A ruling in Nebraska demonstrates the need for a federal marriage amendment.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Courting FMA
A ruling in Nebraska demonstrates the need for a federal marriage amendment.

Thursday’s decision by a federal court to overturn Nebraska’s state constitutional marriage amendment is a landmark moment in the battle over same-sex marriage. For the first time, a federal court has taken this matter out of the hands of a state. A constitutional amendment passed with a 70 percent majority of Nebraska’s voters has been voided. There could be no clearer demonstration of the arrogance of activist judges. This should remind Republican senators of the urgent need to confirm the president’s nominees to the bench. And of course this decision clearly shows that, without a federal marriage amendment, same-sex marriage is destined to be imposed on the country by the courts.

Eugene Volokh has posted a very sharp analysis of the Nebraska case. Let’s use Volokh’s thorough analysis as a way into this issue. The most important point Volokh makes is that the logic of the Nebraska decision, if upheld, would have the effect of imposing gay marriage on the entire country. As noted, this is exactly why a federal marriage amendment is needed. Yet Volokh himself is a libertarian-leaning law professor sympathetic to same-sex marriage and opposed to a federal marriage amendment. Volokh seems to think that this obviously wrongheaded decision is destined to be reversed on appeal. So why bother with a federal amendment if this fluke of a decision is about to be overturned?

Well, this decision is not a fluke. The parts of the decision Volokh thinks are the most obviously wrongheaded simply mimic the core arguments of same-sex-marriage advocates. Volokh criticizes the decision for holding that the state has no rational interest in promoting unions among specifically heterosexual couples. Volokh doesn’t personally endorse the idea that the state ought to claim such an interest, but he insists that reasonable people can differ on the matter. Says Volokh, it’s not irrational on its face that the state might have a special interest in promoting a particular sort of relationship between men and women. Yet the distinctive thing about public debate on this issue is the claim by same-sex-marriage advocates that there are no rational grounds for opposing gay marriage — that opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in sheer animus. The court here is simply buying into the widespread view that this is not a rational debate, but a debate between rationality and prejudice. The Goodridge decision in Massachusetts did something similar.

Volokh also criticizes the case for ignoring the distinction between the right to intimate association and the right to have the government recognize or subsidize your particular form of relationship. After all, says Volokh, the government doesn’t have to provide the benefits of marriage to single people. Volokh is right on substance, but misses the point nonetheless. A core premise of same-sex-marriage advocates is that a lack of government benefits does in fact violate their rights. The mere right to association is not enough, they say. They want benefits and state recognition for their relationships — and they insist that their entitlement to that recognition is a “right.” Even now, “single’s rights” advocates are making exactly the same argument for their own entitlement to the benefits of marriage. In fact, single’s rights groups self-consciously model their own demands on the demands of the gay marriage movement.

So I agree with Volokh that this decision is wrongheaded. It blurs key distinctions, refuses to recognize that there is a rational argument on both sides of the issue, and ultimately undercuts the rationale for state support of marriage. Yet that is exactly what the movement for same-sex marriage has been doing for years.

Volokh is “pretty sure” the Court of Appeals will reverse this decision. If it doesn’t, says Volokh, the Supreme Court will — and should — reverse. This strikes me as utterly naive. Volokh seems to think the judicial overreach in this case is obvious. But that doesn’t explain how the case got wrongly decided to begin with. The answer is clear. This judge has accepted the framing of the issue adopted by both same-sex-marriage advocates — and the entire mainstream media. This isn’t some judicial fluke. It’s evidence that the movement for same-sex marriage is successfully framing the debate — and thereby undermining the legal basis for marriage itself.

If this particular decision is reversed on appeal, that’s cold comfort. It’s all-too-obvious that the folks who think the way this judge does are not going to give way after a single reversal. They rightly believe that, over time, the courts have been shifting in their direction. It’s not just some crazy off-the-reservation judge who’s flying in the face of Volokh’s favored legal principles. It’s the entire liberal establishment. That is why, for those who oppose same-sex marriage, there is simply no alternative to a federal constitutional amendment.

More judicial activism.

[Don Corleone]

Equally important, it shows the need to bring about a reform of the judicial branch. Do you all still say there's no such thing as judicial activism? A judge threw out a state constitution on the grounds "he didnt' like it". Come on, we're not slaves to the black robes yet, and we don't have to become that way...But if we allow this current trend to continue, Congress, the White House and anyone in State Governements will be figureheads. The appointed, uneelcted judges will tell hold your leash and it will be too late.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Proves America is a radical left wing hippie state ruled by stalinist pigs. I'm sorry but I have to say I HATE THIS GOVERNMENT!

