Wow.. Now I can Marry Him

[Guest Raidne]

I will also admit that this whole thing can seem like a fun little word game. This is because the law is not a science. But you know you're going the wrong way when the result would be absurd (e.g. the equal protection on the basis of gender argument is a bad one because it means laws against gay men could be more restrictive than those against lesbians - obviously, facially whack).

With the gay issue there has been a ton of back and forth on the issue. For instance, it used to be that we're not against being gay! We're just against gay sex! Be as gay as you want, as long as you don't have sex with other men!!! Ahahaha. Anyway, I hope this looks ridiculous on its face to everyone.

Now, it's oh, okay, we lost the sex thing. Fine, have sex, just don't get married so we can continue to castigate you publicly for having a such a promiscuous sex life!!! And keep you from adopting kids! Anyway, fine, fine, we're okay with the sex, it's not in our face, but don't get married.

The ingenious part, and I don't understand why they didn't argue it before, is to say that gay people can't get married, because marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman.

Where was this whole argument when the sex thing was going down? I mean, if it's not marriage unless it's between a man and a woman, how is it sex when it's not between a man and a woman? And if it's not sex, then it can't violate anyone sexual privacy to prevent it! Duh.

[Old Nan]

What's really curious is the suggestion that the "will of the people" should determine civil liberties of minorities.

What matter of law could not be framed as dealing with the "civil liberties of minorities?"

[Guest Raidne]

Wow, that's one of those questions like "what on earth is not green?" that opens so many possibilities that some kind of reference is needed. I'm going to go with bills pending before Congress:

(1) H.R.511 - To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to terminate certain easements held by the Secretary on land owned by the Village of Caseyville, Illinois, and to terminate associated contractual arrangements with the Village.

(2) H.R.6080 - Making emergency supplemental appropriations for border security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

(3) S.3762 - A bill to reinstate funds to the Federal Land Disposal Account.

(4) S.Res.617 - A resolution relative to the death of the Honorable Theodore "Ted" Fulton Stevens, former Senator for the State of Alaska.

(5) S.Res.617 - A resolution relative to the death of the Honorable Theodore "Ted" Fulton Stevens, former Senator for the State of Alaska.

Ah, hell, I'm just pasting the whole list, in order, so I'll stop there.

What you're really asking is "what is a minority" and we've talked about that plenty in terms of what is a protected class. Those characteristics have been enumerated by the Court, immutability and lacking in political power being two of the most important.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

What's really curious is the suggestion that the "will of the people" should determine civil liberties of minorities.

Why is that curious? The Constitution and its amendments only govern us because they was passed in accordance with the "will of the people". That included the 3/5 compromise, which is morally odious but unquestionably the law of the land. If the "will of the people" at the time of ratification is not in accordance with the "will of the people" today, then we always have the option of amending it again. Or passing legislation at the state or federal level that addresses whatever the concern is.

But having civil liberties that are defined under laws passed by a majority is a core principle of representative government.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Wow, that's one of those questions like "what on earth is not green?" that opens so many possibilities that some kind of reference is needed. I'm going to go with bills pending before Congress:

(1) H.R.511 - To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to terminate certain easements held by the Secretary on land owned by the Village of Caseyville, Illinois, and to terminate associated contractual arrangements with the Village.

(2) H.R.6080 - Making emergency supplemental appropriations for border security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

(3) S.3762 - A bill to reinstate funds to the Federal Land Disposal Account.

(4) S.Res.617 - A resolution relative to the death of the Honorable Theodore "Ted" Fulton Stevens, former Senator for the State of Alaska.

(5) S.Res.617 - A resolution relative to the death of the Honorable Theodore "Ted" Fulton Stevens, former Senator for the State of Alaska.

Ah, hell, I'm just pasting the whole list, in order, so I'll stop there.

For some reason, the Ted Stevens stuff cracked me up. Amazing what our elected representatives spend their time doing. Thanks for the chuckle.

[Guest Raidne]

Yes, what on earth would be more relevant than the intent of pre-14th Amendment Congressmen in interpreting the meaning and scope of the 14th Amendment.

Come on. Are you even trying? Or do you deny the entire jurisprudential history of the 14th Amendment?

Or, in other words, yes, yes, that already happened nearly 150 years ago. Can we accept that it's the law and get on with whether or not prohibiting gay marriage violates this law now?

ETA: No prob. I almost spit out my latte at reading "The Honorable" as a prefix to "Ted Stevens."

[Tempra]

Raidne,

You're about two weeks beyond me caring. All I will say is read Lawrence, Bowers, and other Supreme Court decisions. Judges give deference to legislative action ('the will of the people') in virtually all proceedings, from zoning issues to determinations of whether burdens on fundamental rights are constitutional.

I've given examples of how this plays out in the law and you (and others) have provided no law to refute my statements. Others can make of that what they will.

[The Progressive]

I've given examples of how this plays out in the law and you (and others) have provided no law to refute my statements. Others can make of that what they will.

What an utterly bizzare summary of how this thread unfold, with numerous people repeatedly brought up SCOTUS decisions in which "the will of the people" were sidelined in favor of ensuring the equal rights of minority groups.

