Palin breaks with McCain on gay marriage

[bicker]

You mean "it should be simply a matter of where each person chooses to draw the line in the sand" for themselves. Even that's not perfect, but it is closer to defensible than the "make everyone live how I want them to live" perspective that many people espouse.

 

[ntsammy5]

Incest laws, drug laws, suicide laws, animal sacrafice laws, the list is endless.

In these someone or something gets hurt or could potentially be harmed. suicide laws I'm not sure about though ---

 

[Master Mason]

You mean "it should be simply a matter of where each person chooses to draw the line in the sand" for themselves. Even that's not perfect, but it is closer to defensible than the "make everyone live how I want them to live" perspective that many people espouse.

No, I meant exactly what I said. The line in the sand that each person draws is where they think that their moral view point should be legislated too. Everyones line is a little different.

In these someone or something gets hurt or could potentially be harmed. suicide laws I'm not sure about though ---

Really? If say me and my adult sister were madly in love with each other and wanted to be with each other. That is completely illegal. Who is getting hurt, we are both consenting adults. Who am I hurting if I choose to sit at home all day in a LSD induced coma besides myself? Who am I hurting if I choose to sacrifice a goat to god? (I could legally butcher the same goat, but if I do it ritualistically I have committed a crime.)

 

[chrisw127]

we have a ton of laws that are based exclusively on a moral viewpoint. Incest laws, drug laws, suicide laws, animal sacrafice laws, the list is endless.

It is simply a matter of where each person chooses to draw the line in the sand.

But these laws are also there for public health reasons. Every one of them. In fact, I would venture to say that drug laws are not about morality at all, but entirely a public health issue. This is not the case with laws forbidding gays to marry. Unless one thinks it's a public health issue because it makes them "feel all funny" when two people of the same sex are in a relationship.

 

[chrisw127]

There are valid public health reasons for you and your sister not marrying, specifically the fear that any offspring that result may end up with health issues.

 

[Master Mason]

But these laws are also there for public health reasons. Every one of them. In fact, I would venture to say that drug laws are not about morality at all, but entirely a public health issue. This is not the case with laws forbidding gays to marry. Unless one thinks it's a public health issue because it makes them "feel all funny" when two people of the same sex are in a relationship.

How exactly are they public health issues. How would me being with my adult sister effect the public health in anyway? How does me personally taking LSD in the privacy of my own home effect the public health? How does me deciding to kill myself effect the public health? How does me performing an animal sacrafice effect the public health? Especially since I could kill and butcher the same animal legally already?

sorry, it is all about morality.

 

[Master Mason]

There are valid public health reasons for you and your sister not marrying, specifically the fear that any offspring that result may end up with health issues.

BS, I have had a vasectomy, no kids...

 

[chrisw127]

BS, I have had a vasectomy, no kids...

Thank you for sharing. However, we have to assume when these laws were written, they didn't take that into consideration.

 

[ntsammy5]

Actually, I don't disagree - go for it.

 

[Master Mason]

Thank you for sharing. However, we have to assume when these laws were written, they didn't take that into consideration.

No we don't have to assume anything. There is no good reason for the laws other than society feels that those behaviors are unacceptable, and that is purely based on a moral standpoint. We have always legislated by the moral stand point of the day. Who is harmed if I use the F word on television? No one, but yet it is illegal.

Actually, I don't disagree - go for it.

I'm not advocating for these things to be made legal, I am simply proving the point that we legislate via morality on a lot of issues.

 

[ntsammy5]

I'm not advocating for these things to be made legal, I am simply proving the point that we legislate via morality on a lot of issues.

But you said you had a vasectomy so it would be fine!


Actually, I agree with you there are lots of laws based on morality, many of which or even most of which should not be on the books.

 

[Cindy F]

Originally Posted by vt_disney_fan :

Your opinion, Rick. There are many others, including myself, of the opinion that sexual orientation is NOT based on genetics, but based on choice (DESPITE what those who may be of a different sexual orientation have to say). And many of those, including myself, would base that not just on their own feelings, but upon religious beliefs, among other things.

So why is your opinion more important than someone else's and why is your religion more important than mine? Better yet, why do we have laws based on your opinions and your religious beliefs?

If anything, I would think your opinion would be less valid than a gay person's opinion. Are you gay? Do you know how it feels to be gay? Then why do you think your opinion that "sexual orientation is NOT based on genetics...yada, yada, yada..." is more valid than the person who actually IS gay and CAN tell you how it feels?

