|
|
|
|
| [VN
Boards Archive] |
Welcome to the Vault Network
forum archive.
This is not a complete archive, time didn't allot us the
opportunity to properly backup the majority of the boards
deemed "expendable". Most boards on this list have at least
20-40 pages archived (non-logged in pages, 15 topics per
page).
Popular boards may have as many as 250 pages archived at 50
topics per page, while others deemed of historical
signifigance may be archived in their entirety.
We may not agree with how the board shutdown was managed, but
we've done what we could to preserve some of its history in
lieu of that.
Please enjoy the archive.
~
Managers, Moderators, VIP's, and regular posters.
|
| Author |
Topic: US Politics
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
|
Anyone want to talk about the current political situation in the US? I've got my drunk on and this is like the pubic area of the internet for me, so discussing things while drunk here is A-Okay!
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
|
PS: Screw you Charnley, nobody cares about your 'omfg politicians got free gardening in the UK' thread. Over here we've got real corruption.
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
LancelotOCT
Title: Mindless Fanboi :)
Posts:
6,438
Registered:
Dec 12, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,400
User ID: 543,129
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
I dont want to discuss US politics but I didnt want your thread to be lonely . 
So um.. corruption.. yea it's rampart worldwide. I think even clean folks that somehow win an election and join the political system are in time converted.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Thugoneous
Title: Watching Caliente, BRB.
Posts:
6,060
Registered:
Nov 2, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 5,795
User ID: 734,292
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
|
Sure, do you want to talk about Sin taxes? Where the government wants to tax people for eating/drinking/smoking? Behavior control to the extreme.
-----signature-----
Lady, people aren't chocolates. D'you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.
|
|
Link to this post
|
GoForWand
Posts:
1,596
Registered:
Feb 20, '06
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,565
User ID: 1,119,963
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
Horundik posted:
Anyone want to talk about the current political situation in the US? I've got my drunk on and this is like the pubic area of the internet for me, so discussing things while drunk here is A-Okay!
I hate that I missed this last night. lol.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
Unfortunately I'm sober now. 
Thanks for the bump Lance. That is as good an argument for limited government as any other that I have laying around.
Thug, we should just start taxing the taxes until we choke the federal government down to a more reasonable size.
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
Kahlann
Posts:
5,433
Registered:
Jun 13, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 5,359
User ID: 688,088
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
|
I happen to live in one of the most corrupt states in the union (if not the most corrupt). It doesn't seem to matter what party either.
-----signature-----
WAR Syofra, Squeet ~ Blackthornes ~ Destruction Red Eye Mountain
Kahlann/Syofra/Gisele - once a proud member of Tower of Avalon - Alb Gawaine
"Jersey girls don't pump gas"
iMob 151-622-213
|
|
Link to this post
|
Thugoneous
Title: Watching Caliente, BRB.
Posts:
6,060
Registered:
Nov 2, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 5,795
User ID: 734,292
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
|
That's a fine Idea, but then they'd start cutting the budgets of programs we actually need (roads/defense/research into homosexual behavior in Spain in relation to the sale of boa's on ebay)
-----signature-----
Lady, people aren't chocolates. D'you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.
|
|
Link to this post
|
num97
Posts:
7,788
Registered:
Oct 29, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 7,647
User ID: 487,825
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
|
Horundik, can you move back to Sacramento so we can hang out?
-----signature-----
"Fish are so misunderstood because they're so far removed from our daily lives.
They're such interesting, fascinating individuals, yet they're so incredibly abused"
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
Kahlann, I live in Illinois. I would like to dispute your claim. The corruption here is so much a part of the culture that they actually regulate it as if it were just a fact of life. They have an entire system of corruption here that is written into law called 'Patronage'.
Thug, we should definitely look into the sale of boas on Ebay (both the pet and fluffy kinds). Since they will be cutting those budgets anyway (the numbers will grow but the inflation rate will be well above the increases) I see no downside.
Hey there Panhead. As much as I would love to get back to fresh fruits and vegetables, California is an economic pit from which there will soon be no escape. I'll never move back there, however I believe that I'll be down in LA in October and plan on visiting a hospital in Stockton near the end of that trip. I wouldn't mind running up to Sacramento one evening. When I have more details I'll let ya know.
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
Bahgoon
Posts:
1,688
Registered:
Apr 20, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,675
User ID: 916,242
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
Horundik posted:
, however I believe that I'll be down in LA in October and plan on visiting a hospital in Stockton near the end of that trip.
Business or pleasure?