[Byzantine Prince]

Proves America is a radical left wing hippie state ruled by stalinist pigs. I'm sorry but I have to say I HATE THIS GOVERNMENT!
I can't beleave you used the words hippie and Stalinist in the same sentence(oops I just did too). I think the hippies wouldn't like being in a stalinist state. Not very sychadelic. ~;)

[Don Corleone]

Here's my prediction if things continue at their current pace, between the gay agenda and the sexualizing of our youth..... by the year 2020, because of several rulings and court orders at the federal level, teenage boys and girls will be forced to engage in a homosexual act in their health class, as part of sex education. Then, once they've tried the other way, the court will allow them to determine if they're gay/straight/or bi.

[Byzantine Prince]

That sounds like fun to me Don. :devilish:

[Don Corleone]

Hey laugh it up, big guy. I nominate your son to play catcher for all the other boys in his class.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

ALSO MAY I ADD
That by 2065 ethnically born Americans will be the minority in this nation because of the radical leninist pigdogs in government! GAH!

[JAG]

Proves America is a radical left wing hippie state ruled by stalinist pigs. I'm sorry but I have to say I HATE THIS GOVERNMENT!

I think I just nearly choked myself to death laughing while drinking, after reading that comment.

Dear oh dear, Capo you do know comedy.

[PanzerJaeger]

A constitutional amendment passed with a 70 percent majority of Nebraska’s voters has been voided.

Thats just wrong. It would still be wrong even if it was reversed and I was part of the 30% who didnt want gay marriage.

[Crazed Rabbit]

DANG IT, I am sick of these judges!

The dems insist that we allow everyone's voice be heard, then go overturning any majority passed law they don't agree with!

Crazed Rabbit

[Kaiser of Arabia]

GAH I HATE LIBERALS GAH I HATE JUDGES GAH I HATE THIS GOVERNMENT GAH!

i'M uberpißed right now

[Productivity]

Proves America is a radical left wing hippie state ruled by stalinist pigs. I'm sorry but I have to say I HATE THIS GOVERNMENT!

Yes, we all know the USSR was all so tolerant of homosexuals... Get a clue.


Here's my prediction if things continue at their current pace, between the gay agenda and the sexualizing of our youth..... by the year 2020, because of several rulings and court orders at the federal level, teenage boys and girls will be forced to engage in a homosexual act in their health class, as part of sex education. Then, once they've tried the other way, the court will allow them to determine if they're gay/straight/or bi.

Do you really beleive this drivel? Normally I disagree with you but can see where you are coming from, but this just appears to be senseless hyperbole.

EDIT: Sorry BP, I initially quoted you instead of capo with my top quote. Changed now.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Do you really beleive this drivel? Normally I disagree with you but can see where you are coming from, but this just appears to be senseless hyperbole.

Im sure it was said tongue in cheek but it is too close to reality to be funny.

[bmolsson]

Without commenting on the issue itself, the American legal system is getting a bit weird......

[Don Corleone]

Yes, we all know the USSR was all so tolerant of homosexuals... Get a clue.



Do you really beleive this drivel? Normally I disagree with you but can see where you are coming from, but this just appears to be senseless hyperbole.

EDIT: Sorry BP, I initially quoted you instead of capo with my top quote. Changed now.

I don't actually believe the scenario I proposed will come to pass exactly as I stated, but I am certain other, more bizarre and onerous things will be forced upon the public by a handful of aristocrats in black robes. I'm sorry, I got a little caught up in my screed, and if I offended any homosexual members of the backroom, I apologize.

Dgb, the US is like no place else on Earth. I know you think it's just that we're more conservative, but in many many ways, we're more liberal than any of you. Do you have a school district requiring a sex education describing how to perform oral sex to 9 year olds (4th grade)? We do! Why? Because oral sex means they won't get AIDS. Our surgeon general wanted each and every school in the country to teach kids how to mastrubate...themselves and each other.

No matter what it is, we just can't seem to find the middle of the road. Right or left, we live in the land of bizarre hyperbole. The one thing that remains consistent however is the endless march away from democracy....not towards a George Bush led dictatorship, but towards a black robed oligarchy that has no concern for the welfare of it's citizens and seeks other countries crazy laws to set precedent (like Nigeria).

[GodsPetMonkey]

Is that editorial about the courts decision or Eugene Volokh? Seems to contain little usefull information.



Here's my prediction if things continue at their current pace, between the gay agenda and the sexualizing of our youth..... by the year 2020, because of several rulings and court orders at the federal level, teenage boys and girls will be forced to engage in a homosexual act in their health class, as part of sex education. Then, once they've tried the other way, the court will allow them to determine if they're gay/straight/or bi.


Slow down there speedy! The court only said that it went against the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, nothing more. Gays are still not allowed to marry, or anything else really.


=Don Corleone]
No matter what it is, we just can't seem to find the middle of the road. Right or left, we live in the land of bizarre hyperbole. The one thing that remains consistent however is the endless march away from democracy....not towards a George Bush led dictatorship, but towards a black robed oligarchy that has no concern for the welfare of it's citizens and seeks other countries crazy laws to set precedent (like Nigeria).


Nigeria is a HomoHaven?

[Don Corleone]

Is that editorial about the courts decision or Eugene Volokh? Seems to contain little usefull information.



Slow down there speedy! The court only said that it went against the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, nothing more. Gays are still not allowed to marry, or anything else really.



Nigeria is a HomoHaven?

This isn't just about homosexuality, although that does seem to be one agenda the courts seem to be behind (no pun intended). But some court recently had a ruling where they cited a law in Nigeria, because we had nothing on the books that could justify their ruling. I forget the details of the case, but it had nothing to do with homosexuality.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

A constitutional amendment passed with a 70 percent majority of Nebraska’s voters has been voided.

Why shouldnt the President have this power or the congress also. I thought they were supposed to be equal branches of the government. Ill tell you why . Because the supreme court gave itself that power unconstitutionaly just as it unconsitutionaly passed Rowe vs Wade. Their just a bunch of lawyers who rarely can some to an agreement on the issue. It seems to me that they should use the super majority rule the same as has to be done with a consitutional amendment to overthrow the will of the people. These 5 to 4 decisions are hardly inspiring of them getting it right. It seems if they cant figure it out how are we poor schleps too?

[GodsPetMonkey]

This isn't just about homosexuality, although that does seem to be one agenda the courts seem to be behind (no pun intended). But some court recently had a ruling where they cited a law in Nigeria, because we had nothing on the books that could justify their ruling. I forget the details of the case, but it had nothing to do with homosexuality.

I don't see anything wrong with using international decisions. It's not unheard of, though it is rare.
Courts here can rely on overseas rulings (typically commonwealth nations, then common law nations) if they need to, normally where there is little or no material in their jurisdiction, or what material is available is terrible out of date, but this stuff in persuasive, not binding.

[Don Corleone]

I don't see anything wrong with using international decisions. It's not unheard of, though it is rare.
Courts here can rely on overseas rulings (typically commonwealth nations, then common law nations) if they need to, normally where there is little or no material in their jurisdiction, or what material is available is terrible out of date, but this stuff in persuasive, not binding.

If you want to let Belize determine your rules for you, have at it my friend, but in America, you're supposed to trace precedent back to American cases. Maybe we should start citing cases in Iran and requiring Sharia while we're at it? Is that on the docket for Aus?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I don't see anything wrong with using international decisions. It's not unheard of, though it is rare.
Courts here can rely on overseas rulings (typically commonwealth nations, then common law nations) if they need to, normally where there is little or no material in their jurisdiction, or what material is available is terrible out of date, but this stuff in persuasive, not binding.

Not here they cant and follow the constitution that there sworn to uphold. How the French treat their citizens has no bearing or weight in OUR court system.

[GodsPetMonkey]

Why shouldnt the President have this power or the congress also. I thought they were supposed to be equal branches of the government. Ill tell you why . Because the supreme court gave itself that power unconstitutionaly just as it unconsitutionaly passed Rowe vs Wade. Their just a bunch of lawyers who rarely can some to an agreement on the issue. It seems to me that they should use the super majority rule the same as has to be done with a consitutional amendment to overthrow the will of the people. These 5 to 4 decisions are hardly inspiring of them getting it right. It seems if they cant figure it out how are we poor schleps too?

Only if the courts can pass legislation, collect taxes and control the military.

You misunderstand the idea of equal here, no one branch has absolute power over any other... if the legislature didn't like what the courts did, it would do something, if the courts didn't like that, it would do something back, so on for all eternity until someone gives in.


