I'm quite disappointed. If the legistlature was more representative of the general populace, the resolution would have passed easily. As it is, it looked like it would pass anyway. The pro-gay marriage camp has been delaying the vote for weeks, trying to get enough representatives to switch votes. I guess they finally got enough today.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well, they can always try again. It just won't reach the ballot until 2010 or something like that.
Also, if the populace wasn't consistently fomented by out-of-state anti-SSM folks, they probably wouldn't care that much. They might have a preference reflected in the polls, but I never sensed a whole lot of sincere outrage. And further, had the lawmakers really felt strongly, they could have voted without being influenced by any carrots that may have been dangled in front of them by party leaders.
Of course, I agree with the outcome. The mechanics of it leave me a bit squeamish though, and really both sides were pulling the same stunts.
-Bok
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Of course, I agree with the outcome. The mechanics of it leave me a bit squeamish though, and really both sides were pulling the same stunts.
That pretty well sums up how I feel.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree as well.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's disappointing, but not unexpected.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Disappointing?? It's a great victory! Considering how many more States have passed similar bans against gay marriage...tis only fair.
I too am a little squeamish with the ban on referendum...but the masses can be fickle on the Rights of minorities...which is why the Great Compromise (along with Justices appointed for life) was agreed apon in the first place. The civil rights movement for Blacks might have been stopped in a huge number of States if not for similar methods.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm not squeamish at all that the legislature voted down the referendum. The US SC has ruled that marrige is a fundamental right. I don't think we should be voting on allowing minorities to have fundamental rights. Thats what a liberal democracy is all about.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't think we should be voting on allowing minorities to have fundamental rights. Thats what a liberal democracy is all about.
That ain't a democracy, Paul. I think you know that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The US SC has ruled that marrige is a fundamental right.
In doing so, the Court has emphasized its essentialness to procreation.
quote:It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, see Roe v. Wade, supra, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings, see Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 768 -770, and n. 13 (1977); Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 175 -176 (1972). Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place.
The Supreme Court did not mean anything other than marriage between a man and a woman when it made those rulings.
I'm in the "right result, unhappy about the process" camp.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The US SC has ruled that marrige is a fundamental right.
Everyone, including people who are gay, have at least the right to marry some member of the opposite sex at least. If they choose not to because they are not attracted to the opposite sex, that is their decision, not a violation of their rights.
I think it should be clear that one does not have a right to marry anyone one loves. For instance, many love people who do not love them back. For those people, they cannot marry the one they love. Some people love someone who is already married. Some people love children. Some people want to marry their siblings. These groups also are not allowed to marry the person of their choice. In each of these cases there is some good reason why society deems it necessary to limit the people one is allowed to marry.
The question is, does society have some good reason to limit marriages only to those of the opposite sex? I think that is an issue for the people of each state to decide, not something that needs to be decided on a national level by a court.
It should be noted, however, that there is at least one major case where America thought it had a good reason for limiting marriages, and later realized their reason was wrong. Interracial marriages used to be outlawed. But there was no reason for this except pure racism, which we eventually concluded was unfair.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:The US SC has ruled that marrige is a fundamental right.
Everyone, including people who are gay, have at least the right to marry some member of the opposite sex at least. If they choose not to because they are not attracted to the opposite sex, that is their decision, not a violation of their rights.
Any time I hear this put forward as an argument, it makes me sick. Turn it around on yourself:
"Everyone, including people who are straight, have at least the right to marry some member of the same sex at least."
Doesn't sound too sane, does it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It makes you "sick"?
Perhaps you're too sensitive to have a discussion on the matter, then.
However, considering that the procreative aspect of marriage is one of the primary justifications for having legal institutions to protect it, you ought at least to be able to see the relevance of such an argument. It's one thing to disagree with it, but it's another to be made ill by it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It makes you "sick"?
Perhaps you're too sensitive to have a discussion on the matter, then.
However, considering that the procreative aspect of marriage is one of the primary justifications for having legal institutions to protect it, you ought at least to be able to see the relevance of such an argument. It's one thing to disagree with it, but it's another to be made ill by it.
It "makes me sick" because I perceive it as just a way to argue for a form of bigotry. I'm a little emotional, I won't deny it. But I always get emotional when I see people, otherwise good people, trying to take away or limit the rights of others.
As for the procreative aspect of marriage...does this mean that couple who don't wish to ever have children should be banned from marrying? How about couples where either member can't have children, for some biological reason or another? Should we make an amendment to take away their rights to get married as well?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It "makes me sick" because I perceive it as just a way to argue for a form of bigotry. I'm a little emotional, I won't deny it.
Trying to view their arguments from their motives, not the one you assume ("bigotry") is the ONLY way to have a productive exchange of ideas on the subject.
quote:As for the procreative aspect of marriage...does this mean that couple who don't wish to ever have children should be banned from marrying? How about couples where either member can't have children, for some biological reason or another? Should we make an amendment to take away their rights to get married as well?
No. In fact, I don't favor banning same sex couples from getting the benefits of civil marriage, as I stated above.
Moreover, there are many over- and under-inclusive restrictions on civil institutions, designed to include as many situations central to the core purpose of the institution while including as few outlying situations as possible. When drawing such boundaries, the effort, obtrusiveness, and extra costs deriving from including or excluding situations incorrectly are all considered.
It's far less obtrusive to note that two people are the same sex than to demand medical records showing proof of fertility and signed statements of intent to procreate.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:"Everyone, including people who are straight, have at least the right to marry some member of the same sex at least."
