Reopening this issue--but ONLY to talk about the actual issue. Anyway:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070901/D8RCARCO0.html
http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2007/08/31/4
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070831/ap_ ... x_marriage
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Deci ... 239&page=1
A judge in Iowa struck down the state same sex marriage ban, ruling it discriminated by sex and fulfilled no real purpose. Only one couple was married before a stay was issued by the same judge.
"Hanson wrote that marriage was a fundamental right under the state constitution's due process clause, and as such, its denial triggered the highest level of court scrutiny. He also ruled that Iowa's statutory ban on same-sex marriage violated the state's equal protection clause by discriminating on the basis of sex, a determination that also required heightened scrutiny.
Finally, Hanson ruled that the state's asserted justifications for maintaining a marriage ban did not even pass the lowest standards of court review. Assuming that a state interest in promoting "responsible procreation" was a legitimate purpose, Hanson wrote, the remedy of blocking all gay couples from matrimony bore no rational relationship to the state's alleged goals. The fact that heterosexual felons, older couples, and couples with no interest in having children were free to marry also undercut the state's argument.
Iowa may be a red state, but as Hanson pointed out, it has a history of far-sighted jurisprudence. The state was the second, after California, to toss out laws against interracial marriage, years before the U.S. Supreme Court took action in Loving v Virginia."
Conservative pro-traditional marriage clown visited an escor
Moderator: Available
IJ
Well that is great--and dispite the fact that I essentially agree with the judges ratonal--to an extent--its still not the place of an UNELECTED judge to take upon himself the role of the ELECTED representatives and legislate from the bench.
Its really a simple matter IJ.
Just switch it around and ask yourself what your response would be if another judge decided that women didn't have the right to vote or that various Civil Rights legislation was "too broadly interprated" so he decided to strike it down in his court?
You of course would freak--and be quick with all the highly nuanced and parsed "reasons" why the judge had far overstepped his bounds.
You and I both know that to be true---yet I have no doubt that you'll argue it anyway.
The question has almost nothing to do with the "farsighted" ethics of a given State--and almost everything to do with the seperation of powers in the Republic.
Judges are not supposed to legislate from the bench--and with VERY good reason.
The people of Iowa have that right--not a single judge.
And its up to the people of that State to make up their OWN minds about it--not to depend on the whims--no matter how well-intentioned--of a single unelected judge.
The saying that the "road to hell is paved with good intentions" is such a time-worn commentary because its dangerously true.
Well that is great--and dispite the fact that I essentially agree with the judges ratonal--to an extent--its still not the place of an UNELECTED judge to take upon himself the role of the ELECTED representatives and legislate from the bench.
Its really a simple matter IJ.
Just switch it around and ask yourself what your response would be if another judge decided that women didn't have the right to vote or that various Civil Rights legislation was "too broadly interprated" so he decided to strike it down in his court?
You of course would freak--and be quick with all the highly nuanced and parsed "reasons" why the judge had far overstepped his bounds.
You and I both know that to be true---yet I have no doubt that you'll argue it anyway.
The question has almost nothing to do with the "farsighted" ethics of a given State--and almost everything to do with the seperation of powers in the Republic.
Judges are not supposed to legislate from the bench--and with VERY good reason.
The people of Iowa have that right--not a single judge.
And its up to the people of that State to make up their OWN minds about it--not to depend on the whims--no matter how well-intentioned--of a single unelected judge.
The saying that the "road to hell is paved with good intentions" is such a time-worn commentary because its dangerously true.
Last edited by cxt on Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
You know, this post really had nothing to do with you. And I don't intend to have another long, drawn out discussion with you about this, and I'll ignore your attempt to bait me by suggesting I've staked out some position on judicial activism simply by posting other people's newswriting on the issue (I do a little of that below, however). You're now raising the whole issue of whether judges can interpret laws to find new rights the authors didn't intend, which would be a whole new thread. Go start it.
Diversion:
Meanwhile, here, all I have to say to you about judicial activism is that you need to be called on your hyperbole that finding a right not to be discriminated on the basis of sex (sounds pretty fair to most americans, eh?) starts us down a road to "chaos and tyranny."
