Thread Options 
|
#629708 - 10/31/06 02:38 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,994
|
Quote:
Quote:
Nice spin, but you know you were not questioning ability, but rather saying I was attempting to obfuscate your point by mocking Bush.
No, I was referring to your post in which you made the non-original point that affording the same rights to all citizens is important. Since I never said otherwise, it was obvious to me that you weren't able to comprehend my posts. But, as Bob Dole would say, whatever.
Quote:
Lying is really beneath you. I'm not saying I haven't seen you do it, just that it is beneath you.
You're a real sweetheart. Enjoy your day.
Gee, insulting my intelligence ... again. You need some new material. That's the only comeback you have to anyone on this forum that disagrees with you. I had a professor once who said that only people who doubt their own abilities insult an other's intelligence.
_________________________
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629709 - 10/31/06 03:51 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
|
Quote:
I had a professor once who said that only people who doubt their own abilities insult an other's intelligence.
he was a complete moron though.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629710 - 10/31/06 02:43 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Gee, insulting my intelligence ... again.
Questioning it, not insulting it. But, not questioning your integrity.
Quote:
You need some new material. That's the only comeback you have to anyone on this forum that disagrees with you.
I'll take that under advisement. Interestingly, I've never questioned Straw's intelligence.
Quote:
I had a professor once who said that only people who doubt their own abilities insult an other's intelligence.
I bet I can guess what field of study that professor was in!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629712 - 10/31/06 02:48 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Crap, now I owe myself $5.
Ron, LOL.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629714 - 10/31/06 03:03 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Quote:
Ok, you are quoting that separate is inherently unequal, but the court could go along with separate but truly euqal, and now you are saying that separate but equal is impossible.
I have seen circular logic, but never triangular logic. Congrats on your accomplishment 
The court never said that separate was unacceptable in and of itself. It said that because separate could never be equal, it violated the 14th amendment. This is what the court said - argue with them, not me.
Quote:
My original point was you agreed that Brown was dealing with a constitutional issue, but the NJ court was not and they are legislating from the bench.
I again say if your premise is they are legislating from the bench here, they were legislating from the bench in Brown. Judicial review either is legitimate or it is not.
You can argue that they are incorrect in applying constitutional protection in this case, but it is no more legislating than Brown was.
Straw, the difference is that there was a valid legal basis for Brown. The Constitution's demands regarding equal treatment of individuals of different race were not being met by segregated schooling. Under current NJ law, any one man can marry any one woman. There is no difference in how any individuals are being treated under that law.
You are going to have to explain the distinction you are drawing in the bolded section. Separate could never be equal, but they never said separate was unacceptable. Do you need to see those exact words in the opinion, or can you see how stating separate could never be equal meant that separate was Constituionally unacceptable?
Yes the Court decided the Constitution's requirements were not being met, however, they decided that seperate could not mean equal. Where did they get that from? The Constitution makes no mention of that and there was no deferrence to the legislatures that said separate was equal. Wasn't that legislating from the bench?
Your first line tells me you the light is coming on. You argue that Brown had a legal basis; you argue that the NJ case does not infringe on equal protection rights. Constitutional arguments, not sound bytes from the fringes.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629715 - 10/31/06 03:20 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Straw, as clever as we both can be, let's not condescend. I don't know why we are continuing to spar over this. You are omitting "in and of itself" - that is a technical point, and one that matters to no one other than you and me. It is completely hypothetical, and it is a hypothetical that you proposed: Quote:
So, if states had created a separate but truly equal system, that would have been ok?
Based on the language in the court's opinion, I say that there is nothing that indicates otherwise. It is completely moot, however, since everyone acknowledges that it is impossible.
The reason the argument started, in the first place, was because you wanted to accuse me of being vigilant against judicial activism when I disagreed with the outcome, and accepting of it when I agreed. I can't say enough how far that is from the truth - I have given examples on multiple occassions of hypothetical activist decisions that I would not support (finding that abortion is unconstitutional because it violates the right to life, for example), even thought the outcome might be something I agreed with. I don't know what caused you to take this tack with me, but I would appreciate it if you would give my intellectual honesty a little more credit.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629716 - 10/31/06 03:22 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Good to see that the BOL corollary to Godwin's law still holds up.....
I thought the BOL corollary to Godwin's law was that AML automatically lost any debate when he pretends to ignore the poster(s) that proves him wrong on any given point.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629717 - 10/31/06 03:39 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,350
The he11 of suburbia
|
Quote:
I have given examples on multiple occassions of hypothetical activist decisions that I would not support (finding that abortion is unconstitutional because it violates the right to life, for example), even thought the outcome might be something I agreed with.
Forgive me that I don't recall the multiple occasions you speak of, but your giving this example of an "activist" decision where you agree with the outcome has me confused as to how you define "activist." How would the example you give cross the line from constitutional interpretation to activism?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629718 - 10/31/06 03:54 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
I forgive you.
The reason I would consider that an activist decision is because there is no relevant language in the Constitution that intends to grant that right to a fetus. Now, personally, I would love for that right to be afforded (just as, I'm sure, there are homosexual activists who would love for a right to same-sex marriage to be afforded). But, the only proper way for that to occur would be through an amendment. I think the more practical solution is to overturn the clearly activist Roe decision and return the issue to the states, where it belongs under our Constitution as it is written.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629720 - 10/31/06 04:18 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Straw, as clever as we both can be, let's not condescend.
I don't know why we are continuing to spar over this. You are omitting "in and of itself" - that is a technical point, and one that matters to no one other than you and me. It is completely hypothetical, and it is a hypothetical that you proposed:
Quote:
So, if states had created a separate but truly equal system, that would have been ok?
Based on the language in the court's opinion, I say that there is nothing that indicates otherwise. It is completely moot, however, since everyone acknowledges that it is impossible.
The reason the argument started, in the first place, was because you wanted to accuse me of being vigilant against judicial activism when I disagreed with the outcome, and accepting of it when I agreed. I can't say enough how far that is from the truth - I have given examples on multiple occassions of hypothetical activist decisions that I would not support (finding that abortion is unconstitutional because it violates the right to life, for example), even thought the outcome might be something I agreed with. I don't know what caused you to take this tack with me, but I would appreciate it if you would give my intellectual honesty a little more credit.
I am trying to demonstrate that judicial activism and judicial legislating are sound bytes being bandied about all too easily.
You are too smart to succumb to such simple thinking. I was trying to demonstrate how one could, and some did, accuse the Brown decision as overreaching. Over time, that decision has come to seem mainstream where even you do not challenge the premise.
If we simply mock decisions as judicial activism, without attacking them logically, the argument is lost before it begins.
You were making a good argument, then digressed into attacking judicial activism. You don't need to go there on this issue, as the equal protection argument stands on its own.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629721 - 10/31/06 04:31 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
So because "fetus" and "same-sex" are not explicitly referred to in the constitution the court would be activist in ruling on the application of rights to these entities/statuses? Sounds like you think that the Supreme Court should not have even heard the Roe v. Wade case. Is that true?
What was the constitutional issue in Roe v Wade? The Court decided the law violated a right to privacy. Please scan the Constitution and find where the right to privcay is enunciated.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629722 - 10/31/06 04:36 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Gold Star
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 382
|
Quote:
Under current NJ law, any one man can marry any one woman. There is no difference in how any individuals are being treated under that law.
You do realize that this same argument was made in the debate on the legality of mixed-race marriages, right? That anyone could marry a person of the same race, so no one was being treated unequally? That was rejected in the 50's by the US Supreme Court just as it was in the recent case by the NJ Supreme Court in the same-sex context.
Part of it appears to depend on whether you think of unequal application of the law as being defined by groups or individuals. At the group level you can argue (as you do) that the sexes are being treated the same, just as the races were under the anti-miscegenation laws. But in both cases at the individual level, people can't marry the person they love because of their race or gender.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629723 - 10/31/06 04:44 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Gold Star
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 382
|
Quote:
Please scan the Constitution and find where the right to privcay is enunciated.