Doesn't sound too sane, does it?
Why don't you think it sounds sane? If the people of a state define marriage as between two members of the same sex, this rule would be both reasonable and fair, provided they have a good reason for limiting it as such.
That sort of definition of marriage would make it very difficult to have offspring though....
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Of course, IMO, while the procreation link is definitely strong legal precedent and foundation of how the judiciary views marriage, this just brings to light the fact that the judiciary is a bit behind when compared to how the legislative and executive parts of our governments have used marriage status to confer a whole lot of non-procreative rights/privileges/responsibilities. Hopefully the wheels of justice will slowly turn and catch up with this reality, one way or the other.
-Bok
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:"Everyone, including people who are straight, have at least the right to marry some member of the same sex at least."
Doesn't sound too sane, does it?
Why don't you think it sounds sane? If the people of a state define marriage as between two members of the same sex, this rule would be both reasonable and fair, provided they have a good reason for limiting it as such.
That sort of definition of marriage would make it very difficult to have offspring though....
I disagree. The majority of people of a state defining something does not make that thing reasonable or fair. As we almost always touch on, the majority of people once wanted marriage to be defined between two people of the same race. That did not make that view reasonable or fair.
Marriage should not be defined by the state. It should be defined by the individuals who wish to marry eachother.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Considering how many more States have passed similar bans against gay marriage...tis only fair.
Boy, I disagree. No matter what your opinion about this subject, tit-for-tat legislation isn't the way to go about things.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Marriage should not be defined by the state. It should be defined by the individuals who wish to marry eachother.
Historically marriage has been protected by the state in order to help stabilize society, and to help protect children. (Dag pointed this out in his first posts)
Maybe what's needed is a discussion on how we should redefine the state's role in marriage, separate from the same-sex issue.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Gay people can have children by adoption, previous relationships, artificial insemination and surrogacy. And, eventually, when technology catches up, with each other.
Their children deserve the stabilizing affects of having their same-sex parents married that the children of heterosexual parents do.
One can procreate in or out of marriage. But a stable family, gay or straight, is well behooved by the rights and responsibilities conveyed by marriage. Kids need to know that their parents made that legally binding promise to stay together. Just as the adults involved need to know that they've made that same legally binding promise to each other.
...
In any event, stories like these, even when they're good news like today, always fill me with despair. I can't stand reading the words of otherwise good people saying horrible things about gays and their rights. Used to it would rile me up, now it just makes me want to take my ball and go home. If the good people can be so full of evil, what's the point of building connections with anyone?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I don't think we should be voting on allowing minorities to have fundamental rights. Thats what a liberal democracy is all about.
That ain't a democracy, Paul. I think you know that.
Look up "liberal democracy." It's not the same thing as "democracy."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Gay people can have children by adoption, previous relationships, artificial insemination and surrogacy. And, eventually, when technology catches up, with each other.
Their children deserve the stabilizing affects of having their same-sex parents married that the children of heterosexual parents do.
One can procreate in or out of marriage. But a stable family, gay or straight, is well behooved by the rights and responsibilities conveyed by marriage. Kids need to know that their parents made that legally binding promise to stay together. Just as the adults involved need to know that they've made that same legally binding promise to each other.
See, Javert, this is why taking the time to understand another's position is valuable.
Your making a hypothetical that ignores what (to some) is the central distinction and calling the result not sane is not going to convince anyone.
Pixiest's post, however, attempts to persuade in a manner that acknowledges the distinction and addresses it in (to me) a sufficient manner.
Even if it doesn't convince others, it's still a conversation. Like Scott, Pixiest is speaking to what it is about marriage that makes it worthy of such extensive state support.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
*Refuses to enter the conversation until Pixiest comes back with her ball* Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Gay people can have children by adoption, previous relationships, artificial insemination and surrogacy. And, eventually, when technology catches up, with each other.
Their children deserve the stabilizing affects of having their same-sex parents married that the children of heterosexual parents do.
One can procreate in or out of marriage. But a stable family, gay or straight, is well behooved by the rights and responsibilities conveyed by marriage. Kids need to know that their parents made that legally binding promise to stay together. Just as the adults involved need to know that they've made that same legally binding promise to each other.
See, Javert, this is why taking the time to understand another's position is valuable.
Your making a hypothetical that ignores what (to some) is the central distinction and calling the result not sane is not going to convince anyone.
You misunderstand me. I was not trying to convince anyone. It certainly was not my intent to do so. If it were I would have taken a much different approach. All I was doing was showing my disgust for what seems to me to be bigotry.
By my actions of turning the arguments on their heads I was trying to show how silly and condescending those arguments can be.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How about this? The government should enforce contracts and protect children.
It should not, evaluate, condone, condemn, bless or legislate emotional or sexual relationships among consenting adults.
It should not administer sacraments.
Sacramental marriage and contractual marriage are tied together by tradition and historical circumstance. I think that they should be untangled.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I was not trying to convince anyone.... By my actions of turning the arguments on their heads I was trying to show how silly and condescending those arguments can be.
It seems you were trying to show someone that a particular argument was silly and condescending - which seems so close to trying to convince someone that I can't really see the difference.
If this was your intent, then you failed, because you did not take into account what the people holding views different from yours think distinguishes the two situations. Failure to either understand or acknowledge (I'm not sure which) made your attempt to show unsuccessful.
Which is what I've been attempting to show.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:It "makes me sick" because I perceive it as just a way to argue for a form of bigotry. I'm a little emotional, I won't deny it.
