Gay Marriage

[Seagoon]

Hi Chair,

Originally posted by Chairboy
If you choose to disregard the validity of the concerns that I, an atheist raise at the spectre of a United Christian States of America...

This is more out of curiousity than anything else, but perhaps it will assist in future discussions. But let us just say that I, Seagoon - Andy Webb, were given power to make changes to the government of the United States. What changes that you believe I would make are you afraid of? Which ones would dramatically and deleteriously affect your life and make the USA an awful place for you and yours to live in? How would it personally negatively impact you and so on.

I would open the question to anyone who would like to answer.

- SEAGOON

[Sandman]

Bah... we're not afraid of you. It's those "other" right wing religious nutbags that we worry about.

[Chairboy]

Yeah, I'll agree with Sandman for the mostpart.  It's not the specific 'what would hurt me now' that I'm worried about so much as it is the slippery slope away from the things that make this country, and liberty, so strong.  Our constitutional structure is designed so that large scale, long term change is supposed to be hard, so that the momentary flashes of public outrage have time to gel into something real instead of just tilting at windmills.  In that sense, I'd hate for any one person (even if I agreed with them) to have the power you describe, because in our country, power should be kept out of the hands of a person and firmly in the hands of the people.  My biggest concern about what you specifically might do is not aimed at any specific evils I'm worried about, or things done with malicious intent.  It's the unintended side effects I worry about.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions and whatnot.

Right back atcha, Seagoon, if I, Ben Hallert, were given the same authority, are there any specific things you'd be worried I'd do that you'd be afraid of?  I'm an atheist, but I don't eat babies, despite what you may have heard growing up.

[AVRO1]

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Seagoon
This is more out of curiousity than anything else, but perhaps it will assist in future discussions. But let us just say that I, Seagoon - Andy Webb, were given power to make changes to the government of the United States. What changes that you believe I would make are you afraid of? Which ones would dramatically and deleteriously affect your life and make the USA an awful place for you and yours to live in? How would it personally negatively impact you and so on.

I would open the question to anyone who would like to answer.

Good evening Seagoon,

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  I understand this has been going on for many pages, but if it makes you feel any better, I rushed home after work hoping to see an excellent response and I was not disapointed.  I know how much effort I put in to my posts, and if you are the same then I want to thank you...the gift of your time is much appreciated.  I'm sure you have many better things to do than to chat on a forum to a bunch of heathens.

I really want to thank you for this question.  It means that you want to understand our fears and hopefully you will respect them.

My fear is that you would inact into law all the moral requirements set out in the Bible...and especially the 1st Commandment.  And even more so, I fear that other Christians would then see fit to inact the punishments dictated in the Bible.

Originally posted by Seagoon
No Magistrate should command the people to break God's laws, or fail to restrain them from doing so, in so far as he is able.

And what of the 1st Commandmant vs the 1st Amendment.  Which takes precident?  You said that you would defend my right to worship as I see fit.  What if that meant that I would worship Shiva...or Satan (which you may believe I do passively since I don't worship Jahovah/Yahweh)...or not worship a diety at all.  If you not only allow me that freedom,  but defend my right, you run smack-dab into failing to restrain me from breaking God's #1 law.

This is what I fear: that you may feel it is your manifest right to restrain me from breaking any of God's laws because you are doing it for a greater good...that you are looking out for my best interest.  (And I absolutely agree with many of those laws...but I will not support some of those laws because the infringe on individual rights rather than protect them.)

Yeah...that authoritarian attitude terrifies me.  I do not want you or any Christian to take this the wrong way.  But that kind of thought process is exactly like the Taliban...no difference at all.

[Urchin]

He's lying Seagoon... I saw him eating a baby just the other day, with horseradish sauce no less.  

Who the #$^$# puts horseradish sauce on babies anyway?!

By the way Seagoon, I also understand you are probably sick and tired of this thread, but I'd just like to say again that I admire you greatly, even if our world views are somewhat different.  I find you to be extraordinarily gifted at expressing your point of view, which is refreshing considering how poorly most 'conservatives' (I use the term loosely) express themselves.  

Although you are kind of preaching to the choir on this one, since I also don't think that gays should have the "right" to a marriage sanctified under God.  I do think they have every right to all the civil benefits and responsibilities that comes with a "committed relationship" which is why I'd be in favor of civil unions for gays, and nonreligious straight people for that matter.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Urchin
He's lying Seagoon... I saw him eating a baby just the other day, with horseradish sauce no less.  

Who the #$^$# puts horseradish sauce on babies anyway?!

SHHHHHHH!

BTW...it was tartar sauce...when they are that young they taste kinda fishy.

[crowMAW]

Seagoon,

I also wanted to offer up an indication that the religous right would not protect my right to worship as I see fit.  Here is a quote from Justice Antonin Scalia in his decent opinion on the recent 10c case:

With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.[/b]

If the 7 million Americans identified as polythiests, belivers in unconcerned deities and athiests can be Constitutionally disregarded, then our persecution by the Christians is not far behind.

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Martlet
3.  Another popular position, and the one I subscribe to, isn't so much with SSM directly, but the manner in which it was forced upon the voters through judicial activism.

This is a red herring.  There is no such thing as judicial activism.  There is judicial review of existing law.  That is why people want to make laws outlawing same sex marriage because nothing thus far precludes it under the constitution.  

