Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,750 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

I don't see how anyone can oppose this reasoning on constitutional grounds. Seems that the only objection would be religious or moral which should be covered by seperation of church and state. Sure the churches can refuse to marry gays, but I can't see how they can prevent them from going to the Justice of Peace (or Vegas like Britney) and getting hitched and enjoying all the "benefits" that married couples incur.

BTW...where is TJeanloz? I miss his insightful comments on Non-Cycling. Hopefully the new format wasn't too much for him. Come back to the 5 and dime Jimmy Dean.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,750 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
czardonic said:
Well, they couldn't go to Vegas. And the "Separation" is an invention the Secular Humanist Conspiracy.
They can't go to Vegas, YET....but I'm guessing if MA opens it up then Nevada won't be too far behind. Not like they seem to be all that interested in protecting the nation's morals or anything right now. It would go right along with the legalized hookers, gambling, and general pagan atmosphere they are trying to promote lately.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
781 Posts
MIAs

TJ says he's not coming. Others too. This sucky format to blame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,750 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Too bad

RedMenace said:
TJ says he's not coming. Others too. This sucky format to blame.
That's too bad...if they were keeping the old format I'd probably agree, but things change and I believe once we all get used to all these newfangled methods and gizmos that it will be workable again. I can't think of any other bicycling forum that is any better than this one. Have you looked at VeloNews or Cyclingforum lately? LAME! Would be a shame to lose some of our more regular posters though. For the most part it's a decent bunch of folks. :mad:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
Somewhat confused by your position

By comparing same sex marriages to immoral acts, you intimate that they too are immoral. Do you believe the federal/state government should promote immorality? :confused:


Bocephus Jones said:
They can't go to Vegas, YET....but I'm guessing if MA opens it up then Nevada won't be too far behind. Not like they seem to be all that interested in protecting the nation's morals or anything right now. It would go right along with the legalized hookers, gambling, and general pagan atmosphere they are trying to promote lately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,750 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
no

Live Steam said:
By comparing same sex marriages to immoral acts, you intimate that they too are immoral. Do you believe the federal/state government should promote immorality? :confused:
I don't consider the union of two commited, consenting individuals to be immoral--regardless of their sex. Morality or immorality is the realm of religion and should not usually be considered when deciding a constitutional rights issue. Unions or sex between 2 consenting adults (of legal age to be able to consent) should be allowed in my opinion--regardless of what the "majority" thinks about it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
Well the argument you made for same sex

marriage made it sound that way.
Not like they seem to be all that interested in protecting the nation's morals or anything
:confused:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,360 Posts
Never happen, no way, in Nevada

I've lived in Nevada nearly 30 years, and--freewheeling image notwithstanding--once you get out of Las Vegas, it's about the most conservative, my-religion-or-the-highway, God-told-me-so-himself place I've ever been outside of Georgia in the '60s. Las Vegas tends to be Democratic, but it's based on labor unions and an anti-Boss mentality, not anything that could be called liberal thought. Reno is heavily Republican, anti-union, reflexively anti-tax and socially conservative. The rural counties (every county but Clark and Washoe) are sort of conservo-libertarian. Anyway, there's not going to be any gay anything here.
 

·
Game on, b*tches!
Joined
·
13,467 Posts
If that's all it takes to send someone off.

That's kind of sad. If you can't accept change in such an insignificant (really, in the grand scheme of things) portion of your life, what do you do when real change occurs? Take your toys and go home? :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,558 Posts
RedMenace said:
TJ says he's not coming. Others too. This sucky format to blame.
I only visit one other forum on the net (a muscle car board) and it has this format and it works fine. It probably has more users than RBR but it loads a lot quicker and isn't nearly as busy in appearance (it's non-profit). It also has much better smilies. But this format can work fine once people get used to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
inevitable

I think this is something that is inevitable, given the ongoing trend to further expand civil rights and equality for everyone, no matter their beliefs or behaviors.

However, I'm not convinced that there is any Constitutional right to gay marriage, based upon the text of the document and common law since. There well may be under the Mass. Constitution, but I don't know.

Generally, I'm more in favor of the people, by initiative or referendum, or the legislatures expanding these types of rights. I don't like activist courts. Dramatically changing the status quo is making law, not interpreting it.

Gay marriage, or the gay lifestyle, for that matter, is something that is totally unfathomable to me, as I cannot even begin to understand it. Nonetheless, no doubt there are many things I do or desire to do that cannot be understood or accepted by others, too. Therefore, assuming no one is hurt by it, I couldn't care less what other consenting adults do and would strongly support their ability to live how they want. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Even if it is a religious issue, and I'm not sure it is, I believe that it's not my role to cram my religious beliefs down others' throats, as my religous beliefs do not require me to enforce them upon others. Now, I may well be entitled, as everyone is, to attempt to persuade others to accept them and maybe believe likewise, but that's not the same as legislating them upon others. Huge difference, actually.