Trying to view their arguments from their motives, not the one you assume ("bigotry") is the ONLY way to have a productive exchange of ideas on the subject.
If someone comes up to me in an alley and tries to rob me, I don't see that a "productive exchange of ideas on the subject" with the robber is anything but a waste of time.
Either I can stop him, or I can't. If I can't, I can't, and I'll do my best to survive the crime. If I can, then it devolves to the question of whether I have the will to do so or not. If I don't, then it's pretty much my own fault. If I do, then I do.
You choose to frame this as a question of "Tut, tut... shall I have milk in my tea or not?" when it's actually a question of, "Check out the homos. Should I mug them or not?"
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:"Everyone, including people who are straight, have at least the right to marry some member of the same sex at least."
Doesn't sound too sane, does it?
Why don't you think it sounds sane? If the people of a state define marriage as between two members of the same sex, this rule would be both reasonable and fair, provided they have a good reason for limiting it as such.
That sort of definition of marriage would make it very difficult to have offspring though....
I disagree. The majority of people of a state defining something does not make that thing reasonable or fair. As we almost always touch on, the majority of people once wanted marriage to be defined between two people of the same race. That did not make that view reasonable or fair.
Hold on a second. You're making assumptions. How do you know that Xaposert agrees that laws against mixed race marriage were either unreasonable or unfair. Based on what he's posted here, it seems likely that he'd say they were both reasonable and fair at the time.
Which, I submit, says more about Xaposert than it does about the topic under discussion.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How about this? The government should enforce contracts and protect children.
It should not, evaluate, condone, condemn, bless or legislate emotional or sexual relationships among consenting adults.
It should not administer sacraments.
Sacramental marriage and contractual marriage are tied together by tradition and historical circumstance. I think that they should be untangled.
Kate wins.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If someone comes up to me in an alley and tries to rob me, I don't see that a "productive exchange of ideas on the subject" with the robber is anything but a waste of time.
Either I can stop him, or I can't. If I can't, I can't, and I'll do my best to survive the crime.
Lisa, we live in a democracy. Which means that, ultimately, the public must consent to the extension of civil marriage rights to same sex couples.
A productive exchange of ideas has the potential to stop the denial of such rights. Pulling a gun out and pointing it at a single person does not.
quote:You choose to frame this as a question of "Tut, tut... shall I have milk in my tea or not?" when it's actually a question of, "Check out the homos. Should I mug them or not?"
Beyond your utterly ridiculous characterization of how I "frame" this, you have demonstrated that you, specifically, have zero chance of accomplishing anything with respect to "stopping" them.
I have convinced people to change their mind on this issue. How's your method worked for you?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I should point out that I was suggesting a role for government only as it applies to marriage. There are other things I think that government should do
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How about this? The government should enforce contracts and protect children.
It should not, evaluate, condone, condemn, bless or legislate emotional or sexual relationships among consenting adults.
It should not administer sacraments.
Sacramental marriage and contractual marriage are tied together by tradition and historical circumstance. I think that they should be untangled.
Kate wins.
Seconded.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
boy I'm gonna be happy when same-sex marriage is legal across the states and society can move on.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
The nation of Colombia just legalized it for couples that have lived together for at least 2 years. Amazing how supposedly less developed countries can beat us in 21st century civil rights issues.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The nation of Colombia just legalized it for couples that have lived together for at least 2 years. Amazing how supposedly less developed countries can beat us in 21st century civil rights issues.
Yes how unfortunate that the SSM debate is not the foundation upon which all civilization is judged.
edit: Bah! I just ignored what I said I would do in my previous post.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How about this? The government should enforce contracts and protect children.
It should not, evaluate, condone, condemn, bless or legislate emotional or sexual relationships among consenting adults.
It should not administer sacraments.
Sacramental marriage and contractual marriage are tied together by tradition and historical circumstance. I think that they should be untangled.
Kate wins.
Seconded.
Thirded.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Hold on a second. You're making assumptions. How do you know that Xaposert agrees that laws against mixed race marriage were either unreasonable or unfair. Based on what he's posted here, it seems likely that he'd say they were both reasonable and fair at the time.
I think almost anyone here probably has come to the correct conclusion that I don't think banning mixed race marriages is fair. But, I'll explain anyway:
I said "If the people of a state define marriage as between two members of the same sex, this rule would be both reasonable and fair, provided they have a good reason for limiting it as such."
Do you think there was a good reason to exclude interracial marriages from being real marriages? I don't believe there was, so based on what I've posted here, I would say banning interracial marriages on the grounds they aren't really marriages would in fact be unfair. Their reason was simply racism, which I believe is wrong, and which the people collectively made unconstitutional (as far as the government can be racist, at least).
Incidently, I also don't think any good reason exists to exclude gay marriages either. But a significant number of people do.
quote:boy I'm gonna be happy when same-sex marriage is legal across the states and society can move on.
It should be noted that abortion is legal across the country yet we haven't moved on....
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The nation of Colombia just legalized it for couples that have lived together for at least 2 years. Amazing how supposedly less developed countries can beat us in 21st century civil rights issues.
Yes how unfortunate that the SSM debate is not the foundation upon which all civilization is judged.
edit: Bah! I just ignored what I said I would do in my previous post.
Not the SSM debate, but ridding our society of outdated taboos.(sp?)
Now go and wait for Pixiest to bring her ball back. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It should be noted that abortion is legal across the country yet we haven't moved on....
