I mean, honestly: How could any conservative with a scintilla of common sense not be?
With Bush’s approval ratings at lethal lows, with the GOP chokehold on government apparently threatened, with civilians and soldiers dying at a stunning rate in Iraq, gas prices through the roof, citizens being spied on, the courts and politicians finally taking a long hard look at Bush’s historic power grabs…NOW Bush et al suddeny haul out a marriage amendment? NOW?
I mean, yes, the ploy worked wonders in energizing the conservative base and getting votes out in 2004 in a dazzling, multi-state display of voting bigotry. But no one’s mentioned it in two years. Suddenly, NOW, they announce that “marriage is under attack” and start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y’know, worked out so well) that would restrict freedoms rather than expand them. It could not possibly be a more obvious gambit to try and appeal to the many voters who have had buyers’ remorse ever since they voted for Bush and the GOP in 2004 and slowly came to the realization they’d been hosed. It’s genuinely insulting to conservative voters’ intelligence, that their leaders think they’re THAT easily manipulated. That they’re going to overlook the very real assault that our soldiers are under, needlessly, in Iraq, because of the fake assault that the institution of marriage is allegedly under.
Is it that Bush et al believe that conservatives must be monumentally stupid because the fact that conservatives voted for them proves it?
I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: If politicians are really worried about marriage being undermined, the key is not to prevent people from getting married. It’s to make it difficult-to-impossible to get divorced. But they’ll never do that because Bush and his cronies aren’t REALLY concerned about marriage being under attack. They’re worried their numbers are under attack. But they’re clinging to the notion that conservatives are Just That Stupid that they’ll fall for this crap a second time.
The question is, will they?
PAD
• 
A day after the Senate votes down discussion on the amendment, Al-Zarquawi gets himself killed, putting the attention back on the war, effectively making the whole gay marriage thing a waste of time. As if we didn’t know it already.
Not to worry, because the GOP already has the next distraction issue all line up, one that directly affects even fewer Americans than gay marriage:
The estate tax!
Multi-millionaires rejoice!
Aruging about the definition of marriage is gay.
LMAO!
After all these rambling posts, TallestFan said it best and was the most succint.
TallestFanEver-
You owe me a new monitor as I have spit ice tea all over mine. *grin* That was just the right thing at the right time.
Kath
I rather hope they can do a similar favor for Bin Laden (one can only imagine the sadness that would be felt by hopeless partisans for the spike in approval ratings THAT happy day would engender.)
Well, those hopeless partisans can take solace in the fact that Bush doesn’t care about Bin Laden anymore.
He was a known terrorist even before 9/11
Maybe “household name” would be a better way of phrasing it?
Sure, we see martyrs every day. But the great majority of them don’t get mentioned by name, and even if they do, they’re forgotten as quickly as they were mentioned.
Iraq made Al-Zarqawi a household name, and I don’t think you can simply play the speculation game that he would’ve become known regardless if we hadn’t invaded Iraq. This guy could’ve just as easily stayed in Afghanistan causing trouble, but didn’t.
No other Al Qaeda member has done so in Afghanistan either, and they’ve had plenty of chances once we made the mistake of focusing on Iraq.
“Roe vs. Waid deals with two questions.
1) Whether the constitution guarentees privacy? (in this case to what a woman does with her body).
IMHO, yes it does, according to the 5th and 14th amendments.
2) If the issue of abortion is protected by privacy (i.e. it concerns a woman’s decision about herself), or if it involves a third party with its own rights (i.e. the fetus).
Only one of these issues involves the interpretation of the constitution.
This is the part that I do think is a judicial stretch, but I agree with the underlying principle. Contrary to popular belief, the court didn’t just wake up one day and decide to expand the right of privacy to anything and everything. It was a series of steps, with each ruling building on the one before it. First it was saying that it was a violation of a married couple’s right to privacy to make it illegal to sell contraceptives. Then it was a violation of an unmarried couple’s right to privacy. From there, it’s just a short hop to say any restriction on a woman’s reproductive destiny is a violation of her right to privacy.”
Correction, there are 3 questions:
1) Whether the constitution guarentees privacy?
It is common to interpret the some parts of the constitution as implying privacy, but the right of privacy is not there explicitly.
2) Whether the right to privacy is relevant in the issue of reproduction.
Den is correct that the court gradualy decided that the right of privacy applies with regard to the use of contraceptives, and then moved on to abortion. The first seems rather obvious to me, but it seems that until a certain point American legislators felt it was possible for them to make the use of contraception illegal, as well as sexual practices like homosexuality, which today are considered private. However with abortion there is a third question:
2) If the issue of abortion is protected by privacy (i.e. it concerns a woman’s decision about herself), or if it involves a third party with its own rights (i.e. the fetus).
The answer to this question lies in the realm of science and philosophy, not interpretation of law. However, if the supreme court accepts 1 and 2, and if they have no compelling philosphical or scientific reason to start viewing 1st trimester fetuses as legal entities in their own right, then they can have no reason from the point of view of jurisprudence to overrule the previous court decision.
There is a third theological reason against abortion (in Catholicism), but the court should not address that.
————————
About prisons. Wouldn’t it make more sense not to send to jail non violent criminals or ones that are not in risk of fleeing community service or something like that if not held at a gun-point. Community service, big fines, or some digital bracelet seem to be better in these cases.
About drugs. I wonder if using drugs is not like using contraceptives?
1the average pro-lifer doesn’t give a rat’s ášš what the Constitution does and does not say. They want it overturned because they believe abortion is murder, pure and simple.
