage doesn't have much historical baggage connected to it -- it faces a more religious obstacle, a bias which high judges usually transcend in favor of examining in terms of constitutionality.
Affirmative action is yet another issue with historical baggage, although more people are slowly speaking out against it. Even many minorities are beginning to see the problems it causes.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-08-06 12:07:34)
And, who really knows how Kagan will rule since we have absolutely no precedence with her. But, I think everyone in Washington would be surprised if she isn't just as left as her predecessor, Stevens.
I'm not sure what the big deal about Kagan is. Rehnquist was only a jurist before he became a Justice.OrangeHound wrote:
And, who really knows how Kagan will rule since we have absolutely no precedence with her. But, I think everyone in Washington would be surprised if she isn't just as left as her predecessor, Stevens.
I think gay marriage is much more about "I don't do this" or "they aren't like me" than something religious. America is superficially religious at best, we're 95% humanist & hedonistic. If "Christian" America really cared about sexual behavior, it would be equally vocal about affairs, pre-marital sexual behavior, divorce, and other on-high standards of male-female behavior.Turquoise wrote:
Gay marriage doesn't have much historical baggage connected to it -- it faces a more religious obstacle, a bias which high judges usually transcend in favor of examining in terms of constitutionality.
But ... wink-wink ... we do this heterosexual immorality ... we just don't do that homosexual immorality. Their evil. We're not. Right?
Once America gets used to the idea of gay marriage, and more broadly gay activity, religious values will no longer be mentioned.
** There was also a strong religious argument with slavery and segregation, but I believe that fundamentally it was about "they aren't like me".
True. Religion is often what people hide behind to justify their prejudices. One could argue that the entire premise behind homosexuality being immoral in scripture was based on cultural values that had to justify feelings of alienation and disgust through divine mandate, since they couldn't find any logical means to do so.OrangeHound wrote:
I think gay marriage is much more about "I don't do this" or "they aren't like me" than something religious. America is superficially religious at best, we're 95% humanist & hedonistic. If "Christian" America really cared about sexual behavior, it would be equally vocal about affairs, pre-marital sexual behavior, divorce, and other on-high standards of male-female behavior.Turquoise wrote:
Gay marriage doesn't have much historical baggage connected to it -- it faces a more religious obstacle, a bias which high judges usually transcend in favor of examining in terms of constitutionality.
But ... wink-wink ... we do this heterosexual immorality ... we just don't do that homosexual immorality. Their evil. We're not. Right?
Once America gets used to the idea of gay marriage, and more broadly gay activity, religious values will no longer be mentioned.
** There was also a strong religious argument with slavery and segregation, but I believe that fundamentally it was about "they aren't like me".
To a point, but considering that the vast majority of drunk driving accidents as a proportion to age group happens within the 16-21 year old age bracket, the law is in place not to discriminate, but to protect the rest of us from them.OrangeHound wrote:
States have tons of discriminatory laws ... we make these laws under the assumption that we are "protecting" people, or helping people, or protecting some fundamental value. But they discriminate.JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm completely in favor of states rights, but that doesn't extend to allowing states to create discriminatory laws. The final arbiter of justice should be the highest court in the land.OrangeHound wrote:
As for gay marriage, I could care less.
But, I'm against the Federal ruling primarily based on states rights: marriage laws are the jurisdiction of the state ... I would guess that the "Equal Protection Clause" is being cited. My forecast is that the 9th circuit court will uphold the ruling (because they are the worst circuit court in the US), but the Supreme Court will eventually rule this a States Rights issue, and we'll have much ado over nothing.
The Prop will stand.
For example, why can't all adults drink alcohol legally in the United States. Age discrimination.
Native American tribes are sovereign on their reservations. They are like mini-countries dotting the US but have to abide by our constitution and diplomatic stances.OrangeHound wrote:
Why do some minorities get to define their own laws, such as establishing gambling casinos ... Native Americans get to do lots of stuff that other racial groups cannot. Why do we have hiring laws that don't apply to all races? Racial discrimination.
I'm completely opposed to EO.OrangeHound wrote:
Why does the Federal Government get to award contracts based on the gender or race of the company owner? Gender and racial discrimination.
Correct, but when given a chance to correct the issue, we should do all we can to do so. In this case, the situation isn't adding to a law (as lowing is trying to argue) but simply stripping away language that denied one group access to equal protection under the law.OrangeHound wrote:
The laws change as the values change, but we have lots of examples of laws where equality is not applied. My point is that these "values" vary from one part of the country to another ... that's the essence of states rights.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Because she's closely associated with the Harvard administration that has over the years spawned communists, has spied for foreigners, and other things 'unamerican'.Turquoise wrote:
I'm not sure what the big deal about Kagan is. Rehnquist was only a jurist before he became a Justice.OrangeHound wrote:
And, who really knows how Kagan will rule since we have absolutely no precedence with her. But, I think everyone in Washington would be surprised if she isn't just as left as her predecessor, Stevens.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Couldn't this logic be applied to other things as well?JohnG@lt wrote:
To a point, but considering that the vast majority of drunk driving accidents as a proportion to age group happens within the 16-21 year old age bracket, the law is in place not to discriminate, but to protect the rest of us from them.OrangeHound wrote:
For example, why can't all adults drink alcohol legally in the United States. Age discrimination.
In America, crime as a proportion to race happens more with blacks than hispanics or whites ... so, racial laws against blacks are proper?
In America, aids as a proportion to sexual behavior is 50 times more prevalent in homosexuals than heterosexuals ... so, shouldn't we be passing discriminatory laws to protect people from such behavior? Such as re-enacting sodomy laws? I mean, it costs all of us ....
Again ... there are always current trends of discrimination based on public opinion, more than some notion of logic or fairness.