Not here they cant and follow the constitution that there sworn to uphold. How the French treat their citizens has no bearing or weight in OUR court system.

Has no bearing here either, and we are unlikely to use french case law anyway, as they are not a common law jurisdiction (IIRC).

We have used US case law though, it's just for inspiration, as I said, persuasive not binding, and not that pursuasive anyway, except when there is nothing else to use.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Only if the courts can pass legislation, collect taxes and control the military.

One more time slowly. The constitution never gave the courts the power of judicial review. The supreme court anointed themselves as the supreme descion makers.


You misunderstand the idea of equal here, no one branch has absolute power over any other..

BS I understand it all to well. The courts have made themselves the absolute power. Nothing can pass without their ok anymore. It may pass but they will shoot it dowm if they dont like it. Thats far more power than the president or congress has.


We have used US case law though, it's just for inspiration, as I said, persuasive not binding, and not that pursuasive anyway, except when there is nothing else to use.

You try citing a foriegn law in a US court and it wont even be heard nor should it be. Its totally irrelevant.

[GodsPetMonkey]

One more time slowly. The constitution never gave the courts the power of judicial review. The supreme court anointed themselves as the supreme descion makers.


Yet the other branches have never tried to remove it... perhaps they know something you don't, like the fact that its useful to have when you want to push your agenda, but otherwise don't have the power to do so... 'liberals' aren’t the only ones to abuse this.



You try citing a foriegn law in a US court and it wont even be heard nor should it be. Its totally irrelevant.


If you want to let Belize determine your rules for you, have at it my friend, but in America, you're supposed to trace precedent back to American cases. Maybe we should start citing cases in Iran and requiring Sharia while we're at it? Is that on the docket for Aus?


Case Law can be persuasive... as in, the court may decide that the way something (and it doesn't have to be the whole of it) in a foreign case is useful or a good idea... again, this is very rare, but it does happen. Hell, an important precedent for when the defence of duress can be used is taken from Hong Kong (whilst under British dominion), it’s only a small part of the overall decision that was made, but it’s still important. Common law (anywhere) would not work if you were restricted to local jurisdictions.

Now, the legislature may look to foreign laws when drawing up laws of its own... inspiration can come from many places, but it is the discretion of those who apply it to use it, so no, we DON'T have to follow Shiria law.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yet the other branches have never tried to remove it...

They tried to stop it in the first place. Jackson just ignored their edicts. Just because it usurped these powers doesnt make that the final word on the matter.

[Kanamori]

The State Amendment they proposed is unconstitutional. It reads as follows: "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska."

That is a violation the first amendment which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances ."

Effectively their proposed amendment denies gays the ability to petetion the government, because it refuses to recognize them in the first place. It is the same as Romer v. Evans, which was 6-3, and unlike Roe v. Wade, here it is the "conservatives" creatively interpreting the constitution, whereas the "liberals" (Kennedy is really just mostly impartial and actually makes his decision based on the laws, not his desire) were ruling based on strict interpretation. All they have to do is reword it, so it accomplishes their goal while being constitutional. By merely defining marriage as between a man and woman, which does not go as far as saying they refuse to recognize gay couples. The fact also is most of those 70% had no idea about the other implications of the amendments wording. Striking the amendment down on the basis of it being a bill of attainder was a quite a stretch and quite wrong, imo. Without the Supreme Court, and all appeals courts, ruling whether or not a law is within the constitution, there is chaos, far worse than any activist judge. Please do not misinterpret what I am saying as advocating Judicial Activism, creatively interpreting the constitution, but as supporting the very implied right of the courts to review laws and create order.

[Don Corleone]

You're right Kanamori. On the same grounds, we have to allow murder. The only reason we outlawed it was beause of the 6th Commandment.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The State Amendment they proposed is unconstitutional. It reads as follows: "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska."

That is a violation the first amendment which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances .""

Im glad you brought this up as I partly agree with it. Certainly denying people the right to enter into a contract on the basis of their gender is unconstituional and the part denying civil unions is indeed unconstitutional. If he had just struck down that portion I would be praising the Judge instead of critizing him.

[Kanamori]

"On the same grounds, we have to allow murder. The only reason we outlawed it was beause of the 6th Commandment."

What are you on about? It is certainly not because of the 6th commandment that murder is outlawed...

[Hurin_Rules]

A Ruling in Nebraska demonstrates there are still a lot of rednecks there.