-----signature-----
-Bahgoon
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
|
Definitely business. Only rarely do I visit hospitals while on vacation and never for pleasure.
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
Bahgoon
Posts:
1,688
Registered:
Apr 20, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,675
User ID: 916,242
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
They're all right if you can catch them on a free pharmaceuticals night. Or maybe that was a methadone clinic that I went to, I'm kind of blurry.
-----signature-----
-Bahgoon
|
|
Link to this post
|
groundskeeperr
Title: Poet and didnt know it
Posts:
14,943
Registered:
Apr 17, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 14,663
User ID: 669,401
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
|
Unfortunately the Mormons spent alot of money so you two can't get married out there now.
-----signature-----
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30546199@N04/2862061416/ WoW-Smolderthorn: Loobeedoobee(Mage), Plunked(Hunter) Daoc:Gawaine,Lancelot,Bors: Groundskeeperr(Armsman,Hero,Paladin) http://cheesywheesey.mybrute.com http://i36.tinypic.com/2uyod3k.g
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
We're already married!
I'm not sure we can entirely blame the Mormons for the latest failure to introduce same-sex marriage by vote. It has now failed twice in California. The only way it has worked out there (and most every other place in the US) has been by fiat via the court system. So far, I think only Vermont has passed same-sex marriage by representative legislation. I doubt it would pass as a referendum even there, but unless they want to throw out their legislators and nullify that vote I would consider Vermont same-sex marriage as written in stone. None of the other so-called 'same-sex states' have even the modicum of legislative authority backing those decisions.
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
num97
Posts:
7,788
Registered:
Oct 29, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 7,647
User ID: 487,825
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
|
I want to create a proposition to make the proposition system illegal. I would call it "The proposition to end all propositions."
-----signature-----
"Fish are so misunderstood because they're so far removed from our daily lives.
They're such interesting, fascinating individuals, yet they're so incredibly abused"
|
|
Link to this post
|
groundskeeperr
Title: Poet and didnt know it
Posts:
14,943
Registered:
Apr 17, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 14,663
User ID: 669,401
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
|
and Iowa now, as of the last election.
-----signature-----
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30546199@N04/2862061416/ WoW-Smolderthorn: Loobeedoobee(Mage), Plunked(Hunter) Daoc:Gawaine,Lancelot,Bors: Groundskeeperr(Armsman,Hero,Paladin) http://cheesywheesey.mybrute.com http://i36.tinypic.com/2uyod3k.g
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
|
I believe it was via the Iowa supreme court rather than the legislature, but truthfully I did not follow that one closely.
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
Thugoneous
Title: Watching Caliente, BRB.
Posts:
6,060
Registered:
Nov 2, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 5,795
User ID: 734,292
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
I can't find myself to care for gay marriage, other then the whole Judges over riding democracy part of it.
Go get married - tards.
-----signature-----
Lady, people aren't chocolates. D'you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.
|
|
Link to this post
|
benjaFL
Posts:
2,774
Registered:
Feb 25, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,734
User ID: 774,017
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
Just to throw fuel on the fire...
The judges are enforcing democracy by upholding the state's constitution. The voters can ammend their state constitution, which is typically harder to do than just passing a law.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
I enjoy Benja fires; why oh why were you not here when I was drunk the other night.
Judges cannot enforce democracy. They can rule on the constitutionality of written laws (and that is not even their primary function). What you have in these situations is a lazy and apathetic legislature that instead of codifying the contract between two individuals they borrowed the religious sacrament of marriage for convenience's sake many years ago. Now that the structure of that sacrament no longer seems to apply to the wishes of a minority of voters, the legislators rather than actually putting into law the structure of a civil marriage merely kick the can down the road and do nothing in an effort to keep themselves in office and not get booted out of office by the majority. That minority then tries to seek social justice from the judicial branch. The judicial branch however has no law on the books from which to judge such matters. To stay in the good graces of the minority they offer token decisions that perhaps in some cases is their attempt to get the legislature to do something but as often as not are merely personal judgments based upon no settled law whatsoever. Having not read every state constitution, I cannot say this with complete certainty, but constitutions generally do not even mention marriage. Amending them to provide for same-sex marriage is not at issue. However, as a reaction to the judicial branch's ruling by fiat you now have several state constitutions either working toward or already have amendments that outright ban same-sex marriage.
So you see, it is a cascade of errors that bring us to this point. Legislators should not assume conventions in one decade will prevail. Legislators should not borrow concepts from other institutions and not rigorously define them for their intended purposes. Judges should not rule on cases where there are no laws written.