*****
Average is probably right. But legally, I believe that it really is up to the states, based on how our constitution is written. And that is the legal argument really. If “Roe” were overturned, it would leave it up to the states, and in some cases nothing would change (like NY) and some cases, it owuld be outlawed. (Unless you considered the 14th amendment to give the fetus the right to life, a not unreasonable argument). because though the public debate was cut off, we now have the firestorm that we have now over it, which we don’t have generally when the issue is left more to the legislatures-at least over time, because people feel that they can make changes if they can just convince enough people to do so. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, no conservative, criticized Roe because she believed at the time that a growing pro-choice movement was gaining support and would have had more permanency.
Our constitution deals with physical searches by the government. That was what was contemplated. There is nothing in the consitution regarding anything at issue in Roe. All that stuff was the domain of, and province of the states. Sex, marriage, pregnancy, regulating doctors, definition of murder. The states gave up only a portion of their power to form the Union, for better or worse.
Mostly, Roe v. Wade is scene as a poorly written and poorly based decision in legal circles. It’s been changed by Casey. Roe was based on now outdated science that was inevitably going to change, not law really. It basically said in the first trimester the state could not regulate abortions, in the second it had an interest in protecting the unborn which must be balanced with the mother’s rights, and in the 3rd trimester, it could totally proscribe abortion except for life of the mother situations.
Casey changed the whole trimester thing into viability. Basically, when a fetus is viable, the state can set all sorts of regulations on the right to an abortion if it choose to, because it has an interest in protecting that developing life that is viable. Before viability, it has a very low interest in regulating that life. The tension in Casey is between the state’s interest in protecting the fetus and the woman’s right to control her body. Once the fetus is viable the woman’s interest diminishes greatly under Casey, except for the “life and health of the mother.” there’s the rub, because anything can affect the health of the mother-any pregnancy it could be argued. It also replaced Roe’s “heightened scrutiny” of any abortion restriction with a relaced “can’t be an undue burden on the woman’s right” 24 hr. waiting periods are ok, informed consent parental notificaions. not spousal notification though.
I honestly believe the makority in Casey was afraid to overturn roe entirely, and basically said “it may have been the wrong move, but we have to have consistency, even when wrong. If it is wrong long enough, it is law”
The question remains whether we really want 5 unelected individuals totally removed from everyday life to make these kinds of decisions when there really is no authorization given to them to do so. The courts have become a way to get what you want in circumvention of democracy when you can’t convince the majority of people to give you what you want.
The discussion of the 14th Amendment, and particularly this quote, from spiderrob8 –
“This is what the Supreme Court actually said ‘The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.'”
led me to an idea which I don’t think I’ve seen proposed before.
It also led me to read the specific text of the 14th Amendment, which on the face of it would already seem to me to protect gay marriage rights. It says “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privledges or immunities of the citizens of the United States… nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” – and as has been pointed out, marriage is a legal institution, and one of the main concerns of those fighting for recognition of the right to marriage has been ensuring that insurance privleges, inheritance, and other legal rights which come from the joining of one’s life together with another’s apply whatever the genders of the respective partners. (I suppose this could be why its proponents think that an anti-gay marriage amendment is necessary, because gay marriage may already be protected by the Constitution as it stands.)
But, if the current interpretation of the amendment isn’t enough to guarantee to homosexuals the right to marry, then maybe the way to a solution lies in the studies which indicate that homosexual brains do have different responses to sexual stimuli from heterosexual. If the Supreme Court has been most ready to apply the 14th to cases of “racial” discrimination, then perhaps, in this particular battle, homosexuals would be better off pursuing such research and then trying to be classified as a different race. It wouldn’t be any more feeble than any other bûllšhìŧ distinction which has been used to create “races”….
(Not to discount the very real social differences which have been created by the stupidity of “racial” classifications. But these social realities were created by the moronic fictional creation of different “races” based on minor differences in physical characteristics. …Which of course calls into question whether declaring homosexuality a racial difference would in fact be a cure worse than the disease. But then, there already is an established bigotry against homosexuals; would a “racial” declaration worsen that significantly?)
All laws treat people differently. For example, tax laws. Married people get a deduction, single people don’t. The Supreme Court generall asks is there any kind of rational basis for the law-and it can be overbroad. So encouraging people to marry for the benefit of society because married people are more stable and eventually usually have children, have bigger stakes in their communties, have more expenses etc. would be rational and in the legislature’s province-even if the Supreme Court disagreed. and the fact that it doesn’t cover everything (you can be unmarried and contribute to society and have lots of expenses) and covers too much (not every marriage is a postiive thing and not every married couple has a lot of expenses). I’m simplifying and picked a lousy example. But the Supreme court would generally never say you can’t classify differenbtly based on marital status. (I am sure there is an example somewhere where I am wrong).
But certain things-such as race or national origin-get strict scrutiny. THe court looks at real real close. and it has to be narrowly tailored to meet its purpose-not overbroad. and there can’t be a less restrictive alternative. Almost no classificaiotn based on race or national origin would be allowed. Such as bans on interracial marriage. They did uphold the Japanese internment I think-but that was wartime, where the court has long allowed freedoms to be lessened, and probably would not be allowed today anyway. But generally, there isn’t a reason to treat people differently because of race. (Affirmative action is tricky and limited, in theory to remedy a past wrong). The idea is race/national origin almost never has a legitmate basis for a classification differently, and the 14th Amendment was passed specifically with blacks and ex-slaves in mind (some legal theorists would even limit it to that, but few). It specifically was passed to allow the North to pass laws after the Civil War to help black southerners and to eliminate southern laws against black people. Obviously support for such only lasted so long. It was passed in something of a trick, because the winners were allowed to exclude the southerner states that seceded from having a vote on it.
The there is the question-is what is not allowed purposeful unequal treatment “No black children will get textbooks” or results that are unequal “They didn;t mean for the test to be easier for whites than blacks, but twice as many blacks fail it as whites.” Generally, except for employment, only discriminatory intent. No guarantee of equal outcomes, only equal opportunities
Some things get intermediate scrutiny-sex for example. Rationally related to an important state interest. Yeah, usually there is no reason to classify differently on male or female, but there are differences and there may be reasons.
Wealth, age and most other things have been held to get no extra scrutiny. Sexual orientation at this point as well. None of those groups are special classes given an extra look by the court than the normal look given. If the court were to give strict scrutiny or even intermediate scrutiny, laws prohibniting gay marriage probably would fail. If just the normal rational basis test, there’s a good chance that they would be ok by the US Constitution, although there could be an argument it is totally irrational. Some would go to the intent of the people who passed the amendment, basically saying “Whatever it means, they did not mean for it to apply to the prohibition of homosexual unions .”
Peter –
Normally, I don’t agree with your political views. I enjoy reading them – as I enjoy reading all of your stuff – but I don’t agree with them, until this. My family and I have been, for a couple of generations, “old fashioned conservatives” – that is, basically hoping and encouraging the government to stay the heck out of normal people’s lives. And so, up until George W. Bush, my family has voted uniformly Republican.
But, I’m embarrassed to be a Republican right now. This isn’t the party that I grew up with. This party is all about big government, more government restrictions, and less individual freedom. I only hope and pray that some of these mistakes – like the “Broadcast Deceny Act” can be fixed soon.
The question remains whether we really want 5 unelected individuals totally removed from everyday life to make these kinds of decisions when there really is no authorization given to them to do.
Of course we do. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE COURT SYSTEM.
Married people get a deduction, single people don’t.
Er… have you ever filed taxes?
Standard deduction for single people this tax year was $5,000.
Married? $10,000.
So, that’s a wash.
When I hear Bill and Hillary Clinton offered as examples of ultra-liberals — which I do, all too often — I’m never sure whether to laugh or cry.
Which is very true, especially given Hillary’s hawkishness on the war in Iraq and her railing against violence in video games.
But censorship is a common theme among both ultra-conservatives and ultra-liberals. They just usually want to censor different things.
I went to college during the Bush I years and, to be honest, saw plenty of examples of people on both the left and the right behaving badly. I’ve been on and off the campus scene as both a student and an instructor and haven’t seen any difference. Most recently, the Republican students club at my alma matter -PSU- got some flak over their planned “Catch an Immigrant” day where a group of students would pretend to be illegal immigrant and participants would get prizes for “catching them.”
Well, at my college there weren’t very many oportunities for the right to behave badly. I have no doubt that they are fully capable of it but knowing that they will not be at all protected by an unsympathetic college administration probably keeps many on the straight and narrow.
I plan on going back for my PhD in a couple of years.
Great! Go for it! The older you get the easier college becomes–when you are the same age as the professor it’s a whole lot easier top figure out what’s important and what isn’t.
How about a compromise: Let’s treat drug addiction as a public health problem and lock up the big time dealers and smugglers.
Sounds good to me and I doubt there would be very many dealers and smugglers left at that point. Bootlegging hasn’t been much of a problem since prohibition got canned.
If the Supreme Court has been most ready to apply the 14th to cases of “racial” discrimination, then perhaps, in this particular battle, homosexuals would be better off pursuing such research and then trying to be classified as a different race. It wouldn’t be any more feeble than any other bûllšhìŧ distinction which has been used to create “races”….
A clever thought, but it would be hard to prove that homosexuality is passed on, which is a fundamental aspect of race.
spiderrob–sorry about the misunderstanding. The way I was reading some of what you read and not picking up on the role you want the state governments to have. The only trouble with what you propose, ie having gays wait, is most, at least those I know, will say, “How much longer?”
Bill Mulligan–yeah, so, I’m a great big kid. And unfortunately, neither conversations with my parents nor my history classes told me about them. And you make a good point about Al Zarqawi. Most AMERICANS didn’t know his name, but there’s that Western Hemisphere-centricity at work again. Just because someone doesn’t come from somewhere in North America (Hi, Canadians! How’s it goin’, eh?) doesn’t mean he’s not an important figure.
Bill & Den–miss college? Get a job in TV. We make Animal House look like Grandma’s Tea Party.
Back to Spiderrob–it’s funny (in an ironic way) that you had to leftify some of you college papers to make your professors happy, I had to rightify a few. Granted, they were all for one professor who looked like he’d dressed with Eugene Levy’s cast off costumes only not as current, but still, I didn’t like having to do it.
Sorry, only posted once. Not sure how it wound up in triplicate … although this being a government town might have something to do with it. 😉
Posted by Micha
the court made a new interpretation of the constitution in claiming that having seperate schools denies blacks equality.
Well, no — the Court, in fact, declared that by a fairly strict interpretation of the Constitution the Topeka Board was in violation — that the facilities were not “separate but equal“, and thus violated the existing interpretation of the Amendment in question, the Fourteenth, providing that “no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. (There was in there a certain amount of assumption that there would be inherent inequality, but based on my own childhood memories of a couple year later (i was six in ’54, and we moved to South Carolina in ’55), i’d say that was a pretty safe bet.
Posted by Craig J. Ries
Er… have you ever filed taxes?
Standard deduction for single people this tax year was $5,000.
Married? $10,000.
So, that’s a wash.
But if there’s any significant difference in the couple’s individual incomes, one of them gets shafted on the tax rate. This is the “marriage penalty”.
And i’d like to apologise to spiderrob to some extent — i shouldn’t have posted that snarky comment, no matter how much i felt like it at the time.
As some explanation, on a USENET group, i’ve been involved with a self-identified “libertarian” who, among other things called me a liar because i said that i knew what most libertarians thought, and who continues to assert that his opinion must be right and my evidence must be wrong; Spiderrob, who at least attempts to back up his opinions, caught the backflash from that.