"Judicial activism" was a concept created solely by right wing fruitcakes to have a rallying cry against decisions they did not agree with.  By creating a label and sneering it out every chance they got it became something they could hang their hatred and political desire on but it actually as defined by themselves simply does not exist.  They cry about review of laws because they do not have the political capital to write and pass the laws they want.  

The Judiciary cannot militate for or against a position, doesn't happen.  They only determine based on existing and accepted law whether or not a law as written is coherent within the dataset in which it is intended to reside.

Secondly, a majority of judges in this nation were appointed by GOP presidents.  That is to say, the judciiary is already a conservative institution in terms of who populates it.  Judicial review is a conservative act if you understand what that word means.  

The term judicial activism is a red herring argument and is simply a coined phrase for the GOP to get uptight about, in the real world it is frankly meaningless.  Thus, when someone says that is the argument that carries teh most freight with them it is a red flag indicating their opinions are formed by others and are not the product of careful and studious review of the facts.  

Sakai

[TexMurphy]

Christian marrige, Muslim marrige, Hindu marrige, Jewish marrige ect ect should be defined by the church.

The legal rights of a "registered" couple should be defined by the countries legal institution, the state.

The legal rights of all couples straight or gay SHOULD be equal.

The rights to marrige should be defined by each church individual with no influence of the state.

Whats interesting in this debate in the US is that US is based on separation of state and church yet this debate does nothing but mix the church and the state.

Tex

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Sakai
This is a red herring.  There is no such thing as judicial activism.  There is judicial review of existing law.  That is why people want to make laws outlawing same sex marriage because nothing thus far precludes it under the constitution.  

"Judicial activism" was a concept created solely by right wing fruitcakes to have a rallying cry against decisions they did not agree with.  By creating a label and sneering it out every chance they got it became something they could hang their hatred and political desire on but it actually as defined by themselves simply does not exist.  They cry about review of laws because they do not have the political capital to write and pass the laws they want.  

The Judiciary cannot militate for or against a position, doesn't happen.  They only determine based on existing and accepted law whether or not a law as written is coherent within the dataset in which it is intended to reside.

Secondly, a majority of judges in this nation were appointed by GOP presidents.  That is to say, the judciiary is already a conservative institution in terms of who populates it.  Judicial review is a conservative act if you understand what that word means.  

The term judicial activism is a red herring argument and is simply a coined phrase for the GOP to get uptight about, in the real world it is frankly meaningless.  Thus, when someone says that is the argument that carries teh most freight with them it is a red flag indicating their opinions are formed by others and are not the product of careful and studious review of the facts.  

Sakai

It's convenient to dismiss an argument as a 'red herring' without knowing anything about the discussion taking place, as you obviously don't.

Here's a suggestion:  go and research how SSM came to be legal in MA.  Then, after you've realized it was judicial activism headed by a SCCJ with a pre-established agenda, you can come back and apologize.

I'll give you a head start.  Look at CJ Marshall's active fund raising for the GL movement (which is against her oath of office), then look at her redefinition of MA marriage laws.  She didn't strike them down, she rewrote them.

Her judicial activism is the direct cause of the bill before the MA legislature now to remove her.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by TexMurphy
Christian marrige, Muslim marrige, Hindu marrige, Jewish marrige ect ect should be defined by the church.

The legal rights of a "registered" couple should be defined by the countries legal institution, the state.

The legal rights of all couples straight or gay SHOULD be equal.

The rights to marrige should be defined by each church individual with no influence of the state.

Whats interesting in this debate in the US is that US is based on separation of state and church yet this debate does nothing but mix the church and the state.

Tex

depends on who's arguing and the position.

I happen to agree with you.  I also think you should be able to have the same binding contract with your brother, grandmother, or best friend.

That being said, it's the manner in which this was served that has caused enough opposition to add amendments to state Constitutions which will make it next to impossible to get anything legalized.

[ChickenHawk]

Originally posted by Sakai
This is a red herring.  There is no such thing as judicial activism.  There is judicial review of existing law.  That is why people want to make laws outlawing same sex marriage because nothing thus far precludes it under the constitution.  

"Judicial activism" was a concept created solely by right wing fruitcakes to have a rallying cry against decisions they did not agree with.  By creating a label and sneering it out every chance they got it became something they could hang their hatred and political desire on but it actually as defined by themselves simply does not exist.  They cry about review of laws because they do not have the political capital to write and pass the laws they want.  

The term judicial activism is a red herring argument and is simply a coined phrase for the GOP to get uptight about, in the real world it is frankly meaningless.  Thus, when someone says that is the argument that carries teh most freight with them it is a red flag indicating their opinions are formed by others and are not the product of careful and studious review of the facts.  

Sakai

Beautifully stated.

I'm sick and tired of hearing this phrase.  And when I hear a politician say it, it always reminds me of a little child having a temper tantrum because he didn't get his way.

[ChickenHawk]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Want to make the state the primary guardians over all children and the parents only authorized caregivers?
- SEAGOON

Sadly this is already the case.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Martlet
It's convenient to dismiss an argument as a 'red herring' without knowing anything about the discussion taking place, as you obviously don't.

Here's a suggestion:  go and research how SSM came to be legal in MA.  Then, after you've realized it was judicial activism headed by a SCCJ with a pre-established agenda, you can come back and apologize.

I'll give you a head start.  Look at CJ Marshall's active fund raising for the GL movement (which is against her oath of office), then look at her redefinition of MA marriage laws.  She didn't strike them down, she rewrote them.

Her judicial activism is the direct cause of the bill before the MA legislature now to remove her.

In other words, "judicial activism" is a state problem.