Comments on: Tipping Point?

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:24:16 +0000

Why do you not trust the American people to do the right thing?

Two words. American Idol.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:33:57 +0000

Nor have I, and I’ve spent time as a book editor.

Single quotes are for quotations within quotations.

Ex: “Wasn’t it Patrick Henry who said ‘Give me liberty or give me death’?”

By: aw

aw — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:54:29 +0000

“You call him a moron and then inaccurately quote what he had written. He didn’t write anything about ‘activist judges.’”

No, he wrote “activists and sympathetic judges”, i.e. judges who help activists, which is what the phrase “activist judges” refers to.

Single quotes (’) do not mean the same as double quotes (”). Single quotes mean you are paraphrasing…

I’ve never heard of such a system.

By: aw

aw — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:50:00 +0000

And aw — the same body that gave us Brown v. Board of Education also gave us Plessy v. Ferguson. On the other hand, it was popular votes that bulled through the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments, and the Civil Rights Act.

Why do you not trust the American people to do the right thing?

Why didn’t you respond to my point?

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 02:29:30 +0000

Me: “The legislative branch passed the bill but the governor refused to sign it. So no, this was not brought on by ‘activist judges.’ Try and get your facts straight.”

Squid: “How does this make him a moron?”

Because the bill wasn’t bullied through by the judges. It was supported by the democratically elected legislative branch.

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 02:28:05 +0000

“You call him a moron and then inaccurately quote what he had written. He didn’t write anything about ‘activist judges.’”

You are joking, right?

Two points…

1.) ‘Activist judges’ has been a term thrown around by the right whenever the court makes a decision they don’t like.

2.) I didn’t quote him. Single quotes (‘) do not mean the same as double quotes (“). Single quotes mean you are paraphrasing. … or you are quoting a quote as part of a larger block of text. The wonderful world of grammar.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:58:11 +0000

Maybe she’ll just let you bang the maid.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:35:57 +0000

I forget, is that before or after you give your wife to Pharaoh, pleading with her to tell the God-King that she is your sister, not your wife?

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:33:15 +0000

If somebody opposes gay marriage because gay relationships do not, in the basic fashion, produce a child, then they must also be vocal in denouncing the marriages of straight couples with fertility problems.

Nah, you just go Old Testament and pray for another wife in addition to your “barren” one.

By: Squid Shark

Squid Shark — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:24:07 +0000

“And? The “religious case” should have nothing to do with the rights of citizens under the law.”

I could not agree more, but I do not speak for everyone else.

Respectfully,
The Squid

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:50:26 +0000

Or older couples past menopause.

Good thing we don’t live in a theocracy, huh?

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:24:55 +0000

There is a much better religious case for gay marriage opponents.

And? The “religious case” should have nothing to do with the rights of citizens under the law.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:31:50 +0000

What dimension does it add, when it has no legs to stand on? If somebody opposes gay marriage because gay relationships do not, in the basic fashion, produce a child, then they must also be vocal in denouncing the marriages of straight couples with fertility problems. Since they do not, the topic is a distraction, nothing more.

By: bowchikabowbow

bowchikabowbow — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:31:18 +0000

I could not agree more. But I think it’ll be more like 50 years until gay marriage is legal everywhere because it’ll take that long for people my age to take over the government and change the law. As everyone knows by now us younger people are more open to gays and less racist.

By: CDWard

CDWard — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:29:22 +0000

One of the main reasons for having a judicial branch is to prevent the majority from trampling on the rights of minorities. Under the “Wait until a majority approves it” plan, gays will be able to marry at about the same time the Republicans remove our troops from Iraq-Say 2108 or so.

By: Squid Shark

Squid Shark — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:28:19 +0000

“Of course there were. Mixed-race marriages were seen as against God’s order. See also: Bob Jones University.

However there was no actual case to be made, it was all conjecture. There is a much better religious case for gay marriage opponents. I am not saying the nmixed race religious argument wasnt tried, I am just saying that it was alot less sound than the one against gay marriage.

Respectfully,
The Squid

By: Squid Shark

Squid Shark — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:23:14 +0000

“The “marriages are for procreation” argument is a tattered flag and has no place in a reasoned debate of this topic.”

Neither did any of the arguments for mixed race marriages.
However, this “tattered flag” adds a whole new dimension to the argument.

Parthenon,
I have only read the brief, not the full decision. On the surface I think it was not terribly good. I liken it to the Bush v Gore argument, another one I agreed with in principle but not in the actual reasoning.

The 9th Circuit and Cali Supreme Court are notorious for issueing weak decisions.

Respectfully,
The Squid

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:06:11 +0000

Spider, the comparison to mixed race marriages in this instance does not hold up. As I said earlier (and have confirmed), California’s domestic partnership laws already give gay couples the same rights and protections afforded to heterosexual married couples. You simply cannot compare that to the plight of mixed race couples who faced jail time for being married to each other. And again, even though it is a mixed race, we’re still talking about a man and a woman.

It all comes back to the false notion that marriage is a protected right and requires the court’s intervention. It is not, and the court in this case, overstepped their bounds and got themselves involved in a political issue. It’s something that could have repercussions. Again, it’s no coincidence that after the 2004 MSC decision that over 20 states passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:06:07 +0000

when it gets done the way it was in CA, it will awaken the idiot wing of the party.

Which party?

By: Parthenon

Parthenon — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:59:50 +0000

Squid,

Have you yet read the California court opinion? From a lawyer’s perspective, what did you think about it (leaving aside the merits of the position)?