Which is not to say that i don’t believe that he is a bit obtuse and talking about things he doesn’t fully understand, but i shouldn’t have been snarky about it.
Sean Scullion:
“The Constitution is not set in stone; it can be modified as the times dictate. In fact, it NEEDS to be modified to keep from becoming an anachronism. It also can’t be the Be-All and End-All of American life. IT’s a place to start, not the destination.”
I agree and disagree. The constitution is the destination, but it needs to be modified at times. And making it difficult to ammend the constitution gives the time needed to discuss and yes, even fight over the proposed changes. And often, during the discussions things occur anyway. Look back when the Equal Rights Ammendment was going on. It failed mainly because it wasn’t equal rights, but it would grant superior rights to one group over another (women over men). Yeah, men had the upper hand for a long time without a law saying so, but it’s bad law to punish one group over another “just to make it fair”. And while all the discussion was going on, real laws were enacted to actually give equal treatment under the law.
I feel the same thing will happen with gay marriages. There WILL eventually be a means to give same sex life partners equal rights as married couples, but by having the starting place be the Mass. Supreme Court and the city of San Francisco, I think it pushed the cause back, while forcing the issue to the spotlight.
Jeff, I don’t know that the ERA would really have granted superior rights to women. It simply syayed that equality could not be denied on the basis of sex.
You could argue that courts might have interpreted it so broadly that bad things would have happened but I think one could easily argue that men would have been the chief benefactors of the ERA.
Luigi Novi: The Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to mean that no government — federal, state or local — can perform any action or make any policy which blatantly favors one faith or church over the others, or which favors belief in God or the Supreme being over non-belief since the latter half of the nineteenth century.
spiderrob: Right. No establishment. That has nothing to do with separation.
Luigi Novi: Funny, I don’t see the phrase “no establishment” in the quote that I provided. What I do see is a description of the clause that clearly describes separation. What part of “may not blatantly favor one faith over others or belief over non-belief” do you contend does not constitute separation? If this does not mean separation, then what do you think separation means?
spiderrob: Anyway, recent decisions allowing the government to give money to churches or religious institutions in certain situations have weakened the idea of separation of church and state strongly.
Luigi Novi: No, it simply means that the law is not being properly followed. It doesn’t mean that the idea itself is somehow weakened. That is a non sequitur.
spiderrob: I’ll phrase it a different way-anyone can be in a union with anyone. But states have never recognized these unions for homosexuals, and thus nothing new is now being taken away by laws or referendums making clear the law and custom for the past couple fo hundred years. The ones who want the change are the people in favor of gay marriage. To phrase it as if they had that recognition before and it is being taken away now is false.
Luigi Novi: And if you can point to where anyone said anything about it being “new” or having been recognized “before”, by all means do so. As it is, I do not recall reading any such implication, and so this still appears to be semantics on your part.
Den: Interestly enough, David Horowitz, author of “The Professors”, found a sympathetic state representative in Pennsylvania and convinced him to hold a series of hearings across the state on academic bias. But don’t expect Horowitz to be crowing over his huge success in uncovering bias in Pennsylvania’s colleges. Instead of the expected hordes of poor, oppressed conservative students they expected, the results were somewhat disappointing for Horowitz. Some students did report encountering politically biased professors, but the majority of them didn’t find it a big deal and didn’t feel that they were treated with hostility for holding an opposed view. At least one hearing had no one show up to testify! The consensus of the committee was that the whole talk about widespread academic tyranny was much ado about nothing.
Luigi Novi: His experiences recounted in Uncivil Wars would seem to indicate otherwise, as would some of the censorship we’ve seen in John Stossel’s special, You Can’t Say That!, which looks at censorship in America, including on college campuses. (And in case you think I’m only talking about liberals, I’m not. I myself had a bizarre experience with a radical extremist feminist professor in college who exhibited a disappointing level of intolerance for views other than her own. I didn’t keep the class on my schedule after the first session.)
spiderrob: The question remains whether we really want 5 unelected individuals totally removed from everyday life to make these kinds of decisions when there really is no authorization given to them to do so.
Luigi Novi: No authorization for them to do so? Really? How do you figure this? The fact that they’re Supreme Court Justices IS the authorization. Hello? And what does this “removed from everyday life” comment mean? Are you under the impression that the justices live under a rock when the Court is not in session? In any case, what does this have to do with anything? Isn’t the main area of expertise the ability to interpret of the Constitution?
1The question remains whether we really want 5 unelected individuals totally removed from everyday life to make these kinds of decisions when there really is no authorization given to them to do.
Of course we do. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE COURT SYSTEM.
******
No it isn’t. The point of the court system is to interpret and apply law. Not make law on areas that are best left to legislatures. The SUpreme Court was never supposed to be the body to effectively amend the constitution. We were supposed to either pass amendments, or hold a new constitutional convention. The Supreme Court and other courts has usurped that role. In that sense, our constitution has failed in that sense. We don’t pass amendments anymore, the Supreme Coirt amends it based on what 5 individuals think at any given time, until the next group of 5 thinks something else. Its a shame, and it makes the nominating process a political joke. Of course the Supreme court is the last step, so what they say goes. There is no check on that, except changing the court. But it is a failure of our system
As for married/single-sorry made an error. My general points stand and substitute a different example.