I have said this often, but I will reiterate once more. Marriage has nothing to do with government, it is a religious sacrament. The fact that lazy and apathetic politicians use it as a shortcut to allow various civil benefits (and detriments) does not change reality. There needs to be a distinction between the religious marriage and the civil marriage and that civil marriage (union) needs to be codified into law. People that only want the civil are welcome to seek it out via the state government, and those that want the religious are welcome to seek it out via their local rabbi, pastor, imam, or witch. The vast majority of people will want both and should have access to both in a two-step process that are separate and not contingent upon one another at all. If I want things like the ability to share insurance and have hospital visitation rights between myself and another person, I go get a civil marriage. If I want that union to be honored by my church, I go get a religious marriage. If I want both, then I go get both. If some churches don't want to honor same-sex marriages, or human-animal marriages, then so be it. None of the civil protections (or hindrances) will be effected by convictions of either the religious institution itself or its members as the civil marriage has been codified into law.
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
Thugoneous
Title: Watching Caliente, BRB.
Posts:
6,060
Registered:
Nov 2, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 5,795
User ID: 734,292
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
|
To much work, just absolve all marriages.
-----signature-----
Lady, people aren't chocolates. D'you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.
|
|
Link to this post
|
benjaFL
Posts:
2,774
Registered:
Feb 25, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,734
User ID: 774,017
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
Just going to start off by saying that I agree that marriage should be dissolved and everyone given civil unions, since that's the primary purpose people want it in law. Where would the gold diggers in the world be if the law didn't support them taking half your crap?
I do not call it judges ruling by fiat or by the bench, whichever phrase you prefer. The legislature has the power to pass the law. If someone challenges that law, judges have to make sure it abides state and federal constitutions. Some states, Florida for instance, have it specifically written into their state constitution that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, while other states do not.
Now that a few states have passed laws allowing same-sex unions, I expect a challenge to the defense of marriage act. I'm too lazy to look up the exact wording of the law, but there's some federal constitutional law that says states have to accept certain licenses from other states. That's why you don't have to apply for a new marriage license if you move to a new state. It's also why you can legally drive through different states without getting a new license.
That law combined with equal protection, should spell the end of the defense of marriage act. I'm actually surprised it has held up this long.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
GoForWand
Posts:
1,596
Registered:
Feb 20, '06
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,565
User ID: 1,119,963
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
Well, I disagree. State Judiciaries(and also on the federal level) have the responsibility to determine when laws violate the Constitution (State or Federal, where applicable), thus setting precedent.
And assuming that we could "marry" across species is foolish and just impossibly unlikely...don't even go there or one could suspect that you follow Rush or Bill O'Reilly.
Honestly, as a Catholic, imho we should remove DIVORCE completely (except for rape and incest, or violence). That should help people take Marriage (civil or religious) more seriously!
Nighy-night and happy Memorial Day Weekend!
Edit: and I thought we were off gay marriage and onto waterboarding already?!?
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
num97
Posts:
7,788
Registered:
Oct 29, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 7,647
User ID: 487,825
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
|
Water boarding is awesome. I can do that one trick where you spin around by passing the rope behind your back. It took me a while to learn it, but I finally got it down.
-----signature-----
"Fish are so misunderstood because they're so far removed from our daily lives.
They're such interesting, fascinating individuals, yet they're so incredibly abused"
|
|
Link to this post
|
benjaFL
Posts:
2,774
Registered:
Feb 25, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,734
User ID: 774,017
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
GoForWand posted:
Honestly, as a Catholic, imho we should remove DIVORCE completely (except for rape and incest, or violence). That should help people take Marriage (civil or religious) more seriously!
Or make them never want to marry in the first place. Why does this even need to be a law? As a Catholic, you can get legally divorced from your spouse, but you are still married to your spouse until you receive an annulment from the Vatican. A truly religious person would put God's law above man's anyway.
Passing laws based on religious views is great as long as it's your religion that's in power. When the Taliban get elected and pass laws requiring you to wear burkas, you've only got yourself to blame for setting the precedent that it's okay to pass religious based laws.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
Benja, as you say the primary purpose that people are citing for unfairness can be resolved with a civil marriage concept (or civil union as it were). So we are definitely in agreement on that point. You seem to disagree about the courts' involvement in such cases based upon the assumption that there existed laws that described marriage, but that was not the case prior to the courts' involvement in the '80's and '90's. The laws that you are thinking of were merely a backlash by legislators wanting to capitalize on a majority-voter push (or in the case of California by public referendum). Once the judiciary stuck its nose into the fray (whether because of personal opinion or as an effort to force the legislatures to act) the unraveling of the separation of powers began on this front (there are plenty of other fronts on various other subjects).