I predict, though, that 10 years after the last state legalizes gay marriage or fully identical civil unions, the country will have moved on in a way that is not true of the abortion debate.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:It should be noted that abortion is legal across the country yet we haven't moved on....
I predict, though, that 10 years after the last state legalizes gay marriage or fully identical civil unions, the country will have moved on in a way that is not true of the abortion debate.
How do you mean?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I should point out that I was suggesting a role for government only as it applies to marriage. There are other things I think that government should do
You can't stop me from agreeing with you about this, though. So there.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Because gay marriage doesn't involve the snuffing out of potential life?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The nation of Colombia just legalized it for couples that have lived together for at least 2 years. Amazing how supposedly less developed countries can beat us in 21st century civil rights issues.
That's no proof, though, Stephan. Germany granted civil rights to animals. The fact that another country does something doesn't mean that they're ahead of America.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:It should be noted that abortion is legal across the country yet we haven't moved on....
I predict, though, that 10 years after the last state legalizes gay marriage or fully identical civil unions, the country will have moved on in a way that is not true of the abortion debate.
How do you mean?
There's still a debate over, among other things, whether abortion is harming a person or not. Any argument that gay marriage harms anyone or anything both exceedingly abstract and utterly lame, and won't hold the attention that abortion does.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The nation of Colombia just legalized it for couples that have lived together for at least 2 years. Amazing how supposedly less developed countries can beat us in 21st century civil rights issues.
That's no proof, though, Stephan. Germany granted civil rights to animals. The fact that another country does something doesn't mean that they're ahead of America.
Good point, but I didn't necessarily say they were ahead of us overall.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How about this? The government should enforce contracts and protect children.
It should not, evaluate, condone, condemn, bless or legislate emotional or sexual relationships among consenting adults.
It should not administer sacraments.
Sacramental marriage and contractual marriage are tied together by tradition and historical circumstance. I think that they should be untangled.
Kate wins.
Seconded.
Thirded.
But that's exactly what the legislature chose not to do in this situation. The amendment would have created a governemental "civil union" similar to those in VT and NJ, which would have had all separated the contract to protect children, while extricating them from the process of deciding what should be recognized as "marriage." They chose to wade in rather than try to extract themselves.
I think it was a cowardly decision, it was wrong on both a political and an intellectual level, and I feel like my views (and those of a large portion of the state population) have been disregarded.
But at least the Cubs won yesterday, which makes me a little happier.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: But that's exactly what the legislature chose not to do in this situation. The amendment would have created a governemental "civil union" similar to those in VT and NJ, which would have had all separated the contract to protect children, while extricating them from the process of deciding what should be recognized as "marriage." They chose to wade in rather than try to extract themselves.
You're mistaken. So long as the federal government grants goodies and special status to people who are legally married, no "civil unions" are at all equal to marriage.
The myth of civil unions being some sort of acceptable equivalent status, rather than merely a step in the right directly, is infuriating.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: But at least the Cubs won yesterday, which makes me a little happier.
A Cubs fan in Massachusetts?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Look up "liberal democracy." It's not the same thing as "democracy."
Well, those two words are almost subjective-especially the first one. However, I submit that a society which does not even permit voting-as Paul suggested-on certain issues isn't truly a democracy.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You're mistaken. So long as the federal government grants goodies and special status to people who are legally married, no "civil unions" are at all equal to marriage.
The myth of civil unions being some sort of acceptable equivalent status, rather than merely a step in the right directly, is infuriating.
But these marriages (I resist the impulse to scarequote out of respect) aren't recognized by the federal government either. SS couples who are married in MA cannot file jointly on federal tax returns (or, at least, could be taken to court for doing so). The federal benefits of marriage are not currently enjoyed or ensured by these couples.
The real issue, from what I can tell, is one of acceptance and respect, not one of rights and protections. Which is exactly what bothers me about my voice being disregarded in the process. If same-sex couples want my community's (and, by proxy, my) approbation for their relationship, then refusing to recognize my disapprobation is disingenuous and hypocritical.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: But at least the Cubs won yesterday, which makes me a little happier.
A Cubs fan in Massachusetts?
My Red Sox blood bleeds Cubbie blue; which is to say, I'd root for the Sox, unless they were playing the Cubs.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:My Red Sox blood bleeds Cubbie blue; which is to say, I'd root for the Sox, unless they were playing the Cubs.
I'd come back to MLB if there was a World Series setting both teams against the other.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Well, those two words are almost subjective-especially the first one. However, I submit that a society which does not even permit voting-as Paul suggested-on certain issues isn't truly a democracy.
You didn't look it up, did you? A liberal democracy is a specific form of government. From that bastion of hopefully correct knowledge, Wikipedia:
quote:Liberal democracy is a form of government. It is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil liberties).
In representative democracies, the citizenship does not directly vote on all issues.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Well, those two words are almost subjective-especially the first one. However, I submit that a society which does not even permit voting-as Paul suggested-on certain issues isn't truly a democracy."
There's a constitutional mechanism in place to allow voting. The legislature correctly recognized that putting the issue to a popular vote would be putting a minorities rights up for popular vote.
A liberal democracy (E.G. the united states) places constitutional limits on what laws are allowable so as to protect the rights/freedoms of people living within the jurisdiction.
Pure democracy means that 51% of the people can decide that it is an offense punishable by death to be a black person.
Liberal democracy means that you have to change the constitution written to protect rights and freedoms if you want to pass that law.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Liberal democracy means that you have to change the constitution written to protect rights and freedoms if you want to pass that law.
