![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:17:01 GMT, Ron Lee wrote:
Marriage is between a man and woman. says who? and who says that it has to stay this way? #m -- Enemy Combatant http://itsnotallbad.com/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
... Gary Drescher wrote: "Jessica Taylor" wrote in message ... As lawful as putting a supreme court justice in the Court when she already declared what she would do as a quid-pro-quo. Would you care to explain what you're referring to? A justice is a judge. In 1999, Margaret Marshall was a Keynote speaker for a Gay / Lesbian fundraiser. The Judicial Conduct code for Massachusetts states that judges may not participate in fundraisers. Marshall spoke at an annual dinner (for which there was an admission fee) of the Mass. Lesbian and Gay Barr Association. Does that make it an impermissible 'fundraiser' in the sense of the state Code of Judicial Conduct? What is the relevant section of the Code, and what are the precedents as to its application to giving speeches at bar association meetings (or other civic gatherings)? As far as I'm aware, such speeches are routine and proper. She also exclaimed her beliefs as being pro gay marriage. Really? What did she supposedly say? In the only quote I find, Marshall merely stated generally (with no mention of marriage) that gays and lesbians should enjoy equality before the law in accordance with the "civil liberties of all people". Is *that* a disqualifying point of view for a judge? Is someone eligible to be a judge only if she *has no opinion* as to whether gays (or blacks or Jews) should be equal before the law? For similar reasons, it would be gravely harmful to hold a referendum that would require Jews to wear yellow stars, or that would prohibit interracial couples from marrying. It is gravely harmful to expose people to the threat of such a repeal of basic rights, even if the threat can be defeated. Any such referendum should be opposed at *every procedural step* by lawful political and parliamentary means; the opposition should not wait for the final vote. No it would not be harmful. It would get laughed off the stage and life would go on. If you also believe a yellow-star referendum would be harmless (provided it were defeated), then you are at least being consistent, and our disagreement is indeed about a procedural question rather than about same-sex marriage pe se. To me, saying there's no harm caused by such a referendum is like saying there's no harm caused by someone pointing a gun at a bystander's face and pulling the trigger, as long as it turns out that the gun wasn't loaded (in fact, the law recognizes that such an act still constitutes a serious assault). I'm curious...If it is such a basic right, then how come other states do not recognize said "right?" How come most other states didn't recognize the right of interracial couples to marry a hundred years ago? How come no country in the world recognized the right of women to vote until the latter 1800s? Ancient prejudices can persist for a long time, but previous nonrecognition of basic rights does not undermine moral entitlement to those rights. I'm also curious if it is such a basic right, how come it is more special than the constitutional process? Following your logic, the 13th amendment (and the first and all of them really) were gravely harmful to make. Huh? What I said was harmful is a referendum (even if it doesn't pass) that singles out a minority group for a repeal of a basic right under the constitution. If you're "following my logic", how do you conclude that the 13th amendment or the Bill of Rights meets that criterion? Oh, so if there is a newspaper debate, then it is not necessary to have a debate in the forums of democracy that the constitution have laid for this purpose. As I pointed out, there has also been extensive debate in the state legislature. Various amendments to abolish same-sex marriage were debated and defeated. The matter has been settled. If there was so much debate in the legislature, and the legislature was so favorable to gay marriage, then why on earth did it take a Court to create this "right?" At the time of the court ruling, a majority of the legislature did not favor gay marriage. It is now years later; several anti-gay-marriage legislators were ousted in subsequent elections, and others have been persuaded to change their minds. (Since you youself acknowledge that there's no reason not to have equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, you shouldn't be surprised that more voters and legislators have come to be convinced of that view.) And by the way, courts and legislatures *recognize* rights (or not); they don't "create" rights, at least in the moral sense. Rights are inherent, and governments and citizens have a moral obligation to craft their laws accordingly. (Hence, for example, slavery was wrong even when it was legal.) Do you also disagree with the state and federal court rulings supporting interracial-marriage rights in Perez v. Sharp or Loving v. Virgina? Or should the courts have permitted states to prohibit interracial marriage (and sentence interracial couples to jail) until a majority of their citizens were ready to respect equal rights? Also, please explain why the Lesbian member of the supreme court voted AGAINST the gay marriage enactment, since you say this is a basic "right?" The dissenting opinions are clearly explained in the decision itself. (How is a dissenter's sexual orientation relevant?) Margaret