Mass. Court: Gay Civil Unions Not Enough

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Allow me to kick the beehive. Behold as the judiciary once again does the legislature's job-

From http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110432,00.html


BOSTON — Massachusetts lawmakers must give gay and lesbian couples full and equal marriage rights, the state's highest court ruled Wednesday. With its decision to back marriage and not the concept of civil unions, the court set the stage for the nation's first same-*** marriages (search) to take place beginning in mid-May.

Kind of ironic that a Commonwealth that once led the way in the fight for democracy has now reverted back to ruling by fiat - as the King of England did. Time for another tea party - this time they should throw the court in the harbor...

[Salty Dog]

god forbid they let gay people get married. :roll:

[Trigger]

God forbid the judiciary from re-writing the law. :bash:

[Salty Dog]

they gotta soemtimes. :D

[StarvingStudent47]

Good news.

In a world where terrorists are running around trying to kill us all, and John Ashcroft is arguing for some of the most extreme curtailings of personal freedom since the American Civil War, why do people still think the greatest threat to the American way of life is ELLEN DEGENERES?! It boggles my mind.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Law is created by the legislative branch, which acts based upon the will of the people.

These 4 people have now reversed that. The system is broken. The entrenched, tenured elite no longer just govern us - they rule us. We're too busy watching Friends or American Idol to notice.

[Salty Dog]

Law is created by the legislative branch, which acts based upon the will of the people.

These 4 people have now reversed that. The system is broken. The entrenched, tenured elite no longer just govern us - they rule us. We're too busy watching Friends or American Idol to notice.

maybe you're to busy watching friends and american idol.....Fag, why don't you come to MA and get married! p-)

[hank]

2sheds - come on - do you even know what your are talking about? I'm not being condescending I'm asking. Do I need to quote a bunch of the constitution to you to make you understand that the 5th and 14th amendments provide equal protection under the law? Why do you think that court is making law? If they read a constitution and decide that all this time other courts had misinterpreted it then how is that new law? it was always there its just that some other guys screwed it up.

Why does this bother you so? Is it the equal part? Do you understand that a gay couple cannot leave each other insurance settlements, etc. b/c even though they live together for years teh law treats them differently.

"we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are creeted equal" - granted its not the con (teh dec of ind) but that idea got codified in the Bill of Rights.

I will say to you what I have said to many others - don't complain unless you read the constitution. New reporters never get it right. Go read the bill of rights objectively and then complain if you still think you are right. By the way, I know this is mass BUT the questions and answers are the same under the US or Mass constitution. Its just a matter of time before the US Supreme Court rules on this and I predict you will not like the result.

If you really think it is wrong then get a constitutional amendment that says so. Why bash the court when our form of government gives you that ability to deal with it? Broken? This is exactly what the founding fathers intended.

I never watch American Idol and I've never watched any of hte so-called reality shows and I still disagree with you.

hank

[hank]

This could be interesting if we'll leave out the name-calling. MarineDEP4 - instead of fag comments why don't you give old 2 Sheds some support for your position? Just a thought. ;)

hank

[Midtown]

gay people can do whatever the hell they want IMO, as long as it doesnt involve trying to **** me, I dont give a ****.

[Seoulstriker]

Good news.

In a world where terrorists are running around trying to kill us all, and John Ashcroft is arguing for some of the most extreme curtailings of personal freedom since the American Civil War, why do people still think the greatest threat to the American way of life is ELLEN DEGENERES?! It boggles my mind.

whoa! slow down! what has john ashcroft done to personal freedom????

[Haiw]

Abolish it?

[Seoulstriker]

please, elaborate.

[Haiw]

Just joking, I hardly know who he is... (isn't he the minister of Justice Department?)

[hank]

Attorney General of the United States is teh proper title.

hank

[Seoulstriker]

starving student,

tell me how john ashcroft is destroying personal freedoms.

[hank]

I can't speak for SS47 but I agree that Ashcroft never lets a little thing like the constitution get in his way. An example would be his part in the decision to take the position that the DoJ did about the inmates the US hold at Guantanamo.

The DoD did take some prisoners form Astan and elsewhere, like Lindh, to Gitmo and I am not talking about them.

I'm talking about Hamdi and the others that were in the US - detained - and then taken to Gitmo. DoJ, at Ashcroft's behest, transported these non US citizens to Gitmo in an attempt to get around the US consitution's 4th and 8th amendment protections and teh right to counsel. See, even a foreigner arrested in teh US gets constitutional protection within the sovereign territory of hte US. Ashcroft, however, took advantage of a decision from WWII about the interned Japanese and took them to Gitmo - outside the sovereign territory of the US but still within US control. That way DoJ/FBI, whoever could interrogate them without lawyers and without constitutional protection.

That was wrong and he knew he was using an old loophole to get around the con. That is not the guy I want running the government agency charged with the duty to enforce US law. That being said, I'll still vote for Bush b/c Ashcroft has enough checks on him that I can live with the risk.

I can't rememebr which circuit court made the decision but just recently one said that was wrong and then the US Supreme Court found in Hamdi's favor.

hank

[Seoulstriker]

i do not know everything about those cases. is it about a US citizen being held without limit at GITMO?


The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

[hank]

No - they were not us citizens. They were captured on US soil and transported to Gitmo without a hearing, without right to counsel, and anything else. Once they got there DoJ says they had NO constitutional rights under this old case from the 1950's that said that enemy combatants held outside the sovereign territory of the US did not have constitutional rights. That case had delt with Japanese prisoners held in the Phillipines but Ashcroft took these guys from the US to Gitmo in an attmept to get around the Constitution.

That phrase "enemy combatant" that keeps getting thrown around in the media comes from that old case and Ashcroft's opinion that justified the detention.

just so we are clear - I'm not talking about the Taliban that were captured in Astand taken to Gitmo - they clearly don't have and should not have constitutional rights. But the guys captured in the US and taken against their will to Gitmo should and now do after the recent holdings.

Also, initially DoJ tried to say that Lindh should not have constitutional rights even though he is and always a citizen of the US. He ended up getting them but not without a fight.

I'm always leery of someone charged with enforcing the law who takes positive steps to get around it in order to get what he wants. Scary stuff

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Nice one MarineDEP4, I invite you to suckle on my left nut. rofl

Check out the inclusiveness and love from the left! How does anybody know what my position is on gays or gay marriage? I don't recall ever saying anything about it. I'd suggest you read posts before you reply to them.

What I have a problem with is the modern trend of the activist judiciary making law instead of enforcing it. That's not their job, and certainly not what the founding fathers intended. The foundational documents clearly assign duties between the legislative an judiciary branches.

In this case, the judiciary has imposed - created - a law imposing legal gay marriage in Massachusetts. This is akin to Al Gore's circumventing Congress and creating the FCC tax out of thin air. In both cases, no petitioner approached the legislature to create the law/tax. It was never in committee, it was never voted on. And yet, it exists. How can this be?

It's not supposed to work that way. Nobody seems to be able to look past the sensational subject matter and see that the system is not working as envisioned.

[Seoulstriker]

actually, the US has this little doozy in the constitution for US citizens:


The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.



and for non-citizens? hmmmmm... they're not protected by our constitution either. why would they be protected? they are enemy combatants. they are trying to kill citizens of the US (aka war). please, no verbal washing machines. ;)

[hank]

Seoulstriker - I'm not being a smart-ass but do you know what habeau corpus means and its significance in prisoner matters? It has nothing to do with constitutional rights. Hbeas corpus rights exist exclusive of the constitution. literally it means "produce the body". It is a right that a person associated with a detained person have to be able to say - you have so-in-so in jail and I have not heard from him - bring him to court and let him be heard. Honest Abe suspended the right during the Civil War b/c otherwise northern relative of captured Southern coldiers could have flooded the court with petitions. In this case however, Ashcrof captured these guys in VA and before they had been charged (in fact they were never charged with a crime) he took them to Gitmo. Had he put them in jail in VA they would have had hab cor right + right to counsel + right to trial, etc. As it stood until the courts did something about it they could have sat at Gitmo forever and never even been charged with a crime.

You quote about hab is great b/c it begs an obvious question that you fail to mention. If you can suspend hab rights then why did Ashcroft not ask Bush to declare an emergency and do it? As you say, Bush has that right, yet Ashcroft did not suggest that. Glaring ommission.

Non-citizens get constitutional rights all the time -0 so long as they are in the sovereign territory of hte US. These guys were until Ashcroft threw them in the G-4 and sent them to Gitmo. Its all true, check it out.

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Are enemy combatants entitled to file a writ of habeas corpus? I thought they were tried under another system.

[hank]

2 sheds - here we go.

Activist judiciary - there is term that only a journalist could come up with and I am sure that is where you got it. Did you read my earlier post about reading the constitution? Did you read it? I feel like you are avoinding what I posted earlier. Read it again. But I will go ahead and respond to this neww post.

"Making law instead of enforcing it" - that is not what happened. How do you think this case came about? It came about becuase some lesbian couple couldn't get the benefits of law that they could have gotten had one of them been a male. So they sued to get those rights. When they got the Mass Supreme Court they said - look here - in the constitution - WOW - it says that everybody should get the same protections of the law. We want to get married and we can't because the legislature wrote this law in such a way that only hetero******s get the protections and that is not right. Those "4 guys" you talk about read the constitution and the law and said - you know what - you're right it does say that - wow we have 2 laws that cannot in all good conscience be read together - what should we do? - what they did was say legislature - fix this problem before we do it ourselves.

where is the new law - it was there all the time

Our constitution gives the legislature the ability to delegate its lawmaking authority to the executive branch in a lot of cases. Why do you think you can't dump oil in your front yard? Is it a law? Go find that Federal Law - it will be in t book called United States Code. Guess what - it is not there. What, you say? How can that be? Did not a committee of senators vote on it? No they did not. They got together and said - wow this crap is really hard to figure out and since I'm not a scientist I think I'll let the guys at the EPA figure this crap out. So the EPA made a rule and if you don't follow it Ashcroft and his boys at the DoJ will throw your butt in jail. Its called a administrative rule of hte EPA and it has force of law by act of Congress. What a friggin concept.

Still say the system does not work?

What about when you get in a car accident? If the other guy is at fault for the wreck does he have to pay for your damages? What do you have to prove to show that it is his fault? Is it - - - - negligence? Your a winner!!! Go to the US Code and find me the negligence law. Its not there? Damn, Congress must have made a mistake? Negligence = common law in the federal judicial system and you won't find it in statutes.

I could go on but I think you probably get the point.

Read the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. I'll post it if you need it. Tell why you think after reading taht that gay peopl should not be able to get married and straight people should.

You curse judges because they "make new law" you say. Sometimes they do but I be you can't name a single time. Ros v Wade is not new law - it too was there all the time in the 14th amendment to the constitution.

The only possible basis for saying that the system dose not work is that you whine about this problemt here instead of trying to amend the constitution. If you want gays to not be able to marry then get your damned congressman to propose an amendment. bush has already hinted that he might try to get it done. Instead of complaining about the very people that protect your rights why don't you exercise some of them.

hank

[hank]

Oops - just reaedyou habeas post - no enemy combatants held outside the US will never have habeas rights. It remains a little unsrue whether they would have them if they were in Mississippi like the German POWs during WWII. Those guys might but that happens so infrequently that it has not been answered.

The reason that Ashcroft, DoJ and DoD did not put the Taliban in a US prison in the US is they did not want to find out. They knew that at Gitmo a non-US citizen that had never set foot on US sovereign territory woudl not get habeas rights. IMHO that is a little sketchy also but I can live with that. But hte guys that were in the US should have habeas rights and constititional rights. Thinks about it - if they killed an American and wen to jail in NYC they would still have right to counsel even though foreign. Just b/c they are terrorist does not effect the validity of their rights.

As it turns out if the Taliban are enemey combatants and thus more than criminals then at Gitmo they will never have rights and thus they may just sit down there forever. Not so for the hys captured in the US - they got right to counsel and probably will get more as their lawyers progress through the system.

WTF is a verbal washing machine?

hank

[Salty Dog]

This could be interesting if we'll leave out the name-calling. MarineDEP4 - instead of fag comments why don't you give old 2 Sheds some support for your position? Just a thought. ;)

hank

i was totally ****ing around. i think that they should be able to marry because it's what they want. i'm not gonna tell anyone who they6 can and can't marry, so why should the government?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Our constitution gives the legislature the ability to delegate its lawmaking authority to the executive branch in a lot of cases.
Not the Judiciary. All your examples are correct, and are examples of laws lawfully enacted under Executive jurisdiction. We're talking about the Judiciary here.



Still say the system does not work?
Yes.


Negligence = common law in the federal judicial system and you won't find it in statutes.
Mkay, but in this case since the people clearly disagree with the Court, how could it be considered common law?


Read the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. I'll post it if you need it. Tell why you think after reading taht that gay peopl should not be able to get married and straight people should.
For the love of God man - I don't care if they get married to parking meters. It's the manner in which this court has circumvented the legislative process that is the issue.


You curse judges because they "make new law" you say. Sometimes they do but I be you can't name a single time.
Give me time (I do work for a living). I already gave one similar example in which Algore successfuuly foisted an illegal tax upon US taxpayers. Not quite the same, but you get my drift. Nobody seems to care.


The only possible basis for saying that the system dose not work is that you whine about this problemt here instead of trying to amend the constitution.
Hey, one of the biggest functions of the Constitution is to assign the mechanisms by which power is assigned to legislative (i.e. lawmaking) entities. By that I mean that we shouldn't go around amending the constitution to cover anything we want. Is stopping at railroad crossings in the Constitution? But you know what - Florida recently amended it's state constitution to include restrictions on pig farming. It was enacted directly by ballot initiative. Absolutely amazing. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all pigs shall be enabled to turn completely around and shuffle about, all the live long day.


Instead of complaining about the very people that protect your rights why don't you exercise some of them.
Hey, are you trying to curtail my 1st amendment rights? rofl I'll complain all I want, Gat dang it. And here I was thinking that laws protected my rights. Guess I'd better offer up some tribute to those judges seated up on high...

[Jack Mehoff]

**** that, i want to have 2 wives. It's my right

[hank]

2 sheds - the point with the executive branch is you said that there was no debate and no senator putting forth the will of the people. Laws that have nothing to do with the will of the people happen all the time. Our consitution does not grant an exclusive right to mawk law to the legislate in the Federal case the Congress. In fact without a constitutional mandate, Congress may not even act. For an exmample of this idea check out the commercer clause and its changing ideas throught this century. Early in the century the SC gage a very limiting interpretion to commerce and said to the legislature - stop making laws that only effect commerce in one state when the commerece clause only deals with INTERSTATE COMMERCE. That was judicial activism - whe nteh supreme court tells congress that it had overstepped its bounds. Interpreting a constitution is the province of hte judiciary - enumerated directly in the constitution. I see now from your response that the will of the people is not what you were concerned about but instead it was teh mechanism of our government. Glad we could clear that up?

Common law does not mean that everybody agrees, genius. it means law that exists exclusive of statutes and negligence is a great example. It is not codified in very many states yet courts uphold the concept everyday. I'm losing my patience a little because this is so obvious to anyone what has ever read anything about legal systems. If you disagree with this then it is almost hopeless. Laws in every jurisdiction in this cournty exist exclusive of the codified (written in code books) laws.

Clearly disagree - when people use the word clearly it is a signal that they can't think of a good reason. If it is so clear then why did it happen? people can disagree about whether they like gay marriage - but that is not the question - the question is whether it is legal and you must look to the law to determine that.

Circumvent the legislative process - already debunked that - read my first post. The right for gays to marry is inherent in the 14th amendment and it was there all along - the earlier courts - assuming anybody ever even tried - got it wrong - the key word is equal - did you read that - if you a hetero****** male has the right to marry what principle says that a gay woman should not? Identify the principle and tell where I can find it - otherwise we are talking about your opinion and that is quite irrelevant. Please read my first post - I still don't think you understand it.

I work too buttlick. In fact if you come to TN and get in a wreck or arrested falsely you might get lucky enough to find out about your rights. You'll need somebody like me to identify them for you b/c your "i believe" arguments won'g get much play. By the wasy, I won't cite to any statutes when I say you were falsely arrested - I'll just quote the constitution - you should try that yourself. Funny thing is the cops and or the other driver won' t agree with my beliefs but common law or teh constitution might still protect you - assuming somebody takes the time to read it on your behalf since it is obvious you have not.

True - assign mechanisms. Which mechanisms are assigned to the Supreme Court? Do you even know? Do you even know how to find out? Try this on for size.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

That is a mechanism - what part of ALL did you not understand - or would you like to offer an alternative explanation of ALL. When you are dealing with constitutions - be they federal or state - the supreme court of the jurisdiction has no limits - EVER.