The Defense of Marriage Act is short-sighted. It should fail as it was merely a token voter-appeasement and has very little basis in law. Article 4 section 1 of the Constitution is not ambiguous (in my opinion none of the Constitution is). It is for this reason more than any other that the distinction between the religious sacrament and the civil marriage must be made if the rule of law is to be upheld. So often though, it is too hard for politicians to do the right thing and so much easier to just violate the laws of the land for votes.
Gofor, you wish to be as short-sighted as the legislators that got us into this mess. I have no interest in defining marriage for American citizens 100 years ago, today, or 100 years from now. If you think that no one in this country would ever espouse the view that the civil protections offered by marriage should be in place for their pet then you are not thinking clearly. I have proposed a solution that allows for revision by the government as needed without the entanglements of religious definition (mine or anyone else's). Though I could hazard a guess, I do not know Limbaugh's or O'Reilly's opinion on the matter. Nor do I know how they would feel about my solution as I have not spoken to either of them about this. I would ask you to describe their point of view so that we could contrast it with mine, but I doubt that you could articulate anything passed what you are spoon-fed by MSNBC or glean from snippets created by Media Matters.
As to torture, it's bad mmkay. What defines torture varies and is far too subjective between both generations and cultures to be a usable global metric. I'm all for a 'take no prisoners' solution in all future military conflicts if that will resolve the problem. And then of course as a Conservative I would not engage any any military conflicts without a justifiable cause that could support the 'take no prisoners' mindset and was actually declared as a war by Congress.
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
GoForWand
Posts:
1,596
Registered:
Feb 20, '06
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,565
User ID: 1,119,963
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
So what it boils down to is you don't like the roll the judicial branch plays in our system of checks and balances, or the demon more commonly referred to as "legislating from the bench"...then you assert that I am "spoon fed" my opinion by a cable news channel.
2 Talking Points in the same arguement?
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
benjaFL
Posts:
2,774
Registered:
Feb 25, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,734
User ID: 774,017
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
@Marriage
I still don't get what your complaint is about the judges. It seems like they are serving their purpose. If there wasn't anything in the law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, then it's the judicial branch's duty to say you can't stop two people of the same sex from getting married. The legislature can rectify this oversight by passing a new law and/or voters can ammend their constitutions.
@Torture
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/22/mancow-waterboarded-video_n_206906.html
Mancow Waterboarded (VIDEO): Conservative Radio Host Say It's Torture
I give him props for going through with it and even more for going back on his statement afterwards.
I don't feel bad that our enemies were tortured. However, I don't want to belong to a nation that tortures people. I don't want to pay people to torture other people through my taxes. It's a philosophical issue for me. I want to believe we're the "good guys" and good guys don't torture people.
I don't want to sacrifice personal freedom for security. I don't want to punish 99.9999% of the populace to protect them from 0.0001% of the populace.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
Gofor, I think that you are confused. I happen to like the federal separation of powers immensely as without it this republic would fail. What I do not like is when one branch of the federal government goes further than their Constitutional mandate. However, in this discussion we are talking about the individual states which are not Constitutionally required to adopt that same model of separate of powers but they have done so for 200 years if not by decree then by tradition. I do and will continue to complain about any state that does not maintain that traditional balance of power in their state government if for no other reason than it causes chaos. When I say that the California judiciary created the confusion in their government because they ruled by fiat rather than render a judgment based upon the rule of law in that state I mean exactly that. I am saying very explicitly that they did not retain their traditional role in the separation of powers, but rather attempted to right a wrong without regard to their place as a judicial branch of a state government that traditionally interprets written law in individual cases between citizens or between the citizen and the state. They may have done so with good intentions, but that is irrelevant if you care about separation of powers.
It is you who does not like the traditional role of the state judicial branches. It is you who began accusations of borrowing thoughts from media personalities, and clearly you still think that is true when it is not. Maybe I am in err with thinking that you are merely confused; it would seem that there is more to it than just that.
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
"@Marriage
I still don't get what your complaint is about the judges. It seems like they are serving their purpose. If there wasn't anything in the law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, then it's the judicial branch's duty to say you can't stop two people of the same sex from getting married. The legislature can rectify this oversight by passing a new law and/or voters can ammend their constitutions."
