Appeals Court: States Can Define Marriage As 1 Man, 1 Woman

[rodheadlee]

  Traffic laws only apply to people who drive a car.  They don't apply to pedestrians. 

Driving is a privilege not a right. You just made his point for him. 

[jwhitlock]

The trouble with this tired defense is that in a court of law, it is facts that court cases are based on, not false misrepresenting claims.  When those that wanted to ban SSM had to stand in front of a judge and under oath make most of the claims that were made in the Prop 8 advertising, they had nothing to say.  They couldn't say under oath the harm SSM does to their marriages.  They couldn't say under oath that because of SSM then children would be taught to be gay in kindergarden.  They couldn't say under oath that children were forced to attend a gay wedding.  In fact, those who want to ban SSM found that in a court of law, there was very little that they could say to justify not allowing gay Americans the civil rights they are entitled to.  

 

Sure you can always claim "activist judges" didn't allow them to say unfounded statements.  But it has now been 50 court hearings.  50.  Conservative judges, liberal judges you name it, have not found statements that were factual in a court of law that gives them a reason not to allow SSM.  And that is why your rhetoric is tired, and unfounded.  And those are the facts, not some emotional handwringing.

 

I have no idea where you got the idea that all laws have to apply to everyone.  It certainly is not in reality.  Traffic laws only apply to people who drive a car.  They don't apply to pedestrians.  Loving vs Virginia only apply to interracial couples.  They don't apply to anyone else.  Commerce laws only apply to individuals who own businesses.  Voting laws only apply to U.S. citizens that are over 18.  Need I go on?  There are actually very few laws that apply to everyone.  Many are found in the constitution. One of them is Equal Protection under the law.  One right that you seem to think should only apply to heterosexual couples.

 

We don't have a system of justice in this country. We have a legal system that often bears little relation to what happens in the real world. The rulings on SSM, where judges pronounced that gays had been denied a right everyone else had, have been a clear indication that they were ruling from a legal perspective, and not from a real world perspective. SSM is still a special privilege being granted to a narrow special interest group, and some court pronouncing it otherwise does not make it so in the real world.

 

Those who rightly opposed SSM understood that they were constrained by unrealistic legal rules and so couldn't make those arguments. The arguments are still valid in the real world, and in the real world we're starting to see the clear negative effects of SSM - something that most of our esteemed jurists are inclined to ignore. Consequences aren't something they're concerned with.

 

Otherwise, I never made the point that all laws have have to apply to everyone, so you really don't have a point.

[jwhitlock]

Aside from the lack of substance in your comments, your manner of speaking indicates that you have no training or experience in the administration of justice, and are not able to discriminate between good and bad judicial decision-making.  You apparently do not understand the U. S. Constitution nor the function of the judiciary.  I do not believe that you actually have read important decisions.

 

I am not so concerned with the fact, for example, that the California federal judge (Vaughn Walker) who made an important negative decision on Prop. 8 happened to be homosexual, and should have recused himself, since there are other judges who eventually backed him on principle.  We always read emotional claims that this or that judge or court is cramming some legal requirement down somebody's throats, without any concern at all for the legal principles involved.  You seem unable to address those concerns, and like the White Southerners who constantly condemned the federal judiciary for reversing structural racism (including regular lynchings), you seem unable to deal with the inevitable change which is coming in the area of non-traditional marriage.  No one is asking you to like or promote non-traditional marriage, only that you not unlawfully deny it to others.  That is the direction such decision-making is taking us, willy nilly.

 

Consider your unwarranted personal attack comparing me to a racist bigot who condones lynchings reported. Otherwise your irrelevant and demeaning comments aren't worth responding to.

[california boy]

We don't have a system of justice in this country. We have a legal system that often bears little relation to what happens in the real world. The rulings on SSM, where judges pronounced that gays had been denied a right everyone else had, have been a clear indication that they were ruling from a legal perspective, and not from a real world perspective. SSM is still a special privilege being granted to a narrow special interest group, and some court pronouncing it otherwise does not make it so in the real world.

 

Those who rightly opposed SSM understood that they were constrained by unrealistic legal rules and so couldn't make those arguments. The arguments are still valid in the real world, and in the real world we're starting to see the clear negative effects of SSM - something that most of our esteemed jurists are inclined to ignore. Consequences aren't something they're concerned with.

 

Otherwise, I never made the point that all laws have have to apply to everyone, so you really don't have a point.

 

Well Mr. Whitlock, I don't know what "real world" you live in, but it certainly is not mine.  

 

 I think I will just bow out of this conversation.  I readily acknowledge that you are entitled to hold what ever views you want even when there is no legal basis for them.  For me, my interest is in defending all Americans from people who want to vote away their rights guaranteed them by the laws of this land. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Driving is a privilege not a right. You just made his point for him. 

One often hears that hackneyed phrase, but it is false.

 

Anyone who shows up and has the proper credentials and can pass the test has a right to drive, which means nearly everyone.  The same applies to every other right: Voting, gun ownership, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  A privilege is restricted in fundamental ways which deny it to most others.  Rights and privileges can be taken away.  In the case of rights, only for just cause (legal violations, infirmity, etc.).  Privileges (such as the class privileges of the nobility in old England) are removable only on whim, or by a revolution which overthrows the old order.

[tonie]

I suspect SCOTUS will rule that a State can define marriage. SCOTUS will rule that States can define marriage, but will also rule that States lack a legally acceptable basis for prohibiting ssm.

[Robert F. Smith]

Consider your unwarranted personal attack comparing me to a racist bigot who condones lynchings reported. Otherwise your irrelevant and demeaning comments aren't worth responding to.

I did not say that you are any such thing, JW, but did think that your anger at the federal judiciary is the same as that of many others -- a prime example being White Southerners who could not accept their obligation to obey the federal judiciary.  I am not suggesting thereby that you are guilty of the same sorts of horrific acts, but only that such decisions frequently engender anger and harsh responses from those supporting the status quo.  Such are not reasoned and calm responses, nor are they capable of seeing the larger context.

 

I am very sorry that you misunderstood my comments and that they caused you pain.  However, you might also want to consider that you have caused pain to california boy.

 

Thread closed.