 

[Master Mason]

But you said you had a vasectomy so it would be fine!


Actually, I agree with you there are lots of laws based on morality, many of which or even most of which should not be on the books.

You've never seen my sister obviously

 

[Mrs.Toad]

If say me and my adult sister were madly in love with each other and wanted to be with each other. That is completely illegal.

Is that really illegal? I don't keep up on incest laws, so I am really asking. Even if there were old laws on the books, I seriously doubt the cops would come knocking on your door to arrest you for being with your sister. Your marriage wouldn't be legally recognized, (like same-sex marriages), but you already have a legally recognized familial relationship, unlike most same-sex couples.

How exactly are they public health issues. How would me being with my adult sister effect the public health in anyway? How does me personally taking LSD in the privacy of my own home effect the public health? How does me deciding to kill myself effect the public health? How does me performing an animal sacrafice effect the public health? Especially since I could kill and butcher the same animal legally already?

I don't think drug use in the privacy of one's own home should be illegal, either, but many are of the opinion that someone doing LSD in their own home will likely become irrational enough to leave their home and become violent. This would certainly affect the public.

Killing yourself? Not really a public health issue, but just trying to protect people from themselves, and their families from heartache. You won't go to jail if you attempt suicide, but you'll get treatment.

Butchering an animal? Again, I don't know these laws well, but is that really legal for someone to do on a whim? You need a license to hunt. I would think there were some laws about animal cruelty and cleanliness WRT slaughterhouses, and that it wouldn't be something you could just do in your own home.

Again, all these laws are to prevent harm to someone or something, not for morality's sake alone.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Loving said that Marriage is a right, however that right is not listed as a right in the constitution, not anywhere.



This was the majority descion in Plessy, the highlighted place is where they fell on their face, they attempted to say what had been "intended" instead of following the words that had been written.

When I said assement, that's exactly what I meant, he looked at the words of the constitution and applied them to the situation, he didn't make up something that was "not intended" to support his stance.

I don't see how Harlan's dissent is any different:

Thirteenth Amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Harlan says:

The Thirteenth Amendment does not permit the withholding or the deprivation of any right necessarily inhering in freedom. It not only struck down the institution of slavery as previously existing in the United States, but it prevents the imposition of any burdens or disabilities that constitute badges of slavery or servitude. It decreed universal civil freedom in this country. This court has so adjudged. But that amendment having been found inadequate to the protection of the rights of those who had been in slavery, it was followed by the Fourteenth Amendment, which added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship and to the security of personal liberty by declaring that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

and that

no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

These two amendments, if enforced according to their true intent and meaning, will protect all the civil rights that pertain to freedom and citizenship

Where'd he get this idea about badges of servitude? That must be the "intent" he talks about, because it isn't in the letter of the 13th Amendment.

But this idea of a badge of servitude seems to be a large part of what drives his dissent:

The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race while they are on a public highway is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution. It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds.

Where does the constitution say anything about a badge of servitude?

I'm not seeing how the 14th amendment is any more help:

no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How did the La. statute violate any of these requirements understood "to the letter"? The La. statute requires "separate but equal" accommodations by Harlan's own account, so it can't be a violation of equal protection by the letter.

At one point Harlan appears to appeal to the due process clause of the 14th amendment:

I am of opinion that the statute of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberty of citizens, white and black, in that State, and hostile to both the spirit and letter of the Constitution of the United States

How so? Nowhere in the constitution is the right to sit in whichever railway car one wants. (And if the idea of "liberty" can be stretched so far as to cover this, then surely it can be stretched to cover marriage--and abortion!--as well, no?)


So I don't get it. Since the La. law clearly did treat blacks and whites equally--it put the same restrictions on each race, and since it did not require slavery or forced servitude in the literal sense, what exactly was wrong with that law from a strict constructionist point of view?

 

[Master Mason]

The constitution called for equality.

The stamp or badge comment was part of the wording to the dissent as it was part of the wording of the Majority.

 

[smartestnumber5]

The constitution called for equality.

The stamp or badge comment was part of the wording to the dissent as it was part of the wording of the Majority.

Yes and in both Plessy and Brown everyone (even the attorneys for Plessy and Brown) agreed that the laws were equal in terms of treating both races the same and providing equal accommodations.