If that were the chain of events and the facts existed as stated I would be in agreement. For lack of a better example, going back to California once again: in the recent (past 10 years) the legislators rather than dealing with it themselves allowed a referendum onto the ballot which defined marriage as only between a man and a woman, the judges stated that it was unconstitutional and overturned that law, another referendum was put on the ballot and also won, and now the judicial branch has stated it is constitutional. I call that chaos. I object to that first ruling as there was no settled law from which to base their opinion. I even object to their second ruling for the same reason. It is not their role to babysit a stagnant and useless legislature, that is the role of the people. More chaos will ensue once the nearly toothless executive branch attempts to create a mechanism to enforce these laws and non-laws that are destined to be tried in court over and over. The entire process was a waste of everyone's time, when all it would have taken to resolve this amicably was a legislature that had a spine.
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
benjaFL
Posts:
2,774
Registered:
Feb 25, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,734
User ID: 774,017
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
If this article can be trusted, everything has citations, then it seems like it happened exactly as I explained it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California
wikipedia posted:
Prior to 1977, California Civil Code section 4100 (predecessor to what is now codified at California Family Code section 300) defined marriage as: "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary."
When Prop 22 came before voters, section 300 defined marriage as:
a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.
The original law doesn't specify between a man and a woman. Proposition 22 was passed by the electorate. California's supreme court found this violated the state's constitution. I can't confirm, but it seems likely, that Proposition 22 was just a law. Laws can be overturned by courts for violating constitutions.
Proposition 8, was a constitutional amendment. The court can't overturn constitutional amendments, which as of today, they didn't.
Seems like the judicial branch acted appropriately.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
GoForWand
Posts:
1,596
Registered:
Feb 20, '06
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,565
User ID: 1,119,963
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
I guess you would also disagree with the California Supreme Court reversing the state's ban on interracial marriages in 1948, which was used in the In re Marriage Cases opinion? Is it any different?
Because according to your arguement, they should have waited for a vote.
Now let's talk about the two different terms: CHECKS AND BALANCES and SEPERATION OF POWERS:
To prevent one branch from becoming supreme, and to induce the branches to cooperate, governance systems that employ a separation of powers need a way to balance each of the branches. Checks and Balances would then be the system based regulation that allows one branch to limit another. <3 Wiki.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
Though I do not rely on Wikipedia for this level of analysis, the article looks accurate enough to me. It does however not address my point about the unconstitutional ruling of the first referendum (referred to as Proposition 22 in the article) being based upon no settled law whatsoever. The paragraphs in question are these:
"On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court struck down California's existing statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples in a 4-3 ruling.[38] The judicial ruling overturned the one-man, one-woman marriage law which the California Legislature had passed in 1977 and Proposition 22. After the ruling, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement repeating his pledge to oppose Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that would override the ruling.
The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, cited the Court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp where the state's interracial marriage ban was held unconstitutional. It found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution. Associate Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar, and Carlos R. Moreno concurred.[4] It is the first state high court in the country to do so.[39] The Massachusetts State Supreme Court, by contrast, did not find sexual orientation to be a protected class, and instead voided its gay-marriage ban on rational basis review.[40]" - Wikipedia (Same-sex marriage in California)
The article gives the impression that a logical flow from sexual orientation as a protected class through the Equal Protection Clause of the state leads directly to a status of unconstitutional. Steps 2 and 3 logically follow, so in essence it is only step 1 that has to be achieved to get to the ruling. So where did the judges get that sexual orientation was a protected class? It's not mentioned in the article. Being tall or short is not a protected class, so why is sexual orientation? There must be a list somewhere; surely some settled law supports this claim. Well, you won't find it because it did not exist. Instead, they 'chose' to make sexual orientation a protected class so that they could create a logical argument. Maybe sexual orientation deserves special protections or maybe not, but how can a court create and manipulate such a list? Either by fiat or by settled law; there is no third way. No law or statute existed stating that sexual orientation is like race and gender. It just felt right to the judges that these three groups should all be listed together and offered the same protections under the Equal Protection Clause of the state.
I dislike fiat rulings by courts. The concept of 'separate but equal' comes to mind. Fiat decisions always lead to chaos.
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
"I guess you would also disagree with the California Supreme Court reversing the state's ban on interracial marriages in 1948, which was used in the In re Marriage Cases opinion? Is it any different?
Because according to your arguement, they should have waited for a vote."
Without doing some research I could not say for sure. If there was no settled law on race in California in 1948 then yes waiting for legislation would have been prudent.
"Now let's talk about the two different terms: CHECKS AND BALANCES and SEPERATION OF POWERS:
To prevent one branch from becoming supreme, and to induce the branches to cooperate, governance systems that employ a separation of powers need a way to balance each of the branches. Checks and Balances would then be the system based regulation that allows one branch to limit another. <3 Wiki."
