| 0 |
Subject: Indiana Constitutional Amendment
Posted by: sarge33rd
- [372291615] Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 18:02
Currently, the Reps are pushing for a State Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage. Their reason, "to prevent activist judges from over turning the current state law, defining marriage as being between 1 man and 1 woman."
So to our right wing posters, I pose this pone, single question:
Why would it require an "activist judge" to overturn a law you agree with, but not an "activist judge" to overturn Roe v Wade? |
| 1 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 19:51
|
Because right to life is the original construction.
And since freely murdering babies is anything but settled matters, stare decisis is meaningless in this case.
|
| 2 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 19:57
|
And taking the other half, overturning all of human civilization and culture and community standards down thru history isn't the original constitutional construction obviously. You accept at least that legislating government approval of homosexual marriage from the bench is an activist position, I presume.
|
| 3 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 20:28
|
"And taking the other half, overturning all of human civilization and culture and community standards down thru history"
Should've left the slavery thing in IMO, Ra be damned.
|
| 4 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 20:49
|
In fact legislating from the bench in the abstract is not only activist but unconstitutional.
Striking down unconstitutional mistakes like RvW is on the otherhand well within the court's proper and traditional role. See Brown v education overturning Plessy v. Ferguson.
Didn't hear too much liberal whining about stare decisis on that one.
|
| 5 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 21:00
|
Boldwin,
If you take the stance that marriage is a religious institution and the government shouldn't be interfering then yes, its a constitutional issue for the government to tell religious institutions how they define marriage.
But what about the legal issue of a civil union? How is a judge being unconstitutional by denying a gay couple a civil union and legally calling either other husband/wife (or husband/husband, wife/wife etc)?
Answer - there is none. Judges finding that gay couples getting at least a civil union and all the legal rights that come with it are acting properly.
|
| 6 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 21:05
|
I believe that would constitute legislating from the bench. What constitutional guidance would they find for a brand new make-believe institution? They should leave that for the legislature and be guided by the law they receive in this new legal matter.
|
| 7 | biliruben
ID: 34435239
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 21:13
|
Nice to have a constitutional law expert around to tell us what's "unconstitutional" and what's "make-believe."
No need to bother with judges or courts. Just ask Baldwin. He defines what's activist and what's just good 'ol bible-thumpin' common sense.
|
| 8 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 22:10
|
+1
|
| 9 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 22:18
|
What do you want? More latin?
|
| 10 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 22:18
|
If "life" for the unborn is a right to which they are entitled, should we not charge with some criminal offense, that woman who delivers a stillborn? After all, she must have done something which resulted denied denying that unborn their so called "right".
The sad, and simple, truth B...is that the right these days, will create and use any catchphrase they can. Just make it fit a 20-30 soundbite, repeat it frequently; and suddenly you have a "movement".
|
| 11 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 22:24
|
Did it never impress you that 50 years of strenuous media touting abortion as a positive still has not resulted in majority popular support for abortion? It's not a movement. It's inherent human conscience.
|
| 12 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 22:52
|
The majority, are also opposed to the death penalty. The majority, are opposed to income taxes. I think too, the majority here, think you long ago jumped the shark. Is the majority ALWAYS correct?
Abortion, is a medical procedure. I have, and by extension you have, no more right to tell someone they CANT have an abortion, then to tell them they MUST have one.
|
| 13 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 23:03
|
When you start calling murder a medical procedure I start looking for the Dr Mengele net.
|
| 14 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 12:18
|
Fortunately B, "murder" is defined by our legal code. Abortion, is not murder, despite your propensity to call it such.
Perhaps you would gain some insight, if instead of defining words as you see fit, you used them as they are actually defined. Just saying...
|
| 15 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 12:22
|
The majority of Americans, as opposed to the majority of judges, media employees, tenured employees and self-appointed elites already define it my way.
|
| 16 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 12:23
|
Majority doesn't always rule, however.
|
| 17 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 14:54
|
And aren't democrats delighted?
"This is what democracy looks like" my patootie.
|
| 18 | biliruben
ID: 34435239
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 15:09
|
There is a reason why we don't govern by mob. As a member of a fringe religion I would figure you would support that.
|
| 19 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 15:37
|
We are a constitutional democracy. And you should be glad of it, Baldwin, otherwise your religion (and many of the good things it stands for) would have been voted out of this country some time ago.
|
| 20 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 18:40
|
Well to be precise we are a constitutional republic.