Not favoring a religion is not a separation (or religion over nonreligion). Favoring a religion is a step toward establishing it. If I give equal monies to religious groups and nonreligious groups for a purpose, I have not favored anybody. I have not established a particular religion, or religion in general over non religion. I have not violated the establishment clause at all. BUT, I am not separate from religion. It is not separation of church and state, because the state is given money to the “church.” That is the fundamental difference between establishment, and separation. Separation means nothing-no role, no money, no funds, no endorsement of anything, nothing. Establishment means not to favor one over the other-one religion over the other reliugion, or all religion over nonreligion. It does not mean no connection to religion, just equal connections between the religions and non religion. There’s is a big difference, which is why this debate comes up a lot in areas where religious institutions are providing services or functions that are not inherently religious (schools, charities). If you are separate, the religious schools/charities get nothing from the government-no books, no money for lunch programs, no money for ESL programs, no money for special ed, no money to perform charitable functions. Nothing nothing Nothing-comepltely separate-all that aid frees up the ability of those institutions to preach their beliefs. If it is is the government establishing religion-favoring one over the other or religion over nonreligion-then as long as the government provides an equal pot for both nonreligious institutions and religious instititutions for nonreligious functions, there is no porblem. Textbooks are ok, school lunches are ok, ESl money, fine, special ed money, fine, money for drug and alcohol program, counseling, etc. ok. Let groups meet in your school? Gotta treat religious groups equally and let them use it too. Separation? No. No religious groups on school grounds.Which is basically where the court has been heading. What would not be ok in establishment terms would be school prayer, ten commandment postings, IN GOD WE TRUST (though the court would almost certainly say that is de minimus). With separation, government has nothing to do with religion. With establishment, it doesn’t favor religioon over nonreligion, one ghroup over another, or nonreligion over religion. There all treated the same.
Since I feel like I wrote a term paper here, and I am not being paid for my legal advice, that’s all I can say! I’ve think I’ve exhausted the topic
Which is basically where the court has been heading.
***
I meant toward my establishment analysis and away from the strict separation analysis.
Luigi Novi: His experiences recounted in Uncivil Wars would seem to indicate otherwise, as would some of the censorship we’ve seen in John Stossel’s special, You Can’t Say That!, which looks at censorship in America, including on college campuses.
I’m not familiar with Uncivil Wars, but I did go through The Professors, which is basically a littany of 101 college professors whose views Horowitz doesn’t like and ends with, a chapter that essentially says, “they’re all like this.”
Horowitz clearly has an agenda and that’s to get more conservative views dominant on college campuses. There’s no doubt that there are bad professors and professors who abuse their positions to promote their political ideology. There’s also no doubt that there is a strong leftward bias among liberal arts professors in America (My own experience is that professors in physcial science and engineering actually tend to be more conservative). However, Horowitz’s central thesis that there is a systemative and pervasive movement to oppress conservative students on college campus appears to have been debunked, at least in Pennsylvania. The state General Assembly looked for it and couldn’t find it.
And just for the record, our GA is currently controlled by the Republican party.
Peter David: You chose to ignore it and insert your own version because apparently you couldn’t argue with what I said, so you had to argue with what I didn’t say.
It worked for Bush is 2004.
“Marriage = A Religious Institution
America = Separation of Church & State
Therefore, the Government should not meddle in Religous affairs.
Homosexual Marriage should be accepted/rejected by the head of your religious institution.”
Marriage is NOT a Religious Institution it is a
CIVIL Institution.
If me and a girl want to get married we can get married by a judge and not by a
preist/preacher/minister.
The marriage linence, certificate, blood test, and record keeping is done by the goverment not by any Religious Institution.
The religious asspects of marriage is window dressing.
mike weber –
This is the “marriage penalty”.
Well, he was referring to the marriage/singles deduction, not tax rates themselves.
The question remains whether we really want 5 unelected individuals totally removed from everyday life to make these kinds of decisions when there really is no authorization given to them to do.
Of course we do. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE COURT SYSTEM.
******
No it isn’t. The point of the court system is to interpret and apply law. Not make law on areas that are best left to legislatures.
Again, I disagree.
The whole purpose of the courts is to apply the law APART FROM THE PRESSURES OF EVERYDAY LIFE. I can point to the the japanese American concentration camps as a prime example of where the courts failed their job. They are not to be subject to the passing whims of public opinion…they are to apply the law and an abstract approach is helpful in that.
This whole canard of “judicial activism” is just another way to say “My ox got gored and I;m not happy about it.” I will quote from Judge John Jones about how the judiciary SHOULD be independent:
I worked for a federal judge. I understand their role.
The role is not to take the legislature’s function away, and be a super-legislature, or an end run around the amendment process to the constiution. They are not to rewrite the constitution. and they;ve done it. It was a coup detat and most of us never noticed.
I mean, they had to amend the constitution to prohibit alcohol sales, and to have a federal income tax. There is no doubt in my mind today the court would read those powers into the constitution implicitly. Just because some people have used the term judicial activism wrongly, does not mean there is not sometimes cases of judicial activism-and by that I mean the court infringing on the separation of powers of the other branches and making policy. There are many things I think and wish were in the Constitution but my wishing it doesn’t make it so. But if Justice Ginsberg or Justice Scalia decided it should be there, they would only have to say “yeah its implied, its in the corner there real small” and they are 20% there. That’s wrong. That isn’t there responsibility. Take the law and apply it to the facts. If the facts don’t quite fit with the law because it is new, say because of technology, see if the law covers it anyway -say like the internet. But don’t completely make things up. Don’t say make up powers for the federal government that aren’t there, or “fundamental rights” that also aren’t there. So fundamental they forgot to write them? Come on.
and frankly, Judge Jones has to grow up. Sorry you are being criticized Judge, but one thing that is in the Constitution is freedom of speech. and sorry some judges are threatened-welcome to the modern world. It’s wrong, but it happens to athletes, movie stars, presidents (4 of whom have been assinated, and one nearly), and even, yes, regular people.
The whole point he misses is that people don’t think judges have integrity, or using the rule of law. It is the rule of “this is what I want, so it shall be.” That’s a dicator, an oligarchy, not a Judge. A judge is supposed to make decisions on the law, even if he disagrees with the law and thinks it should be changed or appealed, or amended.