So you think people should be able to change the Constitution to permit "voting on minority rights"? That's not quite what you said before, which is what I was touching on.
-------------
quote:You didn't look it up, did you? A liberal democracy is a specific form of government. From that bastion of hopefully correct knowledge, Wikipedia:
I didn't have to look it up. I know what it means to me, and I know what it means to many people, but I also know that it means different things to different people.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: There's a constitutional mechanism in place to allow voting. The legislature correctly recognized that putting the issue to a popular vote would be putting a minorities rights up for popular vote.
The legislature correctly recognized that crossing their party leadership would have more negative effects for them than following their constituents. Nothing was being attempted that was unconstitutional or inconsistent with a liberal democracy. The ballot initiative was a final effort to force the legislature to do their job (something they've been avoiding for at least five years). In the end it failed because money and politics decreed that it should. But it had very little to do with the nobility of the cause.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Senoj: Sounds to me that what you object to is the Mass constitution. At least the part of it that dictates how amending it is to be done.
Personally, I think admending the constitution *should* be next to impossible. Otherwise it means nothing as a standard to which we hold up laws.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
No, I don't object to the process. I think it should be difficult to amend the constitution, and that the citizenry should have a difficult time overriding legislative decisions (or indecisions in this case) through ballot initiatives. In this particular case I believe the legislators made a poor decision, based more on politics than statesmanship. That the process can be frustrated by selfish legislators doesn't mean that I don't agree with the process in general.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A civil union for gay marriage is perfectly fine, so long as the same civil union is what heterosexual couples get.
Homosexuals demanding that their unions be called "marriages" isn't fair, and isn't something the government should EVER decide. Government has one duty here: To provide equal protections and benefits to all Americans regardless of sexual orientation.
Everything over and above that, such as marriages, are out of their hands. Homosexuals will have to lobby churches, not Washington if they want that as well.
Keeping legal benefits from same sex couples isn't fair, they are rights that have nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the secular state. Science and society have advanced to the point where same sex couples can have and take care of children in stable family environments, which leads me to believe this debate is based entirely on religion, and as I've stated, enemies of SSM are trying to deny secular rights to same sex couples unfairly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Personally, I think admending the constitution *should* be next to impossible. Otherwise it means nothing as a standard to which we hold up laws.
I agree, but I would add "implicitly or explicitly" in front of amending. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Homosexuals will have to lobby churches, not Washington if they want that as well.
Not by themselves, I trust.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dag: That would make it hard to interpret, wouldn't it? It's a sad fact that the constitution is (deliberately?) vague.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's definitely a balancing act. Suffice it to say that I think we've gone too far in certain directions in that regard.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You're mistaken. So long as the federal government grants goodies and special status to people who are legally married, no "civil unions" are at all equal to marriage.
The myth of civil unions being some sort of acceptable equivalent status, rather than merely a step in the right directly, is infuriating.
But these marriages (I resist the impulse to scarequote out of respect) aren't recognized by the federal government either. SS couples who are married in MA cannot file jointly on federal tax returns (or, at least, could be taken to court for doing so). The federal benefits of marriage are not currently enjoyed or ensured by these couples.
For now. DOMA is patently unconstitutional, and if the federal government refuses to recognize a legal marriage performed in Massachusetts and the case goes to court, it may be just what's needed to overturn that modern-day Dred Scott decision.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: The real issue, from what I can tell, is one of acceptance and respect, not one of rights and protections.
I don't see that. There are people who won't ever recognize us as being married, no matter what ceremony or legal status we have. They'll never change. But there are a lot of people who, if the law says we're married, will shrug their shoulders and say, "Fine, you're married". And that last group will grow by leaps and bounds in a single generation once the laws stop discriminating against us.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Which is exactly what bothers me about my voice being disregarded in the process. If same-sex couples want my community's (and, by proxy, my) approbation for their relationship, then refusing to recognize my disapprobation is disingenuous and hypocritical.
Why? Do I have to recognize anti-semitism as a legitimate position before anti-semites give up being anti-semites? Do I have to recognize racism as a legitimate position before racists give up being racists?
I get that you don't think they're the same thing. I think they are.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:DOMA is patently unconstitutional
What are you basing that on? It's almost certainly not violative of the 14th amendment under current equal protection and due process jurisprudence, despite arguments to the contrary. The application of equal protection to gender issues has always allowed for differences in reproductive biology between the sexes to be the basis for distinctions under law. Due process heavily factors in tradition and the current understanding of the rights at issue as recognized by the states.
That leaves the full faith and credit clause, which the court has always interpreted as having a public policy exception, and has been interpreted in that fashion specifically as concerns marriage.
"Patently unconstitutional" is pretty strong language with respect to almost any issue that hasn't been directly settled by the courts, let alone one as thorny as this.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"That leaves the full faith and credit clause, which the court has always interpreted as having a public policy exception, and has been interpreted in that fashion specifically as concerns marriage."
*Nod* That doesn't mean that how the court has interpretted it is compatible with the constitution as written.
If one were to have no knowledge of american politics, read the constitution, and then be asked about the constitutionality of DOMA, I'd be hard pressed to see how one could say that the law is constitutional.
There's a lot of interaction between parts of the constitution, in a lot of different places, that often make for the ability to make constitutionality arguments about different peices of legislation one way or the other, but I really don't see the constitutional argument that allows for the public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:DOMA is patently unconstitutional
What are you basing that on? It's almost certainly not violative of the 14th amendment under current equal protection and due process jurisprudence, despite arguments to the contrary. The application of equal protection to gender issues has always allowed for differences in reproductive biology between the sexes to be the basis for distinctions under law. Due process heavily factors in tradition and the current understanding of the rights at issue as recognized by the states.
That leaves the full faith and credit clause, which the court has always interpreted as having a public policy exception, and has been interpreted in that fashion specifically as concerns marriage.
"Patently unconstitutional" is pretty strong language with respect to almost any issue that hasn't been directly settled by the courts, let alone one as thorny as this.
Henry VI, part II, act IV, scene ii, lines 83–84.
That's really all I have to say.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You know, you whined to the mods about people calling you racist today for stereotyping Arabs. Now you want to kill me? (Or have me killed. Whatever.)
You've made an essentially legal conclusion - X is constitutional. I've gave an overview of why that conclusion is unsupported.
Your response - I'll assume it's because your incapable of actually addressing the underlying reasoning until you demonstrate otherwise - is to fire off another insulting piece of crap.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There's a lot of interaction between parts of the constitution, in a lot of different places, that often make for the ability to make constitutionality arguments about different peices of legislation one way or the other, but I really don't see the constitutional argument that allows for the public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause.
I'd cite the cases, but it's actually a pretty boring aspect of law to me. The thing is, though, I don't need to convince you that you're wrong. I'm not even sure I think you're. What is clear from the extensive writings on the topic, though, is that it is not "patently" unconstitutional, even if it is unconstitutional.
One example: concealed carry permits. Does "full faith and credit" require Massachussetts to allow a Texan to carry his firearm concealed within Massachussetts?
Further, Congress has the power to "prescribe the ... Effect" of one state's act in another state.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
If a man can marry a woman, why can't a woman? Seems like gender discrimination to me Sure, homosexuals technically have the same rights as heterosexuals, but one could argue that men and women don't have the same rights.
Additionally, I don't think that the state should have an interest in favoring only couples who can procreate with each other. I don't see any reason to place emphasis on how that baby is made instead of how it is raised. Therefore, if gay couples are going to adopt children or have one partner give birth, I think it makes sense to promote gay marriage to provide stability for those children.
I'm not sure that I like the way Massachusetts went about making this decision. I don't know that there should be anything that we shouldn't be permitted to vote on. It is for the courts to decide if a law is unconstitutional, not the legislature.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: The real issue, from what I can tell, is one of acceptance and respect, not one of rights and protections.
I don't see that. There are people who won't ever recognize us as being married, no matter what ceremony or legal status we have. They'll never change. But there are a lot of people who, if the law says we're married, will shrug their shoulders and say, "Fine, you're married". And that last group will grow by leaps and bounds in a single generation once the laws stop discriminating against us.
I don't see how what you've written refutes what I said. The acceptance of the lifestyle by this and the next generation of citizens is what is being sought. Not rights. Acceptance.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Which is exactly what bothers me about my voice being disregarded in the process. If same-sex couples want my community's (and, by proxy, my) approbation for their relationship, then refusing to recognize my disapprobation is disingenuous and hypocritical.
Why? Do I have to recognize anti-semitism as a legitimate position before anti-semites give up being anti-semites? Do I have to recognize racism as a legitimate position before racists give up being racists?
If the government were deciding who can claim to be "Jewish," I think the voice of all members of the citizenry should be heard in forming that definition. The issue for me is that a social construct is being foisted upon me without respect for my opinion, or the opinion of many of those making up the society. I feel that a marriage (in the public sense, rather than the religious sense) is an indication that the community accepts the relationship between these two people. Not being allowed to actually demonstrate whether I accept the relationship or not, but rather being told that I accept it makes me feel ill-used.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Henry VI, part II, act IV, scene ii, lines 83–84.
That's really all I have to say.
Of course, if you actually read the scene, instead of quoting select lines (which I'm guessing you found here), you would realize that killing all the lawyers is meant to be the first step to lawless anarchy.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
senoj: Do you understand how the idea of voting on someone's civil rights is incredibly offensive to those whose equal rights hang in the balance? Especially when said group is one that has traditionally be abused by society at large?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Why? Do I have to recognize anti-semitism as a legitimate position before anti-semites give up being anti-semites? Do I have to recognize racism as a legitimate position before racists give up being racists?
I get that you don't think they're the same thing. I think they are.
It doesn't even matter if you think the same thing. Or even if they ARE the same thing. In a society governed by a representative system, if enough people maintain a position-even if they acknowledge themselves that it's illegitimate!-you're not supposed to just steamroller over them and say, "Screw you, bigots, I'm in charge!"
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I have an odd question:
Can you legally change your sex without surgery? I mean if Adam and Steve want to get married, and there is no legal definition of Man or Woman, can Adam be the Husband and Steve be the wife?
Or would that be cheating?
There are hermorphidites and transgender individuals, while in a very small minority, are either being disallowed from marrying, or are self-defining Male and Female. If they can, why can't Adam and Steve?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: senoj: Do you understand how the idea of voting on someone's civil rights is incredibly offensive to those whose equal rights hang in the balance? Especially when said group is one that has traditionally be abused by society at large?
I see how someone, particularly someone in a homosexual relationship, would find it offensive that I don't want to validate their relationship. I can also see how someone who has come to view this validation as a right would find my refusal offensive. But I would hope that you would realize that while you feel this is a right (civil, equal, or otherwise), I don't. Furthermore, I find it somewhat insulting that you would intimate such a thoughtless stance to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Henry VI, part II, act IV, scene ii, lines 83–84.
That's really all I have to say.
Of course, if you actually read the scene, instead of quoting select lines (which I'm guessing you found here), you would realize that killing all the lawyers is meant to be the first step to lawless anarchy.
That scene. I should have known. Isn't that also the scene where the guy (a fool BTW) also proposes to get rid of money and have food for free and dress everyone alike and so forth?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I have an odd question:
Can you legally change your sex without surgery? I mean if Adam and Steve want to get married, and there is no legal definition of Man or Woman, can Adam be the Husband and Steve be the wife?
There were actually a few lesbian couples, where one of each couple was a transwoman, who went to Texas in the wake of the Christie Littleton case, where Texas ruled that even with surgery, and even with an official change of gender in ones state of birth, no change of sex is recognized, and got married. Legal lesbian marriages in Texas, of all places. I thought it was a dumb idea, personally, and would never do it, even though I could, technically.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Henry VI, part II, act IV, scene ii, lines 83–84.
That's really all I have to say.
Of course, if you actually read the scene, instead of quoting select lines (which I'm guessing you found here), you would realize that killing all the lawyers is meant to be the first step to lawless anarchy.
Um... okay. It's just a quote. It's not like it's from chumash or something.
My point was that I get very tired of the über-legal pedantry certain people are always prepared to deliver.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I don't like the equal rights argument for SSM because I have not yet been convinced that government sanctioning of marriage should be a right. I think that there are definetely benefits, but I would view those as incentives- kinda like how the govt gives incentives to certain industries and farmers. Though thinking more about it, the children of a same sex couple do deserve the security of married parents just as much as the children of heterosexual parents so, I might be willing to go with equal rights if looking at the children. I would need to think that through more. I did, however, vote against the law against SSM in my state, because I think that recognizing ssm would be an overall plus to society. I think that convincing people that ssm is a plus to society and will not do harm is the best way to argue the issue. I also don't like when anti-ssm people argue about morality. I want convincing arguments that allowing it will actually harm society.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So the context of a quote only matters when it's scriptural? *blink*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Um... okay. It's just a quote. It's not like it's from chumash or something.
My point was that I get very tired of the über-legal pedantry certain people are always prepared to deliver.
So does that bicycle come with a reverse feature, or are you backpedaling naturally?
------------
quote:I don't like the equal rights argument for SSM because I have not yet been convinced that government sanctioning of marriage should be a right. I think that there are definetely benefits, but I would view those as incentives- kinda like how the govt gives incentives to certain industries and farmers.
The way I approach questions like this is simple. Unless there is some on-the-face-of-it obvious reason why denying a right really hurts society, I think we should have real, persuasive reasons why it does before we outlaw something...not outlaw it first and insist the subjugated party prove they don't deserve subjugation.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Olivet:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: [QUOTE]Originally posted by kmbboots: [qb] How about this? The government should enforce contracts and protect children.
It should not, evaluate, condone, condemn, bless or legislate emotional or sexual relationships among consenting adults.
It should not administer sacraments.
Sacramental marriage and contractual marriage are tied together by tradition and historical circumstance. I think that they should be untangled.
Kate wins.
Seconded.
Thirded.
Fourthed.
I'm OK with same-sex couples wanting to have the legal benefits of married heterosexual couples currently enjoy, but I think Kate hit the issue on the head. I did want to ask a question or two: What if homosexual couples gained the same rights under a marriage but it was not called "marriage"? I doubt that would be enough for them. I can't see a future where anybody wanting to get married will say, "Mom and Dad, I'm getting civil unionized!"
Marriage is a term that has religious ties to it, unless we re-define it, which is exactly what a lot of people are trying to prevent. I imagine a great deal of people are OK with homosexuals having marriage rights, but are not OK with calling it marriage.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm OK with same-sex couples wanting to have the legal benefits of married heterosexual couples currently enjoy, but I think Kate hit the issue on the head. I did want to ask a question or two: What if homosexual couples gained the same rights under a marriage but it was not called "marriage"? I doubt that would be enough for them. I can't see a future where anybody wanting to get married will say, "Mom and Dad, I'm getting civil unionized!"
To be honest, so long as the government gets out of the religious business of marriage and into the legal business of civil unions, I don't really care if homosexuals aren't permitted to marry according to the strictures of varying churches. Or if homosexuals are upset about that. I've got no real opinions as a citizen at all on the question of marriage for homosexuals, so long as they are accorded equivalent rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples, should they choose to take those up.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Second that.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: So the context of a quote only matters when it's scriptural? *blink*
Depends on the context in which the quote is used. If it's being used as a common throw-away line, or slogan, then it doesn't matter, period.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Um... okay. It's just a quote. It's not like it's from chumash or something.
My point was that I get very tired of the über-legal pedantry certain people are always prepared to deliver.
So does that bicycle come with a reverse feature, or are you backpedaling naturally?
What an odd thing to say. I've posted any number of times about how annoying it is when Dag goes all lawyer on this topic (and others).
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I just want to throw in my two cents here: I don't know of any gay couples that want to force churches (in general) to perform marriages. There are probably many who want their particular church to marry them, and petition to make this so, but as far as I'm concerned this is an individual issue within that particular church and the government shouldn't interfere either way. I agree that the only place the government should be involved in this question is in the civil arena.
quote:Homosexuals demanding that their unions be called "marriages" isn't fair, and isn't something the government should EVER decide. Government has one duty here: To provide equal protections and benefits to all Americans regardless of sexual orientation.
Everything over and above that, such as marriages, are out of their hands. Homosexuals will have to lobby churches, not Washington if they want that as well.
What homosexuals are demanding is what the governement labels "marriage". Many homosexuals are fine with "civil unions". Many others want those "civil unions" called whatever the straight equivalent is called, so there is no implied inferiority under the law.
On the other hand, no one can stop a homosexual from "calling" his union (civil or religious or what have you) a "marriage" if he wants to. Personally I think it's a moot point. Once we have civil unions, they will be called marriage, even if people with bully pulpits harrangue against the changing of the language. Gays will tell their friends they are getting "married", and their friends will refer to them to as "married". "Civily Unionized" probably won't be used at all, except ironically. In a generation or two, the only ones making the distinction will be lawyers, pedants, and people making a theological distinction.
As for lobbying churches, well, as I said above, that is already being done, with varying degrees of success. Much more success than in the civil arena, I might add.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: I feel that a marriage (in the public sense, rather than the religious sense) is an indication that the community accepts the relationship between these two people.
You must have a better batch of friends and family than me then. My mom and I didn't quite take bets on when my sister's first marriage would self-destruct, but we took it as a given that it would.
Going down and signing a piece of paper is completely different than cautiously considering what it means to both parties to get married. I have friends that publicly admit that they only got their marriage license for the tax benefits. I really don't consider that a marriage. I feel a lot of people are married but don't mean it.
Again, if either the religious folk or the government changed the word, I'd probably be ok with it. Go down and get the inheritance rights and access to the other person's health insurance cause it seems like a good idea at the time. Why not? But it will never be the same to me as a promise to join together before God and devote yourselves entirely to your existance as a couple.
Two completely different ideas are being discussed, and very few people outside of Hatrack want to make the distinction. You can't have progress if you won't actually talk to each other.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What an odd thing to say. I've posted any number of times about how annoying it is when Dag goes all lawyer on this topic (and others).
I wasn't referring to your busting Dag's chops, even though I think that's unfair since we're talking about a legal issue here. I was referring to your backpedaling on the quote, which as it turns out doesn't remotely support your statement regarding it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: So the context of a quote only matters when it's scriptural? *blink*
Depends on the context in which the quote is used. If it's being used as a common throw-away line, or slogan, then it doesn't matter, period.
How odd that someone who studies history would say such a thing. Every quote carries the weight of context. (And you know this, or you would not have given the citation, simply the line itself.) And that goes double for Shakespeare.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:What an odd thing to say. I've posted any number of times about how annoying it is when Dag goes all lawyer on this topic (and others).
I wasn't referring to your busting Dag's chops, even though I think that's unfair since we're talking about a legal issue here. I was referring to your backpedaling on the quote, which as it turns out doesn't remotely support your statement regarding it.
That quote is a popular and cultural artifact which has taken on a life of its own completely outside of the context of the play in which it was originally found.
Like "Play it again, Sam" and other pieces of popular culture, it doesn't even matter whether it was said precisely as it's normally quoted.
The line "Big Brother is Watching You" was intended, by those using it in its original context, to be pro-Big Brother. But when people say it now, it means exactly the opposite.
"First thing, we kill all the lawyers" is no different. It's a sentiment that's anti-lawyer. Period. In "The Number of the Beast", the protaganists find reference in one of the parallel worlds they visit to "the day they hanged the lawyers" (or some such). That had nothing to do with anarchy, but merely society getting rid of people who live and die by legalistic loopholes.
I once saw an interesting quote in a book on chronology that defined a certain type of pedantry. It was by Kenneth Kitchen, and he wrote that someone who would label the statement "Queen Elizabeth was born in 1926" as inaccurate, because she wasn't Queen when she was born, is a fool and a pedant. When I say that DOMA is patently unconstititonal and Dag comes flying in with claims that it isn't unconstitutional because it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, he's evincing exactly that sort of pedantry.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote: The line "Big Brother is Watching You" was intended, by those using it in its original context, to be pro-Big Brother. But when people say it now, it means exactly the opposite.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that phrase never had a good connotation. Unless it existed before "1984." I know that in "1984," those that were pro-Big Brother were Big Brother himself / themselves, or those tricked into believing the propaganda. The overall connotation was, for me at least, very negative, and I'm fairly certain that that was the connotation intended by the writer.
And throwing around quotes (or just the citations of the quotes) and not expecting the full context of the original quote along with the cultural or social meanings that have been added, is silly. It'd be better to say it without the quotes, or without the citations, or in your own words.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When I say that DOMA is patently unconstititonal and Dag comes flying in with claims that it isn't unconstitutional because it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, he's evincing exactly that sort of pedantry.
Bull, Lisa. If you think that's what I said, then you need to take a reading comprehension class. EIther that, or you're lying about what I said, which would be really odd, since what I said is on this page. So I'm going to go with inability to comprehend English as the reason you would say something like that.
For clarification, "under current equal protection and due process jurisprudence" does not mean "because the Supreme Court hasn't found it unconstitutional." The reason should be fairly obvious, even to you, especially since I posted greater detail in the same damn post.
I gave (in overview, not detail form) several reasons that support the laws constitutionality. I didn't make it up.
You seem to think "pedantry" means "something Lisa is incapable of drafting a rational response to."
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Of course, if you actually read the scene, instead of quoting select lines (which I'm guessing you found here), you would realize that killing all the lawyers is meant to be the first step to lawless anarchy.