I don't think recognizing the God given inalienable right to life constitutes mob rule. I thot it was front and center in the founding documents. Couldn't even be legislated away or judged null and void.
|
| 21 | biliruben
ID: 34435239
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 18:43
|
You have serious problems with both interpretation and implementation of your beliefs.
|
| 22 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 19:05
|
Save me, oh wise one.
|
| 23 | biliruben
ID: 34435239
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 19:20
|
I'm just sayin'
For instance:
interpretation- is it one cell that constitutes life? 2 cells? 4? Should we hold a wake every menstrual cycle? Every time some teen opens SI swimsuit?
implementation - forcing those who don't believe in a higher being or your idea of the sanctity of life (some are more extreme - PETA for instance), some are less - the Republican leadership for instance).
My wife wept when she heard that I'd killed a big, fat rat that had been gnawing in our walls all week and waking me up. You want her making our laws and prosecuting insensitive clods like me?
I don't really want to debate abortion with you, because it never leads anywhere, but you gotta realize you pious, holier-than-thou bullshit has some problems.
|
| 24 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 19:29
|
Ask your wife if she feels nothing when she miscarries because it's 'only fetal tissue'.
|
| 25 | biliruben
ID: 34435239
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 19:31
|
That's my freakin' point. She feels immense sadness when a kill a house fly. Really.
Your rules, as you interpreted that divine being being of your passing them on to you, are far too narrow for her. You murdering piece of crap.
Now you get it?
|
| 26 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 19:35
|
How does your sister feel about killing a tree?
|
| 28 | biliruben
ID: 34435239
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 19:39
|
She thinks they are populated with sprites and fairies. She worships them.
Yeah, my family is kind of nuts.
I certainly don't want them dictating the boundaries of the sanctity of life any more than I would crazy right-to-lifers who have decided that the unborn are where we should focus all our priorities, and go around murdering people to make their point.
|
| 29 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 19:47
|
You perhaps will admit that there are certain things that are universal by virtue of conscience.
It is not collusion that makes all countries thruout history have laws against killing people but virtually never if ever outlawing meat eating or chopping down trees.
It is inherent human consciences guiding them all to the same undeniable standard.
|
| 30 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 19:50
|
Um, has she seen the sprites and faeries?
|
| 31 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 19:54
|
Be honest now. Deep in your gut, how do you really feel about the 19'th amendment. ;>
|
| 32 | biliruben
ID: 34435239
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 19:55
|
It's some sort of median ethical standard, yeah. Generally instituted by some form of government, as our has; probably in about the right dose, though I'd quibble with the death penalty on fairness grounds, and you'd quibble with a 4 celled organism on the basis of religious zeal.
But there are extremes of conscience. You and my wife are on a pretty far extreme, though manifest a bit differently. Me, death has so far yet to effect me very greatly, though I have been fortunate enough not to have anyone very close to me die. There are a couple dozen people for whom their death would matter a lot to me.
There are other people who have no conscience whatsoever, and and try to stay away from them.
|
| 33 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 20:41
|
#30: You really don't want to go there, as a believer in God. Never ask a question that would make you look bad if you had to answer it yourself.
|
| 34 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 21:00
|
I'm betting she thinks she almost has. Just on the edge of perception.
|
| 35 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 21:34
|
You mean like your respect? Never seen head on, but, at times, hinted at?
Really--mocking another person's spiritual beliefs reveal a deep lack of confidence in your own. Or, at least, a bias toward hurtful public speech that belies a loving God you purport to follow.
|
| 36 | Boldwin
ID: 55217158
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 22:19
|
A. I was genuinely curious.
B. I genuinely believe in spirits, good and bad.
C. They can be sensed if it serves their purposes.
D. I wasn't mocking.
E. Jesus mocked the pharisees plenty and I suggest you don't question the confidence of his convictions.
|
| 37 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 23:50
|
Don't mistake yourself for Jesus, is all I'm saying. I'm not questioning Jesus, I'm questioning you.
|
| 38 | Boldwin
ID: 202591810
Fri, Mar 18, 2011, 15:55
|
1) Did Jesus treat false religion with derision? Yes.
2) Therefore it is one of Jesus' footsteps and I'll follow them when appropriate. And you'll be questioning Jesus' footsteps when you condemn the same treatment he dished out.
3) Even so, I wasn't treating bili's sister with derision anyway. That was something you imputed to me out of thin air.
|
| 39 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615
Fri, Mar 18, 2011, 18:41
|
Did Jesus see with Divine eyes and Divine sight? Yes.
Do you? No.
|
| 40 | bibA
ID: 48627713
Fri, Mar 18, 2011, 21:02
|
We don't know that for sure sarge. If he says he did, we must take it as a matter of faith - just as I'm sure B takes it on faith that bili's sister knows that the forests are populated with sprites and fairies.
|
| 41 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 10:53
|
true enough bibA.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|