So why do you have a problem with what the court did? Read the very first sentence - the judicial power (in the constitution everytime the framers discuss judicial power in Art III they refer to the Supreme Court) shall extend to all cases . . . arising under the constitution. NOtice that i differentiated between Art III and the SC - that is because Art III only governs the SC. Do you know who governs all the other federal courts - like the District Courts for trial and the Circuit Courts for Appeals - guess? - it CONGRESS - what? the congress regulates all the courts of the federal judiciary except the Supreme Court - Oh my god this separation of powers crap is tough!

Article II gives the Supreme Court ORIGINAL jurisdiction to decide every case that arises under the Constitution - this case does and the SC is well within its enumerated powers to act - the same is true in Mass b/c this case arose under the Mass constitution.

Think about this. There is a portion of the constitution called the full faith and credit clause. It says that the judicial acts of one state MUST be honored by other states with some really goofy exceptions. If you think that out what it means is that when Mass made this decision it will have the SAME effect in your state. So a couple fo lesbians for your state can go to Boston for vacation and get married and when they return to your state you have to give them all the same rights as any other married couple. WOW - that should give you pause - one state doing something that effects another state! UNBELIEVEABLE!

Protect your rights? Of course I want to protect your rights because by doing so I protect my own. That is why if you think you have good reason against gay marriage you should try to amend the constitution like Bush has mentioned because that is the MECHANISM you have to chagne the constitution. I'm not tryingto stifle your ideas even though I vehemently disagree with you - dude - I'm trying to help you accomplish them in a constructive way instead of letting you float around this world spouting crap that is wrong and will never get you what you want. What part of this confuses you - amend the constitution and you won't see anybody making the arguments against you that I am.

Tribute to the judges on high - well that is really pointless in light of what I have already written, but I feel compelled to give you another example. There is another portion of our constitution called the 4th amendment and it deals with the right of people to be free from searches and seizures. Well, when the framers wrote it they were pissed because the British had had a habit of coming into their houses and taking whatever they wanted for no reason. So the framers said to hell with that and started this whoel bill of rights then, damned liberals. Anyway, time passes and cops in this country by the 1940s have made it a habit of questioning people on the streets without telling people that they do not have to answer the questions. So, anyway the SC sees this and they puta stop to it and now the police have to tell you about those rights, because otherwise you might no be aware and would answer something that the police could use to convict you. Well the police decided to answer all this by changing their procedures. They would walk up to talk to you and if you looked suspicious they would frick you to see if you had a gun and then if you did why they woudl arrest you. Again, the Supreme Court said no way. All this continued and each time the Sc has said to the gevernment - no way. Who is protecting rights - the executive branch who controls the cops or the Supreme Court. Maybe exhaltation is a strong word, but if Burger and Holmes were still around I'd buy them a beer and thank them for thinking more about your RIGHTS than you obviously have.

Please read the constitution. You have no idea the great stuff that TJ and the boys put in there. It really is an inspiring document.

hank

[California Joe]

Is it John Ashcroft that lost an election to a dead guy or was that Tom Ridge? I get them confused, they both have that same wooden "my mom smoked whilst pregnant" look. Lost an election to a dead man. Think about it. So anyway..... The prez is worried about steroids in pro sports and the conservatives are worried that guys like Midtown are going to have so much fun ass****ing that they might even do guys. Not reall a huge problem.

[hank]

It was Ashcroft and I can't believe I forgot that fact about Ashcroft. Great point Joe. That was why he was available for AG - he was unemployed. He also is the one who sings in the barbershop quartet with 3 other senators.

hank

[California Joe]

It was Ashcroft and I can't believe I forgot that fact about Ashcroft. Great point Joe. That was why he was available for AG - he was unemployed. He also is the one who sings in the barbershop quartet with 3 other senators.

hank

He fooking scares me. It's like Norman Bates.

[hank]

Joe - weren't you a cop? Do I remember that right?

hank

[Jack Mehoff]

Joes works as a civie for DoD

[hank]

Yeah but before that was he a cop? I may be thinking of somebody else. Only reason I ask is all the excops I know here in beautiful East TN think that the US SC should be strung up for requiring a reasonable suspicion before they search a person. It would be good to hear a former cop who likes the constitution.

hank

[California Joe]

I'm a former cop. I joined to be a sketch artist, FBI school and all that. Find missing kids. Didn't work out that way. so I work for the DoD. I own a lot of old guns. Ashcroft scares me. The Constitution is my friend.

[farmgirl]

I'm a former cop. I joined to be a sketch artist, FBI school and all that. Find missing kids. Didn't work out that way. so I work for the DoD. I own a lot of old guns. Ashcroft scares me. The Constitution is my friend.


yeah, but do you still have some cuffs laying around from your days on the force? What? Just askin' p-)

[Jack Mehoff]

I'm a former cop. I joined to be a sketch artist, FBI school and all that. Find missing kids. Didn't work out that way. so I work for the DoD. I own a lot of old guns. Ashcroft scares me. The Constitution is my friend.


yeah, but do you still have some cuffs laying around from your days on the force? What? Just askin' p-)

I got some zip tie

[Haiw]

And they say it's always the boys that are nasty... :|

[California Joe]

Quit biting my responses you ***** with ears.

Cuffs? yeah. And my one bullet.

[farmgirl]

And they say it's always the boys that are nasty... :|


What's nasty about that Haiw? I was just curious..... I'm sure I don't understand what you are implying. :roll:

[hank]

Joe that is great. You might be the first ex law enforcement type I have met that respects constitutional rights. You definitely are the first law enforcement type who can successfully manipulate a thread regarding the constitution in such a way that women feel compelled to ask you about handcuffs. For that you are to be commended sir. Bravo.

hank

[Trigger]

Good old 'Single Shot Joe' p-) argh!

[farmgirl]

Good old 'Single Shot Joe' p-) argh!


Joe... call me barney....

[California Joe]

Chicks dig the Barney Fife gear.

One shot, one thrill.

[hank]

Nip it, Nip it, Nip it in the bud.

[California Joe]

It's me, It's me, It's Ernest T.

[farmgirl]

Nip it, Nip it, Nip it in the bud. rofl nicely done

[Trigger]

Too bad you dress like Jon and Ponch. :D

[hank]

Trying to come up with a witty quote from C.H.I.P.S. but failing miserably so I'll go with an old standy from Mayberry

Citizens arrest, Citizens arrest, Citizens arrest!

[California Joe]

You mean in boots and tight pants that show off my package?

[Trigger]

What's that?

You're on your way to a Village People reunion?

Nice!

[farmgirl]

What's that?

You're on your way to a Village People reunion?

Nice!


"Young man.... there's no need to feel down....
I said young man...." p-)

[Trigger]

Man I hope there wasn't a 'Sailor' in the Village People or I'm in for a world of hurt...

[California Joe]

In the Navy. Word, T.

[hank]

That's good farmgirl but I really needed a CHIPS quote. C'mon, you know you watched it faithfully. You know, that Panch really was a macho, macho man. I, too, want to be a macho man.

harm

[farmgirl]

In the Navy. Word, T.


beat me to it Joe..... p-)

[Trigger]

"....Seven Mary Three, Seven Mary Three, please respond to a report of a blue gorilla in a sailor suit attempting to jump from the overpass..."

[hank]

Nice work Trigger.

Did a google for Village People because I could not remember any other songs to quote and got a link to Amazon. No BS, Amazon gives a choice between the Twelve Inch and Regular versions of Macho Man and In the Navy if you want to download them. Farmgirl?

[farmgirl]

Joe, Trigger and the rest of the boys..... ;)

http://www.hpphoto.com/servlet/LinkPhoto?GUID=3c2c637c-15a1-3881-15f8-5fb4507d15a4&size=

[California Joe]

"Gee John, that Gorilla looks angry"

"Man Ponch, my thong is seriously riding up on me today"

[Rantanplan]

OMG!

this thread is soooo ghey. rofl

[Trigger]

There's just something fundamentally wrong with a sentence that has the words 'Village People' '12 inch' 'Macho Man' 'download' and *shudder* 'In the Navy' :oops:

[farmgirl]

Nice work Trigger.

Did a google for Village People because I could not remember any other songs to quote and got a link to Amazon. No BS, Amazon gives a choice between the Twelve Inch and Regular versions of Macho Man and In the Navy if you want to download them. Farmgirl?


Well.... that hardly seems fair to the "regular" version of Macho Man.... I mean... really.... who's gonna pick him??? p-)


(still working on CHiPs for you.... I know, I know... I'm a disappointment)

[farmgirl]

OMG!

this thread is soooo ghey. rofl

oh... you know you think it's funny..... :D

[hank]

I knew you'd see it that way Farmgirl, what with your MidWest sensibilities and all.

hank

[California Joe]

I get to be the Indian. He's the prettiest.

[Trigger]

I heard he was the second to the last of the Mohicans.

Ron Jeremy, I mean Beowulf told me.

[California Joe]

The Hedgehog abides. Word.

[StarvingStudent47]

starving student,

tell me how john ashcroft is destroying personal freedoms.

I would, but these two gentlemen already handled it for me:



*about 10 pages of eloquently-explained legal issues*



I'm a former cop. I joined to be a sketch artist, FBI school and all that. Find missing kids. Didn't work out that way. so I work for the DoD. I own a lot of old guns. Ashcroft scares me. The Constitution is my friend.

[farmgirl]

Here you go Hank.... just for you.....

http://www.chips-tv.com/


It even has an episode guide!!!!

http://www.hpphoto.com/servlet/LinkPhoto?GUID=39ce4853-a769-d780-1d0f-57a24aef43c7&size=

[hank]

"I enjoyed the movie very much and look forward to many more. It was great to see everyone as they had matured; however, they are still great actors. They can make any script funny, exciting, and entertaining. It would have been good to have seen the whole cast of the officers who had appeared over the six years yet I'm sure that was impossible. I think another movie highlighting the two younger cast members with well-written stories for the older actors written in would be well-received. Make it appeal to the younger generation as the series did and don't forget to add non-lectures concerning modern-day things young and old people face. No gratuitous violence and *** but some romance would also be appreciated. I purchased the movie because it is a good movie to sit down and watch with your family and those are hard to find. Please keep up the good work and keep making CHiPs movies. Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion which is also the opinion of a lot of my family and friends."

Actual quote from someone who actually bought the movie entitled Chips 99. Just when you thought you had reached the depths of human experience by engaging in a debate about the prettiest village person you find this. God help us.

Of course, this report is so glowing there is at least a chance that the writer was Erik Estrada's mom or something. C'mon we're talking about Chips - do we really need to use words like "mature" and "actors". Also, the writer might want to rethink requesting any more Chips movies.

hank

[Trigger]

*jumps from the overpass into oncoming traffic*

[farmgirl]

oh Hank... you're just jealous of their fine acting abilities.... and tight pants :roll:

http://www.hpphoto.com/servlet/LinkPhoto?GUID=406018c1-3678-7dc3-4a2a-5027112d38c4&size=

[farmgirl]

*jumps from the overpass into oncoming traffic*


*quickly dials paramedic from The Village People to help out.....*

[hank]

Dude - I gotta get me one of those sticks like John. I guess he decided he liked the twelve inch macho man, huh?

Two words - Black Gloves

Why?

hank

[farmgirl]

I knew you'd see it that way Farmgirl, what with your MidWest sensibilities and all.

hank


My momma didn't raise no fool. p-)

[hank]

*Medic from the Village people answers*

"I'll be there as soon as I finish this twelve inch macho man I ordered from Amazon."

[California Joe]

Real cops use Monadnock PR-24's.

[California Joe]

Just sayin.

[farmgirl]

*Medic from the Village people answers*

"I'll be there as soon as I finish this twelve inch macho man I ordered from Amazon."


Damn... no wonder mine is on backorder! :(

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Jeezus hank thanks for the pompous diatribe. Your cut and paste skills are top notch!

Your outrage is delicious. Clearly, when your views are challenged, you're not able to conduct a reasoned and mature discussion without resorting even to juvenile name calling. Your relentless regurgitation of non-sequitur argument fills pages, but says nothing. It's a tactic oft used by those who either don't know what they're talking about, or who know they don't have a leg to stand on.

Almost like a lawyer trying to muddy the water at a trial they know they can't win on the issues. ;)

So please, do continue to concentrate on the minutia of the issue, quote irrelevant examples, and call me names. "Jackwad" is a favorite, so use it early & often! You're simply not going convince me, so save your misspelleedd rantings.

And to keep the rest of the folks here interested, I should prolly say something about Ponch's tight pants...

[farmgirl]

And to keep the rest of the folks here interested, I should prolly say something about Ponch's tight pants...


Nicely done 2 sheds.... we wouldn't want to get off topic. Thank you for your support. ;)

[hank]

Wish I had been a fly on the wall for that conversation

Amazon telephone order taker: Can I help you?
Farmgirl: Yes, I'd like to order a twelve inch macho man.
Amazon: Fine, can I please have your shipping address?
FArmgirl: That is BFE Iowa, spelled B-F-E I-O-W-A. It's very nearNorth Dakota, or is it South Dakota. I can never remember, whatever.
Amazon: Oh, I'm sorry, the twelve inch macho man is on back order, would you be interested in the regular version?
Farmgirl: No, not really. You see, I have midwestern sensibilities and my mother was incapable of rearing foolish children. Besides, I've spent a lot of time milking cows and shucking corn. How long will it take?
Amazon: Well, we can deliver it just as soon as our medic returns from a horrible accident on the Santa Monica freeway. Shouldn't take long.
Farmgirl: Well, that will be fine. But please do hurry. It is awfully cold in Iowa this time of year, what with the democratic cauci and all.
Amozon: Yes, Mrs. Farmgirl. We'll deliver it as fast as we can.

Anyway, that is what Joe said the conversation sounded like but you can never be too sure with someone who knows the technical name of the night stick carried by John on Chips.

hank

[farmgirl]

My god Hank....
You have me dying over here..... rofl

I'll overlook the "Iowa slams" for now, but only because you made me laugh. :)

[hank]

2 sheds - sorry I was reliving a phone conversation I once dreamt about.

Where were we. Oh Yeah, the constitution. So i guess that means you did not read it did you? No matter. If you want to talk about the constitution maybe you should read it. I am not really sure how I am supposed to feel about being called delicious.

There is that "clearly" word again. Why don't you clearly quote to the part of the constitution that says that gay women are not protected by the 14th amendment. I am waiting.

I never called you a Jackwad, I said "jerkoff, that's what I think of you"

It is not about convincing it is about ingnorance. You have not read the constitution so it matters not.

Funny that you mention lawyers muddyin the waters because what I really am is a law student trying to kill the algae that infects your reasoning.

one more time - read the constitution and show me the part that says that (1) the supreme court does not have the power to interpretthe constitution and (2) gay women don't have the right to equal protection of the law

If you can find any support for your ideas about our constitution - which to this point you have not - I will see to it that Farmgirl and the medic from the Village People get married in Massachusetts and then come to your state for the quickie divorce - deal? If you can get it done before tomorrow morning I will have Cal Joe host a wedding reception in between the divorce and wedding - all right?

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time

hank

[California Joe]

He's clearly delusional, farmgirl, not YOU is delicious. Jeez.

Carrion.

[hank]

Hey, I can slam Iowa, I have a lot of family from there. My grandfather was an eye doctor in Osceola, IA for fifty years or so, my dad ws raised in Iowa and is a UI alum and my aunt still lives and teaches 3rd grade in Osceola. In fact my wife and I were in Osceola for four glorious days in December. So back off before I make up another crazy phone conversation b/w you and 2 sheds

hank

[hank]

Hey 2 sheds I forgot one thing - I know how to find the US constitution on the internet - do you? back it up and since I am an amputee I really don't see the humor in the leg to stand on coment - how the hell did you find out about that anyway?

hank

[farmgirl]

Hey, I can slam Iowa, I have a lot of family from there. My grandfather was an eye doctor in Osceola, IA for fifty years or so, my dad ws raised in Iowa and is a UI alum and my aunt still lives and teaches 3rd grade in Osceola. In fact my wife and I were in Osceola for four glorious days in December. So back off before I make up another crazy phone conversation b/w you and 2 sheds

hank

Osceola isn't all that far away from me. I probably met you on the road in December. :) (were you coming up to get books to smuggle back into Tennessee???) p-)

How come 2 Sheds gets Monty Python, and I just get "back off?"

MD

[hank]

No, I was on my way to chop down a shrubbery with a herring. Happy now. You better hope 2 sheds can't come through on the constitution or you are in for a WILD WEEKEND. Joe is probably pming 2 sheds right now with the url for the constitution.

hank

[California Joe]

I'm old, I wrote the constitution.

