GAY MARRIAGE LEGALIZED BY HEDONISTIC COASTAL STATE... Iowa?

[_JohnStuartMill]

You're responding as if I had said or implied that the ruling was jurisprudentially incorrect. I didn't. I just said that I wasn't analyzing it along that dimension in my posts in this thread.

I assume you mean "jurisprudentially correct" instead of incorrect--that is that I supposed that you implied that the ruling was correct according to the state constitution. I did indeed think so--apparently wrongly.

No, I meant what I said there. Initially, I said that I'd offered no opinion on the legal correctness of the ruling; you pointed to that as evidence that the complaints of improper judicial review were justified. That could only be the case if I had had admitted to a belief that the ruling was incorrect, which I did not do.

I was thinking specifically of this:

As usual, the Morgbots on the other board are frothing about 'judicial tyranny'. Interesting that they use that last word, because the original tyrants were often leaders who trampled on the interests of minorities with the consent or blessing of the majority. Sound familiar, guys?

Now, I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that you can't divorce the notion of "judcial tyranny" from that of the proper jurisprudence of rulings. If I am wrong about this, I am open to correction. Besides, it's obvious that my clairvoyance is lacking today. I'm just trying to explain where my thoughts on this came from.

I think you are wrong, actually. Judicial tyranny, to me, is more than overstepping one's jurisdiction. It has to involve the curtailment of some non-separation-of-powers rights as well.

I'm just trying to explain where my thoughts on this came from.

I understand. Thanks for keeping your cool.

[_harmony]

What other examples of institutionalized discrimination has the legislative branch actually tackled?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (original link privided by Smac97).
.
.
.

It's been 45 years. Wouldn't ya think they'd find the time to tackle something else since then?

[_rcrocket]

Yeah. They have.

Clinton signed into law, an a Democratic Congress passed, the Defense of Marriage Act which holds that the federal goverment will not recognize gay marriage legalized by a state. This came after extensive congressional testimony and supporting studies.

[_moksha]

To compound matters, Iowa is the only state in the nation that consumes more Jell-O than Utah.

[_JohnStuartMill]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (original link privided by Smac97).

It's been 45 years. Wouldn't ya think they'd find the time to tackle something else since then?

Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- nearly a full century after African-Americans were awarded due process. That's not exactly the best argument for letting the legislature handle the guaranteeing of constitutional rights. (I'm happy to point out that that's still a decade and a half before God's Church decided to desegregate, though.)

Does smac97 think that Loving v. Virginia was "judicial tyranny", by the way? Americans were much more opposed to interracial marriage in 1967 -- and often held these opinions for religious reasons -- than they are opposed to gay marriage today. Don't the same arguments apply?

[_moksha]

What other examples of institutionalized discrimination has the legislative branch actually tackled?

The Americans with Disabilities Act.

[_asbestosman]

Does smac97 think that Loving v. Virginia was "judicial tyranny", by the way?

No. He feels it is sound constitutional analysis. He does not feel the same about gay marriage.

Americans were much more opposed to interracial marriage in 1967 -- and often held these opinions for religious reasons -- than they are opposed to gay marriage today. Don't the same arguments apply?

According to Smac97 and the other lawyers, no. I don't have the expertise to follow the reasoning, but since they are lawyers I suspect there's something to it.

[Analytics]

I was thinking about shoes being on the other foot and I realize that there are classes of people I treat in a way such that I wouldn't be happy if the shoe were on the other foot--adults who have sexual relations with a minor (even if they can legally marry them, but have not).

Also, people who engage in bestiality. You can kill ad eat animals as food without their consent, but you can't play with this potential food (in the Biblically sense of knowing it).

Neither of these examples are meant to parallel homosexuality. It is limited only to consideration about whether shoes on the other foot is a necessary or good consideration. That is, what is the real rule if naïve application of the Golden Rule or Categorical Imperitive or whatever is not applicable to treatment of criminals. Is it ultimately a matter of personal preference?

I believe one could try making some interesting arguments about both cases mentioned above concerning why the laws governing them should be different than they are. There could be a lot more controversy concerning them. So while they aren't fully parallel to homosexual rights in my mind, they do bring to my mind the difficulty o classifying what sort of things we should treat equally and what we shouldn't (on the basis of our own prejudicial opinions about consent even when no similar consent is required for similarly significant but legal acts).

[_JohnStuartMill]

Does smac97 think that Loving v. Virginia was "judicial tyranny", by the way?

No. He feels it is sound constitutional analysis. He does not feel the same about gay marriage.

Americans were much more opposed to interracial marriage in 1967 -- and often held these opinions for religious reasons -- than they are opposed to gay marriage today. Don't the same arguments apply?

According to Smac97 and the other lawyers, no. I don't have the expertise to follow the reasoning, but since they are lawyers I suspect there's something to it.

There are good lawyers, and there are bad lawyers. smac97's analysis of the ramifications of legalized gay marriage in California is disputed by virtually all law professors who have voiced an opinion on the matter.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I was thinking about shoes being on the other foot and I realize that there are classes of people I treat in a way such that I wouldn't be happy if the shoe were on the other foot--adults who have sexual relations with a minor (even if they can legally marry them, but have not).

If the minor is capable of giving meaningful consent, then I don't see an issue with it. Like most people, though, I'm opposed to pedophilia, because I don't think that children are capable of giving meaningful consent, for a number of reasons.

Also, people who engage in bestiality. You can kill ad eat animals as food without their consent, but you can't play with this potential food (in the Biblically sense of knowing it).

I'm a vegetarian, actually, so this argument won't work against me, although it may expose inconsistencies in other people's beliefs.

Neither of these examples are meant to parallel homosexuality. It is limited only to consideration about whether shoes on the other foot is a necessary or good consideration. That is, what is the real rule if naïve application of the Golden Rule or Categorical Imperitive or whatever is not applicable to treatment of criminals. Is it ultimately a matter of personal preference?

Rule utilitarianism is pretty useful, I think. It doesn't have the problems that a God-based morality have (look up the Euthyphro dilemma to see what I mean), and it doesn't run into most of the problems that other systems of ethics do.

I believe one could try making some interesting arguments about both cases mentioned above concerning why the laws governing them should be different than they are. There could be a lot more controversy concerning them. So while they aren't fully parallel to homosexual rights in my mind, they do bring to my mind the difficulty o classifying what sort of things we should treat equally and what we shouldn't (on the basis of our own prejudicial opinions about consent even when no similar consent is required for similarly significant but legal acts).

I'm not claiming that all of our laws are consistent with each other.