I know I'm gonna get flamed for that, but I just couldn't resist. Fire away ~:smoking:

P.S. I was actually at a bar in a small town where people two-stepped last night. I have to say it was a blast.

[Don Corleone]

"On the same grounds, we have to allow murder. The only reason we outlawed it was beause of the 6th Commandment."

What are you on about? It is certainly not because of the 6th commandment that murder is outlawed...

Your point was that anytime something shows up in law that also shows up in a religious context, then the law needs to be changed to make certain there's no legal enshrinement of religious principles. Well, I hate to break it to you but that covers a lot more ground than you intend.

[Kanamori]

I wasn't supporting the decision on any relious, or non-religous, grounds. I bolded the part that I thought was important to my argument, and one of the judeges arguments. Sorry for the confusion and the curt reply.


"Im glad you brought this up as I partly agree with it. Certainly denying people the right to enter into a contract on the basis of their gender is unconstituional and the part denying civil unions is indeed unconstitutional. If he had just struck down that portion I would be praising the Judge instead of critizing him."

Here, we agree. I do not think he can just throw out one portion of a state amendment, though, so it has to be reworded, and submitted again. I hope that his refutation of it based on the bill attainder argument is thrown out, in the higher appelate, so some activist judge can't use it for a future decision.

[PanzerJaeger]

A Ruling in Nebraska demonstrates there are still a lot of rednecks there.

And we wonder why many consider liberals arrogant wimps? Id like to see you call a Nebraskan man a redneck to his face.. (Tell him youre from canada.. maybe he wont hit so hard - they understand up there how fragile you guys are) :laugh4:

Theres your flame. ~:cheers:

[Hurin_Rules]

And we wonder why many consider liberals arrogant wimps? Id like to see you call a Nebraskan man a redneck to his face.. (Tell him youre from canada.. maybe he wont hit so hard - they understand up there how fragile you guys are) :laugh4:

Theres your flame. ~:cheers:

I realized that my attempt at a joke was in poor taste. I shouldn't have used the word redneck. My apologies.

[ichi]

If one looks at the Constitution and the amendments made to it, one would see that what started out as an enumeration of the rights of individuals (and concomitantly the limitation of state power) is threatened to become a tool of government power.

The irony of so-called conservatives calling our judges 'activist' in a derogatory fashion because they are doing their job, which is to limit unbridled mob mentality and protect the rights of minorities, the irony and absurdity is remarkable.

Anyone who supports amending the US Constitution to force government to impose your views on others is neither a conservative nor libertarian. You are the ones who are the radical activists.

The reason why an amendment is thought to be needed is because honorable decent judges keep reading the US Constitution and discovering that these ridiculous attempts to impose the morality of Christian right on all of us are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, so lets change the Constitution.

The Constitution protects us from government abuse, mob rule, many many things. Every time one side weakens it we all lose. It has been said that a man who would sacrifice freedom for security has neither.

Well, a man who would sacrifice freedom for his social views risks having another, perhaps someone who feels diffierently about things, do the same in the future.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution were called the Bills of Rights for a reason. Think hard before you do anything that you can to win at all costs.

ichi :bow:

[Don Corleone]

Ichi,

I usually really respect your opinions, but I think you're dead wrong in that last post. Judges are needed because at the end of the day we're all a lynch mob and need these 'benevolent' dictators to protect us from our base nature? Do you really believe that?

Let me ask you this... suppose it wasn't gay marriage. Suppose the issue being debated was the age of consent. What if a group out there (and they do exist, believe me) was adovcating that the age of consent should be lowered to 10. Would you still agree that a handful of judges who thought that was a good idea should be free to rewrite any lawbook that held the age of consent at 16? Would you be whining about the tyranny of the majority when people attempted to ammend the constitution to clearly define the age of consent as 16?

Even if you're in 100% support of gay marriage, and I do support it in the legal sense, this business of 'by any means necessary, give the judges free reign' is dangerous business.

[Kanamori]

"I usually really respect your opinions, but I think you're dead wrong in that last post. Judges are needed because at the end of the day we're all a lynch mob and need these 'benevolent' dictators..."

They keep the uniformity with the Constitution that is protecting from abuse of power. They have no abilty to enforce what they say, so it is far, far from a dictatorship. This amendment is clearly against the Constitution. Are they really being tyrannical? The vast majority of Supreme Court decisions go unnoticed by the populace.

"...to protect us from our base nature?"

