Team Gay Rejoice!

Burke · Post by **Burke** » June 27, 2003, 2:30 pm

Ok, ok, we get it, you're homophobic.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 27, 2003, 2:34 pm

Burke wrote:Ok, ok, we get it, you're homophobic.

Nope,

I belive Homosexuals should be granted equal treatment under our laws.

I don't agree with the lifestyle but I respect others enough to let them choose that path.

Burke · Post by **Burke** » June 27, 2003, 2:36 pm

So they can choose the path, but still be thrown in jail for acting on that choice?

Actus · Post by **Actus** » June 27, 2003, 3:03 pm

If I argue from a purely secular viewpoint, the SC has no authority to overwrite laws of consensus because the laws they are protecting are a product of consensus.

Voronwe, representative goverment expression of consensus. If our elected representatives got it wrong too many times, they'd be overthrown. I'm not talking about how consensus is expressed, rather I define how consensus builds morality.

"secular viewpoint"? "products of consensus"? You are rapidly descending into incoherence.

The Constitution, and all its Amendments, were created by the People, and for the People. If the People so deem, they may amend it to reflect current societal mores. The Supreme Court's job is to protect those values that the Constitution was set up to safeguard from local laws that may infringe upon those values. This power of the Supreme Court to determine constitutionality was first established in Marbury v. Madison, around 1800 I believe, and virtually undisputed since then.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 27, 2003, 3:12 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:How do you justify that a minority supported constitutional premise is "more special" than a majority supported law?

the constitutional rights of one person are more important than 249,999,999 people's unconstitutional opinion.

constitutional rights do not scale with popularity.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » June 27, 2003, 3:41 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote: Nope,

I belive Homosexuals should be granted equal treatment under our laws.

I don't agree with the lifestyle but I respect others enough to let them choose that path.

That's very big of you. What is it that forced you to have to agree or disagree? It's there, it's always been there. That's like saying, "I don't agree with rain" or some other ineffectual opinion.

The supreme court did not overstep anything. You're grasping at incorrect definitions of their duties because you're homophobic. Just get over it already

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 27, 2003, 4:21 pm

You know, you might trying reading the thread before asking me things that I've already answered.

While I understand the how easy it is to jump to the second page and make assumptions, it has a negative side effect of making the conversation repeat itself over and over.
Actus:

The Constitution, and all its Amendments, were created by the People, and for the People. If the People so deem, they may amend it to reflect current societal mores.

Exactly, and the Supreme Court got in the way of this process taking its due course.

Burke if you *read* my statement above your last post, you'll have the answer to your question.

Voronwe:

constitutional rights do not scale with popularity

Tell me then Voronwe, If not due to the consent of the majority, what creates a constitutional right and gives it a moral superiority?

For you second-pagers who didn't read the first, I repeat that my disagreement with the SC was based on how it acted, not the particular law they acted on.

Burke · Post by **Burke** » June 27, 2003, 4:58 pm

So you dont have a problem with gays, but don't see a problem with a law that makes consensual private cosummation of gaiety illegal?
O wait, you just have a problem with the Supreme Court, whose position/function it is to strike down UN Constitutional laws, in doing just that?

noel · Post by **noel** » June 27, 2003, 5:35 pm

The supreme court is PART OF THE FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS you judgemental asshole.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » June 27, 2003, 5:37 pm

Hmm I'm scared I actually see what Adex is arguing. However, I think his argument is flawed in that Constitutional laws were not created by and backed by majority opinion. It was unless I am completely mistaken created by the acceptance and compromise of protecting the rights of both the majority and the minority in the nation at the time. Now you may say that it was accepted by the majority of the delegates that created the document, however, I am sure that it was not the consensus of the majority of the populace of the young nation. Just because something is popular does not make it right or even moral. The founding fathers understood that it was majority opinion that had driven their families out of Europe and they saw how majority opinion was not the correct foundation for laws. The constitution was never set up to be a living representation of the nation, but as a foundation to shape the nation. There have been changes to it throughout the years, but this was more to correct omissions than to completely rewrite what is in it.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 27, 2003, 6:32 pm

i'm not ignoring you Adex, just the stuff in the other forum is more entertaining at the moment

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 27, 2003, 7:27 pm

Yea I agree, I'm getting kinda bored with this as well.