Sure. Anything's possible. But this is the stuff of Thomas and Scalia, and you need to be clear about what you're endorsing. These are the judges who OPPOSE new freedoms such as to choose one's time of death, broadly interpreted free speech, medical marijuana, gay rights, (abortion--which is a whole super complex topic in its own which we ought not explore here); the judges who are friendliest to Bush's special prisons, interrogations, and non-POW non-citizen nowhereland incarcerations and wiretaps; and the judges who by extension of their logic, would have argued:
--the constitution doesn't support contraceptive freedom or sexual freedom (eg, novelty shops in Georgia)
--the constitution doesn't support female or nonland-owning voting
--the constitution doesn't support interracial marriage rights
--the constitution doesn't support FREEING THE SLAVES.
--Etc
...because their authors didn't intend exactly those consequences. Want to say legislative authority outweighs those freedoms? Ok. But don't frame the radical concept of marriage equality as a step to totalitarianism. That's just... historically unjustified would be the nicest thing to say about it.
You know, this post really had nothing to do with you. And I don't intend to have another long, drawn out discussion with you about this, and I'll ignore your attempt to bait me by suggesting I've staked out some position on judicial activism simply by posting other people's newswriting on the issue (I do a little of that below, however). You're now raising the whole issue of whether judges can interpret laws to find new rights the authors didn't intend, which would be a whole new thread. Go start it.
Diversion:
Meanwhile, here, all I have to say to you about judicial activism is that you need to be called on your hyperbole that finding a right not to be discriminated on the basis of sex (sounds pretty fair to most americans, eh?) starts us down a road to "chaos and tyranny."
Sure. Anything's possible. But this is the stuff of Thomas and Scalia, and you need to be clear about what you're endorsing. These are the judges who OPPOSE new freedoms such as to choose one's time of death, broadly interpreted free speech, medical marijuana, gay rights, (abortion--which is a whole super complex topic in its own which we ought not explore here); the judges who are friendliest to Bush's special prisons, interrogations, and non-POW non-citizen nowhereland incarcerations and wiretaps; and the judges who by extension of their logic, would have argued:
--the constitution doesn't support contraceptive freedom or sexual freedom (eg, novelty shops in Georgia)
--the constitution doesn't support female or nonland-owning voting
--the constitution doesn't support interracial marriage rights
--the constitution doesn't support FREEING THE SLAVES.
--Etc
...because their authors didn't intend exactly those consequences. Want to say legislative authority outweighs those freedoms? Ok. But don't frame the radical concept of marriage equality as a step to totalitarianism. That's just... historically unjustified would be the nicest thing to say about it.
--Ian
IJ
As a matter of fact such hairsplitting and drawing such hysterical comparsions to "slavery" is part of the problem--but I have mentioned that before.
AGAIN, the problem here is an UNELECTED judge subsituting his own PERSONAL viewpoint and ethics for the will of the people.
That is a BAD thing regardless of how much it currently aligns with your personal viewpoint--today.
Nope, you can't have it both ways---the heart of the situation IS "judical activism."
(Besides, as far as I'm personally concerned the issues that you list above are all covered (more or less) under the rights of a US citizen--if your a citzen, you have certian rights that are not dependent upon ones gender or lifestyle--but that is just me)
But see, I don't get to subsitute MY judgement for the will of an entire State/Nation full of people--and neither should the Judge in question.
Its a really bad idea and really bad policy.
All you have to do--if you have any interest in being intellecually honest--to clearly illustrate the point is to turn it around.
Would you be at all "Ok" with an UNELECTED judge deciding that in HIS view homosexuality was a crime to be punished by imprisonment???
Would you be sitting here argueing that its not only "OK" for him to make such ahm........"judgements?"
Of course you WOULDN'T.
Its a argument that is pretty flawed by its very nature---your peceptiuon of the "rightness or wrongness" of the judges actions are based entirely upon how closely they align with YOUR OWN ideological views
In your view the deciding/fundamental factor is on which side of the ideological fence his actions fall--pretty much period.
In mine, his whims--which is essentially what they are--are irrlevent--an UNELECTED judge doing "end-run" around the expressed will of the people is bad precedent regardless of my personal feelings on the issue in question.
I can feel for the people involved--but IMO such a "remedy" is MUCH worse than the "disease" itself.
As a matter of fact such hairsplitting and drawing such hysterical comparsions to "slavery" is part of the problem--but I have mentioned that before.
AGAIN, the problem here is an UNELECTED judge subsituting his own PERSONAL viewpoint and ethics for the will of the people.
That is a BAD thing regardless of how much it currently aligns with your personal viewpoint--today.
Nope, you can't have it both ways---the heart of the situation IS "judical activism."
(Besides, as far as I'm personally concerned the issues that you list above are all covered (more or less) under the rights of a US citizen--if your a citzen, you have certian rights that are not dependent upon ones gender or lifestyle--but that is just me)
But see, I don't get to subsitute MY judgement for the will of an entire State/Nation full of people--and neither should the Judge in question.
Its a really bad idea and really bad policy.
All you have to do--if you have any interest in being intellecually honest
--to clearly illustrate the point is to turn it around.Would you be at all "Ok" with an UNELECTED judge deciding that in HIS view homosexuality was a crime to be punished by imprisonment???
Would you be sitting here argueing that its not only "OK" for him to make such ahm........"judgements?"
Of course you WOULDN'T.
Its a argument that is pretty flawed by its very nature---your peceptiuon of the "rightness or wrongness" of the judges actions are based entirely upon how closely they align with YOUR OWN ideological views
In your view the deciding/fundamental factor is on which side of the ideological fence his actions fall--pretty much period.
In mine, his whims--which is essentially what they are--are irrlevent--an UNELECTED judge doing "end-run" around the expressed will of the people is bad precedent regardless of my personal feelings on the issue in question.
I can feel for the people involved--but IMO such a "remedy" is MUCH worse than the "disease" itself.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
"As a matter of fact such hairsplitting and drawing such hysterical comparsions to "slavery" is part of the problem--but I have mentioned that before."
"AGAIN, the problem here is an UNELECTED judge subsituting his own PERSONAL viewpoint and ethics for the will of the people."
Your failure to understand the posts you deride is a serious problem. I didn't compare marriage inequality to slavery. I DID point out that using the original intent of law authors to decide what the law means WOULD have prevented judges from finding all sorts of rights we now enjoy and take for granted in the Constitution. This is a fact. The brilliance of that document was that it has advanced freedom hundreds of years after being written and in situations the authors did not forsee.
On the other hand, I am NOT aware of a whole slew of made up restrictions that the same judges "found" in the Constitution. Despite all the dire warnings from the Scalia crew and from you, the fact that judges interpret law to "find" new rights has not opened up the risk of those horrible unelected judges stripping us of our rights. There is no "having it both ways" here, just history. Like the history of the gay rights movement or the history of gay leg findings, you ignore it to the detriment of your posts.
"Would you be sitting here argueing [sic] that its not only "OK" for him to make such ahm........"judgements?"
The issue here is that the Iowa judge found the right to gay marriage in law. Law that said discrimination on the basis of sex required the highest level of scrutiny. Based on that, he found that discriminating by sex in marriage was unjustified--an unanticipated consequence of a noble idea put down in writing by the legislature. Before I can answer your rather unrealistic (because of HISTORY, see above) hypothetical, tell me what LAW this judge is basing this finding on? THEN we have a discussion.
HOWEVER, I encourage you to stop trying to derail this discussion once again and GO START a thread on legal interpretation, original intent vs liberal analysis, ELSEWHERE. I WILL NOT respond to smug insinuations that I'm intellectually dishonest or whatever your insult of the day is NOR will I respond to offtopic debates about the merits of different styles of legal interpretation HERE.
Go start that thread THERE.
"AGAIN, the problem here is an UNELECTED judge subsituting his own PERSONAL viewpoint and ethics for the will of the people."
Your failure to understand the posts you deride is a serious problem. I didn't compare marriage inequality to slavery. I DID point out that using the original intent of law authors to decide what the law means WOULD have prevented judges from finding all sorts of rights we now enjoy and take for granted in the Constitution. This is a fact. The brilliance of that document was that it has advanced freedom hundreds of years after being written and in situations the authors did not forsee.
On the other hand, I am NOT aware of a whole slew of made up restrictions that the same judges "found" in the Constitution. Despite all the dire warnings from the Scalia crew and from you, the fact that judges interpret law to "find" new rights has not opened up the risk of those horrible unelected judges stripping us of our rights. There is no "having it both ways" here, just history. Like the history of the gay rights movement or the history of gay leg findings, you ignore it to the detriment of your posts.
"Would you be sitting here argueing [sic] that its not only "OK" for him to make such ahm........"judgements?"
The issue here is that the Iowa judge found the right to gay marriage in law. Law that said discrimination on the basis of sex required the highest level of scrutiny. Based on that, he found that discriminating by sex in marriage was unjustified--an unanticipated consequence of a noble idea put down in writing by the legislature. Before I can answer your rather unrealistic (because of HISTORY, see above) hypothetical, tell me what LAW this judge is basing this finding on? THEN we have a discussion.
HOWEVER, I encourage you to stop trying to derail this discussion once again and GO START a thread on legal interpretation, original intent vs liberal analysis, ELSEWHERE. I WILL NOT respond to smug insinuations that I'm intellectually dishonest or whatever your insult of the day is NOR will I respond to offtopic debates about the merits of different styles of legal interpretation HERE.
Go start that thread THERE.
--Ian
IJ
And what you "fail to understand" is that unelected judges legislating from the bench in accordence with their personal whims on various matters is a MUCH MORE "serious problem."
Its essnetially an attack on the Consituion itself.
Sorry IJ, AGAIN, judical activism IS the point here--unelected judges legislating from the bench by "FINDING" rights.
(your surely can't be unaware of the concerns over Judges just like Saclia and why many people gays etc get so concernd when judges are elected to the SC???)
Your being intellectually dishonest and shifty may be "smug" but its certainly not merely an "insinuation"--its a rather supportable fact as evidenced by your posts.
So in your mind what is the "proper" discussion to have here?
Some kind of endless round of "your SOOOOO right IJ"--"That judge is SOOOO right IJ."
Seriously, what exactly is the discussion that were "supposed" to be having here?
What exactly am I "derailing?
PLease lets not forget that I AGREE with the Judge and why he ruled as he did--its not complex--a simple matter of the the rights to which a US citizen is enitilted.
I just seriously and fundamentally DISAGREE with how he went about it.
Its funny, or would be if you were less hysterical and prone to logical error--your essentially argueing that judges have NOT been shown to misuse their powers and since I can't show you any its rediculious to be concerned.
While at the SAME time ignoreing ALL those OTHER judges that in THIER OPINION DON'T find such rights in the SAME document.
Would you not consider that a pretty good example of EXACTLY the problem you claim does not exsist???
Ya know, unelected judges using their personal whims to essentially legislate from the bench that there is no right to gay marriage--that they can't "find" such a right.
Or would it be more accurate to say that its NOT such a problem when they AGREE with YOUR personal ideology and ONLY a problem when they DON'T?
Gotcha..........come on.......come on.......admit it.
And what you "fail to understand" is that unelected judges legislating from the bench in accordence with their personal whims on various matters is a MUCH MORE "serious problem."
Its essnetially an attack on the Consituion itself.
Sorry IJ, AGAIN, judical activism IS the point here--unelected judges legislating from the bench by "FINDING" rights.
(your surely can't be unaware of the concerns over Judges just like Saclia and why many people gays etc get so concernd when judges are elected to the SC???)
Your being intellectually dishonest and shifty may be "smug" but its certainly not merely an "insinuation"--its a rather supportable fact as evidenced by your posts.
So in your mind what is the "proper" discussion to have here?
Some kind of endless round of "your SOOOOO right IJ"--"That judge is SOOOO right IJ."
Seriously, what exactly is the discussion that were "supposed" to be having here?
What exactly am I "derailing?
PLease lets not forget that I AGREE with the Judge and why he ruled as he did--its not complex--a simple matter of the the rights to which a US citizen is enitilted.
I just seriously and fundamentally DISAGREE with how he went about it.
Its funny, or would be if you were less hysterical and prone to logical error--your essentially argueing that judges have NOT been shown to misuse their powers and since I can't show you any its rediculious to be concerned.
While at the SAME time ignoreing ALL those OTHER judges that in THIER OPINION DON'T find such rights in the SAME document.
Would you not consider that a pretty good example of EXACTLY the problem you claim does not exsist???
Ya know, unelected judges using their personal whims to essentially legislate from the bench that there is no right to gay marriage--that they can't "find" such a right.
Or would it be more accurate to say that its NOT such a problem when they AGREE with YOUR personal ideology and ONLY a problem when they DON'T?
Gotcha..........come on.......come on.......admit it.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
IJ
Just a simple answer will do.
Why is a unelected judge essentially legislateing from the bench in "finding" new rights in accordence with his personal whims, perfectly right and even noble?
But other unlected judges essentially legislating from the bench that in THIER personal viewpoint/whims that they can "find" no such rights is a perfect storm of icky-poo badness?
How do you explain such a difference in your perception of the SAME actions????
When the same actions/rulings agree with you--then its "OK"--but when they don't--those SAME actions are bad.
"Marv, we need a clean-up on row 12---somebody spilled a big jar of ideology all over the place and its getting everywhere!"
Just a simple answer will do.
Why is a unelected judge essentially legislateing from the bench in "finding" new rights in accordence with his personal whims, perfectly right and even noble?
But other unlected judges essentially legislating from the bench that in THIER personal viewpoint/whims that they can "find" no such rights is a perfect storm of icky-poo badness?
How do you explain such a difference in your perception of the SAME actions????
When the same actions/rulings agree with you--then its "OK"--but when they don't--those SAME actions are bad.
"Marv, we need a clean-up on row 12---somebody spilled a big jar of ideology all over the place and its getting everywhere!"
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
IJ
So you refuse to answer my simple question but demand I answer you?
And you seriously can't figure out why I think your shifty.
Tell you what IJ, AGAIN, what kind of discussion do think I'm "derailing" here?
What is there to say about the issue that isn't being discussed?
What direction do you want this discussion to go that its not??
So you refuse to answer my simple question but demand I answer you?
And you seriously can't figure out why I think your shifty.
Tell you what IJ, AGAIN, what kind of discussion do think I'm "derailing" here?
What is there to say about the issue that isn't being discussed?
What direction do you want this discussion to go that its not??
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
CXT, your comments may be intended to be funny, but otherwise they are disappointing. In prior discussions, I've answered all your questions and you routinely refuse to answer mine, cite and references, or even read what's been posted. I will discuss originalism vs living document interpretation of the Constitution on a thread about... originalism vs living document interpretation of the Constitution.*
Meanwhile, the discussion I keep saying you are derailing is, obviously, one about gay marriage, and one I will attempt to revive again with this news item:
http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2007/09/07/5
"By a strong 22-15 vote, the California Senate on Friday sent an equal-marriage bill to the desk of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who pledged this year that he would veto such legislation.... Schwarzenegger vetoed the first effort in 2005, citing the results of a 2000 California voter referendum on marriage.... The passage of the marriage bill in 2005 was an historic breakthrough, the first time any state legislature had voted for marriage equality. ... California now doubles up on its gay rights legacy, even as the California Supreme Court prepares to weigh in on the issue in a long-running court battle stemming from San Francisco's February 2004 same-sex marriage spree."
What's interesting about this is that after all the fuss about how this ought to be left up to the legislatures and not some "unelected activist judges" in Mass, Iowa, Hawaii, and elsewhere, we now have a clear majority supporting an action and a govenor set to once again derail it.
*although, I have decided that ANY future discussion with you begins with an agreement that when I answer your questions, you answer mine, and when I reference or justify my posts, you do the same.
Meanwhile, the discussion I keep saying you are derailing is, obviously, one about gay marriage, and one I will attempt to revive again with this news item:
http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2007/09/07/5
"By a strong 22-15 vote, the California Senate on Friday sent an equal-marriage bill to the desk of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who pledged this year that he would veto such legislation.... Schwarzenegger vetoed the first effort in 2005, citing the results of a 2000 California voter referendum on marriage.... The passage of the marriage bill in 2005 was an historic breakthrough, the first time any state legislature had voted for marriage equality. ... California now doubles up on its gay rights legacy, even as the California Supreme Court prepares to weigh in on the issue in a long-running court battle stemming from San Francisco's February 2004 same-sex marriage spree."
What's interesting about this is that after all the fuss about how this ought to be left up to the legislatures and not some "unelected activist judges" in Mass, Iowa, Hawaii, and elsewhere, we now have a clear majority supporting an action and a govenor set to once again derail it.
*although, I have decided that ANY future discussion with you begins with an agreement that when I answer your questions, you answer mine, and when I reference or justify my posts, you do the same.
--Ian
IJ
Sorry, IJ, but that is simply not the truth---see the very direct question I put to you above that you have failed to answer--several times now.
Plus I ALSO asked you what exactly I "derailed"--and AGAIN, you have failed to answer.
What exactly about gay marriage am I keeping you from saying????
That changes nothing concerning the actions of of unelected judges legislating from the bench on their personal whims.
Yeah, that is exactly how the system is supposed to work there IJ--checks and balances, with elected representatives making decisions.
And as far as our "discussions" that assumes that you can "justify" much of anything you say.
As far as "referenceing" things---I've already delt with the ideological driven dreck you consider "references" already.
Just a tip IJ, quoting badly flawed studies and jacked up research does not count as either "justification" OR "references."
Sorry, IJ, but that is simply not the truth---see the very direct question I put to you above that you have failed to answer--several times now.
Plus I ALSO asked you what exactly I "derailed"--and AGAIN, you have failed to answer.
What exactly about gay marriage am I keeping you from saying????
That changes nothing concerning the actions of of unelected judges legislating from the bench on their personal whims.
Yeah, that is exactly how the system is supposed to work there IJ--checks and balances, with elected representatives making decisions.
And as far as our "discussions" that assumes that you can "justify" much of anything you say.
As far as "referenceing" things---I've already delt with the ideological driven dreck you consider "references" already.
Just a tip IJ, quoting badly flawed studies and jacked up research does not count as either "justification" OR "references."
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
Continued nonsense. It appears to be your aim.
1) You answer NO questions; I will happily answer your questions about other topics ELSEWHERE. Don't confuse these near opposites.
2) Derailing doesn't mean I can't post certain things, here, I mean you always manage to turn the topic into a back and forth nitpick festival and avoid the main issues, such as the two news items I just posted and what they mean for the movement.
3) Yes, every source you don't like is hopelessly biased. But if you wanted, you COULD post any reference, but you refuse, whether out of obstinence or laziness, and resort to demanding answers from me, for which you've gotten replies every time except this one, and all you need to do to obtain that is to start a thread on that topic.
4) Checks and balances between the 3 branches were PLANNED to include commentary by unelected judges--that was the original intent of the framers, so don't be the equivalent of a judicial activist and attempt to ruin the system.
5) Go lick your wounds about my mountain of evidence on subtle racism on that thread, and stick to one-issue derailing here, at least.
If you can't keep on topic, and can't find the button to post a new thread, I will copy your off topic responses into a new thread for you and try to resume talking about same sex marriage here. No more being dragged into your silliness. One thing you can accomplish, if you can't support your claims, refute others, or answer any questions, is successfully derail and distract, so congrats on that.
1) You answer NO questions; I will happily answer your questions about other topics ELSEWHERE. Don't confuse these near opposites.
2) Derailing doesn't mean I can't post certain things, here, I mean you always manage to turn the topic into a back and forth nitpick festival and avoid the main issues, such as the two news items I just posted and what they mean for the movement.
3) Yes, every source you don't like is hopelessly biased. But if you wanted, you COULD post any reference, but you refuse, whether out of obstinence or laziness, and resort to demanding answers from me, for which you've gotten replies every time except this one, and all you need to do to obtain that is to start a thread on that topic.
4) Checks and balances between the 3 branches were PLANNED to include commentary by unelected judges--that was the original intent of the framers, so don't be the equivalent of a judicial activist and attempt to ruin the system.
5) Go lick your wounds about my mountain of evidence on subtle racism on that thread, and stick to one-issue derailing here, at least.
If you can't keep on topic, and can't find the button to post a new thread, I will copy your off topic responses into a new thread for you and try to resume talking about same sex marriage here. No more being dragged into your silliness. One thing you can accomplish, if you can't support your claims, refute others, or answer any questions, is successfully derail and distract, so congrats on that.
--Ian
IJ
Nope ACCURACY--is my aim, and things like objective and rational analysis devoid of ideological blinders.
I'm sorry that you don't consider accuracy, objectivity and reason nearly as important as you do the ideology.
(accuracy of spelling of course I am far more flexable on )
What have I not answered?--I gave not one but TWO specific examples of stuff YOU refused to answer in the last 2 days ALONE.
So what you want to discuss is "the movement"--OK, so you don't want any questioning, you don't want any actual discussion about viewpoints, you want nobodies opinions, you don't want to look at potential problems, long term obstacles, systemic probloms with how things are being handled---etc.
You just want to discuss "the movement."
And you have kinda set YOURSELF up as the arbiter of what is "accepted" speech about such things on somebody elses forum.
I'd say that cames as some surprise--but I learned long ago that at the core of all to many people that claim to want "freedom"---what they REALLY want is to control other people and make them toe-the-line in terms of THIER viewpoints.
Yes "commentary"--"COMMENTARY"---- NOT legislation from the Bench.
"Mountians of evidence"--nah, more like "molehills", dark, twisting little tunnels were the light of reason and logic can't penetrate very far--and just like moles--the ideas expressed there-in don't tolerate the sun very well.
