Mormon forum lights up over California gay change

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_skippy the dead
_Emeritus
Posts: 1676
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:39 am

Post by _skippy the dead »

Droopy wrote:As I said before, this issue had no business going before the court at all, any more than Roe had any business being decided by the judiciary. These are matters for the states and for the people within the framework of legislative democracy whose decisions are subject to the consent of the governed.


You do realize that you continue to make the same error in asserting this. This particular case IS a STATE case before a STATE court. In this instance, the people in the STATE of California passed a STATE law that was deemed to be in conflict with the STATE constitution. Under the checks and balances system of government, this is what happens.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Moniker 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.

Alright, I admit it: I'm ignorant.

I thought the right to privacy was implied because the government cannot enter and search my property without either my invitation or a warrant.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_skippy the dead
_Emeritus
Posts: 1676
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:39 am

Post by _skippy the dead »

asbestosman wrote:
Moniker 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.

Alright, I admit it: I'm ignorant.

I thought the right to privacy was implied because the government cannot enter and search my property without either my invitation or a warrant.


There is a specific right guaranteed in the bill of rights (4th amendment) that prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Then on top of that, starting with Connecticut v. Griswold, the court began defining a "penumbra" of privacy philosophy that extends that restriction on unreasonable search and seizure to other areas where government should not intrude (the case involved birth control access, If I recall correctly). This "penumbra" has been extended on a few occasions to extend to other areas of reproduction and sexual activities among consenting adults (most notably, it is the underpinnings of Roe v. Wade). There is no small controversy about it amongst legal scholars and society in general.

As a side note, the current court has actually reduced some of the rights surrounding unreasonable search and seizure, and has broadened some of the government's rights in this area.

At any rate - you aren't alone in seeing the "implied right to privacy."
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

skippy the dead wrote:
Droopy wrote:As I said before, this issue had no business going before the court at all, any more than Roe had any business being decided by the judiciary. These are matters for the states and for the people within the framework of legislative democracy whose decisions are subject to the consent of the governed.


You do realize that you continue to make the same error in asserting this. This particular case IS a STATE case before a STATE court. In this instance, the people in the STATE of California passed a STATE law that was deemed to be in conflict with the STATE constitution. Under the checks and balances system of government, this is what happens.


I betcha he supports the federal prohibition of certain things he doesn't appreciate! It only seems he gets ruffled when state courts go against his whims without his input (on the other side of the country) that he gets out of sorts. Or of course he's probably paranoid that through the Full Faith and Credit Clause his state might be looking at dealing with this, as well. (I wonder if he'll rant about that now?)

Coggins apparently isn't aware of the check and balance aspect of amendments to state constitutions, either, Skippy. Perhaps Coggins should stop lecturing folks....

~Edited~

Rereading Coggins quote I think he meant to say that the state should be left up to the popular vote essentially and ignore the role of the Judiciary that he sees as elites creating legislation.
Last edited by Guest on Mon May 19, 2008 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

skippy the dead wrote:As a side note, the current court has actually reduced some of the rights surrounding unreasonable search and seizure, and has broadened some of the government's rights in this area.

This is concerning to me. What happened?
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

by the way, here's an analysis of the Kinsey stats:

http://www.pedrotytgat.be/homoseksualit ... _scale.htm

8 percent of the males who belong to the group that goes into high school but not beyond, 59 percent of the grade school level, and 47 percent of the college level have had homosexual experience to the point of orgasm if they remain single to the age of 35. 13 percent of males react erotically to other males without having overt homosexual contacts after the onset of adolescence. (This 13 percent, coupled with the 37 percent who do have overt homosexual experience, means that a full 50 percent of males have at least some sexual response to other males after adolescence -- and conversely, that only the other 50 percent of the male population is entirely heterosexual throughout life.)

25 percent of the male population has more than incidental homosexual experience or reactions (i.e. rates 2-6) for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55.

18 percent of males have at least as much homosexual as heterosexual in their histories (i.e. rate 3-6) for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55.

13 percent of the male population has more homosexual than heterosexual experience (i.e. rates 4-6) for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55.

8 percent of males are exclusively homosexual (i.e. rate 6) for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55.

4 percent of males are exclusively homosexual throughout their lives after the onset of adolescence.

Here, as elsewhere, data concerning homosexuality is cited for males rather than females, not out of "male bias" but mainly because equivalent female data often cannot be understood without extensive additional explanation. Orgasm, for instance, is fundamental to virtually all overt male sexuality, while with females, psychological arousal, overt sexual action, and actual orgasm are often disconcertingly apart. In fact, orgasm is reached in only about half of female homosexual contacts (and in a still smaller portion of female heterosexual contacts).

Moreover, female sexuality tends to be far more pliant, and thus more changeable, than equivalent male responses. Thus while the sexual revolution made no appreciable change in the male percentages mentioned above, certain changes in female responses, especially regarding homosexual try-outs, have been noted subsequent to Kinsey's 1953 findings. The reasons for these and a host of other complex matters in both male and female sexuality continue to intrigue sex researchers, and continue to validate the Kinsey 0-6 scale as a much needed and appreciated measuring and descriptive device.


Of course, it is possible that the population pool Kinsey used for his studied tainted the results. But working with this, it would appear that 4% of males are "strictly homosexual". 50% of males appear to be strictly heterosexual. The others are in-between on the Kinsey scale and could, in my opinion, possibly be influenced by environment and culture.

The question is: so what? Does that mean something "bad"? Of course I know it does to conservative Christians, but outside the god question, does it mean something "bad"? Is it "bad" for a culture/environment to influence bisexuals towards homosexuality, but "good" for a culture/environment to influence bisexuals towards heterosexuality?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_skippy the dead
_Emeritus
Posts: 1676
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:39 am

Post by _skippy the dead »

Moniker wrote:~Edited~

Rereading Coggins quote I think he meant to say that the state should be left up to the popular vote essentially and ignore the role of the Judiciary that he sees as elites creating legislation.


That is a possible reading, but I discounted it based on his specific reference to the 10th amendment in his rant on MADB (and bringing up Roe v. Wade, which is a lightning rod for federal issue vs. state sovereignty).

Either way, lucky for him the state supreme court in California is elected by the people, so not only do the people get to amend the state constitution and pass laws by popular vote, they also get to pick the people who interpret the laws! The people have the power in each branch.

But if he is arguing that the general will of the people can violate a constitution, then he is sorely in need of a course on what a constitution means.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Post by _Droopy »

You do realize that you continue to make the same error in asserting this. This particular case IS a STATE case before a STATE court. In this instance, the people in the STATE of California passed a STATE law that was deemed to be in conflict with the STATE constitution. Under the checks and balances system of government, this is what happens.


1. The 10th amendment reserves all unenumerated rights to the states (legislatures) or to the people. It mentions nothing about the courts. Legislatures, in a constitutional sense, make and unmake laws, not courts. Public school seems to have done as much damage to your as it has done to some other folks here.

2. What features of the state constitution has anything to say, or imply, about homosexual marriage, or marriage of any kind?

3. The California Supreme Court is doing precisely what the federal Supreme Court does frequently: legislated from the bench.

Your argument is clever nonsense in the service of ideology masquerading as rational argument. Roll the dice again Skippy.
_skippy the dead
_Emeritus
Posts: 1676
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:39 am

Post by _skippy the dead »

Droopy wrote:
You do realize that you continue to make the same error in asserting this. This particular case IS a STATE case before a STATE court. In this instance, the people in the STATE of California passed a STATE law that was deemed to be in conflict with the STATE constitution. Under the checks and balances system of government, this is what happens.


1. The 10th amendment reserves all unenumerated rights to the states (legislatures) or to the people. It mentions nothing about the courts. Legislatures, in a constitutional sense, make and unmake laws, not courts. Public school seems to have done as much damage to your as it has done to some other folks here.

2. What features of the state constitution has anything to say, or imply, about homosexual marriage, or marriage of any kind?

3. The California Supreme Court is doing precisely what the federal Supreme Court does frequently: legislated from the bench.

Your argument is clever nonsense in the service of ideology masquerading as rational argument. Roll the dice again Skippy.


So riddle me this, braniac. If a law is passed by the people or by the legislature that is in conflict with a constitution, what is to be done? How is such a conflict to be resolved? Seems to me that the various branches of government have found a nifty way to resolve these issues, but you do not seem to understand how the system works.

I believe that the court very ably supported its decision in this regard, and I am glad it did so.

Your argument is not clever at all, but merely nonsense.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

skippy the dead wrote:
But if he is arguing that the general will of the people can violate a constitution, then he is sorely in need of a course on what a constitution means.


Hallelujah!
Post Reply