Marshall, an African-American even admitted that she derived her opinion on South African law. Silly me, I thought a Massachusetts supreme court would base its opinions on Massachusetts law, or even US law. Uh, what "admission" are you referring to? The majority decision in Goodridge was explicitly grounded in the state constitution, and in an extensive body of case law in Massachusetts and the US. Opponents of equal marriage rights in Massachusetts have an unfettered right to express their opinion, which has in fact been widely heard, and has been rejected by the majority of the public here and by all three branches of state government. I'm sorry, but could you name a date when it was rejected by the executive branch? Could you name a date when it was rejected by the legislative branch? The legislature did not vote to favor gay marriage, they voted to abort a process (which as you say would have almost certainly legitimized gay marriage in law). The legislature voted to reject various anti-gay-marriage measures, and voted to adjourn rather than ratify an anti-gay-marriage amendment referendum. And the governor-elect has declared his support for gay marriage rights as well. (If you need me to google it for you I can provide citations.) Getting to hold a binding referendum to amend the state constitution to repeal a crucial facet of legal equality for a specified minority is not the same as "having your voice heard". Your conflation of the two is a wild and desperate misrepresentation. No mis-representation at all, it is a depiction of what actually happened, So everyone who would like to repeal others' civil rights, but does not get to hold a binding referendum on the question, has thereby been silenced (rather than just defeated)? --Gary |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Gary Drescher wrote: "Jessica Taylor" wrote in message ... Gary Drescher wrote: "Jessica Taylor" wrote in message ... As lawful as putting a supreme court justice in the Court when she already declared what she would do as a quid-pro-quo. Would you care to explain what you're referring to? A justice is a judge. In 1999, Margaret Marshall was a Keynote speaker for a Gay / Lesbian fundraiser. The Judicial Conduct code for Massachusetts states that judges may not participate in fundraisers. Marshall spoke at an annual dinner (for which there was an admission fee) of the Mass. Lesbian and Gay Barr Association. Does that make it an impermissible 'fundraiser' in the sense of the state Code of Judicial Conduct? Since the organization received income from the $60.00/plate event, yes. If Dick Cheney speaks at a dinner to raise income, say also for $60.00 per plate, would that not be a "fundraiser?" even if someone tries claiming otherwise after the fact? What is the relevant section of the Code, and what are the precedents as to its application to giving speeches at bar association meetings (or other civic gatherings)? SJC Court Rule 3:09 - Canon 4 (C) As far as I'm aware, such speeches are routine and proper. Then I invite you to make yourself aware of the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct. She also exclaimed her beliefs as being pro gay marriage. Really? What did she supposedly say? In the only quote I find, Marshall merely stated generally (with no mention of marriage) that gays and lesbians should enjoy equality before the law in accordance with the "civil liberties of all people". In 1999, Ms Marshall had made direct remarks about praising legislation on an issue and favoring "jurisprudence" on the issue. She later wrote an opinion on the same issue. Is *that* a disqualifying point of view for a judge? Is someone eligible to be a judge only if she *has no opinion* as to whether gays (or blacks or Jews) should be equal before the law? It is not proper for judges to hear cases on which they have announced personal biases in the issue. Massachusetts codifies this in the judicial conduct rules, but apparently there is no need to bother with such formalities. Think about it like this, if a case was before a supreme court involving oil drilling near the coast of California (or Florida, North Carolina, whatever), would it be proper for a Justice to hear and deliver an opinion on the case after previously expressing his desire to build more coastal oil drilling? For similar reasons, it would be gravely harmful to hold a referendum that would require Jews to wear yellow stars, or that would prohibit interracial couples from marrying. It is gravely harmful to expose people to the threat of such a repeal of basic rights, even if the threat can be defeated. Any such referendum should be opposed at *every procedural step* by lawful political and parliamentary means; the opposition should not wait for the final vote. No it would not be harmful. It would get laughed off the stage and life would go on. If you also believe a yellow-star referendum would be harmless (provided it were defeated), then you are at least being consistent, and our disagreement is indeed about a procedural question rather than about same-sex marriage pe se. Of course it is, it always was. To me, saying there's no harm caused by such a referendum is like saying there's no harm caused by someone pointing a gun at a bystander's face and pulling the trigger, as long as it turns out that the gun wasn't loaded (in fact, the law recognizes that such an act still constitutes a serious assault). A public debate is *NOT* an assault! It is not battery, it is not pointing a weapon at anyone's