Deep 6 For Prop 8

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

There are plenty of non religious types on both sides of this fence.

Doesn't matter, in principle it is still tyranny of the masses. The many beating up on the few. But, I do see that the driving force behind it is part and parcel of the whole "Christian Nation" aspect of right wing propaganda. "There are sodomites among us and they have to be stopped. Vote for me and I will fight to enforce your values."

What if my happiness includes polygamy?

Pete

To my mind that would be your business. Have at it. As long as it's between consenting adults.

Pete, the whole thing in a nutshell, the way I see it, socially, is that the point is to keep us out of each others personal lives and off of each others backs. Economically, I believe there are times when we must act as a nation, and yes that means taxes. But socially, what you do with your life is none of my business. (Just don't mess with the kids!-----I'll have your ass for that.)

Dave

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

There are plenty of non religious types on both sides of this fence. What if my happiness includes polygamy?

Pete

Central to yesterday's decision was a finding by the judge that gay marriage didn't harm anybody (i.e., the majority (i.e., those in heterosexual marriages) are not harmed by conferring this right upon gays). This was even stipulated by the "experts" for the anti-gay marriage side. BTW, the winning arguments in this case were made, in part, by a conservative - Ted Olsen, of Bush vs. Gore fame. His argument is that the State has no business in favoring heterosexuals over gays with regard to marriage and based his argument upon the constitution (the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause).

With respect to polygamy, there can be strong arguments made as to the harm done by polygamy (to the multiple wives and their offspring). If you and others happen to feel differently, you may also bring suit in Federal court and see where it takes you.

[piece-itpete]

How exactly does harm or not harm have anything to do with Judicial authority? That is none of their business.

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

How exactly does harm or not harm have anything to do with Judicial authority? That is none of their business.

Pete

It has everything to do with their authority and it was the fundamental basis for the argument made by two of the nation's foremost constitutional lawyers on behalf on gay marriage (one liberal and one conservative). Civil suits are all about harm/no harm and nothing else.

[piece-itpete]

So that can overturn the clear will of the people? And you're ok with this?

Politics belongs in the Legislature.

Bless the courts. Democracy is now a joke, a scam. I don't see ANYTHING in the Constitution giving the court authority over the people because 'it doesn't cause any harm'. I see what the left thinks of the common man.

Pete

[finnbow]

So that can overturn the clear will of the people? And you're ok with this?

Yes, because the court ruled that the "will of the people" was unconstitutional. Let's just say that the people of Mississippi or Alabama chose to reinstitute slavery or revoke the right to vote for anybody other than the landed gentry. Would you be OK with that or do you think that a court ruling to contravene such a referendum would be appropriate?

Politics belongs in the Legislature.

Then why did the right-wing nut jobs in CA do their gay-bashing through public referendum? Because thier legislature and (Republican) Governor both supported gay marriage.

FYI, on September 2, 2005, the California Senate approved a gay marriage bill 21-15 and on September 6, the California State Assembly followed suit with a vote of 41-35, making California's legislature the first in the nation to approve a same-sex marriage bill without court pressure.

Bless the courts. Democracy is now a joke, a scam.

The court's action in this case followed the remedy prescribed under the constitution. Aren't you OK with that? The courts are about the only branch of government that is remotely functional any more.

[piece-itpete]

Really, prescribed under the Constitution. I see with each passing year that the Constitution seems to give the Courts more and more power, even though it has not been changed. Interesting.

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,... that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary--an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:331

"This member of the government... has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining, slyly, and without alarm, the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

The judges certainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions, because the laws of meum and tuum and of criminal action, forming the great mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department. When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough... The people themselves,... [with] their discretion [informed] by education, [are] the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278


The people, what a concept.

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

There are plenty of non religious types on both sides of this fence. What if my happiness includes polygamy?

Pete

There is nothing in the US Constitution about either same sex marriage or polygamy. There are, however, laws against both. If you think that laws against polygamy are a restriction of your constitutional rights then work, as the gay community has, for the repeal of those laws.

The California situation regarding Prop 8 was one in which an amendment to the state constitution was voted in by referendum on a simple majority vote. There was no legislative or judicial input in the process. The amendment wasn't drafted and then passed by the state legislature. There was no judicial vetting of the Amendment to see whether it would pass Constitutional muster. This is far different from the process at the Federal level where an amendment to the Constitution must be passed by a 2/3 majority of both houses and then by 3/4 of the states.

John

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Really, prescribed under the Constitution. I see with each passing year that the Constitution seems to give the Courts more and more power, even though it has not been changed. Interesting.

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,... that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary--an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:331

"This member of the government... has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining, slyly, and without alarm, the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

The judges certainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions, because the laws of meum and tuum and of criminal action, forming the great mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department. When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough... The people themselves,... [with] their discretion [informed] by education, [are] the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278

Pete

Lots of words, no relevance to the case in question.

BTW, the opposing side in this case also had very qualified counsel, but their argument was unpersuasive. Also, the judge was a Reagan appointee. This ain't liberalism run amok.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I don't see ANYTHING in the Constitution giving the court authority over the people because 'it doesn't cause any harm'.

The court didn't find Prop 8 unconstitutional because gay marriage causes no harm but because Prop 8 itself does cause harm in that it deprives gays and lesbians to equal protection under the Constitution.

I see what the left thinks of the common man.

We love the common man. We just hate America. I thought you knew that.

John