BTW the Normany invasion in Medal of Honor, kicks ass!

Think Saving Private Ryan, but you're the sniper.

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » June 27, 2003, 7:59 pm

I really gotta find out how this quote function works. However, till I do-

"Quote:
The Constitution, and all its Amendments, were created by the People, and for the People. If the People so deem, they may amend it to reflect current societal mores.

Exactly, and the Supreme Court got in the way of this process taking its due course. "

Ok, the constitution may be ammended to reflect current social mores, but thats not what the lawmakers of those various states did. They merely made local laws, rather than try to amend the constitution. The Supreme Court exists to judge whether or not those various local laws that are brought to its attention are permissable under the existing constitution, which is what it just did as part of its publicly mandated and majority-supported duties. If you dont like the constitution you can try to change it, but the Supreme Court exists to prevent end-runs around the constitution, either intentional or accidental, and thats what those laws were deemed to be upon examination.

*Hugs*
Varia

Actus · Post by **Actus** » June 27, 2003, 8:29 pm

I think I figured out what Adex is trying to say. Unfortunately, it is based on a deeply flawed understanding about how our government functions.

This should get ya started - http://www.government.com/

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 27, 2003, 10:57 pm

wow 2 pages of waffling and adex hasn't even said why he is against sodomy.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 28, 2003, 12:17 pm

sup Kyou

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 28, 2003, 12:37 pm

Kyo, multiple times I mentioned that the law was bad.

My gripe was with the method in which it was removed.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » June 28, 2003, 3:23 pm

I think Adex is trying to say that the Constitution does not expressly give the right to privacy as a Constitutional Right. So in effect they have created a new right, and bypassed the Legislative process.

But, I think there is an implied right of privacy in the Constitution. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think the right to privacy is covered under Liberty, just my personal opinion.

One thing I don't get, the defense in this case did not bother to argue that the law went against the Constitutional Right to Equal Protection Under the Law. Equal Protection is specifically protected in the Bill of Rights, but the defense never even mentioned it to my knowledge. Not only that, none of the Justices even mentioned it in their opinions.

Traz-KOE · Post by **Traz-KOE** » June 29, 2003, 6:39 am

The best part of all this is that it finally killed Strom Thurmond.

Even if it didn't I'm going to imagine it that way.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » June 29, 2003, 12:54 pm

Traz-KOE wrote:The best part of all this is that it finally killed Strom Thurmond.

Even if it didn't I'm going to imagine it that way.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » June 29, 2003, 3:59 pm

adex .... texas like most other states was prolly dragging its feet and doing everything in its power to delay it .... just like with school intergrating ...states dragged their feet and used every legal way to defy the ruling of the supreme court since they didn't give a time limit on school intergrating .... but the supreme court just went and cut out the middle man and all the bullshit inbetween and gave you the final product that you seem to have said that you wanted to see happen ... and just applied it to all the states.

whats so bad about that adex?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » June 29, 2003, 6:40 pm

Adex: Like you say, every part of our government is a product of consensus at some level.

This includes the Supreme Court. The people of the United States have consented to allow the Supreme Court authority to judge laws constitutional or unconstitutional. Thus their rulings are a product of consensus.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » June 30, 2003, 4:02 am

Adex,

Vor tried to spell it out but I think your mind is on MoH right now so I'll try to make it a little more straight forward

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they didn't want any one person or any one branch to have too much power. One branch of the Gov. deals primarily with popular opinion another deals with making sure that those laws passed in that branch do NOT violate the Bill of Rights. If they do then they are to declare them Unconstitutional, end of story.

Example: I bet if you actually voted on Oct 1st 2001 whether or not we should be able to detain w/o due process anyone "suspected" of being a terrorist it would have passed 90%. While some of this probably actually happened it is TOTALLY unconstitutional. In this case the justice dept. failed some of our citizens. The SC must retain the power to stop faniticism from running rampant... just as they did last week.

Hope this helps and all is well!

Marb

PS - Did I miss something, where did the oral sex come into this? Sodomy, from my understanding, comes from the "Sodom and Gomorrah" story in the OT and specifically refers to anal sex. I've always understood oral sex to be a completely different matter... was it just the TX law that defined it that way or am I missing something?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 30, 2003, 10:39 am

marb- the georgia sodomy law included oral and anal sex, so i assumed that others did as well.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » June 30, 2003, 11:06 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:Kyo, multiple times I mentioned that the law was bad.

My gripe was with the method in which it was removed.

Which can only mean that you don't understand the supreme court's duties.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » June 30, 2003, 6:56 pm

Traz-KOE wrote:The best part of all this is that it finally killed Strom Thurmond.

Even if it didn't I'm going to imagine it that way.

LOL! It does have a nice karmic ring to it

noel · Post by **noel** » June 30, 2003, 9:22 pm

Of the six justices who voted to strike down laws against homosexual sodomy, four were appointed by Republican presidents. (Kennedy, David Souter and John Paul Stevens all subscribed to a right of privacy for gays; Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stuck to the narrower ground that it was unfair to punish gays but not heterosexuals for sodomy.) Polls showed that the justices have public opinion behind them: some six out of 10 Americans believe that homosexual sex between consenting adults should be legal.

A rather interesting quote from a rather interesting article (msnbc.com) which can be found here.

Sandra Day O'connor's point is especially pertinent.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 30, 2003, 10:55 pm

Aranuil wrote:
Of the six justices who voted to strike down laws against homosexual sodomy, four were appointed by Republican presidents. (Kennedy, David Souter and John Paul Stevens all subscribed to a right of privacy for gays; Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stuck to the narrower ground that it was unfair to punish gays but not heterosexuals for sodomy.) Polls showed that the justices have public opinion behind them: some six out of 10 Americans believe that homosexual sex between consenting adults should be legal.
A rather interesting quote from a rather interesting article (msnbc.com) which can be found here.

Sandra Day O'connor's point is especially pertinent.

I likes the new avatar

noel · Post by **noel** » June 30, 2003, 11:00 pm

Cartalas wrote:I likes the new avatar

Thank you very much, sir.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » June 30, 2003, 11:02 pm

It reminds me of the lead singer for Stone Temple Pilots, for some reason.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 1, 2003, 12:40 am

It is wrong for the Supreme Court to legislate. With this ruling they declared a new public morality, and they stole away the right of millions to form their own laws.

In 1819, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

In 1804, Jefferson wrote:
Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them... But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.

In 1821, Jefferson wrote:
The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in...the federal judiciary; and irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States.

September 28, 1820 Thomas Jefferson wrote:
You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so ... and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » July 1, 2003, 12:53 am

Jefferson changed his opinion on the Constitution every time it fit his needs for election.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 1, 2003, 2:23 am

well you can always amend the consitution ..... adex ... its the L branch that changes the constituition ... the SC just follows it. how did they steal the right to make laws? adex you need to get outta the moron hole bud .... how would you feel if it was illegal to stick your dick in some girls puss? im sure you would be hell pissed about that but oh wait its never been illegal to do that ... you don't think about it like that...

and how did they take away the rights of millions to form their own laws? i don't think the house/senate has a million people in it ... and they also look out for their own interests not the people... what if there was a law that everyone with umm ... brown hair had to be female or would be shot ... i know its a really absurd idea but say some wacko state did that ... thats why we need the supreme court to go "no sorry you can't do that" and hit it with the big red X .... and adex stop being such a retard

yes i know i need paragraphs =-)

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 1, 2003, 6:10 am

ALL VICTIMLESS CRIMES ARE BULLSHIT...the government is not your daddy or mommy, if someone ELSE is not directly effected in a way in which they do not wish, there is no reason for there to be any law against it
as long as there is no rape involved, gay sex is a victimles crime and the only people effected will be dumbshit religious fanatics or there mommy wishing they had a streght kid, stealing on the other hand, someone is effected in a negative way due to something that was theres was taken from them, duuuuh

a lot of chicks as well consider themselves to be bi-sexual, i dont see how thats any different

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 1, 2003, 10:31 am

the reason the Right is claiming this is a states rights violation is not because they really are worried about a states rights issue.

They are actually worried that this action is a step in the direction towards legitimizing gay marriage, which of course they have a big problem with. But if they come out and say "this ruling sucks because now fags are gonna want x,y, and z" they look pretty bad. So instead they say some stuff about "whoah where did this Supreme Court come from trying to overthrow the consensus of the masses"

Burke · Post by **Burke** » July 1, 2003, 11:13 am

Funny you should mention that Voro:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... aymarriage

Frist is a homophobic idiot.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 1, 2003, 11:18 am

You guys keep bringing in your own emotional baggage into this and then attaching it to me.

Drasta I say again the LAW SUCKED. (heh no pun intended)

The way to remove a bad law is by getting your LEGISLATURE to vote it off the books!

Especially on issues redefine public morality.

Especially since sodomy laws were in process of being removed LEGITIMATELY!

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » July 1, 2003, 11:28 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:You guys keep bringing in your own emotional baggage into this and then attaching it to me.

Drasta I say again the LAW SUCKED. (heh no pun intended)

The way to remove a bad law is by getting your LEGISLATURE to vote it off the books!

Especially on issues redefine public morality.

Especially since sodomy laws were in process of being removed LEGITIMATELY!

Don't fuck with the right of the people to vote!

It's not that it was a bad law, it's that it was deemed unconstitutional.

feh, this is tiresome

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 1, 2003, 12:28 pm

Tell me about it,

I'm perfectly content to leave it be but every time I do some numbnut comes and says

Adex is a homophobe! Adex doesn't understand how the SC works! Adex doesn't get blowjobs!

Bah, I need thicker skin.

Wait wait, I hear it coming, "Adex needs to fix his thick skull!"

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 1, 2003, 12:52 pm

It is wrong for the Supreme Court to legislate. With this ruling they declared a new public morality

I agree with the first part of this statement. However, I just do not see why you think that they legislated. They made no new law, only deemed an existing law unconstitutional, which is clearly defined in the parameters set forth when the constitution was created. I don't see why you think they are making laws...

As far as the second part of your statement, well, the Supreme Court has almost always (since the days of John Marshall) had a huge say on public morality. From slavery and impeachment, to abortion and gay rights. Nothing here is new.

The only way your argument could even resemble anything logical would be if you argued that we don't need a supreme court at all. Now, if that is your argument, then we can have a good discussion. But to isolate this one incident and make it out to be more than it really is makes you look homophobic and idiotic. That is why the flames are coming.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 1, 2003, 12:59 pm

Most flames come because people don't bother to read this thread before posting their assumptions about my political stance.

They see Team Gay Rejoice, they see me having a gripe and BOOM I'm an instant homophobe.

Most frustrating.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 1, 2003, 1:11 pm

yes but what do you have to say about the points i made?

why do you feel that they are legislating instead of delegislating? (I made a new word!)

Do you feel that we don't need a Supreme Court at all?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 1, 2003, 1:56 pm

2 quick things: 1 i wasnt trying to put words in your mouth in my post above Adex. they were more general comments.

2. the notion of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is irresponsible legislation, and it is a discrace to the constitution to try to put a relatively small matter like this in as an amendment.

"Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn, said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" he feels marriage is a sacrament and should only include a union of a man and a woman. "

i am so sick of this bullshit from the right wing bastards. I also believe that marriage is very very important - coincidentally i'm married. Amazingly though, i dont need the State (the collective federal govt) telling me what religious connotation to attribute to it.

The word sacrament is a singularly christian word, and the use of that word by a legislator in regards to a constitutional amendment is extremely disturbing and irresponsible.

but i'm not surprised at all. the right wing of the Republican party is more powerful than ever, and there is a full fledged assault on personal liberty in this country right now by these very people.

If conservative Republicans really view marriage as somethign so sacred then why did they not decry Newt Gingrich divorcing his wife to marry his mistress while she was in the hospital w/ ovarian cancer? Why was Strom Thurmonds mistresses something that was not condemned?

Perhaps a better way to preserve the sanctity of marriage is to actually work to do something about setting positive examples, instead of sweeping the truth under the carpet and declaring a holy war against a small portion of the population.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 1, 2003, 2:01 pm

For my part, given that the Supreme Court was doing the exact job the constitution defines for them, and given the amount of Republican appointed justices who agreed with this; I found it rather inexplicable that you'd still be having a problem with that transpired.

Hmm that's a shitty sentence. Oh well, hopefully you get what I'm saying.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 1, 2003, 2:25 pm

Voron, marriages only exist because of religion. You are trying to assume that the chicken came before the egg here. Marriage is an institution that is only in existence because of religion. The government has merely made laws and designed taxes around the institution that already existed. Now if you want to argue about the rights of gay couples to be acrued the same benefits as "legally" married couples, then I would have to argue against that. Why should a gay couple gain a benefit that straight roomates would not? Why would they gain better benefits than a committed couple that cohabitated instead of getting "legally" married?

You can argue and have your points against the government's decisions on this, but it for the wrong reasons. If you want to see benefits for committed couples, then it needs to be for straight as well as homosexual couples. Your arguments about a government that is only 250 years old versus religious instutions that are well over a thousand years old is pretty much useless.

edit: I am not convinced that the Supreme Court needed to be involved here. It was definitely stupid law and should have been removed from the books, but I don't know that I like the Supreme Court getting into any type of morality laws.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » July 1, 2003, 2:39 pm

I would just like to say that Kilmoll and Voronwe both have some pretty good points on the whole Gay marriage thing... I think we should start a new thread and argue about that for a while. That will also give Adex time to go get a BJ

(J/K Adex)

Marb

Neost · Post by **Neost** » July 1, 2003, 3:19 pm

I don't think any of us have THAT much time.

Burke · Post by **Burke** » July 1, 2003, 3:27 pm

Marriage is an institution that is only in existence because of religion. The government has merely made laws and designed taxes around the institution that already existed. Now if you want to argue about the rights of gay couples to be acrued the same benefits as "legally" married couples, then I would have to argue against that. Why should a gay couple gain a benefit that straight roomates would not? Why would they gain better benefits than a committed couple that cohabitated instead of getting "legally" married?

Marriage may have started through religion, but today it does not continue it's existence necessarily entwined with religion. My wife and I had a completely religion free wedding: not in a church, no religious text passages, no mention of god. Are we still married? Yes. Regardless of what religion a marriage is completed through (if any), marriage is a legal contract.

Your point about gay couple gaining benefits that straight roomates don't get is a bad example. The gay couple is willing to be legally married and the roomates are not. Those are apples and oranges in terms of relationships. Benefits are afforded to those who have commited to the legal contract of marriage, and this contract should be available to any combination of two people are willing to shoulder all the responsibilities and conditions of it. Religion should only affect the location and style of ceremony.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 1, 2003, 4:22 pm

it seems like all the people that are opposed to the gay marriage always bring god into the stuff .... where is the seperation of church and state? i don't want some jesus loving bible humper making the laws where i live. if i wanted that i could move to iran or something ... different religion ... but same basic principal.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 1, 2003, 4:30 pm

If you reject the whole God concept Drasta then would you not want full freedom to participate in determining public morality?

If you wanted to play a part would you not want your vote on moral issues to count?

If you say yes to those two statements, would you not be concerned if nine unelected former lawyers decided to overrule your will as a voter and took it upon themselves to redefine a law that delt with morality?