face or body. Debates have always been absolutely essential to the institution of democracy. If we squelch debates by claiming that they are too harmful to have, then we start killing off democracy. I'm curious...If it is such a basic right, then how come other states do not recognize said "right?" How come most other states didn't recognize the right of interracial couples to marry a hundred years ago? How come no country in the world recognized the right of women to vote until the latter 1800s? Ancient prejudices can persist for a long time, but previous nonrecognition of basic rights does not undermine moral entitlement to those rights. That's fine. If such a right does indeed exist, than there are appropriate facilities to deal with that. I'm also curious if it is such a basic right, how come it is more special than the constitutional process? Following your logic, the 13th amendment (and the first and all of them really) were gravely harmful to make. Huh? What I said was harmful is a referendum (even if it doesn't pass) that singles out a minority group for a repeal of a basic right under the constitution. If you're "following my logic", how do you conclude that the 13th amendment or the Bill of Rights meets that criterion? Passing the 13th amendment followed the appropriate documented procedure to do so. Passing a state constitution amendment would also follow the appropriate procedure to do so. Oh, so if there is a newspaper debate, then it is not necessary to have a debate in the forums of democracy that the constitution have laid for this purpose. As I pointed out, there has also been extensive debate in the state legislature. Various amendments to abolish same-sex marriage were debated and defeated. The matter has been settled. I don't recall anything being 'settled.' If there was so much debate in the legislature, and the legislature was so favorable to gay marriage, then why on earth did it take a Court to create this "right?" At the time of the court ruling, a majority of the legislature did not favor gay marriage. It is now years later; several anti-gay-marriage legislators were ousted in subsequent elections, and others have been persuaded to change their minds. (Since you youself acknowledge that there's no reason not to have equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, you shouldn't be surprised that more voters and legislators have come to be convinced of that view.) If that's true, it's fine. But that doesn't justify shutting down a constitutional process after people did everything necessary to have that process followed. And by the way, courts and legislatures *recognize* rights (or not); they don't "create" rights, at least in the moral sense. Rights are inherent, and governments and citizens have a moral obligation to craft their laws accordingly. (Hence, for example, slavery was wrong even when it was legal.) Then by your definition, there is a "right" to marry same sex in every state in the country, not just Massachusetts, and indeed any country in the world. Do you also disagree with the state and federal court rulings supporting interracial-marriage rights in Perez v. Sharp or Loving v. Virgina? Or should the courts have permitted states to prohibit interracial marriage (and sentence interracial couples to jail) until a majority of their citizens were ready to respect equal rights? Those laws were written out of prejudice, when blacks were not able to vote, could not have certain jobs, could not use certain schools, certain facilities, and indeed even certain restrooms. Those indeed were civil rights. And today many blacks reject that latching on of their civil rights struggle. Curiously, at least one high school in the country, in New York City, has decided to be exclusively for gay students. Should straight high school students not enjoy the same right to go there? By what measure do they determine if someone is gay or straight? If a prospective employer does not hire someone with that school on the résumé, is that a per-se violation of civil rights? Equal rights? People who describe themselves as gay have a higher than average income and have a political power much greater than their their population numbers, compared to other people. Also, please explain why the Lesbian member of the supreme court voted AGAINST the gay marriage enactment, since you say this is a basic "right?" The dissenting opinions are clearly explained in the decision itself. (How is a dissenter's sexual orientation relevant?) When people who do not agree with Goodridge vs. Board-o-Health are ridiculed as merely "bigots" and -phobes, it certainly is. Margaret Marshall, an African-American even admitted that she derived her opinion on South African law. Silly me, I thought a Massachusetts supreme court would base its opinions on Massachusetts law, or even US law. Uh, what "admission" are you referring to? The majority decision in Goodridge was explicitly grounded in the state constitution, and in an extensive body of case law in Massachusetts and the US. This occurred after the opinion was written. There are no mention of it in the decision, of course. Opponents of equal marriage rights in Massachusetts have an unfettered right to express their opinion, which has in fact been widely heard, and has been rejected by the majority of the public here and by all three branches of state government. I'm sorry, but could you name a date when it was rejected by the executive branch? Could you name a date when it was rejected by the