[hank]

Well quick send it to 2 sheds and we'll all have a big time this weekend.

hank

[farmgirl]

Well quick send it to 2 sheds and we'll all have a big time this weekend.

hank


woot woot p-)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Hey 2 sheds I forgot one thing - I know how to find the US constitution on the internet - do you? back it up and since I am an amputee I really don't see the humor in the leg to stand on coment - how the hell did you find out about that anyway?

hank

You can find out anything on the internet. It's all there...hmmm that incident in 7th grade must have been embarrasing, it's lucky that salve did the trick...

[hank]

2 sheds - not to beat a dead horse - but I take it from your last post that you still have not read the constitution. That is OK it has alot of big words. If you have questions you can continue to use me as a resource.

Some things I want to clear up. There has been a slight mischaracterization of exactly what happened in Mass - and I am guilty of it a little bit also. I'll try to clear that stuff up as well as the effect of what happend in Mass back on the home front and Bush's response. I read the opinion just now after watching Barney Frank and Patrick Buchanan debate the finer points, enthralling I assure you.

The Mass supreme court did exactly as I describe. They were presented with an appeal by two lesbians who siad that under Massachussetts current statutory scheme that they did not receive the same protection under Mass's current MARRIAGE law. They argued successfully that the MARRIAGE law and Massachussetts version of the 14th amendment (giving a right of equal protection to all citizens) cannot exist together. One of them is wrong and left it to the Court to decide. The Court chose equal proitection. So the Court said something has to go and even discusses that they would welcome three possibile changes (1) add a new civil union law to keep the sanctity of marrigae while still providing equal protection (2) change the wording of hte current marriage law to include homo******s (3) amend the constitution - althoug to be fair this is kind of silly b/c Mass can't do anything about the changes in the US Con's 14th amendment so if Mass did that somebody would just sue un the US Con and the US SC would likely find Mass's constitution unconstitutional under the US 14th amendment.

This is important because it shows that the courtdid not trample on marriage - in fact they suggested an alternative that would leave the current marriage law in tact. I had forgotten that and that makes it really tough on your new law idea - no new law has occurrred and if it does the leglislature will have to do it. Now if they don't, admitttedly the Mass SC will put the clamp down and do it themselves, as the Mass Constitution Art III authorizes and empowers them to do (I've already quoted that so I'll leave it out).

Now, the effect in your state. This is not as clear as I characterized it yesterday. If Mass calls this new deal a civil union then it is not exaclty clear if teh US con's full faith and credit clause will force other states to recognize the civil union. there is at least the makings for a valid argument civil union is not marriage and if TN does not have civil union in any form then they don't have to recognize it. Anyway, that is unanswered and my prediction would be that now the cat is out of the bag and if given the opportunity the US SC would enforce teh FFC clause in this case - but admittedly that is a prediction and I could be wrong.

That being said - if Mass ends up calling this a marriage then full faith and credit will force TN to recognize it and give it full faith and credit. Doesn't mena TN has to let gays get married in TN, but if the go to Mass and do it then its all good.

What Bush wants - Buchanon and Frank talked about this - so its a little worse than second hand but its intriguing enough that I'll mention it. Bush proposes an amendment to the constitution that denies full faith and credit to civil union and/or gay marriage in the hope that individual states will have their own wishes respected. That is a pretty savvy way to get around it b/c even non bible thumping states' rights republicans can get on board. Even I like the idea that TN should decide whther mass or the US SC likes it or not.

Anyway - those points were a little less than clear - so maybe that helps.

2 sheds - are you sure you want to say I don't know what I'm talking about? You seem like a bright guy but your posts on this subject have been totally devoid of substance and mine are chock full of citations and support in the constitution for my thoughts. If you actually read the document - or just the relevant parts - it could elevateht level of dicsussion. I don't make that many posts - but when I do I am pretty sure I at least have an idea. Just a thought. You're right some of those miracle salves are amazing and have been a life saver for ole hank on numerous occassion. ;)

hank

[farmgirl]

A related article:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20040205/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

Legislators Weigh Action on Gay Marriages

By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - Despite Massachusetts' highest court allowing same-*** marriages by summer, legislators opposed to the concept were weighing options to try to circumvent the ruling — either through a law or a constitutional amendment.

"The court has overstepped its boundary and has not let the legislative process to unfold the way it has on other issues," said Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty.

The 4-3 advisory ruling Wednesday by the Supreme Judicial Court creates a legislative dilemma that could force many uneasy lawmakers to choose sides on a contentious social issue.

The court Wednesday doused one compromise option, ruling that gay couples were entitled to all the benefits of marriage and that Vermont-style civil unions don't go far enough.

But some gay marriage opponents, including powerful House Speaker Thomas Finneran, said they haven't closed the door on other legislative responses.

"I intend to closely study today's advisory opinion," said Finneran. "I will refrain from any comment until I have thought through the options which remain for the people of Massachusetts and their elected representatives."

Opponents of gay marriage pin their hopes on part of the court's original ruling that said state law provided no "rational" basis for prohibiting same-*** couples from the benefits of marriage.

Some lawmakers, including Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty, hope to craft a bill providing a rational basis for the exclusion of gay couples from marriage while conveying some new benefits to same-*** couples.

"The court has overstepped its boundary and has not let the legislative process to unfold the way it has on other issues," O'Flaherty said.

The much-anticipated opinion came a week before next Wednesday's Constitutional Convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment backed by Gov. Mitt Romney that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

"The spotlight is now shining brightly on the Constitutional Convention. I can't believe any lawmaker would want to run from this," said Rep. Philip Travis, who sponsored the amendment.

The soonest a constitutional amendment could end up on the ballot would be 2006, meaning that the nation's first gay marriage could take place in Massachusetts as soon as May.

"We've heard from the court, but not from the people," Romney said in a statement. "The people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage."

Senate President Robert Travaglini, who will preside over the Constitutional Convention, said he needed time to talk with fellow senators before deciding what to do next.

"I want to have everyone stay in an objective and calm state as we plan and define what's the appropriate way to proceed," said Travaglini. "There is a lot of anxiety out there obviously surrounding the issue but I don't want to have it cloud or distort the discussion."

The advisory opinion was issued about three months after the court's original ruling that same-*** couples were entitled to all the benefits of marriage. That ruling prompted the Senate to ask if civil unions would satisfy the court.

Wednesday's opinion left no doubt.

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," four justices wrote in Wednesday's opinion. "For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain."

Lawmakers who cheered the ruling said they welcomed the chance to stand up and be counted. Sen. Jarrett Barrios, a supporter of gay marriage, said the opinion treats gay and straight couples equally.

"Whatever your view is of marriage, it's my belief that fair-minded people oppose writing discrimination into the constitution," said Barrios, who is gay.

A marriage amendment will require the support of at least 101 members of the 200-member Legislature during the current legislative session and the same number in the new, two-year session that begins in January before going on the ballot.

There's no guarantee the question will even come up next week. The question is eighth on a list of 11 proposed amendments. Ahead of it are other controversial proposals, including one lengthening the term of lawmakers from two to four years.

At least one aspect of the case may still be subject to debate: Would marriages in Massachusetts have to be recognized legally in other states or by the federal government?

The federal government and 38 other states have enacted laws barring the recognition of any gay marriages in other jurisdictions. The Massachusetts court decision will likely lead to multiple lawsuits about whether gay marriage benefits can extend beyond the state's borders.

President Bush (news - web sites), reacting to the court ruling, said a constitutional amendment will be necessary to ban gay marriages if judges persist in approving them. The issue has the potential to become a hot factor in the presidential campaign.

[Haiw]

I suppose Bush just lost all gay voters? :P

[Jack Mehoff]

I suppose Bush just lost all gay voters? :P

55% Americans against gay marriage, 40% Americans pro gay marriage...hmmmm, you do the math

[Haiw]

Geez buncha old-fashioned conservatists...

[Jack Mehoff]

I want to have two wives but the law won't let me. Where is my right?

[Haiw]

Well you can have 2 wives, as long as you don't want to marry them...

Kind of makes sense you know; marriage is about binding yourself to a specific person for the rest of your life (or so it's supposed to be), but what does it really mean when you can make that bond to several people at a time?

[NcDeuce]

Silly Homo-loving New Englanders.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Hank, you ignorant slut :) ,

Here's where I see our disagreement. IMHO, you, rather than thinking, are simply citing examples of flawed law. Others have drawn faulty conclusions, sanctified by a corrupted legal system, and you take them to be gospel. Simply because there's existing case law doesn’t' mean it's right.

First, let me assure you that I, and many others who disagree with your position, have in fact read the constitution. It's kind of arrogant to assume that I and others of my viewpoint are simply ill-informed.

In fact, 3 of the 7 judges in the MA case disagree with you - do you presume to be more knowledgeable than them as well? Would you tell them to go read the constitution?

Sorry for the long cut-n-paste below, but I think it explains my position better that I can. I'm not a constitutional scholar, I have no legal training, and I'm not particularly eloquent. But this article from the National Review is one of many that expresses what my point is. (BTW, I kind of suspected that you were either a lawyer or one in the midst of indoctrination, by the way you framed your argument (hence the winky wink in my previous post)).

If your opinion is the result of your legal training - I'd have to warn you not to confuse instruction with education. You're obviously a pretty smart person - it's not too late for you to abandon the ways of the dark side.

It's an interesting read (if a bit long) from nationalreview.com.


Michigan's Supreme Court Is Supreme
The verdict is clear.

Peter Leeson is a senior studying economics at Hillsdale College. He was a summer intern with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.


One of the most interesting and important elections this year is one most people have heard absolutely nothing about. The campaign for the Michigan Supreme Court hasn't received much attention — but it's a crucial contest about fundamental American values.

There are two kinds of judicial philosophy: judicial restraint and judicial activism. Judicial restraint, or "strict constructionism," holds that a judge's sole duty is to interpret law in the context of the legislature's intent. Only if the legislature trespasses beyond its constitutional bounds does the court step in to reverse legislative action.

Judicial activism, on the other hand, means adjudicating not according to the rule of law, but according to the ideology or preferred policy position of the judges. An activist court does not interpret the legislature's law but creates its own. It views itself as a super-legislature whose duty is to knock the real legislature back in line when it passes laws the court considers undesirable.

Advocates of the rule of law and constitutionally limited government have long warned of the dangers of judicial activism. Activism creates an unstable legal system controlled by the whims of judges. It also erodes the separation of powers established in the Constitution, and thus weakens respect for constitutional authority in general.

We need only to look to Ohio to understand the danger of a court that seeks to square its rulings with its ideology. In part of what the Ohio Chamber of Commerce called a "troubling pattern of judicial activism," Ohio's Supreme Court reached beyond its constitutional bounds, striking down the legislature's attempt to limit frivolous lawsuits through tort reform. The unpredictable legal setting facing Ohio businesses has caused many to consider moving to Michigan, where the Supreme Court, in McDougall v. Shanz (1999), upheld the state legislature's tort reforms.

Activism acts as a back door to government expansion, by granting the state wider latitude than that given by statute. Although often advocated by political liberals, judicial lawmaking is equally dangerous to both sides of the political spectrum. Activism means that judges are given the power to create laws that fit their own personal political bents — conservative or liberal.

In Michigan, a titanic struggle is now taking place to determine which judicial perspectives will dominate the state's Supreme Court. On November 7, Michigan voters will decide anew the Supreme Court's overall stand on judicial restraint, which will in turn shape Michigan's legal environment over the next eight years. Five of Michigan's seven sitting Supreme Court Justices are strict constructionists. And with three members of the Court's conservative majority up for reelection this year, Michigan voters have a chance to affirm or reject the judicial perspective of the Court's majority.

The campaign is shaping up to be the nastiest and most costly in Michigan Supreme Court history. Democratic party activists and their union allies were the first to throw bombs, alleging racist and unduly pro-business sentiments on the part of the Court's current majority.

A lot is at stake: Michigan's Supreme Court has some of the finest justices in the nation. Michael Gadola, former president of the Michigan chapter of the Federalist Society, describes them as "intellectual powerhouses." All five members of the Court majority have had extensive experience adjudicating in Michigan's lower courts. Justice Stephen Markman served as assistant attorney general of the United States in the Reagan administration; Justice Maura Corrigan was the first woman in the country to hold the position of chief assistant U.S. attorney.

Moreover, Michigan's is perhaps the only state supreme court in the country with a majority devoted to avoiding the dangers of activism. In 1998, Justices Clifford Taylor and Elizabeth Weaver (later Chief Justice) outlined their judicial philosophy in Hagerman v. Gencorp. This important dissent described the importance of restraint in maintaining the rule of law and a predictable legal environment for citizens. It also established the direction the Court's majority would take just a year later when three additional strict constructionists would join the bench.

Elsewhere, Justice Taylor remarked that, "unlike other courts, this Court will not deprive the people of their right to self-govern by revising statutes under the guise of interpreting them."

Instead, he says, the "Court's duty is to defer to the legislature, unless the act in question is unconstitutional, and to give legislation its plain meaning." That means, says Taylor, that "this Court does not engage in politics from the bench."

Justice Taylor sees the Court as bringing "Michigan back to a traditional understanding of the rule of law and judicial restraint." Justice Robert Young echoes this: "The judiciary is [not] an auxiliary legislature, nor is the judiciary free to intervene in public policy decisions of the political branches and remake them."

Gadola says these justices "strictly interpret legislative intent whether they favor the result or not." The Court's impressive track record validates his claim. Van v. Zahorik (1999) tested the Court's willingness to refrain from establishing public policy. At issue was who can be considered a "parent" under the law. The legislature defined "parent" by statute, but many thought the Court should expand this definition. True to its principle of judicial restraint, the Court declined this request. In People v. Lukity (1999), the Court again made it clear that it is the duty of the legislature, not the courts, to create law. While past supreme courts created new tests — without regard for existing statute — for deciding when criminal convictions could be reversed on appeal, the current Court repudiated this unauthorized judicial test, returning to the test created by the legislature.

Not surprisingly, the Court's approach has drawn fire from pro-activist quarters. Its opponents have accused it, for example, of favoring "big business." But as Justice Markman points out, this Court "is not pro-business or anti-business or pro or anti any other group. Rather, our commitment is to read the language of the law as faithfully as possible and let the chips fall where they may. Our responsibility is to interpret the law according to its terms, not to decide cases in favor of, or in opposition to, any particular group."

The facts support Markman's claim. Case in point: Calovecchi v. Michigan (2000). At issue was whether a worker who was mentally injured due to an improper employer demotion could recover workers' compensation benefits despite the fact that a similar worker who was fired could not. The Workers Compensation Appellate Commission, ignoring statutory language, held that the demoted worker could not receive benefits. The high court, however, rejected this opinion. According to the statute's language, demoted workers were entitled to compensation, while fired workers were not.

The Court's decision in Russell v. Whirlpool Corp. (2000) also flies in the face of pro-business accusations. In question was whether an injured worker who refused work that accommodated her injury, and was subsequently fired for absenteeism, was entitled to recommence receiving workers' compensation if she later accepted the job. While the Court of Appeals held that such a worker was not entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits, the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court observed that the legislature's statute allowed for the restoration of benefits in this situation if the employee lost her job for "whatever reason" — language broad enough to include absenteeism.

The only outcomes judicial restraint guarantees are those the legislature intends.

Judicial restraint also led the Court to overturn Lansing's "rain tax" that unconstitutionally sought to provide for the creation of a storm water system fund. The Court found the tax in violation of the 1978 Headlee Amendment that requires voter approval for tax hikes. Although the city of Lansing tried to get around voter approval by calling the tax a "user fee," the Supreme Court pointed out that a "common understanding" of the constitutional provision proved the so-called user fee to be nothing more than a tax increase.

Gadola calls Michigan's Supreme Court "the finest in the nation" because of its dedication to restraint. Victor Schwartz — co-author of the nation's leading torts casebook, and regarded by many as America's leading tort scholar — also praises the Court for "adhering to the historically established role of following law instead of making it. Its justices vigorously apply existing rules, but are not going to take upon themselves the role of retroactively changing law to suit personal political beliefs."

Michigan's Supreme Court may be the nation's best example of a court committed to interpreting the law — not manufacturing it. The philosophy of judicial restraint applied by this Court has created one of the most sound and predictable legal environments in the country. Other state supreme courts would do well to adopt its understanding of the judiciary's relationship to the legislature, and the constitutional values that are the underpinning of our free society.

[Jack Mehoff]

Well you can have 2 wives, as long as you don't want to marry them...

Kind of makes sense you know; marriage is about binding yourself to a specific person for the rest of your life (or so it's supposed to be), but what does it really mean when you can make that bond to several people at a time?

Kind of makes sense you know; marriage is about binding between a man and a woman and not Adam and Steve (or so it's supposed to be).

So tell me Haiw, define the meaning of marriage and what's right and what's wrong?


These are the two kind of people i dislike the most: hippies and hypocrites

[Haiw]

I'm not hypocritical...in my opinion a marriage is just a promise between two people that they will share their lives, share all their 'special' moments, whether good or bad, and simply declare to dedicate their life to each other, etc. etc. Whether that be a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and woman isn't really important to me. However, when you start marrying multiple people it just doesn't make sense anymore... It's like seating 3 people on a 2 person-bench, having 3 people in a duel, having 3 people play on a 2-person-game, it just doesn't make sense.

[Jack Mehoff]

And Adam and Steve say "I do" doesn't make any sense to me either. Your point? It's not that hard to point out your hypocrisy when i use your own words against you

[Haiw]

Well it just depends on your definition of marriage...if you wanna go with the whole religion and Adam and Eve crap, hey just do so, but when you just consider marriage as a special promise between two people to dedicate their lives to each other, I don't see a problem. However marrying with multiple people you simply pass by the whole thing marriage is all about...

[WARPIG]

Haven't we covered this before? By definition the word marriage means the union of a man and a woman. That is 1 of each. If unions of other couples or groups is needed, fine. But marriage by definition is 1 man and 1 woman. Should be simple. What the hell is this equal rights for gays arguement about?

[Jack Mehoff]

Haiw, so you are saying we should give this group a right to happiness and oppress the other group, right?

I'm tolerance but don't ask me to contradict myself.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Those are good points. Why should we restrict marriage to only 2 people? The Supreme Court has held that central to a person's "rights" is the right of self definition - that our responsibilities do not extend past our skin, so long as we do not harm others. That our "privacy "rights" should be unabridged so long as we do not harm others.

So what real harm is there in letting 3 people marry vs. 2? Or marry whoever/whatever we want? Seems to be very opressive. Same reasoning can be employed to allow me sit in my livingroom alone & do whatever drugs I please. Who else have I harmed?

Some people use prescription drugs to alleviate suffering - I want to use crack to alleviate my mental suffering. Can I sue on 14th amendment/equal protection grounds? I dunno - but somebody will probably try to.

None of these new "rights" are enumerated in the Constitution. They have sprung from thin air, based on some judges' interpretation of the Constitutional references to life-liberty-pursuit of happiness etc. To think that the founding fathers believed that we didn't all have deep responsibilities to each other - family - work - community, is crazy.

I guess we'll find out where this eventually leads us.

[Trigger]

If I want to bang three women and my golden retriever at the same time, can I call it 'performance art' and get a government grant for it?

[California Joe]

Yes, yes you can but it's easier if it's a chicken, 2 women and a kiddie pool full of chocolate pudding. Hey, I don't make the rules. I just work for the government.

[Salty Dog]

Haiw, so you are saying we should give this group a right to happiness and oppress the other group, right?

I'm tolerance but don't ask me to contradict myself.

nice to meet you tolerance.

[Durandal]

Gonna get preachy here since my sister is gay.

I like to think that our Constitution in general and our Bill of Rights in specific can deal with this. Add to that the wisdom handed down in the Declaration of Independence and this should be a no brainer.

A) All people are created equal.

B) "Seperate but different." has already been dealt with. It sucked during the Jim Crowe era, it will suck now. It is simply another form of predudice.

C) Religion plays no part in this. If you think YOUR religion feels that Homo******ity is improper, fine, Don't be gay.

D) In a day an age when more than 50% of the marriages out there end in divorce, protecting such an instituion from people that have in many ways a better track record per capita, is an ironic thing.

E) What the f*ck. Why can't people just live their lives without haviing to **** on others?

I am so tired of hear about this crap on the radio and TV, no it pollutes this forum. Anyone against it, might as well be some sort of Clansman. Let 'em be and things will be fine.

In the end, gay people will move to Vermont and Mass since they are more accepting of their lifestyle. Since on the average, homo******s make more money than the average person of the same ***, these states will profit inthe end by practicing SIMPLE human rights.

No one seems to get this...

[Salty Dog]

Gonna get preachy here since my sister is gay.

I like to think that our Constitution in general and our Bill of Rights in specific can deal with this. Add to that the wisdom handed down in the Declaration of Independence and this should be a no brainer.

A) All people are created equal.

B) "Seperate but different." has already been dealt with. It sucked during the Jim Crowe era, it will suck now. It is simply another form of predudice.

C) Religion plays no part in this. If you think YOUR religion feels that Homo******ity is improper, fine, Don't be gay.

D) In a day an age when more than 50% of the marriages out there end in divorce, protecting such an instituion from people that have in many ways a better track record per capita, is an ironic thing.

E) What the f*ck. Why can't people just live their lives without haviing to **** on others?

I am so tired of hear about this crap on the radio and TV, no it pollutes this forum. Anyone against it, might as well be some sort of Clansman. Let 'em be and things will be fine.

In the end, gay people will move to Vermont and Mass since they are more accepting of their lifestyle. Since on the average, homo******s make more money than the average person of the same ***, these states will profit inthe end by practicing SIMPLE human rights.

No one seems to get this...

i get it and that's what i have thought, because my uncle is gay.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Good valid points, but one has to ask where we as a culture are willing to draw the line on personal rights. The courts, now entranced with equality, are engaging in radical egalitarinism, and extending 14th amendment protection far beyond anything the framers intended.

For example -this kind of decision would have been unthinkable 50 years ago, and any politician advocating it would have faced political suicide.

So that begs the question - what behaviors now considered taboo will we be willing to tolerate in 2054? Legal *** with kids? Murder as recreation? Of course these are rediculous examples - but if we'd had this argument in 1954, homo****** marriage would have been just as outrageous.

Before you flame the $hit outta me - I am not comparing homo******ity with pederasty or murder etc. I'm just trying to illustrate that we are being asked to embrace behaviors which have been traditionally shunned. So it's reasonable to ask what other behaviours should also be destigmatized.

Good point about the homo******s having more money - and I think the statistic is that they make a little more money, but as a group they have a lot more disposable income (I guess it's not much of a difference really). No kids/family to support etc. They also have a higher education level. So that does make them an artificially powerful group when compared to the rest of society.


A) All people are created equal.

"created equal" means exactly what it says - we are all created equal. From there it's up to us to act according to societal norms. If somebody decides to smear poo on their shirt & dance around we no longer consider them equal, & avoid them. If they rob a bank, we jail them, etc..


B) "Seperate but different." has already been dealt with. It sucked during the Jim Crowe era, it will suck now. It is simply another form of predudice.

I think maybe discrimination, not prejudice. While they're close - prejudice is more of our atitude toward people while discrimination describes our treatment of them. Anyway, discrimination/prejudice is not always bad, and not always illegal. We are free to treat felons, child molesters, people with infectious diseases etc. with prejudice. Society legally discriminates against certain groups all the time.

BTW some would argue that the racial discrimination argument is not applicable here as race is an unchangable characteristic & homo******ity is a chosen behavior (i.e. a noun vs. a verb). That question is prolly too big to answer here, but I'm just sayin'..


C) Religion plays no part in this. If you think YOUR religion feels that Homo******ity is improper, fine, Don't be gay.
Fair enough, but that's not entirely accurate. Law is generated by legislators acting on input from a religious society. So they're kind of intertwined. If I may use another dumb example - why not claim that murder is OK? Well, because society feels that it's not OK, and that it should be illegal - so we have the law. Of course the state kills people (death penalty)- so I guess a murderer could sue & say they weren't given equal protection under the law on 14th amendment grounds.


D) In a day an age when more than 50% of the marriages out there end in divorce, protecting such an instituion from people that have in many ways a better track record per capita, is an ironic thing.
That's a good point. Lesbians typically pairbond for long periods & maintain monogomous relationships. Male gays typically don't (in fact they're the most ******ly active of all groups). But some would argue that if you define down the meaning of marriage to include homo******s - it will inexorably lead to some jagoff suing to marry his pet (hey - equal protection..)etc. & traditional marriage will be furter devalued. And society, and the courts have said we have a vested interest in maintiaing marriage as an istitution.


E) What the f*ck. Why can't people just live their lives without haviing to **** on others?
I dont' think anybody is realy $hitting on anyone. Certain individuals have chosen to adopt a lifestyle that a majority of the population disapproves of. We disapprove of arsonists, rude people, people with penagrams on their forehaeds - whatever. I think it's a bit odd to embrace such a wildly unpopular behavior, and then demand society's approval. They are free to disapprove of whatever we want. And in a democracy, that means the majority make the laws accordingly.

That's kind of the crux of the argument. We do have built-in checks against the tyranny of the majority. The legislative & executive branches have taken one position - and they make the law. The judiciary have taken another position - & they have the power to strike down law that they find violates the Constitution. But within that process, the Judiciary is constantly shifting the meanings & scope of the Constitution to meet their activist goals - and so they are able to basically create law at their whim. Which is what I'm talkin' bout here.


I am so tired of hear about this crap on the radio and TV, no it pollutes this forum.
Most of society is tired of it too. Not saying anybody is "bad" because they're gay. My beef is with the court system that's hijacking the process.

[hank]

Man this is getting old.

I will have to reply to a lot of this over a coupole of days because I don't have time to talk about all of it at one sitting.

First - 2 sheds - I say again - if you have read the document then and you have tyour position then you are disregarding the meaining of hte 14th amendment. If that is so - by implication - you seek to change the rights inherent in the 14th amendment. To do so you would need to amend the constitution - you have that right underh te body of hte constitution. The Mass court is not being activist when it finds right in the constitution and enforces it. Activisim occurs when a court creates a right that is not a right. To compare - if the supreme court given that choice said that welfare recipients had a vested right to the money that would be activism - but saying as they did years ago that they have a right to due process before we take away that privilege and thus they get a hearing is not activisim but enforcement.

Who wrote that article and where did you get it. Funny, I think it makes my point - the Michigan people are going to vote about what their court will do just like you can amend the canstitution to change the 14th amendment that you obviously disagree with it. I assume youa have not read it because you have given not a single reason why the Mass lesbians are not coverd by the 14th a - Prove me wrong and make an argument or give me some other objective reason to think that you have. You continually respond to my constitutional arguemtns with what you think is right. if you want your thoughts to be right and thus enforceable then they need to be in the constitution. One other thing about that, I don't even personally think that gay people should get married because my internal definition of marriage is based in Christianity and that does not recognize gay marriage. That does not change my firm belief that all actions not grounded in the law are illegal and thus wrong. It is wrong for me to force my ideals on someone in USA b/c the constitution says so. If the constitution said differently I would think differently. If I could not handle that, then I would try to amend the constitution. That is all I'm asking you to do. show me why you're right based on out system or change the system.

50 years ago argument is crazy - just b/c slavery ws OK in 1700's does not mean that the slave holders weren't wrong. The right that was granted in the constitution ws there every day since 1776 it just has not been enforcemed by our governemt - don't make the fundamental mistake of confusing existence and enforcement - they are distinct.

Taboo is not the issue - legality is. For example - it is illegal in MS to have anal *** with anybody. That illegality is born of societal norms - i.e. meaning that the people think of it as taboo or wrong so the legislature makes a law and that law is good unless it is unconstiotutional. I argue not that I disagree with that law b/c I think anal *** is wrong b/c my thoughts about a law cannot render it unconstitional. If I did I would be wasting my time. If however, I say that law is unconstitutional and I back it up with the con - then we get to the point where we can have a discussion about right and wrong. If you think I am full of s _ _ t about this then find me something in the constitution that says otherwise.

Created equal is not in the constitution it is in the Dec of Ind - certainly the con is the embodiment of that ideal but don;t confuse the 2. Again - if you think that equalness changes then show me where it is. I can't find it. I you think it should change then amend the constitution. Get it - this is logical AND consistent - what a friggin concept.

Discrimination is the embodiment of prejudice - or even the manifestation. That concept is what the constitution tries to fight through b/c it positively requres equal treatment.

If you want the feelings of the people to shine through then do it. The constitution says positively that those women have a right to equal treatment - if you want the people's beliefs on this matter to outweigh that right then take positive steps towards that end. Otherwise they are jsut your ideas and thus an insufficient basis for the claims you have made against that court and their actions

Jack - don't characterize letting these women marry ass oppression of heterosezuals. If the actions of these women was oppression of hetero******s then you would be right - there would be inequality and that would be a problem. Again, I think the confusion in this statement lies in the confusion between Christian marriage and teh legal affect of being maried. We are not fighting about Christian marriage - we are fighting about the benefits incident to marriage that these women cannot get simply because of their ****** orientation.

3 peopl v 2 - different question that requires different approach. If 3 people wnat to marry and the state says no are they being denied rights is the question to ask. My personal beliefs being grounded in Chritianity says this is wrong - but that has no effect on the caonstitutionality of denying somenone a 3 person marriage. I'll think about this one a little bit more.

Enumerated in the constitution - which rights are enumerated in the constitution? Go read it and tell me. That may help everybody clear up this problem. I'll wait a few days and then I will list the individual rights granted to peopl in the constitution. Ask yourself this - what rights would an unemended constitution give. For 2 sheds this will be an important inquiry b/c I bet he can't name them or differentiate between the body of the constitution and the amendments

Warpig - go find teh defintition of marriage - in the places where you are right the arguement is different than in the place where the definition of marriage make no mention of man and woman. I already pmed you but now I see what you are talking about. The proble mis this - when the definition is man/woman a married couple gets a right to certain things when they marry. When you tell two women that they can't marry then you deny them a right and the 14th amendment says you can't do that. Pm me again if you don't follow and I'll try to get you an article that talks about this.

Haiw - that is totally logical point and on that would solve the problem of the rights incident ot marriage. That is also one of the possible solutions to this dilemma. We'll have to wait to see what actually ahappens. Remember that nothing has happened yet.

Jack - the 2 wives argument- Actually you make a great point and the only answer I can give you is that nobody has questioned that in a long time - it is really hard to differentiate between this because some religions say it is OK - Think about it though from a societal norm position - it takes a long time to overturn popular laws even if they are unconstitutional - look slavery made it one hundred years before it got called down and then Abe Lincoln did it when the Court shoudl heve done it when they got the chance in the Dred Scott case where they said black people did not fit the defitiion of people - also rememebr that many scholars now say that the only reason they said that was because they were afrain that if theey found slaver unconstitutional they would get a mob to come and hang them and burn donw the court!! No ****. I'll have to think about this more but at first glance I can't think of a good argument taht says a bigomist who is practicing his valid religion whoudl not get the benefit of a marriage law if lesbians do. keep your eyes open on this one it will likely be litigated now that this has happened.

55% v 40% - what is the relevance - if that is true amend the constitution and fix the proble myou perceive to be taking place

I am really out of time - I'll chekc in tomorrow and try again. nobody is looking at what has really happened and I am getting tired of explaining it. It is not about "right v wrong" or belief - teh question is one of constitutional right - if you don;t read the document and understand that the right exists you can never fix the problem

2 sheds what to talk about right and wron. That is fine. I agree - i think gay marriage is a sin and wrong. That determination is irrespective of my belief that the constitution protects these women from laws that provide differently for different people based on ****** preference. Instead if attacking me - think about my position and go read the damned constitution!

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

You're arguing the wrong point. The constitutional process is not in question - we've all read the Constitution (though you continue to think that we haven't and we're all too gosh darn stupid to get it).

Here is part of the dissenting opinion, authored by Justices Spina & Sosman, that goes to my point (I bolded some of it for quick reference):


A more fundamental problem with the answer given to the Senate today is that it does not apply the rational basis test, but instead announces, without qualification, that the Massachusetts Constitution prohibits "invidious discrimination" or "status discrimination" against, or the imposition of a "different status," "second-class status" or "stigma" on, same-*** couples.5[10] Anteæat , , , . Of course, if the Massachusetts Constitution contained any "equal rights amendment" making ****** orientation the equivalent of the prohibited categories of "***, race, color, creed or national origin" (art. 1 of the Declaration of Rights, as amended by art. 106 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution), I would readily agree with those general ****ouncements. However, our Constitution contains no such amendment, and Goodridge itself did not go so far as to accept the plaintiffs' argument that the court itself, absent such an amendment, should nevertheless treat ****** orientation as a suspect classification for purposes of equal protection analysis. Goodridge, supra at 331 n.21. Nor did Goodridge rely on the alternative claim that a "fundamental right" was at stake, such that a "strict scrutiny" analysis was to be applied. Id. at 330-331. Rather, the court purported to apply a mere rational basis analysis, the extremely deferential test that is applied to any classification that does not impinge on fundamental rights or employ a suspect classification.

In short, it's just crappy law. The majority opinion manufactured a protected, separate class where none exists. They did this based on their own personal advocacy, in order to create this separate class. Once they had manufactured this separate class, they were then able to rule the way they wanted to. Can I now go sue for the right to marry my pet, because we pet lovers are a group that's descriminated against?

I guess Justices Spina & Sosman haven't read the constitution either? And as always, I am farting in your general direction.... :)

[Durandal]

Good valid points, but one has to ask where we as a culture are willing to draw the line on personal rights. The courts, now entranced with equality, are engaging in radical egalitarinism, and extending 14th amendment protection far beyond anything the framers intended.

Who has the right to anyone their personal freedoms? Regardless of whether the framers of the Constitution knew this would include gay marriage, the framers also knew in time, things would change, just as much as things had changed in their time. They created a document and government capable of growth. I doubt they intended the government to install a federal income tax, but it did, legally I might add.


For example -this kind of decision would have been unthinkable 50 years ago, and any politician advocating it would have faced political suicide.

Sure, and the same framers of the Constitution supported slavery for the same very reason. Which was wrong. Nor did the framers recognize women or minorities as having a right to vote. Things, fortunately change.


So that begs the question - what behaviors now considered taboo will we be willing to tolerate in 2054? Legal *** with kids? Murder as recreation? Of course these are rediculous examples - but if we'd had this argument in 1954, homo****** marriage would have been just as outrageous.

This is a reactionary response and many ways a straw man argument. The issue is a smae *** relationship akin to marriage between a man and a woman. Having known several gay couples, I can attest that their relationships are just a loving and caring as say, my parents, or my friends that are married. Their is no hurt involved, no pain, no taking away of personal liberties, like a relationship with with a child or the taking of someone else's life.


Before you flame the $hit outta me - I am not comparing homo******ity with pederasty or murder etc. I'm just trying to illustrate that we are being asked to embrace behaviors which have been traditionally shunned. So it's reasonable to ask what other behaviours should also be destigmatized.

I won't flame (no pun intended) you. I will tell you that you are wrong. You are infact comparing it with murder:
Murder as recreation? Think about it. How valid is compariing *** with children (as an adult) or murder with hetero****** marriages? Because that is what you are doing. You are comparing a foul thing or event that involves the taking away of freedom, liberties of another, and the taking of human life to love.

Come on now.


Good point about the homo******s having more money...So that does make them an artificially powerful group when compared to the rest of society.

What I am saying is that like all other things, when you have something people want, be it an exceptional education system, low or no income and property tax, the State or region acts as a magnet for people wanting to participate from them. Massachussettes and Vermont have everything to gain. My friends moved to New Hampshire, from Ohio, because this regions taxes were simply too high for them to justify living here. New Hampshire gains new sales tax and Ohio loses a multi-million income to tax. The same basic concept holds true here. Homo******s, which form, in theory ten percent of society (but a MUCH larger tax base), could migrate, meaning a loss of skilled labor, a purchasing base, and a tax base. Will it be severe? No, of course not, unless this turns into a homophobic crusade, then I gaurantee you will see such a migration.


"created equal" means exactly what it says - we are all created equal. From there it's up to us to act according to societal norms. If somebody decides to smear poo on their shirt & dance around we no longer consider them equal, & avoid them. If they rob a bank, we jail them, etc..

Those are actions. They have nothing to do with marriage. Again, this is a strawman argument. Let's look at a better analogy. The laws in this nation/states, let's say, Speeding While Under the Influence apply to all. I cannot fire or efuse to hire someone just because they are black. ANY citizen receives a free education regardless of skin tone, ***, or ******ity. Equality does not give the right to steal from someone else, nor does it give me a right to make a public nuisance of myself. It gaurantees (in theory at least) that I am just as equal as the next person when it comes to the interpretations of the law. Not seperate. Not sort of equal. EQUAL


Anyway, discrimination/prejudice is not always bad, and not always illegal. We are free to treat felons, child molesters, people with infectious diseases etc. with prejudice. Society legally discriminates against certain groups all the time.

Again, you are using criminal actions to describe the subject...marriage. If my neighbor has Ebola, obviously I am going to treate him differently. BUT, that is because I could die from contact, NOT because, he is not equal. A felon is not equal. A felon, through actions of his own has committed a crime. He can no longer vote or won a firearm as examples. People are not born felons. It requires a crime, an act, usually one, I might add, the involves the violation of someone else's personal freedoms or rights.



BTW some would argue that the racial discrimination argument is not applicable here as race is an unchangable characteristic & homo******ity is a chosen behavior (i.e. a noun vs. a verb). That question is prolly too big to answer here, but I'm just sayin'.

Says you. All the data out there supports homo******ity is not chosen but coded. Hell, several members of my family have been gay...a great uncle, my sister. Research shows that at least one of my children might be gay...or my sister's children...


Fair enough, but that's not entirely accurate. Law is generated by legislators acting on input from a religious society. So they're kind of intertwined. If I may use another dumb example - why not claim that murder is OK? Well, because society feels that it's not OK, and that it should be illegal - so we have the law. Of course the state kills people (death penalty)- so I guess a murderer could sue & say they weren't given equal protection under the law on 14th amendment grounds.

This is a huge misconception. Our laws are NOT just based on religion. They pull from a great deal of sources. Greek and Roman government. British law (whihc was not 100% based on religion either). I'll be the first to say that framers of our government and it's constitution were god fearing men. Men like Samuel Admas for example...a man whose beliefs were most definately set in the Puritanical Northeast. So what. The first amendment gaunratees the absence of a State sponsored religion. If your claim is that marriage is a religious concept then we need to ignore 6000 years of human history since mongoamous relationships and marriage has been a part of it regardless of religion.


That's a good point. Lesbians typically pairbond for long periods & maintain monogomous relationships. Male gays typically don't (in fact they're the most ******ly active of all groups).

Dude, listen, I am not married and I am 33 years old. I have 108 female partners during my life. Four of them where long term relationships. I am disease free and have yet to settle down. Does this mean that when I do find the right woman and decide to forego my hedonistic ways I cannot? I do not see that rationale here...



I dont' think anybody is realy $hitting on anyone. Certain individuals have chosen to adopt a lifestyle that a majority of the population disapproves of. We disapprove of arsonists, rude people, people with penagrams on their forehaeds - whatever. I think it's a bit odd to embrace such a wildly unpopular behavior, and then demand society's approval. They are free to disapprove of whatever we want. And in a democracy, that means the majority make the laws accordingly.

Say what!? We may dissaprove of arsonists, rude people, and people with crap tattooed ontheir foreheads, BUT we still let them get married. Hell, even FELONS can get married in and/or out of jail.



That's kind of the crux of the argument. We do have built-in checks against the tyranny of the majority. The legislative & executive branches have taken one position - and they make the law. The judiciary have taken another position - & they have the power to strike down law that they find violates the Constitution. But within that process, the Judiciary is constantly shifting the meanings & scope of the Constitution to meet their activist goals - and so they are able to basically create law at their whim. Which is what I'm talkin' bout here.


Most of society is tired of it too. Not saying anybody is "bad" because they're gay. My beef is with the court system that's hijacking the process.

Except you have done nothing but compare homo****** marriage to bad things. While you may belive that you do not consider it a bad thing, you certainly discuss it like you do.

It is not hijacking if it is dealing unconstitutionality of laws or lack of laws recognizing. That is part of the checks and balances that our Federal Government and a majority of the States. The court can rule on a law put into place by the legislature. If it is the real reason you oppose it then maybe it should have been 95% of your response rather than 5%.

[Durandal]

Can I now go sue for the right to marry my pet, because we pet lovers are a group that's descriminated against?

Your pet is NOT a person, it is property. It is not covered under the constitution of ANY State or by the federal government as a person. Nor, by not being a human being is it protected as such by the Consitution of the United States. As property, it IS protected by the constitution (as property) and under certain state and regional laws.

Now quit using this idiotic argument.

This analogy is NOT a rational argument AGAINST two consenting adults that love each other. If you replace "gay marriage" and "marriage" and you cannot use your same arguments then you have NO rational argument. Because they ONLY difference between gay and straight marriages is that one is same *** and the other is not.

If you cannot do that, then it IS in fact discrimination. The fact that a government has to put the laws in the book in the first place proves that. Or should we be allowed to not rent an apartment or be able to fire a person SIMPLY because he or she is gay and no other reason?

Man, people simply do NOT get it...

Not only is your argument idiotic, it also goes against everything this NATION stand for...

Pathetic.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Durandal - a fair and reasoned response. Listen, I used the "negative" actions for comparative purposes because it makes for a more compelling argument ....but one can substitute whatever you like for my examples - and my argument remains valid.

I honestly don't mean to infer bad things about homo******s so please don't take offense.

My previous post showing the court's dissenting opinions is very illustrative of why I disagree with the decision. Agian - I'm not arguing the particulars of gay marriage. I am arguing the particulars of the way the Judiciary abuses it's power. Please don't waste your time selling the pro/con of gay marriage 'cause it's not the point (well, at least it's not my point)

The court, in order to effect the change it wanted, created a new protected "class" - i.e. homo******s. Once that was done, they then correctly could recieve protection under the 14th amendment. But the court is not authorized to create protected classes - that is for the legislature to do when it writes law. That's a violation of the separation of powers.

The argument I am making stays the same whether the court is deciding gay marriage, tax reform, interstate commerce or the size of roadside signage. I dont' care about the subject - it's the process I'm concerned with.

Simply believing that "the right thing" was done does not make it ok. When the court comes around and grabs power in another way, in another case, you may not be so quick to defend them. I'm trying to look at a bigger picture.

I wish people could stop being so emotional about this particular issue, & be able to intellectually asses what the court did wrong.

[Durandal]

Durandal - a fair and reasoned response. Listen, I used the "negative" actions for comparative purposes because it makes for a more compelling argument ....but one can substitute whatever you like for my examples - and my argument remains valid.

Really? Then let's put it to the test. Substitute "Gay Marriage" with just "Marriage" or better yet, "Black Marriages", or "Irish Marriages".

[/quote]I honestly don't mean to infer bad things about homo******s so please don't take offense. [/quote]

Nor am I infering that you conciously are. You are none the less doing so.

[/quote]Agian - I'm not arguing the particulars of gay marriage. I am arguing the particulars of the way the Judiciary abuses it's power.[/quote]

Then you have no problems with gays marrying?

In regards to the Court's actions...The Constitution of the State of Massachussets says otherwise.

From the THE LEGISLATIVE POWER. SECTION 1. The General Court.


Article IV. And further, full power and authority are hereby given and granted to the said general court, from time to time, to make, ordain, and establish, all manner of wholesome and reasonable orders, laws, statutes, and ordinances, directions and instructions, either with penalties or without; so as the same be not repugnant or contrary to this constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of this commonwealth...

Not only do they have the power to deem laws constitutional or not they have the power to create them. So long as they are Constitutional which their decision was, and are wholesome and reasonable, which, agaiin, they are.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Whaddya know - the Judiciary creating law - legislating from the bench. Which of course is what I've been saying all along. Seems you've supported my argument. :) I guess I just didn't know it's was legal in MA. I've been arguing the Federal side...but in this case maybe judges can do whatever they want - like kings.

Or since you're citing the MA constitution you could look at:


PART THE FIRST, A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. :
Article XX. The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for.

So how does one reconcile these 2 passages that, at least in my view, are in conflict? Dunno.

But I guess I know now that if I get a traffic ticket in MA, all I have to do is slip the judge a $20 and he'll change the law for me.

And I got through a post without using the word "gay". Oh $hit there I go.

[Jacko]

Marriage is a business contract. The same raised seal that gets stamped on your marriage certificate is the same one that would be stamped on your letters of incorporation to form a business. If two men or two women want to form a personal 'corporation', as it were, so they can share health insurance, visit each other when they're sick and split up assets when the 'corporation' is dissolved through a divorce, then why shouldn't they? If you're a guy, and you don't want gays to marry, here's the simple answer: Don't marry a man. You'll be doing your part.

[Durandal]

So how does one reconcile these 2 passages that, at least in my view, are in conflict? Dunno.

Who says they are in conflict? I like to thinkthat the framers of both Federal and State governments/constitutions had enough foresight to anticipate times where one body of the government needed to supercede the other. Not allowing gays to marry (or be awarded the same exact benefits under a different name, such as Domestic Union...but that would be seperate but equal) is quite obviously unconstitutional. I guess the question comes down to this then...if the Mass. Constitutional allows for both cases, or contradicts each other (in a way), then look at the law or ruling. Is the the bill, law, or ruling unconstitutional? Nope. In fact the law hurts NO ONE and protects/assures that a certain group of people have the same exact rights as anyone else.


But I guess I know now that if I get a traffic ticket in MA, all I have to do is slip the judge a $20 and he'll change the law for me.

And I got through a post without using the word "gay". Oh $hit there I go.

But we are not talking about a court that has been "bought". This rhetoric, as if there is some sort of "agenda", is just as inflammatory or dangerous as comparing homesuxuality with criminal conduct.

[hank]

Art. XI. Remedies, by Recourse to the Law, to Be Free, Complete and Prompt.

Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay; conformably to the laws.


Quote from the Massachussetts Constitution - tell me how you interpret it 2 sheds? Is it a certain remedy that 2 women who want to get married cannot? - do they have recourse to the laws? - do the y obtain right and justice freely? - without any denial: promptly, adn without delay: conformably to the laws?

Dissenting opinions always make sense if you believe the same assumptions as the dissenting justices. Remember that Holmes dissented from Dred Scott - do you think people did not attack his reasoning for saying that Blacks are people as contemplated by the constitution?

I just printed a copy of the opinion. If you have not read it, try to. To say that 2 sheds quote is out of context and not indicative of the reasoning in the majority opinion is a gross understatement.

First - the mass constitution does contain an equal protection under the law clause. I can;t rememebr who you quoted but they are wrong. In addition to the quote I listed above it contains the following:

2 sheds will love this one because he can't stand judge made law but this is a direct quote from the Mass con and the US constitution does not have a provision like this - "full power and authority are hereby given and granted to the said general court [the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachussetts - the court that handed down the decision], from time to time, to MAKE, ORDAIN, and ESTABLISH ALL MANNER OF WHOLEOME AND REASONABLE ORDERS, LAWS, STATUTES, AND ORDINANCES, directions and instructions, either with penalties or without; so as the same be not repugnant or contrary to THIS CONSTITUTION, as THEY SHALL JUDGE to be for the good and welfare of this Commonwealth."

The above listed provision allows the mass court to strike any law that does not comport wit the constitution.

So this court has a constitutional mandate to make law. Did not know that unitl just now and that really makes 2 sheds' argumetns futile b/c now he can't even cry about activist judges b/c the mass constitution calls for it. Here is the portion of the mass constitution that provides equal protection for all people:

"Each individual of the society [of Mass] has a right to be protected by it [the society] in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to state laws."

What else do you need 2 sheds? Your quotes are out of context and do not mention these. Please just do some damned reading before you continue. What do I have to do to get you to inform yourself about the crap you spout? What you say is simply not what happened and plainly wrong as evidenced by this quote and the opinion. The reaosn the dissent is wrong is because they, like you, try to rationalize away somehting that is written into the constitution becasue they don't like it. The dissenting judges should be ashamed of themselves for refusing to acknowledge what the majority correctly reasoned - not being able to marry simply becuase you choose to marry a woman is a deprivation of rights.

One thing I want to clear up about your quote and what Durandal said - this is not a discrimination suit. The standard is different in those cases and the analysis is different - these women alleged and proved that they did not receive equal protection under the law. If you want ot discuss discrimination - let's do that in another thread b/c this is already confusin enough.

2 sheds - this is becoming silly because you refuse to read anything that is not written by someone who has an agenda and agrees with your position. Also, you present a moving target. Here is an outline of what you have said followed by how i resonded and how I now respond:

"Kind of ironic that a Commonwealth that once led the way in the fight for democracy has now reverted back to ruling by fiat - as the King of England did. Time for another tea party - this time they should throw the court in the harbor..." - interesting that the Mass constitution specifically calls for the Court to make new law when it that the marriage licensing law is repugnant to the constitution. Also notice the restraint in what the Court did - it did not mandate a change - it allowed the legislature to propose legislation and even offered to review the proposed legislation before the leg votes to make sure it is constitutional. Oops, 2 sheds, wron again.

"Law is created by the legislative branch, which acts based upon the will of the people. " - not so under Mass constitution

"What I have a problem with is the modern trend of the activist judiciary making law instead of enforcing it. That's not their job, and certainly not what the founding fathers intended. The foundational documents clearly assign duties between the legislative an judiciary branches. " Good thing the Mass court took the time to read the document before they ruled - instead of listening to 2 sheds, huh?

"Mkay, but in this case since the people clearly disagree with the Court, how could it be considered common law? " - now we see the switch - when he loses on the constitution he switches to tryin to argue the will of the people - read teh constitution - it is the will of the people that the Mass Court fix laws that are repugnant to the constitution

"Hey, one of the biggest functions of the Constitution is to assign the mechanisms by which power is assigned to legislative (i.e. lawmaking) entities. By that I mean that we shouldn't go around amending the constitution to cover anything we want. Is stopping at railroad crossings in the Constitution? But you know what - Florida recently amended it's state constitution to include restrictions on pig farming. It was enacted directly by ballot initiative. Absolutely amazing. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all pigs shall be enabled to turn completely around and shuffle about, all the live long day. " - the founding fathers amended the US constitution at least 10 times before 1780 - are you sure about this - and assuming you are right how are you going to get what you want - equal protection is in every constitution in the US and unles you amend it out gay marriage will happen - i don't understand you arguments

"Jeezus hank thanks for the pompous diatribe. Your cut and paste skills are top notch!" - i think this is a procedural argument - duly noted and I decided to just actually quote you this time for clarity sake

"Here's where I see our disagreement. IMHO, you, rather than thinking, are simply citing examples of flawed law. Others have drawn faulty conclusions, sanctified by a corrupted legal system, and you take them to be gospel. Simply because there's existing case law doesn’t' mean it's right. " - now the big switch - here you say the system is corrupt - but these portions of the Mass constitution have been there for more than 100 years - where is the corruption - we are so far afield from what you originally argued that when you read your posts all together like this it becomes evident that YOU don't even know what you disagree with - could it be that you just don't want gay people to get married? I really can't tell - why don't you clarify your position - my position is clear - the Mass con (and US con also) give equal protection under the law and a marriage law that does not allow two women to marry is unconstitutional - if you disagree then start producing something other than changing positions for Christ's sake!

nationalreview.com - you have got to be kidding - I missed that the firt time I read you post - they are just as incapable of objective thought on this issue as CNN is on Democrat's in the White House - Now I know whay I was so skeptical about that article - that author just flat out lied about the mass constitution, dammit! Now I'm pissed - if that is the best you got then you lose, ignorant slut 2 sheds

"Those are good points. Why should we restrict marriage to only 2 people? The Supreme Court has held that central to a person's "rights" is the right of self definition - that our responsibilities do not extend past our skin, so long as we do not harm others. That our "privacy "rights" should be unabridged so long as we do not harm others." - provide a citation if you are going to quote numbnuts

"Some people use prescription drugs to alleviate suffering - I want to use crack to alleviate my mental suffering. Can I sue on 14th amendment/equal protection grounds? I dunno - but somebody will probably try to." - now you are just grabbing at threads because using crack is not sanctioned by the goevernment. BUt, assuming that the government legalized crack only for black people and not for white people then that would implicate equal protection. The difference betwee marriage and crack is that married people earn rights and privileges under mass law and when you tell women they can't marry each other you deny them those rights - is it really that hard a concept?

"Good valid points, but one has to ask where we as a culture are willing to draw the line on personal rights. The courts, now entranced with equality, are engaging in radical egalitarinism, and extending 14th amendment protection far beyond anything the framers intended. " - this is at least a POSSIBLY valis argument but agina you fail to even read the damned 14th amendment. For your edification - here it is - straight form the US constitution - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - the 14th amendment was ratified during the civil war - the founding fathers had nothing to do with it - but what part of that provision is ambiguous? No state can abridge equal protection? I just don't get it. Please explain - I want to understand you position but I can't because you have squirmed so much under the kitche light that I can't even find you. Please try.

"Fair enough, but that's not entirely accurate. Law is generated by egislators acting on input from a religious society. So they're kind of intertwined. If I may use another dumb example - why not claim that murder is OK? Well, because society feels that it's not OK, and that it should be illegal - so we have the law. Of course the state kills people (death penalty)- so I guess a murderer could sue & say they weren't given equal protection under the law on 14th amendment grounds. " - this is the first time you have mentioned this and I would simply refer you to the first amendment - true religion is part but can't be sanctioned or established by our government under our constitution

"I dont' think anybody is realy $hitting on anyone. Certain individuals have chosen to adopt a lifestyle that a majority of the population disapproves of. We disapprove of arsonists, rude people, people with penagrams on their forehaeds - whatever. I think it's a bit odd to embrace such a wildly unpopular behavior, and then demand society's approval. They are free to disapprove of whatever we want. And in a democracy, that means the majority make the laws accordingly. " - then get your ass busy making a law - under this constitution you have to let gay people marry if straight people can - you think differently then amend and take out the 14th amendment - its just that damned simple - but cursinga court for doing what the constitution calls it to do is easier and lets you hide when the light comes on so you'll stick to this I'm sure

"That's kind of the crux of the argument. We do have built-in checks against the tyranny of the majority. The legislative & executive branches have taken one position - and they make the law. The judiciary have taken another position - & they have the power to strike down law that they find violates the Constitution. But within that process, the Judiciary is constantly shifting the meanings & scope of the Constitution to meet their activist goals - and so they are able to basically create law at their whim. Which is what I'm talkin' bout here." - the onbly one doing any shifting here is you - its not this court's fault that nobody has sued yet or that earlier courts were swayed by their personal beliefs!

"In short, it's just crappy law. The majority opinion manufactured a protected, separate class where none exists. They did this based on their own personal advocacy, in order to create this separate class. Once they had manufactured this separate class, they were then able to rule the way they wanted to. Can I now go sue for the right to marry my pet, because we pet lovers are a group that's descriminated against?" - now we're back to a familiar thread and my quotes form the mass constitution show you why this statement has no basis in fact or law

"I guess Justices Spina & Sosman haven't read the constitution either? And as always, I am farting in your general direction...." - well I won';t accuse them of not reading them b/c I know they went ot law school - but they did not read it in a way that makes any sense - read the quotes form teh mass constitution above - I did not make thos up - that is an equal protection clause whether you want to label it one or not - and anyway this reasoning is equally applicable under the US constitution and it certainly contains a bone fide EP clause ine the 14th amendment - farting is cool so I don't mind about that

"The court, in order to effect the change it wanted, created a new protected "class" - i.e. homo******s. Once that was done, they then correctly could recieve protection under the 14th amendment. But the court is not authorized to create protected classes - that is for the legislature to do when it writes law. That's a violation of the separation of powers. " - now you are just plaing making stuff up - did you read the majority? they did not makeup a class - they reconginzed an area where the law protected one group differently and when the state of Mass's only answer was that we have always done it that way the Court acted under it power in saying that the marriagel licensing law denied equal protection to these women - don't rely on a dissent that agree with your point - read the majority if you want to characterize what a court does - ask SS47 about not reading the whole opinion - that will always get you in trouble - my suspicion is that you didn't read any of the opinion - instead relying on somebody else to tell you what it means - pm me and I will email you a copy if you need it

"The argument I am making stays the same whether the court is deciding gay marriage, tax reform, interstate commerce or the size of roadside signage. I dont' care about the subject - it's the process I'm concerned with. " - this just proves that you are not in touch wit hwhat is going on - the US constitution give s the congress sole discretion to regulate interstate commerce and since 1937 the SC hs not once struck down anything that congress has done under its powers pursuant to the commerce clause - the one time that Congress acted in tax that the SC struck down was GRamm-Rudman-Hollings during Reagan's term when the congress tried to force Reagan to submit a balance budget adn teh SC said that under separation of powers and the president's rigts under Art II that congress can't make him submit a balanced budget - that th eproper repsonse was to just alter the submitted budget to make it balance

This next one you posted while I was writing my response but I caught it so I'll deal with it anyway. Her is the quote - "Whaddya know - the Judiciary creating law - legislating from the bench. Which of course is what I've been saying all along. Seems you've supported my argument. I guess I just didn't know it's was legal in MA. I've been arguing the Federal side...but in this case maybe judges can do whatever they want - like kings." - well that is a problem - constitutions are often vague and not always consistent - there are many similar problems in the US constitution - example the commerce clause and the inherent abilities of the executive branch to make economic policy - its is hard to square those a lot of times but the Congress and President have worked well together and there has never been a challenge - but that does not make your point b/c the mass court DID NOT MAKE NEW LAW - they said the current marriagie license law is unconstitutional and invited teh leg to make a new law - that is what is so crazy about everything you have posted - the mass court did not even go as far as the law allowed them yet you curse them for being 'activist'

Go back to school and read the damned documents - you obviously have not even done that. I am really tired but I know this will not be the ned of it.

hank

[Durandal]

Don't marry a man. You'll be doing your part.

But that requires too much common sense. :)

[hank]

Wow - just saw Jacko's post - he is absolutely right. The majority in Mass made the same observation - that the license in marriage is no different that na business license - that the distinction arises when you use the license and that just because one allows you to operate a business and one allows you to marry does not change the standard or analysis. This is alos a good point b/c not allowing gays to business contracts or stuff like that would be classical discrimination and when it affected commerce congress could act on it- just like the US congress did in TITLE VII where they said an employer cannot fire someone for being gay unless their gayness makes it impossible for them to do the job - so 2 sheds - we do have Congressional action in the gay area and it is consistent with the Mass court-

Great point Jacko - at elast somebody around here uses the old bean ;)

hank

[Durandal]

Nice posts Jacko and Hank...

"Each individual of the society [of Mass] has a right to be protected by it [the society] in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to state laws."

This applies to everyone and what gets me, is that people out there think otherwise...

Gets in my craw...

;)

[hank]

You know - I was just reading my previously long post and THINKING that is is funny to me that 2 sheds accused me of not thinking. The only real support that 2 sheds used until he tried vainly to quote the Mass con was an article from the national review. Now tell me, with all the support I have proved for my arguments, who is the one not thinking. If you want to let the national review to do your fighting for you 2 sheds, tell them to pack a damned lunch.

hank

[Haiw]

This thread is gay... ;)

[Durandal]

This thread is gay... ;)

;)

[hank]

Haiw - if anyone ever tries to make you stop posting stuff like that, call me becasue I will only charge a reasonble fee to protect your rights. ;)

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Hank...I'm sorry, did you say something? You continue to foam at the mouth, so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence. rofl

It's beyond me how you can assume that anyone who disagrees with you is obviously an uninformed idiot, or worse (shall I copy and paste the various names you've called me)? Sheesh, at least Durandal only called me dangerous (which I prefer). Muddy, muddy water.

I entertain the concept that you gentlemen, even while laboring under the misconceptions as you are, are of good conscience, intelligent, and interested in doing the right thing. We just disagree, as many do on the judicial process that's going on here.

I also am able to concede that maybe I don't have all the answers. Since these documents, and the processes are changeable and are subject to human interaction, there will likely never be "an answer".

The people who's power I am questioning are the ones making the law giving themselves the power. So you guys are ok with that? Like lambs to the slaughter you march. I'm not so quick to relinquish my freedom & cede so much power to so few.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on the process. Greater minds than ours have disagreed as well. You're not able to change my mind, as I've read more coherent arguments supporting your side and have still failed to be convinced. Hey, that's ok - and of course you are entitled to your opinions as well. I guess the difference is that I won't call you stupid for holding your opinions.

I predict that you won't be equally happy if someday, through a misalignment of the universe, conservatives come to dominate the court & begin to contract personal freedoms in a similar fashion. Of course it's possible, since the Constitutionality of all this rests solely with the whim of the judges at the helm.

[Durandal]

Sheesh, at least Durandal only called me dangerous (which I prefer).

Actually, I called you nothing of the sort. I said your rhetoric was dangerous.

Personally, I agree with Hank. You are an idiot. ;)

Cheers!

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Sheesh, at least Durandal only called me dangerous (which I prefer).

Actually, I called you nothing of the sort. I said your rhetoric was dangerous.

Personally, I agree with Hank. You are an idiot. ;)

Cheers!

Damn, I liked being called dangerous. Being called an idiot has no appeal whatsoever.

[hank]

2 sheds - did you read that post or did the sheer size of it scare you into this lame response? Read it and think about what you have posted - I have debunked each of that falsehoods which you perpetrate.

Now you have changed your position one more time. We do not disagree about whether gay marriage is a good concept. I dont like it and it offends my religious beliefs that gay people want to invade the sanctity of what I presonally believe is a religious union between man and wife.

You have not even tried to understand teh implications of what you have posted. You accused the court of usupring the legislature - read the mass con and see if you still think that is the law in Mass.

then you said that the majority applied the wrong law in mass b/c there is no EP clause - I provided you a copy of the clause

you have no legitimate reason to be upset with what the court did or why they did it - you just don't like gay marriage - hey brain surgeon - neither do I - but that does not give me the right to step around the law and stop gays from marriage.

There is an old story about Thomas More from England. He was talking to one of Cromwell's men about why he refused to give in and say that Cromwell was right. He asked the friend whether teh devil should go to the gallows. Teh friend replied that the devile should go to the gallows ASAP. More asked for the justification. Teh friend said - b/c he is the deviel and the devil is evil and society will be better off if the devil is gone. More responded - even if the devil has not broken any law? The friend replied yes. More then said that if the law was in the way woudl you still kill him? The frined replied that he would knock down every law in England to kill the devil b/c the devil is evil and killing evil protects England. More responded something like "then all is lost". More responded that without law there would be no more England to protect. In the end, Cromwell knocked down all the laws of England to kill More.

That is exactly what you want 2 sheds. you see a result that offends your reilgious view or whatever. So you curse it and say bad judge and the system is bad. but when confronted with the law you say - it does not matter. Of course it matters - without the law who protects you? Do you want equal rights? Well do you? B/c if we trample on these ladies' rights in Mass then I lose a little bit of my rights in TN and you in la la land or wherever you are.

You can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution you want to enforcfe and whic hyou don't. Well, you could if you could amend it, but you don't seem to like that option.

I protect the devil (gay marriage) and you curse me for it. You call me a lamb and say that you are right without any - not one in all this time - reason why you should prevail.

You say that I will be unhappy when the conservatives try to take over. You nimrod, I am conservative. I just believe that w/o the con and its protections we are all in trouble. I know I can't convince you and I'm not really trying. I'm trying to help the 15 year olds who have been reading this and not responding. They need to see what the real deal is with the con and how it works. They sure won't get it from you.

Relinquish freedom? - who did that? - that court restored freedom to two ladies who - though misguided in my opinion - care about each other enough that they want to get married.

Name one person who argues better than me - name one - you won't - b/c if you did you'd have to come out form under the kitchen table and you know I've got a flashlight just waiting.

Where is the substance of your argument? Tell me whic hof my positions are wrong and give me a reason. You won't, probably can't b/c you don't know where to look. If somebody doesn't write it you are teh lost lamb.

hank

[hank]

2 sheds - you are definitely dangerous. ignorance of the law like yours + conviction that you are right and should be able to force your belief on others = the most dangerous kind of person out there

I don't think you are an idoit at all - quite the contrary - you are certainly intelligent - you just don't ever question the validity or propriety of teh concepts you read or learn - you are thus ignorant and there is a difference - you have really tried to come up with arguments to back up your belief and that is noble in a twisted way b/c you ignore the law

Think for just one moment how you would fell if you were gay. I know you are not, but imagine that you fit into a classification that could not marry as you saw fit and imagine that your beliefs were in the minority - would you like the rule then? If the answer is no then certainly you can recognize the idea that there may be some inconsistency in your belief system. Right?

One other thing - if I am making assumptions about you that are incorrect then correct me. Each post of yours gets farther and farther form your original position - activist judges to relinquished rights - just step out of your box and get something from somewhere that supports what you think ought to happen. Anywhere.

Not to worry - I'll be watching and if anybody tries to to take away rights I'll sue'em and they won't be able to dodge the law and the questions that they don't like the answers to.

hank

[Durandal]

Damn, I liked being called dangerous. Being called an idiot has no appeal whatsoever.

The alternative...

Hate filled religious rhetoric disguised as apolitical logic.

I'll be polite and leave it at "idiot".

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Durandal
how do you get any "hate" out of my posts? Just because I disagree with you about the judicial process? I have never said a single thing pro or con about gays or gay marriage. In fact, you have no idea what my position on that issue is, as I've never said anything about it. It has nothing to do with my argument.

You people must be absolutely fixated on this gay thing. It's like your yardstick by which all else is judged. What you read into my posts is simply a reflection of your own fear and ignorance. Typical leftie tactic of shouting down any dissenting opinion - labeling people who don't tow your line as "hateful" or "bigoted".

I do hope all will note the left's inclusiveness, tolerance of all opinions, embracing of walks of life - well, unless of course you disagree.

I went through this in school. Most intolerant atmosphere I ever endured -and this in an environment supposedly built to foster the free flow of ideas. And the funny thing is - you don't even know my opinion. Damn, get off your high horse and join the rest of us turds down here. Your opinion is just as invalid and useless as mine. Stop hiding behind your self-righteous name calling.

[hank]

You curse Durandal for calling you names and assuming you are "right".

Then you label him "left". Do you know if he is? I don't.

Irony?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Irony, shmirony. And you want to be a lawyer? You have to read posts, not feel them. I didn't say he was a leftie. I said he was using a typical leftie tactic.

I dig your using my eloquent quotes in your sig block. Truly a place of honor, but bear in mind I retain full copyright privileges on those ;)

[hank]

Duly noted. Never said I wanted to be a lawyer. The world needs me to be a lawyer. Important distinction.

Speaking of reading, guess this means you're still not going to read the opinion or the constitution, huh? It's OK, wouldn't have helped you anyway.

Honor is a strong word, but whatever gets you up in the morning. The word I had in mind was mock. No matter.

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I'm feelin' the love now, baby. Imitation is the sincerest form of mockery.

[hank]

Are you ever going to answer my question about the constitution and the opinion? It is becoming obvious that question avoidance is a trait which you possess.

hank

[Durandal]

A) I am not a "leftie". Hell, most people would consider me conservative. Except for one thing. Personal freedoms, civil liberties, and basic human rights. I most ways I am probably more of a Libertarian than anything else. Less government, less taxes, more State's and local governments. The irony is, I am not a lefty NOR am I using their tactics. Their tactics, normally, much like the rights (and I am talking more about the extreme sides than anythign else) is usually based on an argument that is both polarized and usually devoid of fact.

B) You claim that the purpose of your dissaproval of the current events in Mass. is a result of the courts initiative to declare a bill/law unconstitutional and, thus, invalid, sending it back to the lesgislature to be corrected and debated. The court is right. You are wrong. This is not my personal opinion (though admittedly it meshes well with my beliefs in civil rigts and freedoms) but a representation of fact based on both the existing Constitution of the States of Mass. and in some ways the Constitution of the United States of America. The court overturned something that caused harm and/or treated citizens of this nation and their State in an unequal manner.

C) Yes, hate. Why do I use the term hate? It is a strong word certainly. I do not use it lightly either. You rhetoric is consistent with a perosn wanting to not grant equality to another because you do not like them. You use negative terms and dissinformation when discussing homo******ity. You use negative comparisons, then wuickly deny you do. Then you try to side step the discussion or argument using flawed logic about an unrelated issue (in this case the power of the courts) claiming it was your original point of concern when only a VERY small percentage of your argument dealt with that.

Added to that, in specific, when discussing homo******s you A) Think it is choice and not a natural state of being either as a result of either genetics or environmental issues. B) You claim that a majority of the nation thinks homo******ity is wrong (which is simply not the case) C) You compare (though deny) homo******ity or its freedom (associated with marriage) to violent crime and ****** misconducts.

I can only say this.

Three years before I was born, in 1967, the The United States Supreme Court, declared it unconstitutional, for the Federal Government or ANY State to, in any way, shape, or form, prohibit, discourage, impede, or not hold equal, mix race marriages.

I like to think that, as a nation, we have grown more accepting of the different parts that make up the whole of this nation. You are proof that, 37 years later, we have not.

You hide behind an untrue argument supported with falsehoods claiming that a court is wrong for supporting the right to marry(a constiutitional right I may add). The legislature does not have the power to make laws that are unconstitutional, no matter which way you want to slice it.

And I will put myself on record that the day our Federal Government attempts to deny these people their right a human beings is a day that I a hang my head in shame, for this nation is no longer a land of liberty and freedom, where all are equal.

If you do not like it 2sheds...tough. I call it like I see it. I have spent my life fighting for two issues. Gay Rights and Gun Ownerhsip. They sound like a funny mix. In reality, they are both rights gauranteed under the Bill of Rights. A fight for one issue because my of gay ffamily and friends. I support the other because I believe it is the fundemental right for any American to own a gun, defend their property, themselves, and, even though very unlikely, a courrupt and tyrinical government (plus I love to shoot).

I have had twelve years of fighting for rights of myself (gun ownerhsip) and others (gun ownership and gay rights) and I have seen and heard your version of the argument against gay rights quite often.

I am sure if you were part of group that was not allowed the common decency that everyone else takes for granted, you might just be of a different opinion.

Have a good weekend folks!

[NcDeuce]

Silly Homo-loving New Englanders.

[Jacko]

Wow hank, that's some writing you got going on there! I'm impresed. However, with threads like these, a quote from my earlier years comes to mind:

"There is no worse enemy than the one incapable of knowing why he is wrong." - Wobbly Headed Bob

Anyways, I've said my peice, I'll leave it to you and Durandal to continue exposing your viewpoints far more eloquently than I could.

[Durandal]

On a related note...

I used to live n Cincinnati, OH. I moved across the river to Covington, KY , another city, but you have to see it to enjoy it. Sort of like a cross between Chi Town and Boston in 25 by 25 block area. Sort of upscale, really nice, super liberal (politically it is conservative/libertarian) in that the cops don't bust balls, everyone is nice totheir neighbors, no city taxes, tolerance is fairly high for just about any lifestyle.

Back in Cincinnati, a new fight just started over their Human Rights Ordinace, which, used to include ******ity as a protected status...meaning you could not discriminate against anyone based on their ******ity...this means also meant that homo****** boses could not fire non-homo****** employees JUST because they were gay. It protects everyone. Well people got pissed caliming it made bi and homo******s a protected class (which it didn't) and that ONE section of it was stricken from the Ordinance....keep in mind it protected EVERYONE else, even us white, hetero, anglo-saxon types...

Well the fight is on. The Mayor is going to try to get it back on. Which is suprising. Since he is straight, and the female mayor we had, a lesbian, did nothing to tackle it...no complaints, just odd irony. I am glad he is doing it.

Here is one link of many dealing with the http://www.wkrc.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=9E693B2C-985B-4A68-A704-EA9C4A6DA726

Unfortunately, the State of Ohio, is even a bit more anti-homo****** than other States, having just declared that the will not recognize any other State's gay marriages....very quickly.

Glad my sister moved to Chi town.

On the financial side of the issue.


Tourism officials say the charter amendment has cost Cincinnati more than $64 million in business

That is from the artcle and various news reports. That is rougly, a loss of 6.4 mil a year since the portion of the chater was removed. Now imagine the net gain of Massachussets as State by allowing gay marriages. Not a bad thing to keep in mind.

[hank]

Not to beat a dead horse, because I know 2 sheds won't come out from under the kitchen table but I have to mention this.

The AP reported today about the Mass constitutional convention where the "people" of Mass are trying to amend the mass constitution to comply with the court's decision. They can't get a majority in either direction so they will likely have to settle for some type of civil union.

Still think that the court is against the public opinion? Seems like the people of Mass aren't sure. But then again this is an inconvenient fact and you don't do well with those.

One thing is sure, the Mass court did not tell the people what they had to do, but will let the people decide for themselves.

One other nice note in the article. The Mass con is the oldest state con, first enacted in 1790. Guess what, it has been amended 200 times since 1790. Think about it.

hank

[WARPIG]

The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.
Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)
I don't mean to get in the middle of a pissing contest, (you tend to get pissed on that way) but I am a little dissappointed that 2 sheds is ignoring hanks question. 2sheds has mentioned that durandal and hank In fact, you have no idea what my position on that issue is, as I've never said anything about it. It has nothing to do with my argument. why not clear that up? Step up to the plate 2sheds! Hank seems to be throwing you stuff in the strike zone... what gives?

[WARPIG]

Maybe my Christian faith is making me a little biased but even with the benefit of Hank’s research, I don’t see the problem with a civil union vs marriage. Hank doesn’t like the idea of gay marriage but like me wants the law to support that. My understanding is that it already does. Hank’s position is that it is more complicated then that. What is really the big difference? Is there any constitutional right really being impeded? I get that the separation issue is likely to be brought up but without drowning in all the legal red tape, what is the real issue with separate “contracts” for unions for different people. Why are gay couples so offended? A civil union doesn’t mean a less legal or that marriage is better. I think it would be a good thing to create civil unions with the same rights and legal responsibility as marriage. Gay couples, or even same *** unions that have nothing to do with ****** inclination would benefit.
Maybe I don’t have the whole picture.. help me out.

[hank]

Pig - there would be no difference so long as the rights that accrue with the civil license are identical with the rights that accrue with the marriage license. Assuming you can make that work - then disco!

2 sheds won't come out - he's chicken.

hank

[Durandal]

I don’t see the problem with a civil union vs marriage.

Think of it like this. Someone is telling you, a citizen of the United States, that you cannot do something that the majority can, simply because you are not part of the majority (regardless of the reason). Not only can you not do something that is considered a Constitutional right right garaunteed to its citizens, but people are actively trying to pass laws to prevent you from doing so.

You know. You are black. Sure, you can ride the same bus as us white folks, but you have to sit in back. Or sit in the colored section of the dinner. Sure you can do exactly the same thing as the whites, but you are seperated because you are different.

I know it would drive me nuts and I would be SUPER pissed...and I own many guns. :)

[hank]

Anybody keeping up with the Mass constitutional convention? That whole "majority" disagreeing with gay marriage thing has hit a little snag.

What say you now, 2 sheds? Still think that the Mass court is out of line with the "people"? What's a'matter, no opinion now?

Put 'em up, put 'em up. ;)

All you guys want to fight about gay marriage in sixgun's posts about Europe. Bring it. Somebody, anybody?

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Been gone a while - glad to see this thread keeps on keepin' on.

Hank - you seem so lonely with nobody to verbally abuse you here! So allow me to fire one across your bow - if you're looking for another line for your sig, may I suggest "the empty can rattles the most" ©2004 2Sheds_Jackson. Bring it! :lol: Where would I be without a running verbal gun battle?

Durandal - I'm fully behind your lifelong mission to arm gays. You go boy. Now that they've all got guns, let's not make them mad, eh? My position is that I would rather not be perforated in any way.

Warpig- yeah, I've been avoiding posting my position on the issue - sheet look at the hysterical handwringing that's greeted my opinion on the activist judiciary. God forbid I post what I actually think about the issue.

So I will. I fully support adults' rights to fondle, insert, tweak, engorge, impale, chafe, stretch, clamp, excrete, and otherwise enjoy whatever they want. Marry a cucumber, or hot dog bun. Where's the harm?

Did you guys see the story on CNN about the woman in France (over the past weekend) who married her boyfriend who'd been dead for 2 years? It's legal there to marry the dead. France hasn't collapsed. I want video from that honeymoon! I seem to recall that in Sweden, *** with animals is legal - they haven't met with ruin. Let the gays marry - why shouldn't they have the right to be as unhappy as the rest of us?

To me, what really seems to be happening is that the government of MA is finally recognizing that we no longer see marriage as anything more than an economic appliance. Rather than this being a victory for homo******s finally being recognized, this is evidence that we no longer recognize marriage.

[hank]

Now that you are back I see you still don't want to talk about what really happened in Mass. Still think the people don't want gay marriage in Mass?

chicken?

Your opinion on the judiciary get lambasted b/c it is not grounded in reality.

"To me, what really seems to be happening is that the government of MA is finally recognizing that we no longer see marriage as anything more than an economic appliance. Rather than this being a victory for homo******s finally being recognized, this is evidence that we no longer recognize marriage."

Little differnet than your original position. Keep changing!

"the empty can rattles the most" - consider it done taggert

hank

[WARPIG]

I'm a little out of the loop on the Mass thing. Can you give me "for dummies" version? Maybe 2sheds needs that one too. Just kidding.
I have to repeat my earlier statement that it still comes down to what "marriage" is defined as. I get the whole seperatism arguement but I don't think it has merit here. A certificate of death is given to those who are deceased. Does that mean I am being discriminated against because I am not dead yet? Are people who are not military veterans being discriminated against because they can't apply for Veteran's benefits? Are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or Atheist people being descriminated against because Christmas is a national holiday? Should I go on? Maybe my Christian belief is still affecting my logic here. I also don't think that Sweden and France are the best examples of society that hasn't fallen apart.
I guess the big issue with defending the sanctity of marriage is that it (marriage) represents the moral and spiritual foundation of the family. The legal trappings are there to protect that foundation. If you look up legal definitions of the word marriage it gives you clues of why laws were made to protect marriage. Most of which are to prevent things like bigamy, adultery.. etc. Statutes were listed by many that allow a husband or wife to disolve marriage because of impotencey or sterility. We talked about Mass. marriage laws.. well one of us. Did you know that one of the statutes is that a marriage is required to be witnessed by a magistrate or minister of the gospel? Marriage by definition is the legal union between a man and woman, both of free will, mind, and legal ability for the purpose of lifelong wedlock, and procreation. That is probably why there is a legal term for consummation of marriage. Marriage is the Spiritual and Legal step that a man and women take when they decide to become and make a family. If two people decide they want the legal protection to live together.. cool. Give it to them. But don't just give them marriage if they don't fit the legal description.

[hank]

pig, I don't have time right now but I will hook you up tomorrow. Its is really straight forward where they stand at the moment.

hank

[Trigger]

Its really straight forward where they stand at the moment.

hank

Is it 'straight forward' or 'gay forward'? I'm lost now.
:D

[hank]

Trigger, good thing you are good at movie quotes. ;)

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Now that you are back I see you still don't want to talk about what really happened in Mass. Still think the people don't want gay marriage in Mass?

chicken?

Your opinion on the judiciary get lambasted b/c it is not grounded in reality.

"To me, what really seems to be happening is that the government of MA is finally recognizing that we no longer see marriage as anything more than an economic appliance. Rather than this being a victory for homo******s finally being recognized, this is evidence that we no longer recognize marriage."

Little differnet than your original position. Keep changing!

"the empty can rattles the most" - consider it done taggert

hank

It remains to be seen where the people of MA would vote on this. My guess is that they won't get the chance.

And that's no different than my original opinion - it's just an additional observation. I maintain that the juciciary has become an activist tool for making backdoor law (OMG that's the best pun ever). Now, I wouldn't go changin' just to try and please you. I've never let you down before. And where's my royalties?

[hank]

Well, considering that the Mass legislature is elected by the people and the legislature can't seem to get the support for an amendment nor for a change, I think you are a little off on the facts. Nothing new on that, though.

I wish that you would read the posts about the Mass constitution. There is a provision in the Mass con that allowed the Mass SC to MAKE a law if they wanted to, but they decided instead to let the legislature do as they see fit. Where is the activism? Save the wit and think about it. I might pay royalties if you earn it by reading and thinking. But, alas, I know you won't.

I will give that update for everybody who is interested in the morning.

hank

[Durandal]

I'm a little out of the loop on the Mass thing. Can you give me "for dummies" version?

I'll give it a go. Mass State legislature passed a civil union bill allowing some adoption of the benefits of marriage to gay couples. The Mass Supreme Court ruled that the bill was Unconstitutional (Marriage as Stated in the Mass Constitution is a right under the 1st Amendment that list basic fundemental personal rights)siting both State and Federal issues. The State issues were constitutional the Federal ones were more historic precedents like Black Civil Right and Jim Crow laws.

The Mass Court send the bill back to the legislature and tells them to fix it.

Now the Legislature has been at if for about three days. Neither side is giving to the other and there are about 6 or 7 different reps that have proposals on the table. Protests inside and outside the building on both sides.

That, roughly is were it is...currently.


I guess the big issue with defending the sanctity of marriage is that it (marriage) represents the moral and spiritual foundation of the family.

And I guess, ultiamtely, this is were we truly differ. I can marry outside the Church. Not all States have common law marriage, thus you need a State recognition of that union. In fact, relgion and morality never TRULY enter into it unless the marriage is done by a minister in a church (or some non-christian equivalent). Most states require you marriage to be recognized by the State, not a church or faith based institution. The purposes are not to protect but to provide a legal/government indentification to the marriage that a church has no authority to give.

Even if it WERE the case that all marriages were based on morality and spirituality, more than 50% of all Americans that do marry end it in divorce, for one reason or another. Which certainly certainly underscores that those hetero******s that are getting married do not see the union as a spiritual or moral bonding.


If you look up legal definitions of the word marriage it gives you clues of why laws were made to protect marriage.

