About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props

You nailed it on the head.And yes, there are people over here who claim judicial activism over a lot of things. I think it largely stems from a relatively silly battle over our constitution. There are two camps: enforce what the constitution meant 200 years ago, or use it as a living document (simplified both). The former is like our current SCOTUS chief justice. The latter is like that Miami judge. Since you all across the pond (or in my case, the north sea) don't have a constitution in a strict sense, . . .?When it comes to the issues of rights, those who want to restrict rights aren't very good at reading our constitution. The 9th amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people", which effectively means that the list of rights in the constitution and amendments is not the end all be all, and that all possible rights are to be protected. So yeah, the right to privacy (behind abortion) is protected and found within the constitution. The right to marry other races is protected by the constitution. The right to marry other sexes is protected by the constitution.So yeah, prop 8 in california could very well be unconstitutional. As is the ban just struck down in Florida.

Actually, if anyone strikes me as a proponent of "judicial activism", its Scalia. When I read his decisions (especially the ones he write for the minority), I usually get the impression that he has this idiosyncratic opinion of what Constitutional Law is, and that he feels it's his mission to rewrite Constitutional Law according to his vision.And yet he's the darling of the "anti-judicial activism" conservatives.

---

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

Fearless Fosdick has whined that this thread isn't balanced. In the interests of balance, I shall now present 12 reasons to oppose gay marriage.1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.(Bit of a cut and paste from here, but I couldn't resist.)

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

And I will tip the scales once more! Can't have this thread being balanced now can we? What would be the evidence of this? Also, I thought up a scenario in which it could be explained as natural. See, we are multiplying too fast, so homosexuality is like a natural brake on this. Woo much people isn't nice either. So, have some of them be gay, and hey presto, some of the population growth stymied! Yet, old couples CAN get legally married. Yet they don't. These things get weirder by the minute.
Anyway, blacks CAN marry whites. Homosexuality has been around for as long as we know. And women aren't property. Which is of course not true. It's the other way around in fact. First, we don;t live in a theocracy. And of course, there are many religions in America. Of course, this is, again, not true. Hanging around tall people will make you lazy however, since you don't have to reach for higher places anymore, you can just ask one of them tall folks. It can't and it doesn't. It will lick you if you apply peanut butter however (not sure if that is appropriate here, but hey, this is a zany post I'm replying to anyway.) Again, not true. Single parents do raise happier and healthier children however, seeing that one can be happy without being forced to act as if you're happy will have a profound effect on those youngsters. If you would leave those silly comments out, it would be a better way to balance the thread. (And for me to unbalance it again) In any case, wrong again. With the exception of course that they didn't, and that it won't.A funny little list this. Too bad it's so obviously fake. Ah well, had some fun replying.

---

I hunt for the truth

quote:

---

A funny little list this. Too bad it's so obviously fake. Ah well, had some fun replying.

---

Well, not so much fake as satire. But thanks for the input.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

What's even more hilarious is that there are people who actually believe some of the 12.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

You forgot one, subbie:13. Marriage means a civil union between one man and one woman, and gays are not in any way excluded from this covenant.”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

Yes, but that one is so ridiculously stupid that no-one would want to look such a damn fool idiot as to propose it

After Prop. 8, look who's whining now. I refuse to post on a thread full of whiners. Let's talk about the facts of nature somewhere else.”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

quote:

---

I refuse to post on a thread full of whiners.

---

Says the man whose name is attached to 2 of 3 posts above this one.

quote:

---

Let's talk about the facts of nature somewhere else.

---

Your history on this topic strongly suggests you wouldn't know a fact of nature if it walked up and bit you on the ass. I'm considerably more interested in discussing the legal aspects of the issue, rather appropriate given that the topic of this thread is a legal question.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Chiroptera writes:

quote:

---

Actually, if anyone strikes me as a proponent of "judicial activism", its Scalia.

---

With "judicial activism" defined as "ruling to overturn a law," Scalia is the most activist judge. He is the judge on the Supreme Court who is most likely to overturn legislation.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Not sure if I should reply to this because I am in effect enabling him, but I just had to ask this. Would you, or anyone else, mind pointing out to me exactly WHERE it says that?

---

I hunt for the truth

Prop. 8 would be a good place to look. Seems like the majority agrees me me, and yet I'm such a bad boy on the boards. Bye.”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

prop 8 was ADDED. where did it say this originally.See, if I can get enough support, I could add to the law that marriage is a civil union between two gay people. Would you then advocate that heterosexuals can no longer get married?

---

I hunt for the truth

You mean Prop. 8 isn't good enough for you? It was passed by majority vote in the liberal state of California, not Alabama or Kansas. What do you have against voting on disputed social issues? That's how it works in America”we get to vote to decide. Otherwise, you have aristocentrism, which is something like tyranny of the minority. Bye.”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.