Please scan the Ninth Amendment and find that the fact that rights are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution does not mean that they are not possessed by the people:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629724 - 10/31/06 04:47 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,281
|
But NRA, the logical conclusion of that argument is to permit polygamy and (subject to bio-issues previously discussed) intra-family marriage. Any restriction on marriage can, at the individual level, prevent people from marrying the person they love.
Not only that, it goes back to the question of what a "marriage" is. If "marriage" is a union between a man (one man) and a woman (one woman), then same sex couples are prevented by definition from marrying the person they love. So why is it such a big deal to change the definition of marriage instead of simply giving them something else (civil union) that fits the needs?
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629725 - 10/31/06 04:50 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,281
|
Quote:
Quote:
Please scan the Constitution and find where the right to privcay is enunciated.
Please scan the Ninth Amendment and find that the fact that rights are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution does not mean that they are not possessed by the people:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Okay, there are rights that are retained by the people even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment simply says that the Constitution doesn't alter or reduce those rights. But it doesn't turn them into constitutionally protected rights. Those rights are a matter of state law, not constitutional law. So you can't say (not from a plain reading of the text, anyway) that the Ninth Amendment is the ultimate source of a right of privacy.
P.S. We have discussed this issue before, and you appeared to agree that the Ninth Amendment is not a direct source of rights. I believe it was during that discussion that you adopted the "non-Ron anon" moniker.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629726 - 10/31/06 04:53 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Quote:
Please scan the Constitution and find where the right to privcay is enunciated.
Please scan the Ninth Amendment and find that the fact that rights are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution does not mean that they are not possessed by the people:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Yes, at the State level; that amendment was added to make it clear that the federal government was one of enumerated powers and any powers not stated in the constitution remained with the states.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629727 - 10/31/06 05:00 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Gold Star
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 382
|
Quote:
But NRA, the logical conclusion of that argument is to permit polygamy and (subject to bio-issues previously discussed) intra-family marriage. Any restriction on marriage can, at the individual level, prevent people from marrying the person they love.
Not only that, it goes back to the question of what a "marriage" is. If "marriage" is a union between a man (one man) and a woman (one woman), then same sex couples are prevented by definition from marrying the person they love. So why is it such a big deal to change the definition of marriage instead of simply giving them something else (civil union) that fits the needs?
The decisions in both cases also involved a finding that the state had no rational interest in preventing marriages purely on the basis of race or gender. The state does, however, have a compelling interest in protecting families and their legal rights in society in preventing polygamy and incest.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629728 - 10/31/06 05:01 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,281
|
Incest, I can buy. What's the compelling interest in preventing polygamy?
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629729 - 10/31/06 06:12 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
|
Quote:
Yes, at the State level; that amendment was added to make it clear that the federal government was one of enumerated powers and any powers not stated in the constitution remained with the states.
so wouldn't that make the NJ Sup Ct decision pretty much Scalia-proof; they've got it covered from multiple angles.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629730 - 10/31/06 06:18 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
|
Quote:
The state does, however, have a compelling interest in protecting families and their legal rights in society in preventing polygamy and incest.
i think it would be helpful to explain the dynamic between the rights of the individuals vis-a-vis the right of the state in protecting the family. the argument from many here is that the family is damaged by same-sex, bestiality and incest.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629731 - 10/31/06 05:10 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Gold Star
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 382
|
Quote:
So you can't say (not from a plain reading of the text, anyway) that the Ninth Amendment is the ultimate source of a right of privacy.
And I didn't say that it was "the source". I was responding to a post that implied that the failure to specifically enumerate a right to privacy meant that somehow it didn't exist.
The right to privacy was enunciated in Griswold v. Connecticut and was ruled to include decisions on abortion in Roe. The Ninth Amendment was not the "source" of these decisions, it just knocked down the argument that the failure to enumerate a right to privacy in the Constitution meant that the Court couldn't find that the people had that right.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629732 - 10/31/06 05:15 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Gold Star
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 382
|
Quote:
Incest, I can buy. What's the compelling interest in preventing polygamy?
Confusion of inheritance rights, child custody, spousal support, spousal rights to legal benefits like Social Security, just to name a few. The system deals with the rights of one spouse at a time, the same for everyone.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index