Be Courageous - - Support Prop 8

[_dblagent007]

The judiciary just hands down edicts invented out of the members own policy choices.

Nope. The judiciary simply interprets the constitution established by the people, which is the judiciary's job.

Yeah, that's why the liberals had to come up with its living breathing constitution mish-mash.

This process short circuits the democratic one.

Wrong again. The people created the judiciary and the constitution, and instructed the former to interpret the latter. There is nothing more democratic than this.

Uhm, no. The people created the judiciary and the constitution alright. But the judiciary gave itself the power to interpret the constitution to the exclusion of all others (Marbury v. Madison). That in and of itself probably isn't so bad. The problem arises when the thing being interpreted suddenly starts living and breathing and encompassing rights in its penumbras and emanations. That's when the people need to watch out.

[_Mike Reed]

Yeah, that's why the liberals had to come up with its living breathing constitution mish-mash.

Ironic. Latter-day Saints believe that their religion should be a living organism, so that it can adjust to and accommodate the needs of the Church in our day. But then, when it comes to Proposition 8, they insist that the constitution (and the definition of "marriage") must be fixed.

[_Yoda]

I think it self apparent, but I am not the author of the various studies, scientific and otherwise, against gay marriage, that can easily be googled.

Googling the subject will not answer my question. I asked for YOUR personal view. Why do YOU feel that gay marriage would be a burden on society?

If you are unwilling to answer my question, that's fine.

I just find it odd that you would not be willing to do so since you are obviously passionate about this issue.

[_dartagnan]

It would seem both Obama and Biden (according to the VP debate) are of the mind that they should be granted civil unions, but there's no need to call it "marriage." I actually think that's reasonable, given what homosexuals are really fighting for are the same legal rights and privileges as hetero married couples enjoy.

I mean, it's just a name, and it comes from a religious tradition at that. If I were gay, I'd want to distance myself from the term "marriage" as much as possible given religion's bigotry of gay people.

Jesus.

I agree.

In fact this is what I argued a year or so ago, when beastie and others got pissed at me for saying marriage was a religious concept that the anti-religionists should be willing to disassociate themselves from.

[Guest]

That's the point. The church is using the democratic process. The judiciary just hands down edicts invented out of the members own policy choices. This process short circuits the democratic one.

No it doesn't short circuit. Judges serve the democratic process just as they are supposed to. They are chosen to interpret the laws that are set up through democratic process. Their interpretation of the state constitution is that you can't segregate people into so-called "separate but equal" classes unless you have a good reason. And the reasons presented didn't convince them.

Now, if the judges were the ones changing the constitution because of their own bigoted or religious opinions, that would definitely short circuit the democratic process. The judges aren't supposed to change the rules, just interpret them. The people are supposed to change the rules. And here they are trying.

It seems to me that the system is working properly. The garbage about judges ruling from the bench is just ignorant whining meant to energize the mob.

Yeah, the system is working properly so long as your policy ideals are being implemented by the judges.

The methodology of how to interpret a statute or constitution is of utmost importance. Perhaps you could explain the methodology used by a believer in the living, breathing constitution concept?

The competing methods rely on revolutionary concepts like: (a) limiting one't interpretation to the TEXT of the document, (b) gaining an understanding of the ordinary meaning of the text at the time it was enacted, etc.

[_dblagent007]

Yeah, that's why the liberals had to come up with its living breathing constitution mish-mash.

Ironic. Latter-day Saints believe that their religion should be a living organism, so that it can adjust to and accommodate the needs of the Church in our day. But then, when it comes to Proposition 8, they insist that the constitution (and the definition of "marriage") must be fixed.

You've lost me on that one.

Maybe its ironic too that I believe the constitution should have a fixed meaning and I happened to change my mind the other day about whether my daughter could have a piece of bubble gum when she asked.

[_truth dancer]

But, with all these politicians and the federal government saying the same thing, they must have some basis of support for it. And so do I — traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the best possible basis upon which to raise a family and support those pieces of society (schools, churches) which support children and the families which raise them. Gay marriage is not an acceptable burden upon society.

That depends.

I know quite a few horrific families that are clearly not raising a family in ways which support children or society.

And, I'm certain the children down the street who were adopted (from an orphanage in Siberia) by a lesbian couple, are doing MUCH better than they would if they had not been adopted. In fact they most likely would not be alive.

When someone can tell me how society, or my neighborhood, or my community, or my country would be damaged if this amazing couple got married, I may consider reconsidering my position on this topic.

I can see no downside to allowing a gay or lesbian couple marry and I can see quite a bit of good.

Also, I'm with those who don't really care about the term but am pretty serious about the rights of a committed couple who have chosen to devote their lives to each other and their family.

~td~

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Nope. The judiciary simply interprets the constitution established by the people, which is the judiciary's job.

Yeah, that's why the liberals had to come up with its living breathing constitution mish-mash.

Don't blame liberals, blame the Founding Fathers for setting setting up the judiciary to interpret the constitution.

The people created the judiciary and the constitution all right. But the judiciary gave itself the power to interpret the constitution to the exclusion of all others (Marbury v. Madison).

And the judiciary did so by interpreting the constitution in Marbury.

The problem arises when the thing being interpreted suddenly starts living and breathing and encompassing rights in its penumbras and emanations. That's when the people need to watch out.

But that's precisely what a court has to do when it interprets the consitution. Your beef sounds very un-American.

[_moksha]

the Defense of Marriage Act, which holds:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

So we in Utah do not have to get our underwear in a bunch after all. What a relief. Our Temples will be safe from maurading gays.

[_dblagent007]

the Defense of Marriage Act, which holds:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

So we in Utah do not have to get our underwear in a bunch after all. What a relief. Our Temples will be safe from maurading gays.

Oh that is devastating. But then the best arguments always begin with a false characterization of the other side's position.