For both Harlan and Warren (in Brown) they can only get to their conclusion by stretching the meaning of "equal protection" beyond the obvious and appealing to this idea of a badge of inferiority or psychological harm. The Brown case hinges on the claim that de jure segregation causes black children psychological harm. Where in the constitution does it indicate that "equal" means anything to do with psychological harm? Since when is that the plain meaning of the words "equal protection of law"?

I do not understand how a committed textualist (which is the philosophy it seems you are espousing) could accept the Brown decision (or Harlan's dissent in Plessy). The plain meaning of the words "equal protection of law" have nothing to do with psychological consequences or the badge of inferiority which is experienced by those who fall under it.

Any sort of strict constructualism seems to fail with regard to Brown. Indeed, Justice Rehnquist wrote a brief opposing Brown when he was a law clerk for one of the justices at the time in which he essentially accused the court of liberal activism. Gee, that sure sounds familiar! (Of course, 20 years later when it came time to become a Supreme Court justice he denied that when he said "I think Plessy was right" he actually meant "I". But of course he had to say that--he couldn't have gotten confirmed if he had announced in front of the entire country that he didn't think de jure segregation was a constitutional problem.)

The way I see it, if a proper textualist interpretation of "equal protection" takes it to mean "you can't have a law that treats the races equally in all tangible ways, yet which gives an intangible stamp of inferiority to one race" then it's also textualy appropriate to nterpret "equal protection" to mean "you can't have a law that treats people of different sexual orientations equally in all tangible ways, yet which gives an intangible stamp of inferiority to a group of people with one particular sexual orientation" either. And that will clearly make laws which restrict marriage to male-female couples (or which grants only civil unions to gay couples but marriage to male-female couples) unconstitutional. (And you don't have to declare that marriage is a right granted by the constitution to do this, any more than Brown declared elementary and secondary education a right granted by the constitution.)

 

[bicker]

Very well-said. The reality is that reactionaries will always label the progression of our collective understanding of the American ideal as "liberal activism". Their interest is, at best, to keep everything the same forever, and at worst, to roll back progress that is the very life-blood of our nation's on-going vitality and strength.

 

[Master Mason]

Yes and in both Plessy and Brown everyone (even the attorneys for Plessy and Brown) agreed that the laws were equal in terms of treating both races the same and providing equal accommodations.

For both Harlan and Warren (in Brown) they can only get to their conclusion by stretching the meaning of "equal protection" beyond the obvious and appealing to this idea of a badge of inferiority or psychological harm. The Brown case hinges on the claim that de jure segregation causes black children psychological harm. Where in the constitution does it indicate that "equal" means anything to do with psychological harm? Since when is that the plain meaning of the words "equal protection of law"?

I do not understand how a committed textualist (which is the philosophy it seems you are espousing) could accept the Brown decision (or Harlan's dissent in Plessy). The plain meaning of the words "equal protection of law" have nothing to do with psychological consequences or the badge of inferiority which is experienced by those who fall under it.

Any sort of strict constructualism seems to fail with regard to Brown. Indeed, Justice Rehnquist wrote a brief opposing Brown when he was a law clerk for one of the justices at the time in which he essentially accused the court of liberal activism. Gee, that sure sounds familiar! (Of course, 20 years later when it came time to become a Supreme Court justice he denied that when he said "I think Plessy was right" he actually meant "I". But of course he had to say that--he couldn't have gotten confirmed if he had announced in front of the entire country that he didn't think de jure segregation was a constitutional problem.)

The way I see it, if a proper textualist interpretation of "equal protection" takes it to mean "you can't have a law that treats the races equally in all tangible ways, yet which gives an intangible stamp of inferiority to one race" then it's also textualy appropriate to nterpret "equal protection" to mean "you can't have a law that treats people of different sexual orientations equally in all tangible ways, yet which gives an intangible stamp of inferiority to a group of people with one particular sexual orientation" either. And that will clearly make laws which restrict marriage to male-female couples (or which grants only civil unions to gay couples but marriage to male-female couples) unconstitutional. (And you don't have to declare that marriage is a right granted by the constitution to do this, any more than Brown declared elementary and secondary education a right granted by the constitution.)

I don't want you to think I am ignoring you, I have read your response a couple of times now. And am mulling it over...

 

[smartestnumber5]

I don't want you to think I am ignoring you, I have read your response a couple of times now. And am mulling it over...

No problem.

I need to get off the DIS and go do some work anyway so I will be gone for quite awhile (if I can muster up the will power to grade some papers that is).