Actually, there are a lot of legal definitions out there that do not say between a male and female simply because it was understood. Consitutional Amendments of certain States simply say marriage is a protected right. A dictionary gives several defintions for marriage including (From Webster's : Any intimate or close union.). I know this is splitting hairs, but keep in mind some old guys back in the late 1700s said "All men are created equal"...when obviously they ended up running a government that did not actually practice this. Since then we have added minorities and women to that defining "men" which I do not think is improper.



Did you know that one of the statutes is that a marriage is required to be witnessed by a magistrate or minister of the gospel?

True. A magistrate, being a judge of the court of the State of Mass, or a minister of the gospel (gospel being a Christian Term for the New Testament). So, when we look at this, we can come to several concl;usions. One is that non-Christians, maybe even non-protestants, have to use the courts to marry, not a church of their faith.

Keep in mind that Mass was the first State Constitution to be written. It was written by men who's grandfather's were hard core Puritans. Folks that at one point put women on trial for being witches (a brief and crazy burp in their otherwise grand history...but that simply shows you where the influences were). These men were don right liberal coompared to their forfathers...


If two people decide they want the legal protection to live together.. cool. Give it to them. But don't just give them marriage if they don't fit the legal description.

Ahh this is where things get sticky though. It is not about living together. It is about having tghe same exact loving relationship as a hetero couple. *shrug*

Let's say you get married. You get sick and or die. You wife, if there is no living will dictating power of attorney, pretty much receives it. Gays do not get this benefit. She would have the right to visit you at a hospital...somethign gays do not have. She would have custodial rights of your children, which gays do not have.

It is not just about defining what marriage is. It is making sure that a group of people receive the same "protection" or "rights" that another has. All or nothing. Or better yet, everyone is equal...period.

The ultimate question is that why protect the NAME of marriage? If a homo couple is every way shape and form the same as a hetero couple why split hairs and suddenly make a new legal class. Better yet, why deny a citizen the same rights the other citizens have JUST because they are different.

Keep in mind, the arguments you are making were made in the past about marriages between blacks, other minorities, and mix raced marriages...even as far as saying was against god, immoral, and protecting the sanctity of marriage in general...

Perosnally, and for the obvious reasons I have state before, I feel that allowing gays to marry not only is a good thing but is a psoitive indication that this country can grow past its hate, bigotry, misunderstanding, and tendancy to fight healthy change...

Sometimes. the few are more importnat the many, especially if it involves their rights as human beings.

Anyway Warpig, we differ, and that is cool. The nice thing is that we can be civil about disagreeing...

[hank]

Durandel - you got a lot of that absolutely right. One thing to keep in mind though. The new proposed civil union law did not get struck down b/c it never got passed. The legislature got enough votes but before they did they asked for an advisory opinion and the Mass SC said it would not fly.

One other distinction b/w what is reported and what actually happened. The Mass court did nothing to "marriage". The were very clear to say that their opinion did not intrude on Christian marriage as we know it. They merely addressed the ability of Mass citizens to get the marriage license.

See, when you get a license for anything, business - drive - marriage, you get rights and responsibilities under the law. If you get a drivers license you get the right to drive and the responsibility to get insurance. Everyone gets both. Same in marriage - you get the right to leave property to your spouse even if you don't have a will + the right to have your spouse as your beneficiary, etc. Well, when the ability to get a license is not open, or closed, in an equal way, then the path to get to the rights gets blocked. That blockage denies EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW and that is unconstitutional in every state and in the US.

Maybe I should have been clearer about this all along - if a marriage license did not come with rights then you could exclude gays and it would be constitutional.

This opinion does not mean that your church has to allow gay marriages. It just means that gay people must have the same access to rights.

I read back through the old posts and maybe this has not been clear.

This whole thing is about the access to rights - not the ability to get married in a church.

hank

[NcDeuce]

Who started this gay thread? :lol:

[Durandal]

It remains to be seen where the people of MA would vote on this. My guess is that they won't get the chance.

Nor is it a matter of a vote. Technically they already did by votiing for their represenatives in the legislature.

Then again, how many of the majority would have voted for integration in Mississippi schools and colleges inthe 1950s and 60s? Just because the majority thinks someone else shouldn;t have the same rights theu have does not make it right.

Once of the beuaties of a democratic republic with a check and balance system...

[Durandal]

Durandel - you got a lot of that absolutely right. One thing to keep in mind though. *snip snip snip*

Good post, and yes, the bill had not been passed completely...all the points you bring up are good and I agree or understand to be so...

[hank]

Thanks Durandel. ;) Nice work on your part. This is complex and the temptation to just say "I am right" without a basis is real. Look at 2 sheds - he COULD figure it too and even make some good arguments, instead he just says "I'm right". All I mean is that when anyone has an opinion that is thought out, I appreciate it, even if I disagree. You obvioulsy have seen through the misinformation. If 2 sheds or anyone against gay marriage could come up with some legal basis for denying the right then I would respectfully disagree. But the nonsense that comes out does not deserve respect.

The problem is that everybody who disagrees with gay marriage confuses legal right and moral right. The two are not always the same. When they conflict, go with legal right and try to change the law so that legal right and moral right don't conflict. If you don't, at some point you'll end up living under someone else's idea of moral right and you won't be able to do anything about it.

If the Mass legislature passes an Amendment that there is no right to be gay under the Mass constitution then I would feel obligated to follow that. I would disagree to be sure. I would try to get that changed in the right way, by another amendment, but I would obey it so long as it was on the books. So would the Mass or US Supreme Courts, contrary to what 2 sheds says. The point here is that our opinion about the right of these women is supported by the constitution - it also happens to be morally right in my opinion. But, when "morally right" and "in the constitution" are not synonymous the constitution must prevail. Otherwise the document is worthless.

That is why I disagree with but respect Bush's position. Instead of just bellyaching like Reed and the Rel Right, Bush proposes to amend the constitution. I would not support that, but Bush is at least trying to acomplish his goal in the way that is consistent with our constitution. Luckily, it would never happen.

hank

[Durandal]

I am suprised no one has re-visited this subject...

With legal marriages happening in Mass. now, has anyone's opinion changed...either way?

I think some of my comments were right on the money. Most businesses are cheering this along since it means addition money coming into the state...dresses, flowers, catering. There was one article in USA Today and another in my local paper, the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Of course there are still thos on both sides that are protesting or counter protesting, but the big test begins...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I think everybody's just tired of hearing about it.

I've kind of lost track of this boondoggle...where do things stand now? Did the legislature ever pass anything? Or are they still flying by the seat of the court's pants? I do remember seeing something about a group filing some kind of suit alleging the court overstepped its authority - I think it got slapped down...by the court. Heh heh, it's a beautiful thing.

BTW, as a refresher to those too lazy to slog through this whole thread....I started it - not as a condemnation of gay marriage, but to show my bewilderment at the MA court creating new law [the legislature's job] from the bench. Turns out -as Hank pointed out a few posts back - that's perfectly legal.

Yes, one thing I did learn during this whole mess was that the MA SC can make law if they want. So I suppose strictly speaking, what they have done is legal & I was wrong to claim otherwise. But that doesn't change my position much - it may be legally permissible, but in my eyes a judiciary that's able to create laws as it sees fit is a terrifying thing. Judge, jury and executioner, all in one. Oh, and legislature too.

Hey, if MA is in such dire financial straits, why not just lay off all those other folks & just let the court do everything? Think of the $$ saved.

Personally, I'm even more disillusioned than I was at the beginning. I mean, when the court can simply make and change law as they see fit, when they see fit - why do we need lawyers? Or legislators? The game can change at any time. When law is so subjective, why pay somebody to cite case law that no longer applies? And despite reassurances that the system works, checks and balances etc. - as this case proves - when push comes to shove, those in power will do as they please. They wrote the law giving themselves the power. Bread and circuses for all!

Durandal - just wait 'till the Supreme Court wakes up one day & decides to to reinterpret the meanings of "well regulated militia" or "arms". No guns for you!

We live under far more tyranny than most folks realize. Hey - anybody catch the news blurbs a few months back about a Mississippi supreme court judge that was being investigated for corruption? Been trying to follow up on that to see what happened.

[hank]

I think everybody's just tired of hearing about it.

I've kind of lost track of this boondoggle...where do things stand now? Did the legislature ever pass anything? Or are they still flying by the seat of the court's pants? I do remember seeing something about a group filing some kind of suit alleging the court overstepped its authority - I think it got slapped down...by the court. Heh heh, it's a beautiful thing.

BTW, as a refresher to those too lazy to slog through this whole thread....I started it - not as a condemnation of gay marriage, but to show my bewilderment at the MA court creating new law [the legislature's job] from the bench. Turns out -as Hank pointed out a few posts back - that's perfectly legal.

Yes, one thing I did learn during this whole mess was that the MA SC can make law if they want. So I suppose strictly speaking, what they have done is legal & I was wrong to claim otherwise. But that doesn't change my position much - it may be legally permissible, but in my eyes a judiciary that's able to create laws as it sees fit is a terrifying thing. Judge, jury and executioner, all in one. Oh, and legislature too.

Hey, if MA is in such dire financial straits, why not just lay off all those other folks & just let the court do everything? Think of the $$ saved.

Personally, I'm even more disillusioned than I was at the beginning. I mean, when the court can simply make and change law as they see fit, when they see fit - why do we need lawyers? Or legislators? The game can change at any time. When law is so subjective, why pay somebody to cite case law that no longer applies? And despite reassurances that the system works, checks and balances etc. - as this case proves - when push comes to shove, those in power will do as they please. They wrote the law giving themselves the power. Bread and circuses for all!

Durandal - just wait 'till the Supreme Court wakes up one day & decides to to reinterpret the meanings of "well regulated militia" or "arms". No guns for you!

We live under far more tyranny than most folks realize. Hey - anybody catch the news blurbs a few months back about a Mississippi supreme court judge that was being investigated for corruption? Been trying to follow up on that to see what happened.

Wa Wa - you never read anything I posted, did you? Tyranny? The only tyranny you suffer under is your own inability to read and comprehend.

hank

[Jack Mehoff]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040518/stayskal.gif

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Wa Wa - you never read anything I posted, did you? Tyranny? The only tyranny you suffer under is your own inability to read and comprehend.

hank

Well now, we can hardly expect a member of the system to condemn the system, now can we? Your every word is tainted with by the sordid business of coin. You should immediately recuse yourself from the thread. :) Who knows, if your quest for power succeeds, we may all one day toil under your lash. But you'll doubtless keep telling us your oppression is "for our own good" and that you are somehow serving us.

If only we were all as charming and erudite as you, we'd all just sit down & be quiet eh? Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...

[Durandal]

Durandal - just wait 'till the Supreme Court wakes up one day & decides to to reinterpret the meanings of "well regulated militia" or "arms". No guns for you!

Ahhhhhh, but then someone would be DENYING me a right upheld under the Constitution. The Mass courts have not denied anyone a thing. They simply said..."This is unconstitutional...go back make better legislation OR have the people vote on it...till then tis legal (starting on this DATE).

I support gay marriages AND the right ot own a firearm. I support anything having to do with general liberty, freedom, and civil rights. Both of which come under those three...

So, the comparison is poor, at best.

[FallenAngel]

If there's equal protection under the law for everyone then how come girls don't have to register for Selective Services?

As a feminist if she/ her daughter wants to be drafted some day. See how "anti-sexist" they are then. ;)

[Durandal]

Good point...AND it is actually an issue. The office responsible for selective service has actually made the news recently that they plan to include women...

So there ya go...

I'll go find the article if anyone is interested....I seem to recall it being from AP.

[hank]

If there's equal protection under the law for everyone then how come girls don't have to register for Selective Services?

As a feminist if she/ her daughter wants to be drafted some day. See how "anti-sexist" they are then. ;)

Selective Service does not afford any "rights". It is an obligation and until the military decides to start accepting women into combat positions I doubt they will change the selective service law. When women do get to be in infantry/etc. then the law will change or there will be EP problems.

2 sheds - you just don't get it, do you. You don't even know what you talk about. You are like a little child, or better yet, like an ostrich with your head in the sand. Enjoy it, and don't worry, cause I'm watching. I'll keep up with reality and protect your rights, if and when they are infringed. Meanwhile, enjoy just making up ytour own little reality and then complaining to the rest of us. It is at least somewhat amusing. Also, don't worry, I got the coin part covered. I don't know why I even bother posting, Durandel has you covered on all angles.

Look up tyranny in the dictionary. Where is the part about expanding the availability of rights in tyranny? Go figure.

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Yes, yes hank you're coming along nicely. You've both dismissed all criticism of our little system while exhibiting the appropriate amount of temerity with a self-congratulatory statement that you'll protect his rights. The sinister off the cuff "I'll be watching" comment was very well done too. The Grand Master would be well pleased. Well done lad, yes, now here's your smoking jacket, your WSJ, and pipe, please be seated next to the oil painting of Niccolo Machiavelli. Ah, I see you received the gold skull cufflinks that Antonio sent you? Splendid.

I don’t know why you bother either :lol:

[hank]

Yes, yes hank you're coming along nicely. You've both dismissed all criticism of our little system while exhibiting the appropriate amount of temerity with a self-congratulatory statement that you'll protect his rights. The sinister off the cuff "I'll be watching" comment was very well done too. The Grand Master would be well pleased. Well done lad, yes, now here's your smoking jacket, your WSJ, and pipe, please be seated next to the oil painting of Niccolo Machiavelli. Ah, I see you received the gold skull cufflinks that Antonio sent you? Splendid.

I don’t know why you bother either :lol:

What rights are you losing if two lesbians marry in Massachusetts?

hank

[usa320]

The obvious compromise here would be to only allow the young, good looking, blonde lesbians to marry.


:lol:

[Durandal]

What rights are you losing if two lesbians marry in Massachusetts?

hank

The right to be a super far-right nut job that feels the Judicial system is over stepping its constitutional bounds (which it isn't) and that the legislative branch is the only body that can makes laws (which it isn't) and that, even to this day, he somehow feels that slighted by the system working just fine.

Don't sweat it Hank. He is out there in la-la land.

I mean, lets look at this for a second. The court said a BILL, not a law (no one voted on the damn thing), was unconstutional (seperate but equal being a no-no) and that the legislative branch would have to come up with a new bill dealing with gay marriages. In addition to this they said that the State of Mass would HAVE to accept gay marriages because there were no laws preventing them form doing so AND set a deadline to allow the legislative branch time to get their house of cards in order...

Which to some degree it has done...sort of.

Ultimately, the decision will be by the voters of the State...

Sounds all good and fair to me...all within the legal limits of the Constitution of the State of Mass...

Hank, he is simply using the idea of the court being "bad or unconstitutional" (neither of which it is) to hide his disgust for homo******s, trying to make it sound rational...which it still is not for the simple fact that every argument he has made is disproven byt he actual Constitution of the State these events are taking place in.

You cannot rationally discuss this with him.

[786mine]

I've seen pastors say that in the Bible its ok to be gay. OK so where does it say exactly in the Bible that its OK to be gay and on top to be a religious leader?! I mean what is up with that?! Also, this gay marriage this is getting old. I think that Bush is right to define the marriage as a union one ONE man and ONE woman. if this does not go on, what if tomorrow man wants to get married with TWO women or vice versa?! or what if three homo****** people want to get married together?! i mean, where do we draw the line?

[hank]

I've seen pastors say that in the Bible its ok to be gay. OK so where does it say exactly in the Bible that its OK to be gay and on top to be a religious leader?! I mean what is up with that?! Also, this gay marriage this is getting old. I think that Bush is right to define the marriage as a union one ONE man and ONE woman. if this does not go on, what if tomorrow man wants to get married with TWO women or vice versa?! or what if three homo****** people want to get married together?! i mean, where do we draw the line?

Do you really want to discuss this? Read the posts. I have addressed these points. The lines are relatively clear from a LEGAL perspective. From a moral one, I see your point. There is a very large difference b/w LEGAL and MORAL. Read the posts here if interested then ask your questions.

hank

[Fintin]

I've seen pastors say that in the Bible its ok to be gay. OK so where does it say exactly in the Bible that its OK to be gay and on top to be a religious leader?! I mean what is up with that?! Also, this gay marriage this is getting old. I think that Bush is right to define the marriage as a union one ONE man and ONE woman. if this does not go on, what if tomorrow man wants to get married with TWO women or vice versa?! or what if three homo****** people want to get married together?! i mean, where do we draw the line?

ok stop going to that church...and read genisis....sodom and gamora ring a bell?>

[Durandal]

...what if tomorrow man wants to get married with TWO women or vice versa?! or what if three homo****** people want to get married together?! i mean, where do we draw the line?

I mean if we give women the right to vote...whats next? Men having two votes?