In my view, for me to be truly free, I absolutely must defend the right of others to live freely, too, no matter how much I or others may disagree with them.

On a practical note, however, too much change too fast can unravel the common threads of society that keep us from all murdering each other in the streets, so to speak. Sometimes violent rapid change may be warranted (Civil War), and sometimes more gradual incremental change may be better. I think this is an example of the latter.

Doug
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,484 Posts
Wow.

I agree 100 percent.
 

·
Daylight Fading
Joined
·
1,902 Posts
Give me that old time Activism......

You know the idea of an activist court vs. a popular movement is really the crux of the argument to me. I see no reason to descriminate against gays/lesbians but many do. Without activist courts there would be very very very slow change.

Where would we be without Brown v. Board? I think that the activism of the Bench is appropriate. Call me a pessimist, but I'm not sure that change would happen sometimes without their progressive attitudes. Your lament and worry that change too fast would possibly cause upheavel is really a stretch.

BT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,083 Posts
Doug after that silly "Dean supports human rights abuses" thread you started a couple of weeks ago, I'd thought you'd gone off of the deep end.

Now I know you haven't! This is probably the most reasonable post I've read on this board for quite a while, though I can't resist nitpicking two items:

1. Calling a court "activist" is a perjorative code word for saying that the court doesn't enforce the law in the way that you like. I doubt you'd argue that we should go to enforcing the Constitution only as written. Turn back Miranda rights, privacy rulings and the like? The courts and especially the supreme court are there to act to bring our 215 year old Constitution in line with the world as it exists today. The framers' intent is all well and good, but quite a few of those guys rode horses home to their farms to have their (virtually enslaved) women wait on them while their (truly enslaved) slaves tilled the fields. Its a different world today, and somebody has to figure out how the document written by those guys applies today. It's the courts.

2. Not really a nitpick, but a request for further explanation... did you really mean to compare granting gay marriage to the civil war? I don't purport to have my finger on the (what I believe to be largely conservative) pulse of the No-Gay-Marriage lobby, but I don't think they are going to go off the deep end and succede if same sex couples are allowed to marry. Do you? I see people being dissappointed, outraged, mad, etc., but I just don't see this as an issue that's going to cause anarchy in the streets.

That said, I'm in wholehearted agreement with 95% of what you wrote. Good show!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
further explanation

Thanks.

I don't intend the term "activism" to be perjorative in a substantive sense, only procedural. In other words, it would not matter the substance of the decision, radical changes that reflect making, rather than interpreting, law are activist, and therefore inappropriate. Case in point, if the Court were to vacate Roe. v. Wade now, that would be activism, at that decision is now the status quo and generally accepted law of the land. I believe that the legitimacy of the courts, which is their primary asset, is undermined through activism. That's the role of the legislature. If that means changes such as those through Brown v. Board, etc., are delayed, then so be it. Our government works because of our constitutional framework of separation of powers and perceived legitimacy.

Of course, there are means to overrule the Court, amendments, but as I sit here I can't think of even one instance of an amendment for the sole purpose of reversing a Court decision. It's a very cumbersome process, as it should be. Practically, it does not really exist for this purpose.

The dissimilarity of the Civil War (slavery) and gay marriage was my point. The common thread is human rights/freedom/liberty. The dissimilarity, of which I was noting, is that slavery needed to be ended NOW (then) and was important enough to war about, for rather obvious reasons, and gay marriage is not quite so pressing. Some might disagree, but that's my opinion.

Doug
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
I'm typically not in favor of legislating

for small fractions of society. I really don't care if the courts make it legal or not.

From a tax perspective, it's not beneficial to be married, thanks Clinton for the vetos on the way out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,079 Posts
I think this entire issue has been turned on its ear, and not by "activist courts". Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this decistion simply clarify existing law? Is it activism to assert the legal status quo -- that Gay Marriage is allowed under the Mass. Constitution and has been (presumably) since its adoption?

If so, then the activism going on here is on the part of the anti-gay mob (and their appeasers, however well-meaning), who have discovered that their assumption that the law reflects their predjudices is incorrect. If it takes an amendment to a constitution to "protect marriage", does that not make it clear that denying gays the right to marry is un-constitutional, and thus not in line with the princples that said constitution was designed to codify?

It is a shame that people don't take these opportunities to examine how their beliefs became so divergent from the principles of our founders.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top