Don, this is the cornerstone belief that our government was founded on. In fact, the proposed amendment demonstrates its necessity. Do you think the majority of the 70% who ratified it had any idea that the way it was worded carried legal technicalities that certain officials would abuse, and that it was unconstitutional?

[Goofball]

I usually really respect your opinions, but I think you're dead wrong in that last post. Judges are needed because at the end of the day we're all a lynch mob and need these 'benevolent' dictators to protect us from our base nature? Do you really believe that?

Let me ask you this... suppose it wasn't gay marriage. Suppose the issue being debated was the age of consent. What if a group out there (and they do exist, believe me) was adovcating that the age of consent should be lowered to 10. Would you still agree that a handful of judges who thought that was a good idea should be free to rewrite any lawbook that held the age of consent at 16? Would you be whining about the tyranny of the majority when people attempted to ammend the constitution to clearly define the age of consent as 16?

Even if you're in 100% support of gay marriage, and I do support it in the legal sense, this business of 'by any means necessary, give the judges free reign' is dangerous business.

Actually Don, I think you need to put the shoe on the other foot using your very same example. What if a 70% majority in the legislature enacted a new law lowering the age of consent to 10 years old, but then the "activist judges" overturned the law. Would you still be upset with them for thwarting the "will of the people?"

The funniest thing about this article is when the author first says this:


There could be no clearer demonstration of the arrogance of activist judges.

then (I am assuming, with a straight face) goes on to say this:


This should remind Republican senators of the urgent need to confirm the president’s nominees to the bench.

Apparently activist judges are okay, as long as they are anti-gay activist judges.

~:rolleyes:

Then the author just keeps the laughs a-comin' with this little pearl:


And of course this decision clearly shows that, without a federal marriage amendment, same-sex marriage is destined to be imposed on the country by the courts.

This just kills me. Please describe any circumstance where any person, gay or straight, will ever be forced into (or even forced to attend) a same-sex marriage because of the actions of the court. Same-sex marriage is not being imposed on anybody.

This author needs to grab himself a coffee and a nice big slice of reality pie.

[Don Corleone]

Okay Kanamori,
Let's just say forget the whole election process. If you need a law degree in order to have anything valid to say, and you need to be a judge in order to be trusted to make a decision, what is the point of elections? If a judge is just going to change approved laws and Constitutional Ammendments to say whatever they want, why bother with the formality? It's what the JUDGE says that matters, right?

You're right, I'm a mindless goon. So are you, so is any other American without a law degree. We need to be silenced. No wonder Democrats are losing elections... they keep telling their constituents "Vote for me and I'll cede my authority to the nearest judge".

[Don Corleone]

Actually Don, I think you need to put the shoe on the other foot using your very same example. What if a 70% majority in the legislature enacted a new law lowering the age of consent to 10 years old, but then the "activist judges" overturned the law. Would you still be upset with them for thwarting the "will of the people?"


I would recognize that I live in a pluralistic society and I find the plurality intolerable and would leave. I'm actually not all that far away as we speak.

I don't want my children to be taught:

There's no such thing as God and anybody who believes in him is stupid in school.

That Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance but Christianity is all about oppression and causing suffering.

That they have no right to defend themselves and if a serial killer wants to rape them, they have to wait for a policeman to come along to stop it.

That they can't do anything on their own, they need the government to tell them which nostril to blow first.

That no matter what the majority say, as long as the priestly caste of judges decree an edict, they must never question it again.

We live in an aristocracy that is controlled by the judges. That's why you Democrats won't allow any moderate judges through. If they're not pro-abortion, pro-world-government, pro-leftist agenda, you'll abuse any cheap parlor trick you can to make certain they don't get up to bat.

And Goofy, the author wasn't talking about judges that would implement a conservative agenda. Scalia has frequently sided against political conservatives when they have asked to be granted a right or a special action by the court. Conservative in the judicial sense should really be changed to 'minimalist'. Scalia admits to being a political conservative, but he doesn't believe it should be the courts that make our laws that way.

[Kanamori]

"Let's just say forget the whole election process."

Hmm...nope. Our legislators play more of a roll than Supreme Court judges could ever, in their wildest orgiastic and masturbational dreams for oligarchy, hope to have. By and large, almost any law can avoid conflict with the constitution and keep the base of its meaning.

"If you need a law degree in order to have anything valid to say, and you need to be a judge in order to be trusted to make a decision, what is the point of elections?"

If they reworded their state amendment, it would be perfectly acceptable with the constitution, but right now, it refuses to acknowledge the existence of a group of people.

"If a judge is just going to change approved laws and Constitutional Ammendments to say whatever they want, why bother with the formality?"

They don't change laws. The Courts cannot say a damn thing about federal constitutional amendments. However, states that entered the union must abide by the federal constitution, meaning their amendments must be within the federal constitution, too.

"You're right, I'm a mindless goon."

Never said anything like that.

"So are you, so is any other American without a law degree."

No, my prose may be shit and my language vague, but I am not mindless. Ironically, this is what I'm going to school for, rather than biomed or electrical engineering (watch out how you address your future dictator ~;) ).

"We need to be silenced."

No, this decision is protecting our right to speak.


"I don't want my children to be taught:

There's no such thing as God and anybody who believes in him is stupid in school.

That Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance but Christianity is all about oppression and causing suffering.

That they have no right to defend themselves and if a serial killer wants to rape them, they have to wait for a policeman to come along to stop it.

That they can't do anything on their own, they need the government to tell them which nostril to blow first.

That no matter what the majority say, as long as the priestly caste of judges decree an edict, they must never question it again."

My teachers expressly say, "THESE THEORIES MAY COINCIDE WITH THEORIES DESCRIBED IN RELIGIOUS TEXTS."

My teachers neither attempt to convert us to Christianity nor to convert us to Islam, they neither portray Christianity in a negative light nor do they portray Islam in a negative light. My education is paid by my community. As such, they leave factual teaching to the community schools and moral teaching to the families.

My teachers, besides my curmudgeon of an old math teacher, tell us "The government is run by those who show up."

"We live in an aristocracy that is controlled by the judges."

I'm sorry, but :dizzy2:

"That's why you Democrats won't allow any moderate judges through. If they're not pro-abortion, pro-world-government, pro-leftist agenda, you'll abuse any cheap parlor trick you can to make certain they don't get up to bat."

I find that you'll particlulary accusatory (I am not a democrat and claim no party affiliation); you are placing blame in the wrong spot. And, Griffin and McKeague, at least, are far from being moderate.

[Don Corleone]

Ooooh.... now it all makes sense. You're a law student. Of course you think only lawyers should have rights and judges should be able to make laws up as they go. Okay, I understand where we stand now.

But your point:

If they reworded their state amendment, it would be perfectly acceptable with the constitution, but right now, it refuses to acknowledge the existence of a group of people.

You're saying that if they reworded their state ammendment to acknowledge homosexual marriage, then it would be okay. Show me where in the US Constitution it says that is required? Your claim about state constitutions having to align with the US constitution is correct, but in this particular argument, it's a red herring, as nowhere in the 14th ammendment are homosexuals even mentioned. So, we're right back to where we started... this judge threw the state ammendment out because he doesn't like it. You're trying to claim he did it in support of the US constitution, yet he doesn't cite it in his decision. ~:confused: ~:confused: Hmmm....oligarchy? I think so...

[Kanamori]

"Of course you think only lawyers should have rights and judges should be able to make laws up as they go."

Yep, next I'll make a court order to eat your children, on the basis that restricting such behavior violates my right to absolute control over everyone :dizzy2:

"You're saying that if they reworded their state ammendment to acknowledge homosexual marriage, then it would be okay."

I have tried to be polite. It says, "The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska." It refuses to acknowledge their existence, as a group, which I highlighted earlier, violates the first amendment, in that it denies them the ability to petition the government, because it refuses to acknowledge their existence. Frankly, I don't give a shit about gay marriage.

"You're trying to claim he did it in support of the US constitution, yet he doesn't cite it in his decision."

First, no I didn't. I pretty clearly said he was an activist and that how he reasoned that it was a bill attainder was an effort for future moves towards "gay rights". In which case, I said that his decision should be overruled, on the basis that his bill of attainder argument was wrong, and that the argument w/ the first amendment should be reasserted. Essentially, keeping his activism out, and still ruling the amendment unconstitutional. If the amendment had said "Marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman, and the most excellent state of Nebraska will only give benefits to said marriages," I would not make the argument that it was unconstitutional.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ooooh.... now it all makes sense. You're a law student. Of course you think only lawyers should have rights and judges should be able to make laws up as they go. Okay, I understand where we stand now.