legislative branch? The legislature did not vote to favor gay marriage, they voted to abort a process (which as you say would have almost certainly legitimized gay marriage in law). The legislature voted to reject various anti-gay-marriage measures, and voted to adjourn rather than ratify an anti-gay-marriage amendment referendum. And the governor-elect has declared his support for gay marriage rights as well. (If you need me to google it for you I can provide citations.) But halting a constitutional process is NOT support for gay marriage! There would be ample time for each legislator to vote support/no support of gay marriage if the process was followed. Getting to hold a binding referendum to amend the state constitution to repeal a crucial facet of legal equality for a specified minority is not the same as "having your voice heard". Your conflation of the two is a wild and desperate misrepresentation. No mis-representation at all, it is a depiction of what actually happened, So everyone who would like to repeal others' civil rights, What "civil right" was trying to be being repealed in 2002 ? but does not get to hold a binding referendum on the question, has thereby been silenced (rather than just defeated)? There is no defeat when there is no process. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
... In 1999, Ms Marshall had made direct remarks about praising legislation on an issue and favoring "jurisprudence" on the issue. She later wrote an opinion on the same issue. Remarks about gay marriage? Do you have a citation, please? Is *that* a disqualifying point of view for a judge? Is someone eligible to be a judge only if she *has no opinion* as to whether gays (or blacks or Jews) should be equal before the law? It is not proper for judges to hear cases on which they have announced personal biases in the issue. Does a simple public statement that gays (or blacks or Jews) should be treated equally before the law automatically disqualify a judge from hearing civil rights cases regarding the group in question, in your opinion? How come most other states didn't recognize the right of interracial couples to marry a hundred years ago? How come no country in the world recognized the right of women to vote until the latter 1800s? Ancient prejudices can persist for a long time, but previous nonrecognition of basic rights does not undermine moral entitlement to those rights. That's fine. If such a right does indeed exist, than there are appropriate facilities to deal with that. There are indeed, including the judicial overturning of laws that unconstitutionally trample individual rights. I'm also curious if it is such a basic right, how come it is more special than the constitutional process? Following your logic, the 13th amendment (and the first and all of them really) were gravely harmful to make. Huh? What I said was harmful is a referendum (even if it doesn't pass) that singles out a minority group for a repeal of a basic right under the constitution. If you're "following my logic", how do you conclude that the 13th amendment or the Bill of Rights meets that criterion? Passing the 13th amendment followed the appropriate documented procedure to do so. Passing a state constitution amendment would also follow the appropriate procedure to do so. You're exhibiting a most peculiar form of reasoning here. I said that event A is harmful because it has property X. You're replying that if that were true, then it would somehow follow that event B is also harmful (even though B does not have property X) because A and B share some other property Y. (A=anti-gay-marriage referendum; B=13th amendment; X=referendum to repeal basic constitutional right of a minority group; Y=amendment enacted according to prescribed procedure) If there was so much debate in the legislature, and the legislature was so favorable to gay marriage, then why on earth did it take a Court to create this "right?" At the time of the court ruling, a majority of the legislature did not favor gay marriage. It is now years later; several anti-gay-marriage legislators were ousted in subsequent elections, and others have been persuaded to change their minds. (Since you youself acknowledge that there's no reason not to have equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, you shouldn't be surprised that more voters and legislators have come to be convinced of that view.) If that's true, it's fine. But that doesn't justify shutting down a constitutional process after people did everything necessary to have that process followed. The "shutting down" was itself accomplished by a lawful, constitutional process (namely, a majority vote of the legislature to adjourn). And by the way, courts and legislatures *recognize* rights (or not); they don't "create" rights, at least in the moral sense. Rights are inherent, and governments and citizens have a moral obligation to craft their laws accordingly. (Hence, for example, slavery was wrong even when it was legal.) Then by your definition, there is a "right" to marry same sex in every state in the country, not just Massachusetts, and indeed any country in the world. In the moral sense, absolutely (just as there is a moral right for interracial or interfaith couples to marry, or for women to vote or drive cars, even if local laws abrogate those rights). Do you also disagree with the state and federal court rulings supporting interracial-marriage rights in Perez v. Sharp or Loving v. Virgina? Or should the courts have permitted states to prohibit interracial marriage (and sentence interracial couples to jail) until a majority of their citizens were ready to respect equal rights? Those laws were written out of prejudice, when blacks were not able to vote, could not have certain jobs, could not use certain schools, certain facilities, and indeed even certain restrooms. Those indeed were civil rights. So in the absence of those injustices, you would not have considered it appropriate for the courts to overturn laws that prohibited (or imposed jail sentences for) interracial marriages? Equal rights? People who describe themselves as gay have a higher than average income and have a political power much greater than their their population numbers, compared to other people. Huh? Jews, on average, have higher than average income and education too. Does that mean that a constitutional amendment to prevent Jews from marrying (or otherwise curtailing Jews' civil rights) shouldn't be construed as a serious violation of equal rights? Curiously, at least one high school in the country, in New York City, has decided to be exclusively for gay students. Should straight high school students not enjoy the same right to go there? No, your representation is wildly false. The Harvey Milk School in NYC was established to provide an environment that is safe for gay students (shamefully, not all public schools have that property). But there is absolutely no requirement to be gay in order to attend the school. By what measure do they determine if someone is gay or straight? They have no such measure because they make no such determination because they have no such requirement. You're just making that up (or passing along someone else's fabrication). Margaret Marshall, an African-American even admitted that she derived her opinion on South African law. Silly me, I thought a Massachusetts supreme court would base its opinions on Massachusetts law, or even US law. Uh, what "admission" are you referring to? The majority decision in Goodridge was explicitly grounded in the state constitution, and in an extensive body of case law in Massachusetts and the US. This occurred after the opinion was written. There are no mention of it in the decision, of course. Where is the alleged remark documented, please? Also, please explain why the Lesbian member of the supreme court voted AGAINST the gay marriage enactment, since you say this is a basic "right?" The dissenting opinions are clearly explained in the decision itself. (How is a dissenter's sexual orientation relevant?) When people who do not agree with Goodridge vs. Board-o-Health are ridiculed as merely "bigots" and -phobes, it certainly is. Your question just above clearly asserts some connection between the dissenter's sexual orientation and the legitimacy of the right that I allege. But now you're backpedaling, claiming you were just rebutting someone else's accusation of bigotry in some other conversation (even though I myself made no such accusation about you). Since the organization received income from the $60.00/plate event, yes. If Dick Cheney speaks at a dinner to raise income, say also for $60.00 per plate, would that not be a "fundraiser?" even if someone tries claiming otherwise after the fact? The question is whether an annual bar association dinner (that incidentally charges an admission fee) counts as a "fundraiser" for purposes of the Code of Judicial Conduct, according to previously established precedent. To me, saying there's no harm caused by such a referendum is like saying there's no harm caused by someone pointing a gun at a bystander's face and pulling the trigger, as long as it turns out that the gun wasn't loaded (in fact, the law recognizes that such an act still constitutes a serious assault). A public debate is *NOT* an assault! It is not battery, it is not pointing a weapon at anyone's face or body. Debates have always been absolutely essential to the institution of democracy. If we squelch debates by claiming that they are too harmful to have, then we start killing off democracy. First, we're talking about a binding referendum, not a debate. Nothing prevents debate from continuing. Second, you're misconstruing my analogy. Of course the referendum is not an assault in the legal sense, and of course attempts to hold the referendum should not be subject to any sort of legal penalty. My point is simply that in both cases, an attempt to injure others (whether physically or by a repeal of civil rights) can be harmful in and of itself (contrary to your claim), even if the attempted injury is not accomplished. But halting a constitutional process is NOT support for gay marriage! There would be ample time for each legislator to vote support/no support of gay marriage if the process was followed. In the absence of an adjournment, only 25% of the legislature would need to vote for the referendum in order to put it on the ballot. The majority of the legislature voted instead to adjourn. Whether or not you believe in the legitimacy of that maneuver, the vote was clearly a proxy for the question of gay marriage rights: there'd be no reason to vote for adjournment except to protect those rights. So the vote clearly shows that a majority of the legislature supports gay marriage rights. --Gary |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I think old planes should be thrown away !!! | Tristan Beeline | Restoration | 6 | January 20th 06 04:05 AM |
Rocks Thrown at Border Patrol Chopper | [email protected] | Piloting | 101 | September 1st 05 12:10 PM |