I am at a loss trying to discern your point here. Please clarify and use small words so that you know what you are saying.
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
GoForWand
Posts:
1,596
Registered:
Feb 20, '06
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,565
User ID: 1,119,963
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
It's where it ruled in the opinion that marriage is a basic civil right.
...basic civil right 's you can't deny anyone.
Edit: When you have nothing left, insults! Cute.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
Gofor, I only respond in kind. If you want to discuss something I'm all ears, but so far the only thing you've been interested in is sniping from the side-lines. Which is perfectly fine; just don't expect to be treated with any deference when you do. I have plenty left so don't fret that I send insults your way because I have nothing better to say.
We can probably agree that a "marriage" should be a civil right. I don't think that anyone in this thread is disputing the philosophical or moral argument for same-sex partners to have access to the same civil protections as hetero partners. So far, only Vermont has put that into law via a legislative action. Having a court decide by fiat is what we have been discussing in the last few exchanges. I adamantly disagree with fiat rulings by the judiciary on this or any subject.
I proposed a solution written near the top of the thread: To alleviate the issues with a religious marriage that the concept of a civil marriage be put in place prior to adding this right into law so that we circumvent both the near-future problems with passage and far-future problems with changes to the definition of civil marriage as it is bound to happen and no one wants to repeat the idiocy that we see today regarding same-sex definitions. With that prescription, I believe that legislatures can be cajoled into doing their job.
So I'll start again and forget your sniping. Is there something about the above that you need explained further? Do you "get it" and just disagree? If you disagree, then what part and why? Do you just disagree with my point of view of judiciary fiat? Is that disagreement merely regarding this case or is it the point of view itself where you find a flaw?
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
benjaFL
Posts:
2,774
Registered:
Feb 25, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,734
User ID: 774,017
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
Horundik, I think you answered your own question. Prohibiting same sex marriage violated the state's equal protection clause. Same sex couples can't get married and by extension, they can't get divorced, they can't claim dependents, they can't claim benefits, they can't make emergency medical decisions, etc... The judges found it unconstitutional and overturned it. That was the supreme court's interpretation of the state's constitution. The judicial branch is required to interpret the constitution and overturn any laws that violate it.
I don't want to get into a insult match, but I think you have to ask yourself, "Is it ruling by fiat only when I disagree with their decision?" Can you give an example of where they ruled by fiat on something with which you agree?
I really don't see how you can stick to your guns on this one, when the supreme court overturned a law that violated the constitution, and then upheld an amendment to the constitution. That's what they are supposed to do.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
Benja, as to the list of things you think could not be done in California by same-sex couples, you need to go back and look at the domestic partnership that was available in that state since 1999. It had been the focus of the same-sex advocates prior to the 'marriage or nothing' concept in recent years, and it was well on its way to including all of the civil protections of marriage as each year more additions were put in place as the laws were refined. Though I did not consider it the ideal solution (obviously) it was perhaps the best example offered by any state. It was abandoned prematurely due to judicial shenanigans tricking the public into believing same-sex marriage was legal and domestic partnerships were no longer necessary.
Prohibiting same-sex marriage only violated the Equal Protection found in the California constitution if the assumption is made that sexual orientation was on equal footing with race and gender and thus deserving the same protections. The choice to make that assumption had no basis in settled law, it was by opinion only. That is why I call it 'rule by fiat', and each time that type of decision-making is practiced chaos is created in the system. Not once has everyone just said "oh, okay I guess that is just how it is going to work from now on" when such a move has been made in the judiciary.
Since I agree that same-sex couples should have the same civil protections as a hetero couple, then this very situation would be an example of where I agree with the outcome but oppose the process. Is that the kind of example you need?
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
Thugoneous
Title: Watching Caliente, BRB.
Posts:
6,060
Registered:
Nov 2, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 5,795
User ID: 734,292
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
From the NY Times:
The California Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage
Tuesday, ratifying a decision
made by voters last year.
The court’s decision preserves the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed between the justices’ ruling last May that same-sex marriage was constitutionally protected and voters’ passage in November of Proposition 8, which banned it.
The court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George for a 6-to-1 majority, noted that same-sex couples still had a right to civil unions, which gives them the ability to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person
into a committed, officially recognized and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.â€
George wrote that Proposition 8 did not “entirely repeal or abrogateâ€
the right to such a protected relationship, but instead “carves out a narrow and limited exception
to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation
of the term ‘marriage’ for the union of opposite-sex couples
as a matter of state constitutional
law.â€
The 18,000 existing marriages can stand, he wrote, because Proposition 8 did not include language
saying it was retroactive.