But your point:


You're saying that if they reworded their state ammendment to acknowledge homosexual marriage, then it would be okay. Show me where in the US Constitution it says that is required? Your claim about state constitutions having to align with the US constitution is correct, but in this particular argument, it's a red herring, as nowhere in the 14th ammendment are homosexuals even mentioned. So, we're right back to where we started... this judge threw the state ammendment out because he doesn't like it. You're trying to claim he did it in support of the US constitution, yet he doesn't cite it in his decision. ~:confused: ~:confused: Hmmm....oligarchy? I think so...


actually i believe that he is refering to the place where they eliminated the ability of people of the same sex to enter into civil agreements

maybe they can run it past again without that part and still ban gay marriage
this is an ok talking point

[Don Corleone]

I'm not certain I'm following the logic here. I actually think that at least at the legal level, gays should be able to enter into marriage, such as a civil union arrangement. But clearly, the people of Nebraska, who ammended their constitution do not. As there is no provision in the US constitution that says that states must confer spousal benefits on same sex couples, I fail to see how their ammendment doesn't meet constitutional muster, especially on first ammendment (free speech, free press, freedom of religion & ability to organize & demonstrate). I'm really not trying to be obtuse, I'm not actually getting it. Is your point Kanamori that if they had offered a 'civil union compromise' in their ammendment, it would have been alright?

And honestly, when did you say the judge was an activist and that his arguments were flawed and should be overturned? ~:confused:

[Kanamori]

OK, I am sorry for blowing :embarassed: (I'm still a senior in high school, I only plan on a law, after a bachelor degree in something related.)

The proposed state amendment for Nebraska is as follows: "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska."

The first amendment of the US Constitution is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The important clauses are, from the proposed amendment in Nebraska, "The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska," and, from the US Constitution, "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...the right of the people...to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The specific mention to not recognize gay civil unions or partnerships effectively means that gay couples can be kept from petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Do note, that the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law." That's where the fourteenth amendment comes in. It asserted that states must be in accordance w/ the rules that congress must follow in its legislation. If they simply leave out the refusal to acknowledge same sex unions, it should pass in the courts.

"And honestly, when did you say the judge was an activist and that his arguments were flawed and should be overturned? "

I said, "Striking the amendment down on the basis of it being a bill of attainder was a quite a stretch and quite wrong, imo," and, "I hope that his refutation of it based on the bill attainder argument is thrown out, in the higher appelate, so some activist judge can't use it for a future decision."

A Bill of Attainder is a law punishing one group of people, expressly forbidden in the constitution. He made the argument that the proposed amendment was a bill of attainder, meant to punish gays, although it very well may be, he used it so that future court decisions could build off that, to further his cause. I, too, would prefer civil unions with the same priveliges for longterm gay couples as hetero couples, but that is not to be decided by the courts, as it is not denying the rights to people.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The specific mention to not recognize gay civil unions or partnerships effectively means that gay couples can be kept from petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

No where are gays mentioned in this amendment. You quoted the right section but gave the wrong reason for it being unconstittional.


The important clauses are, from the proposed amendment in Nebraska, "The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska," and, from the US Constitution, "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...the right of the people...to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Again sexual prefference is not mentioned in the amendment. Read what it says not what you want it to say. The reason its unconstitutional is its saying that people of the same gender cannot have a contractual agreement between themselves. This is a clear violation of the constitution. The judge by the way could have just struck down this portion of the amendment and sent it back to the legislature.

[Kanamori]

"No where are gays mentioned in this amendment."

Yes, they are. "The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska."

"The reason its unconstitutional is its saying that people of the same gender cannot have a contractual agreement between themselves."

Civil unions are sexual in nature, and my reasoning basically follows that of Romer vs. Evans.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes, they are. "The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska."

If your going to be a lawyer you better learn how to read first. Where is gay or for that matter sexual preffernce mentioned there? Ill tell you, its not, your reading it into it. Because their of the same sex doesnt mean their homosexual. Thats what makes it unconstitutional. You cant see the forrest through the trees. The state can ban same sex marriage it cannot however make a law preventing people of the same gender from entering into a civil contract based on their gender.


Civil unions are sexual in nature,

The hell you say. There are marriages that arent sexual in nature.

[Kanamori]

It is certainly true that it applies to same-sex relationships of any sort; I misunderstood your assertion in my stupor. Please interpret my use of "gay civil unions" to mean "same-sex civil unions" and "gay couples" to mean "same-sex couples." Given the obvious overtures of the topic, I found myself writing gay, rather than just same-sex. One-thousand apologies for the confusion :bow: