Droopy wrote:I figured the Commerce Clause would be a buggeroo for you. The "right to privacy" is not in the United States Constitution nor is the right to a public education --yet, these (and others "rights") are found within our society and whether we disagree with them or not based on our ideologies is beside the point. They're constitutional in the sense that they are upheld by the Justices as being constitutional. That was the point I was trying to get at.
None of them are "rights" at all, in a constitutional sense. I thought you understood this subject matter Moniker. Unimpressive. Moniker, the alleged "libertarian", now drops her gaurd completely:
OH MY GODNESS! Coggins, the Supreme Court cites in their rulings "right to privacy" -- penumbras -- or called the "zone of privacy". The Supreme Court has enumerated on MANY rights in the scope of education! They use the term "rights"! If you want me to find the rulings I can. Yet, I'm tired of doing your homework for you!
I understand inalienable rights as set down in Hobbes, Locke, etc... and yet, this is NOT the narrow scope that our constitution relies upon, Coggins!
They're constitutional in the sense that they are upheld by the Justices as being constitutional. That was the point I was trying to get at.
No. They are constitutional
if and only if they are actually constitutional and can be shown to be so through an analysis of the original intent of the writers. What you really believe in Moniker, is rule by lawmakers, not rule of law, and the lawmakers you are defending here, the California Supremes,
have no constitutional authority to make law at all.
What? Okay, so who interprets the constitution, Coggins? Those that wrote the Constitution? Why even bother creating a Judiciary if interpretation is not allowed?
I agree with you that behaviors can be the basis for what options (or breaks) are afforded to certain people in our society. I think the government should either get out of encouraging success of certain families or encourage it for all.
Astounding how a libertarian can consistently make statements indistinguishable from those of of egalitarian socialists. If one has it, all must have it. If one cannot have it, none may have it.
I'm not a libertarian any more. Yet, I'm not a liberal -- of course I know our definitions of liberal differ, radically. Anyway, you're no libertarian and stop playing one.
Fundamental philosophical proposition number one: homosexual cohabitation is not a family. A random assemblage of sexually involved human beings is not a family. The natural family and its acceptable, socially healthy (in relative terms) modifications, are known and have been known for a very long time.
Well, too bad for you that you don't get the privilege of deciding what everyone else gets to do. Booo hooo friggin' wooo. Go read some Ayn Rand and stop playing tyrant to others.
I snipped the typical leftwing sob story because its of no relevance to the argument. A home composed of those practicing sexual perversions and living in the grossest violations of the Lord's commandments may be called a family in the manner Manson called his hippie cult a "family", or in some other sense, but not in a Gospel sense (which is what really matters), and not in the sense of what we know is optimum for children and for society as a whole.
Okay, are the swinging couples that do the wife swapping okey dokey with you, Coggins? Are you gonna start peeking in all the bedrooms? Make sure no ones checking out any porno or doing anything else you deem deviant? Again, that you pretend you are ANYTHING akin to a political libertarian and yet are soooo friggin' concerned what other people do in the privacy of their own homes gives you away.
What about the couple above, Coggins? Why does the dad still get to claim them as deductions every other year and get the EIC every other year if he so chooses and yet, the woman that actually raises his children can not legally marry these children's mother and be given parental rights that the father would gladly relinquish.
Sophistry like this will get you nowhere Moniker. We are not talking about dead beat dads, heterosexual divorcées, or out of wedlock fatherhood. We are talking about redefining the entire western concept of "family' to include homosexuals and, by extension, and as supported by many leading homosexual activists, virtually any combinations of gender roles or sexual preferences who claim to be "in love" and desireous of 'marriage".
Well, dead beat dads are still considered "family" under the courts. Grandparents that raise their kids are considered families. Single parent homes are families. Siblings that raise their younger siblings are families. Foster parents are still families, as well. Again, too bad that you don't get to decide how other people live their lives.
Families already are different than the nuclear family in many instances. Kids have step-parents, are being raised by grandparents, foster parents, etc... and if we actually cared about the kids we would recognize these families and try to support them.
I find it difficult, in this context, to believe you actually used this argument. Step children, being raised by grandparents or foster parents etc., are variations on the same heterosexual theme engendered by divorce, death, or out of wedlock birthing that, while not optimum (mom and dad in a sexually faithful, commtted relatinship who stay together over the long haul), are natural variations on the same theme. Homosexuality is a complete disorientation of the core paradigm (and hence, a perversion of it) and has no basis from which to claim any similar treatment.
No, it's not necessarily "the same heterosexual theme"! It can be all sorts of scenarios that don't necessarily correlate to ANYTHING about wedlock, birth, etc...
Homosexuals do have children, Coggins. They already have families in many instances! What do you do with these families? Why should the kids be punished 'cause others deem that their families are not what our society considers acceptable in terms of tax breaks, and economic help. Who does that help? Who does that hurt?
Homosexual cannot have children. If everyone was Gay, the entire populatin of the planet would, in time, vanish (which would be quite alright with the Sierra Club).
WHAT???? Can I call you a doofus now? Will CKSalmon scold me for this? WTF are you talking about? Homosexuals DO have children! And what does homosexuals having children have to do with the entire population of the planet vanishing? WTF? Are you suggesting that it's inherited! Wow. Good for you!
Society deems? Society (whatever that is), over many centuries, has come to understand what is optimal and what is not, and what is dysfunctional and destructive and what is not. There is no deeming about it.
Whatever that is???? You don't know what a society is?
The courts have the ability under our constitution and state constitutions to declare certain legislation unconstitutional. Do you recall amendments, Coggins? Can the citizens of any state or our republic actually be denied their ability to shape their state or nation? No. They can ratify those constitutions. Do you forget that every check has a balance?
The purpose of the federal judiciary is to interpret the laws made by accountable legislatures. Yammering on about unconstitutional legislation belies the very point at hand:
There is nothing in the California state constitution that requires this decision, any more than there is anything in the federal constitution that could possible be shown to require the
Roe decision. The judges are running on fumes here, as they (and the notorious Ninth Circuit) do on a consistent basis.
Well, like I said before if the people of the state of California want to override the Judicial branch they can appoint new judges that share their moral conscience or they can amend the constitution. It's NOT UP TO YOU!
Perhaps this is why the dissenting mirority in this case said (italics mine):
Oh, woo woo. Too bad that's the dissenting opinion and not the majority. Are you all of a sudden all for the minority opinion? :P
You again forget that the Judiciary is again checked by the popular vote in the way of amendments.
Only before the fact. After the fact, the change in law is, for all intents and purposes, permanent and beyond democratic control.
WTF are you talking about? The citizens of any state can CHANGE their constitution to reflect their desires and the Judicial branch can't do a damn thing about it! Same with the constitution of the United States of America! Go read up on
Miner v. Happersett and make sure my votes are actually being counted and I have the "right" to vote now, Coggies.
I understand the issues, too, Coggins. Yet, I understand that only what the Justices rule creates what is deemed constitutional or unconstitutional. That earlier decisions are overturned shows how this process is not stagnant.
Then you do not understand the constitution as you claim to do. Again you turn over the fate of the nation to 3, 7, or 9 black robed human beings. The point is, Moniker, that what is constitutional or unconstitutional is already in the constitution. Therefore, that to which the constitution does not speak has no standing in court as to adjudication, and is, as the 10th Amendment implies, reserved to state legislatures and the people. The constitution says nothing about marriage, homosexual or otherwise, let along imply any kind of "right" associated with it. Nor does it say anything about convenience abortion on demand, praying around flag poles before school, or many other such things.
WTF are you talking about? The state is CALIFORNIA! The Judiciary of the STATE of California ruled on marriages in the STATE!
You exhaust me. Seriously.