Heated reaction to the decision
began immediately, with protesters blocking traffic near the Supreme Court’s offices, in San Francisco, and advocates for same-sex marriage making plans for another ballot initiative.
In Los Angeles, Jennifer C. Pizer,
marriage project director for Lambda Legal, said the decision “puts it to us to repair the damage at the ballot box.†Equality California
pleaded for contributions to raise $500,000 toward “a massive
campaign to put an initiative on the ballot and win.â€
_________________________________________________________________
So basically it's not allowed to be called marriage. But teh ghey unions get all the rights and benefits of being married. Lets throw more money at this issue.
-----signature-----
Lady, people aren't chocolates. D'you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.
|
|
Link to this post
|
benjaFL
Posts:
2,774
Registered:
Feb 25, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,734
User ID: 774,017
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
California already had other laws that protected sexual orientation.
http://www.harriskaufman.com/sexual-orientation-issues.htm
website posted:
California law specifically protects heterosexuals, homosexuals (gays and lesbians), and bisexuals from sexual orientation discrimination. It further protects transsexuals and transgender persons from discrimination. Transsexuals and transgender persons are those who by their identity, appearance, and/or behavior appear to be of a different sex (meaning, male or female) or gender than at birth.
I don't think it's a great leap of logic to go from laws specifically protecting employment based on sexual orientation to laws protecting marriage based on sexual orientation. When you have other laws that specifically protect it, then it is obviously a special class on equal footing with race and gender. Not that it matters in this case, but it's also protected under the hate crimes law at a federal level.
Do the domestic partnerships also protect you from testifying against your partner in the court system? Is it equal in every way? Even if it is equal in every way, why would you want duplicate laws on your books? It only creates potential for additional loop holes as the language is different or laws are passed in the future for one and not the other.
Just call everything the state grants a civil union. Call what your church gives you, marriage. One law for everyone.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
GoForWand
Posts:
1,596
Registered:
Feb 20, '06
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,565
User ID: 1,119,963
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
Horundik posted:
So I'll start again and forget your sniping. Is there something about the above that you need explained further? Do you "get it" and just disagree? If you disagree, then what part and why? Do you just disagree with my point of view of judiciary fiat? Is that disagreement merely regarding this case or is it the point of view itself where you find a flaw?
I think it's obvious that I disagree with your position that the California Supreme Court overstepped it's authority when it ruled that a statutory ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. When laws created by voters and legislators systematically discriminate against a specific group, as to exlude them from what was previously determined by that same court to be "a basic civil right", it is the job of the court to uphold the constitution which treats (or used to) each citizen as equal.
I also disagree with your position that instead of the court striking down laws that create social injustice, the victims of such injustice should wait for a vote. Or "it would have been prudent to wait"...
There are people in this country that were alive when there were seperate drinking fountains for whites and "coloreds". Would you say the same to them in regards to Brown v. Board of Eductation that instead of ending Segregation in Public Schools in 1954, when it was against popular opinion in many states, that "it would have been prudent to wait"? Would you say that in every instance the popular vote is sufficient to deny a right from a specific and definable group?
Should the Majority always be allowed to deny by vote the rights of the Minority?
Finally, I disagree in your position that this discussion is not worthy of researching facts. I also disagree that answers have to be long winded, and full of filler and no facts, to support a staunchly held opinion however wrong it may be.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
Benja, in looking at the modifications to the Unruh Civil Rights Act that California made in 2005 (or maybe 2006, it is not very clear) which added "sexual orientation" to the list I am going to have to agree that the overturning of Proposition 22 was not a fiat ruling. Though the explicit intent in making that modification was for employment and housing concerns, I believe that is enough to consider this to be a settled law that can be used in reaching the conclusion that sexual orientation was a protected class from that point forward. So in 2008 when the California Supreme Court made their ruling they had what they needed to base their ruling on law. Others may have differing views on what a settled law means, but for me existence is enough.
I'm glad to have this tangent resolved, though I hate that I missed the occurrence of that modification since I was actually living there at the time.
As to the already existent domesticate partnerships in California, I'm not sure about your specific questions but the answers would be easy enough to find. I already mentioned that I did not think of them as an ideal solution (obviously I prefer mine much more). I think if the same-sex marriage advocates had pursued further modifications to the domesticate partnership in the legislature they would have come to the conclusion that a distinction should be made between civil marriage and religious marriage, but instead they took the focus off legislative action and sought a judiciary solution.
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
"I think it's obvious that I disagree with your position that the California Supreme Court overstepped it's authority when it ruled that a statutory ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. When laws created by voters and legislators systematically discriminate against a specific group, as to exlude them from what was previously determined by that same court to be 'a basic civil right', it is the job of the court to uphold the constitution which treats (or used to) each citizen as equal."
Since now that Benja has found the lynch-pin law on the books in California that made such a ruling possible without fiat decision-making, I would suppose that you can be happy now. However, I get the distinct impression that fiat rulings are okay in your mind and the end justifies the means as long as your concept of social justice wins.
"I also disagree with your position that instead of the court striking down laws that create social injustice, the victims of such injustice should wait for a vote. Or 'it would have been prudent to wait'..."
I would consider this confirmation of my previous sentence.
"There are people in this country that were alive when there were seperate drinking fountains for whites and 'coloreds'. Would you say the same to them in regards to Brown v. Board of Eductation that instead of ending Segregation in Public Schools in 1954, when it was against popular opinion in many states, that 'it would have been prudent to wait'? Would you say that in every instance the popular vote is sufficient to deny a right from a specific and definable group?"
If that ruling was not based on settled law, it would not have been prudent to create social policy from the judicial branch. Since there was existing federal laws from which that ruling could be rendered I do not see a conflict here.
"Should the Majority always be allowed to deny by vote the rights of the Minority?"
This is a tricky but interesting topic that we could discuss, but it would take a lot more than a quick retort in this message to cover. There is no thought-out answer that is short, but I could just say 'No, tyranny by the majority or the minority is not a good thing' and let you fill in whatever ideas that you think that answer means.
"Finally, I disagree in your position that this discussion is not worthy of researching facts. I also disagree that answers have to be long winded, and full of filler and no facts, to support a staunchly held opinion however wrong it may be."
Since those are not my positions, you must be disagreeing with someone else.
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
benjaFL
Posts:
2,774
Registered:
Feb 25, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,734
User ID: 774,017
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
You can now add Nevada to the list of states that passed laws through their legislature for domestic partnerships.
event:http://tinyurl.com/knner9
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
Yes, they seem to be going down the same path that California did in the '90's. Hopefully they will avoid the pitfalls that California has had to endure and simply reach the conclusion in short order that without a distinction between civil and religious marriage all of this will end up in the hands of the judiciary.
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
benjaFL
Posts:
2,774
Registered:
Feb 25, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,734
User ID: 774,017
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
|
Now we just need someone to challenge domestic partnership and marriage under separate but equal clause like they did in Brown V Board of Education.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Horundik
Posts:
2,239
Registered:
Jun 11, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,224
User ID: 687,494
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
|
Or just skip the judiciary entirely and simply do what is right in the legislature: remove the religious argument from the equation.
-----signature-----
-I liked it when things were simpler. Gravity wasn't known. Things just stuck to the Earth because they loved it.
-The day I can't do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun.
-There are two types of people in the world: those who need closure
|
|
Link to this post
|
Darwynnia
Title: Sugar Kibbi
Posts:
38,553
Registered:
Oct 13, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 36,556
User ID: 845,204
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
Horundik posted:
Or just skip the judiciary entirely and simply do what is right in the legislature: remove the religious argument from the equation.
QFT.
As long as a marriage must be recorded by the State to be valid, all citizens of that state should have access to it as it is a CIVIL contract.
-----signature-----
Cluttered Desks and Ideas...
Sisters Forever
Susan Lynne Hall
1/20/69-12/21/05
Rest in Peace
|
|
Link to this post
|
benjaFL
Posts:
2,774
Registered:
Feb 25, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,734
User ID: 774,017
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
|
I agree. Unfortunately, we are led by people who can't learn from prior mistakes. This is especially sad, since there are still many people alive today that endured the same prejudice during the civil rights movement.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Thugoneous
Title: Watching Caliente, BRB.
Posts:
6,060
Registered:
Nov 2, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 5,795
User ID: 734,292
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
You mean some prospective students not being admitted to schools even though they have a higher GPA and test scores then other prospects, but since they're skin is shaded wrong they are not a first priority.
-----signature-----
Lady, people aren't chocolates. D'you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.
|
|
Link to this post
|
benjaFL
Posts:
2,774
Registered:
Feb 25, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,734
User ID: 774,017
|
Subject:
US Politics
|
There's that and there's also prohibiting interracial marriage.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
|
|
| © 2012. All
Rights Reserved. |
|
|
|
|