Judge Jones’ above response was not just about being criticized. He started speaking out because several conservative activities, such as Phyllis Schafly, were point blank saying that he “owed” conservatives because he was a republican appointee and therefore had an obligation to rule the way they wanted, regardless of what the law said.
Judges are bound by precedent. That’s how common law works. Once it was clear that ID was just creationism in a Trojan Horse (as was made clear by several statements by the former members of the Dover School Board), he had to follow the SCOTUS rulings.
So, in Judge Jones’ case, it isn’t that he just decided the case on a whim because that’s what he wanted to do, he followed precedent as he had sworn to do. His critics are the ones who wanted him to rule one way based on personal feelings rather than the law.
And you can find the same kind of attitude in those who attacked the judge in the Terri Schiavo. In both, you had judges who did follow the relevant laws and were attacked because others did not like it.
I don’t doubt that have been cases where judges have engaged in “legislating from the bench.” In fact, as I said, I think the Roe is a stretch of the 14th amendment. But as I pointed out in the Kelo case and now in the Dover and Schiavo cases, the majority of things that many people decry as “judicial activism” are in fact, simply rulings that didn’t go the way they wanted. But rather that going to where their real beef is (ie, the law), they’d rather just attack judges.
Think local municipalities have too much leeway in eminant domain? Call you state rep to change the law to prevent takings for private development (we did in Pennsylvania).
Don’t want a woman in a PVS to be let go? Then campaign in your state to make it illegal to remove a feeding tube without an explicit living will. Probably make a lot of lawyers happy.
Want creationism taught in science class? Then start a movement for a Constitutional amendment to make it allowed. While you’re at it, amend the Constitution to say that the Earth is flat, too.
But no, better to just attack judges.
“Marriage” is really a relgious institution. Just about everybody who is married is also participating in a Civil Union, which is the institution that grants rights to inheritance, child custody, and all the rest. No law can force a Church to recognize marriage between two people if it doesn’t want to. So marriage is not threatened by Gay Civil Unions. The problem is that most people don’t know the distinction, or don’t make it.
“Marriage” is really a relgious institution.
No, it isn’t.
My wife and I were issued a MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE when were married, with no priest or other religious figure in site.
Not a Civil Union Certificate.
You guys can keeping telling yourselves this, but it doesn’t make it any more true today than it was yesterday.
There is, for many people, both a religious and a legal component to marriage. The religious component is the ceremony in which the priest/minister/rabbi/imam gives the union the religious. The legal component is that piece of paper you file with the county courthouse that allows you to file joint taxes and share health benefits.
The two components are completely separate from one another. You don’t need the religious component to have the legal component be recognized. Likewise, many religions are not obligated to recognize marriages are legal. For example, the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize any marriages that aren’t performed by a priest. Both, however, are called “marriage”. As far as I know, the term “civil union” only has legal meaning in one state, Vermont.
The gay marriage issue only affects the legal definition of marriage. But because it’s considered icky by many people, they get their panties in a twist over it for religious reasons.
Posted by Egon at June 7, 2006 12:09 PM
Marriage = A Religious Institution
America = Separation of Church & State
Therefore, the Government should not meddle in Religous affairs.
Homosexual Marriage should be accepted/rejected by the head of your religious institution.
If that’s the case, then why do I have to go to the County Clerk’s office to apply for a Marriage License? If Marriage is only a religious issue, then only Churches should be issuing Marriage Licenses.
How about this: The government shouldn’t tell religions what marriages they should recognize and religions shouldn’t tell the government what marriages they should recognize.
Does that work?
Does that work?
It should, but applying it reality is a different matter altogether. 🙂
Hey, all, I’ve been attending business meetings in California and didn’t get a chance to join in on the fun. I haven’t had a chance to read every post yet, so I’ll try to limit myself to responding to a few points I believe I can address intelligently:
Posted by: spiderrob8 at June 9, 2006 02:29 PM
Just because some people have used the term judicial activism wrongly, does not mean there is not sometimes cases of judicial activism
Well, that’s true, but it certainly is worth discussing. If people are using the term wrongly, that pollutes the debate and renders it meaningless. The first step towards creating a meaningful dialog about “judicial activism” lies in defining what it is, and what it isn’t.
and frankly, Judge Jones has to grow up.
I am afraid I don’t see why it is Judge Jones who needs to grow up. Judge Jones has acknowledged that the judiciary should be subject to scrutiny and criticism, and held accountable if their actions fall outside of the bounds of their legitimate authority.
Judge Jones is rightly pointing out, however, that many critics of the judiciary are ignorant about that which they are criticizing. The Judge is advocating that people learn about the judiciary before criticizing it. I don’t believe that meets any reasonable definition of immaturity.
Sorry you are being criticized Judge, but one thing that is in the Constitution is freedom of speech.
But Judge Jones never advocated that the government silence critics of the judiciary. He merely advocated that the media and the general public become educated about that which they wish to criticize.
The right to free speech does not guarantee that the subjects of your criticism must remain silent.
and sorry some judges are threatened-welcome to the modern world. It’s wrong, but it happens to athletes, movie stars, presidents (4 of whom have been assinated, and one nearly), and even, yes, regular people.
Yes, but, as you said, it is wrong when it happens. It may be a part of the “modern world,” but that doesn’t make it an inevitability. Nor does that make it something we should take in stride.
By the way, the people who are threatening judges are the ones you should be telling to “grow up,” not a judge who is responding intelligently to ignorant criticism.
The whole point he misses is that people don’t think judges have integrity, or using the rule of law. It is the rule of “this is what I want, so it shall be.” That’s a dicator, an oligarchy, not a Judge. A judge is supposed to make decisions on the law, even if he disagrees with the law and thinks it should be changed or appealed, or amended.
But his point is that some of the critics don’t have their facts straight. Just because people think most or all judges lack integrity doesn’t make them correct. Judge Jones is asking that people learn about the judiciary before criticizing individual judges. I’m not sure why you take exception to that. Shouldn’t people make it a point to be knowledgeable about something before forming an opinion about it?
Bill, welcome back.
Hmmm…Myers vanishes for a few days and Zarqawi and a Hamas leader both get offed…coinicidence?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 9, 2006 07:01 PM
Bill, welcome back.
Hmmm…Myers vanishes for a few days and Zarqawi and a Hamas leader both get offed…coinicidence?
Nope. That was all me.
As I understand this whole froofraw, conservatives, both social and political, view same sex marriage as a threat to American (and Canadian) culture. They base their arguments mainly on scriptures.
The current Administration (let’s call it “Delta House on the Potomac”) draws most of it’s grassroots support from these conservative elements. These same people oppose abortion, want “intelligent design” taught as science in school, and are opposed to stem cell research, all based on religious beliefs. (Please correct me if I have missed anything yet.)
This group of people enjoy the friendliest (to their aims) administration in years. A loud minority who want the majority to live within their moral framework.
PAD, they don’t have to be stupid to fall for it, they just have to believe the lies. With ministers thundering from the pulpit that they have a duty to support politicians who will “defend” marriage, you’ve got a functional wedge issue, good for maintaining control of Congress.
Manny has pointed out something very wise. Most of the conservatives DO tend to thunder away at whatever audience they’re speaking to. (Do you think that some of the more volume-straining of the media types shout away and everyone in the studio just kinda sits there? Maybe they have canned affirmations in their cans.) A speech teacher I had in college(an uber-conservative homosexual, if you can picture that) pointed out that in a debate people tend to get louder when they’re less confident in their own positions. Throw in most people’s desire to be in the In Crowd in whatever they’re involved in, and you got yourselves your own little captive audience that will eat out of your hand.
What I wanna know is–do I still get my $100 bucks for the high gas prices or what?
Sean, your uber-conservative homosexual (imaginable-nauseating but imaginable) speech teacher is quite correct. As people lose confidence in their position, they tend to get louder, usually, I think, to drown out any logical counter argument.
Up here, our new Prime Minister, sort of a W-Lite fellow named Stephen Harper, is vowing to re-open the whole same-sex marriage can of worms, even though the issue was legally decided a year ago.
The long term logic truly evades me. Don’t let them get married, and even if they have been living together longer than most heterosexual marriages last, DO NOT let them adopt any children, oh, and by the way, no abortions either.
I have heard some of these folks have managed or tried to get a requirement of regular church attendance as a requirement for adoption.
On a tangent, what exactly did Anne Coulter say or do that has everyone so worked up? I’m not ignorant, just uninformed. I know who she is, and that she is basically a skinny Rush Limbaugh with ovaries. Please enlighten me.
On a tangent, what exactly did Anne Coulter say or do that has everyone so worked up? I’m not ignorant, just uninformed. I know who she is, and that she is basically a skinny Rush Limbaugh with ovaries. Please enlighten me.
She basically said that some of the 9/11 widows were happy that their husbands had died in the towers because it gave them fame and a platform.
She’s the Ted Rall of the right, though Teddy at least actually believes his bile.Coulter is, it’s said, simply in it for the bucks (and it worked–she’s at the top of the bestseller list and has managed to provoke at least one politician into calling for her book to be banned. Can’t BUY that kind of publicity.)
“Peter David: You chose to ignore it and insert your own version because apparently you couldn’t argue with what I said, so you had to argue with what I didn’t say.
It worked for Bush is 2004.”
I’ve gone over this thread three times, can find no previous comment from you, and honestly have no idea on God’s green Earth what you’re talking about.
As for marriage being a religious versus a state institution, well…as I recall, priests usually say, “By the power vested in me by the state of (whatever state they’re in), I now pronounce you man and wife.” The assemblage may be there in the eyes of God, but since God is all-seeing, whether you’re getting married or sleeping or scuba diving, it’s being done in the eyes of God. People can get married without a church, but a church can’t marry them without the state, so I’d have to think that settles that.
PAD
I thought of doing a blog entry excoriating Coulter, or pointing out that her millionaire boy Bush has spent the last six years grinningly exploiting 9/11 for his personal gain, so where does she get off condemning widows, but then realized that giving her THAT much attention would do nothing but please her. So I just make fast mention of it here, buried in this thread, and I’m done with her.
PAD
spiderrob: The question remains whether we really want 5 unelected individuals totally removed from everyday life to make these kinds of decisions when there really is no authorization given to them to do.
Roger Tang: Of course we do. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE COURT SYSTEM.
spiderrob: No it isn’t. The point of the court system is to interpret and apply law. Not make law on areas that are best left to legislatures.
Luigi Novi: Arguably true, but you didn’t say that. You said “these decisions”, with no further clarification of what you meant by that. In doing so, you left it up to us to interpret (no pun intended) what you meant, which is I and Roger thought you meant something generic like “rule on such cases.”
spiderrob: Not favoring a religion is not a separation (or religion over nonreligion). Favoring a religion is a step toward establishing it.
Luigi Novi: No.
The word “favoring” does not mean “establishing.” Any law that favors one religion over another, or favors belief over non-belief, and gives deference to one viewpoint over another, is discriminatory, and a violation of the clause. But if you can point me to a reference source that says that “favoring” means “establishing”, then please do so.
spiderrob: If I give equal monies to religious groups and nonreligious groups for a purpose, I have not favored anybody. I have not established a particular religion, or religion in general over non religion.
Luigi Novi: So in that particular example, the point does not apply. But there have been other instances in which certain things have favored one viewpoint over another, as when public schoolchildren have been made to recite the mutilated Pledge of Allegiance with the words “under God” inserted into it.
Den: I’m not familiar with Uncivil Wars, but I did go through The Professors, which is basically a littany of 101 college professors whose views Horowitz doesn’t like and ends with, a chapter that essentially says, “they’re all like this.”
Luigi Novi: And by “essentially”, do you mean that you interpreting his words to mean what you want it to mean? I ask, because he makes no such indications in the works of his that I have read. It would be easy for him to say that there are many like this (which arguably there are), and then have you twist that into “all.”
Could you quote some passages that make this clear?
Den: Horowitz clearly has an agenda and that’s to get more conservative views dominant on college campuses.
Luigi Novi: Oh, the horror! Imagine wanting students and others with conservative views to have the same freedom to state such views without fear of reprisal as those with liberal ones! The unmitigated nerve of him! Doesn’t he know that colleges are supposed to be “liberals only” places of indoctrination?
spiderrob: and frankly, Judge Jones has to grow up. Sorry you are being criticized Judge, but one thing that is in the Constitution is freedom of speech. and sorry some judges are threatened-welcome to the modern world.
Luigi Novi: Jones made it clear that what he lamented was the heightened security due to threats, not “criticism.” The latter is protected by law. The former is not, and anyone who reads that passage can clearly see what he was talking about.
So much for “That’s all I can say! I’ve think I’ve exhausted the topic.”
“She’s the Ted Rall of the right, though Teddy at least actually believes his bile.Coulter is, it’s said, simply in it for the bucks (and it worked–she’s at the top of the bestseller list and has managed to provoke at least one politician into calling for her book to be banned. Can’t BUY that kind of publicity.)”
Thanks for the update, Bill. However, banning her vitriol would only work for her. Her argument, and that of her stormtroopers would be as follows:
“See, now the liberals are stomping on my freedom of speech. She’s a martyr and deserves our symathy.”
Never mind that a ban would only make people curious. IMHO force her to deal with her words. Any time she shows up on the usual talk shows/shout fests, phone in and force her to explain herself.
Either that, or sic Kieth Olbermann on her.
Bill Mulligan –
She’s the Ted Rall of the right, though Teddy at least actually believes his bile.
*roflmao* Bile? Yeah, sure, Bill.
Rall stands up and says what’s true and what’s right, not what sells books, unlike that sex-changed whørë Coulter.
But I suppose if you hate hearing the truth, keep going back to the O’Reillys, Limbaughs, and Coulters of the political commentators world.
Manny –
Any time she shows up on the usual talk shows/shout fests, phone in and force her to explain herself.
And on this topic, Ted Rall has a lawyer looking into the possibility of going after Coulter for libel & slander over comments she made about him (it was along the lines of saying Rall and Trudeau were lined up to join Iran’s publishing of anti-Jewish cartoons after that Mohammed cartoon garbage).
Coulter needs to be put in her place.
Manny –
Either that, or sic Kieth Olbermann on her.
Keith ripped her a new one the other night over her comments. He’s good at that when it comes to these righty whackjobs like Coulter and O’Reilly. 🙂
Oh, one other note on Rall: he’s been equated for much the same thing as Coulter is now, targetting the widows of 9/11, only for him it was back in 2002.
He too accused them of profiting from the deaths of their husbands. Although, unlike Coulter, he never accused them of being joyful at those deaths.
So, in the end, I guess I agree with both Rall and Coulter on one point: some of them have seen far too much profit (see: Lisa Beamer, in particular) from 9/11. Beamer’s entry on Wikipedia isn’t too flattering either.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 10, 2006 11:54 AM
*roflmao* Bile? Yeah, sure, Bill.
Rall stands up and says what’s true and what’s right, not what sells books, unlike that sex-changed whørë Coulter.
Coulter’s supporters use the same sort of rhetoric you’re using. And Coulter engages in the same kind of nasty name-calling you’re engaging in. Craig, I apologize in advance for offending you, but regardless of your ideology, I see nothing in your last post to distinguish you from Ann Coulter.
But I suppose if you hate hearing the truth, keep going back to the O’Reillys, Limbaughs, and Coulters of the political commentators world.
Craig, I defy you to show me anything Bill has posted that proves that he is a devotee of Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter. Because I can cite evidence that suggests the very opposite: in his last post, Bill Mulligan acknowledged doubts about Ann Coulter’s sincerity and integrity.
Conservatives and liberals are not monolithic groups. There are many, many, many conservatives who reject the O’Reillys, Limbaughs, and Coulters of this world. Based on Bill Mulligan’s posts, I would daresay he’s one of them.
Craig, why are you looking for enemies where there are none? After all, it seems that you and Bill at the very least agree about Ann Coulter.
Craig, I believe you’re fully capable of making your points without resorting to such belligerence. I’d encourage you to try.
Peter writes:
“People can get married without a church, but a church can’t marry them without the state, so I’d have to think that settles that.”
Please forgive me if my sidebar below repeats what some other poster wrote, as I have not read each post in detail.
I agree with your statement, Peter. The sad reality is that the support of the church is needed to legalize same-sex marriage. Otherwise, the votes won’t be there as too many folks seem to vote as their religious leaders instruct. It is such a same that so many people throw away their most precious and powerful right by voting with their church, and not their conscience–an affront to God, IMO.
Fortunately, some formal organized groups, such as the Central Conference of American Rabbis–can and do perform same-sex unions. Many of these groups don’t use the term “marriage” so as not to confuse people with their legal satus, but they do condone legal status for same-sex couples, and are making a positive impact on the lives of our gay and lesbian citizens.
Daniel