Oh, there is no need to post "references" of my own when I can take apart a study with such little effort in just a few minutes.......as demonstrated.
Takes longer to post various links than it does to kick them apart.
Like I said IJ, you spent vast amount of "ink" on trying to establish that "subtle racism" is problem for "other" people--but interestingly enough NOT you.
The study is dead spot on--for all those "other" people--just not YOU......rigggghhhttttt.
I really would hope that in the interest of simple fairness you would extend the SAME benefit of the doubt you DEMAND for YOURSELF to others.
A vain hope, but still.................
Look dude, if YOU demonstable don't really belive the conclusions of the study---then why should anyone else?
Nope ACCURACY--is my aim, and things like objective and rational analysis devoid of ideological blinders.
I'm sorry that you don't consider accuracy, objectivity and reason nearly as important as you do the ideology.
(accuracy of spelling of course I am far more flexable on
)What have I not answered?--I gave not one but TWO specific examples of stuff YOU refused to answer in the last 2 days ALONE.
So what you want to discuss is "the movement"--OK, so you don't want any questioning, you don't want any actual discussion about viewpoints, you want nobodies opinions, you don't want to look at potential problems, long term obstacles, systemic probloms with how things are being handled---etc.
You just want to discuss "the movement."
And you have kinda set YOURSELF up as the arbiter of what is "accepted" speech about such things on somebody elses forum.
I'd say that cames as some surprise--but I learned long ago that at the core of all to many people that claim to want "freedom"---what they REALLY want is to control other people and make them toe-the-line in terms of THIER viewpoints.
Yes "commentary"--"COMMENTARY"---- NOT legislation from the Bench.
"Mountians of evidence"--nah, more like "molehills"
, dark, twisting little tunnels were the light of reason and logic can't penetrate very far--and just like moles--the ideas expressed there-in don't tolerate the sun very well.Oh, there is no need to post "references" of my own when I can take apart a study with such little effort in just a few minutes.......as demonstrated.
Takes longer to post various links than it does to kick them apart.
Like I said IJ, you spent vast amount of "ink" on trying to establish that "subtle racism" is problem for "other" people--but interestingly enough NOT you.
The study is dead spot on--for all those "other" people--just not YOU......rigggghhhttttt.
I really would hope that in the interest of simple fairness you would extend the SAME benefit of the doubt you DEMAND for YOURSELF to others.
A vain hope, but still.................
Look dude, if YOU demonstable don't really belive the conclusions of the study---then why should anyone else?
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
I'll ignore your diversions, insults, and distractions. I understand that's how you roll. You haven't said anything quite worthwhile about originalism, but if and when you make a coherent point about legislation from the bench that isn't just a soundbite, since you can't figure out how to post a new thread, I will help you out.
Meanwhile, I'm not in control of who posts what, here. Obviously. You have managed, after I posted a few links to articles about changes in the gay marriage movement, to turn the thread into a silly argument again, even AFTER I said I wanted to talk about the movement. That means, I don't want to convert the whole discussion into a debate on originalism, and I made it clear I preferred you take that elsewhere. I offered to participate even.
So no, I don't control what you post. That's Bill's job if he feels its necessary. You're not obligated to stop derailing the thread and changing it into a debate on originalism or a nitpick battle of words. You don't HAVE to let this go and either not post, or discuss marriage. But, since I asked ahead of time, it sure would be a less jerky thing to do.
I'll continue to post marriage relevant posts here as items come up and I'll discuss originalism in an originalism thread. Meanwhile, waste whatever bandwidth you want.
Meanwhile, I'm not in control of who posts what, here. Obviously. You have managed, after I posted a few links to articles about changes in the gay marriage movement, to turn the thread into a silly argument again, even AFTER I said I wanted to talk about the movement. That means, I don't want to convert the whole discussion into a debate on originalism, and I made it clear I preferred you take that elsewhere. I offered to participate even.
So no, I don't control what you post. That's Bill's job if he feels its necessary. You're not obligated to stop derailing the thread and changing it into a debate on originalism or a nitpick battle of words. You don't HAVE to let this go and either not post, or discuss marriage. But, since I asked ahead of time, it sure would be a less jerky thing to do.
I'll continue to post marriage relevant posts here as items come up and I'll discuss originalism in an originalism thread. Meanwhile, waste whatever bandwidth you want.
--Ian