[The Progressive]

I think the definition of marriage I'm using is one that is historically accurate in this country as of the date the 14th amendment was ratified, which is the only thing that matters.

The hell? That's like arguing that the parameter of "free speech" or "right to bear arm" or any other fundamental rights assured in the Constitution should only be limited to the historical definition as understood at the time of their particular ratification. This is so awfully stupid that I can't believe this poster is a lawyer.

[Tempra]

What an utterly bizzare summary of how this thread unfold, with numerous people repeatedly brought up SCOTUS decisions in which "the will of the people" were sidelined in favor of ensuring the equal rights of minority groups.

I said over half a dozen times that it is A FACTOR and is not definitive. (Re)read post 70. I told you this specifically.

[The Progressive]

That's true; yet such acknowledgment conclusively refute your bizzare assertion that "you (and others) have provided no law to refute my statements."

[Tempra]

That's true; yet such acknowledgment conclusively refute your bizzare assertion that "you (and others) have provided no law to refute my statements."

No, it doesn't. First, Loving doesn't refute anything I said. Second, I stated that it was only a factor and not definitive long before Loving was even mentioned.

[The Progressive]

Actually, DG first brought up Brown v. Board of Education as a refutation of the argument concerning the "will of the people".

You backtracked on that "will of the people" line quite a bit too, with the first mentioning of it suggesting a definitely overwhelming deference by SCOTUS, not a "mere factor":

Of course, Kennedy will be the deciding vote, but I can't imagine that he'd vote to overturn the will of the people of California (and the overwhelming majority of America)

[DanteGabriel]

No, it doesn't. First, Loving doesn't refute anything I said. Second, I stated that it was only a factor and not definitive long before Loving was even mentioned.

So your point is... Judges take into account the will of the people, except when they don't.

[Tempra]

So your point is... Judges take into account the will of the people, except when they don't.

My point was that I do not believe that Justice Kennedy will vote to overturn prop 8 because there is very strong support for the anti-gay marriage stance in America. Justice Kennedy has shown, in his prior rulings, that the will of the people is an important factor to him. I provided both primary and secondary evidence to support my position.

You (and others) called bullshit that judges EVER take into account the will of the people. You're wrong.

Since Pax happened to provide a link for me, here is my initial statement:

"As much as I'd like to see gay marriage legalized, I doubt this decision will stand. One of two things will likely happen. The Ninth Circuit will overturn the decision and SCOTUS will deny cert (the 4 liberal justices would never grant cert). Or the Ninth Circuit affirms the decision and SCOTUS grants to cert to overturn the decision. Of course, Kennedy will be the deciding vote, but I can't imagine that he'd vote to overturn the will of the people of California (and the overwhelming majority of America). This is not Lawrence."

[Tempra]

Actually, DG first brought up Brown v. Board of Education as a refutation of the argument concerning the "will of the people".

You backtracked on that "will of the people" line quite a bit too, with the first mentioning of it suggesting a definitely overwhelming deference by SCOTUS, not a "mere factor":

You just quoted from my very first statement in that thread. The very next post was a response by MinDonner. I responded in the very next post by saying that the will of the people does not trump the constitution. I would hope that you can deduce from that statement that the "will of the people" is not dispositive.

I never said that SCOTUS gives "overwhelming deference" to the will of the people. I said they give great deference and they do.

If you're trying to find an inconsistency, you haven't done a good job. However, I have consistently had to correct both you and DG on my prior statements.

[Guest Raidne]

Raidne,

You're about two weeks beyond me caring.

Oh well, damn, if I had known, I totally would have planned my week of vacation around your limited attention span.

All I will say is read Lawrence, Bowers, and other Supreme Court decisions. Judges give deference to legislative action ('the will of the people') in virtually all proceedings, from zoning issues to determinations of whether burdens on fundamental rights are constitutional.

I responded specifically to this argument, vis a vis Lawrence, in my last post on the previous page. Bowers is no longer good precedent, as the Court declared that it was wrongly decided and overturned it in Lawrence, as I hope you know. To summarize, you are confusing an interpretive issue, where the Court tries to get at what a word - here "liberty" - means, turning to its popular usage and common understanding in the culture, with a substantive argument about the "will of the people," which is not at all present in the Court's decision in Lawrence.

So stop telling me I'm not responding to this argument when I could not have possibly responded to it any more specifically and address it already, you know? Is this some weird strategic Cuban missile crisis-inspired back down whilst supposedly saving face tactic?

[alguien]

Thought this linked graphic might bring a little chuckle to those participating in the thread:

What Your Opposition to Gay Marriage Means

[Guest Raidne]

Ha! They really saved the best for last there.

[The Progressive]

You just quoted from my very first statement in that thread. The very next post was a response by MinDonner. I responded in the very next post by saying that the will of the people does not trump the constitution. I would hope that you can deduce from that statement that the "will of the people" is not dispositive.

I never said that SCOTUS gives "overwhelming deference" to the will of the people. I said they give great deference and they do.

If you're trying to find an inconsistency, you haven't done a good job. However, I have consistently had to correct both you and DG on my prior statements.

Lol, I note that you have also consistently avoid responding to raidne's posts as well.