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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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.

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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.

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:

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.

"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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

"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.

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:

Quote:

---

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...

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:


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

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:

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

"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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Civil unions are sexual in nature,

---

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

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: