Didn’t Vermont’s legislature recently pass a law allowing gay marriage?
[quote=“Mawvellous”][quote=“jotham”]
That’s just a construct of the mind. Go back to the laws when blacks couldn’t marry whites, or whites couldn’t marry blacks. Well, most of them didn’t want to anyway. Complaining about heterosexual marriage laws is like saying they only discriminated against the small minority of blacks that were naturally attracted to whites. Well no, it was blacks and whites as a class of people, no matter what their tastes were. It isn’t discriminating only against the blacks that are attracted to whites, it was discriminating against all blacks, even though most of them didn’t want to marry whites – (I’m sure there’s a term for that, but don’t know it.)
You’re toilets is an issue of gender, just as marriage is. You see, there aren’t any subset of women who prefer stand-up toilets. It’s their biology; it effects the whole gender class. Defining marriage as man and woman is discrimination against all men and women. A man can’t marry a man no matter if they are gay or straight. There simply is no discrimination on sexual identity, it is discrimination on gender. Just like at one time, a black couldn’t marry a white, which is discrimination against race, not against a small category of blacks or whites who want to marry the opposite race.[/quote]
Your writing really makes my eyes hurt. Would it be too much to ask you to make at least some effort to write clearly?
As for the substantive point, I think you are trying to say that laws against homosexual marriage do not discriminate against homosexual people because they apply to all people equally, whether they are straight or gay. This is a very weak argument, because in reality these laws only impact homosexual people.
A crude analogy: if a state which proclaims freedom of religion decides to ban people from worshipping one particular religion, this is a clear example of discrimination. It would be absurd to claim otherwise, because although it may be correct to say that the law applies to all citizens, in reality it only impacts people who previously worshipped that one religion.[/quote]
But how is that different from racial laws; those laws only impacted a very select few people. They didn’t affect the vast majority of people or blacks at all. So it is absurd to claim homosexual discrimination. If it is discrimination at all, it would have to be gender discrimination.
Homosexuality is a behavior, and the Constitution doesn’t protect the rights of behaviors. We legislate laws all the time against behaviors, or discriminate against people who commit certain behaviors, such as murder, drunkenness, tardiness at work, stealing, ability to read, etc. Homosexuality doesn’t have a biological basis, such as skin color, or gender, which is Constitutionally protected. This is the main reason liberals are trying to make homosexuality a biological fact instead of behavioral. If it were proven that homosexuality were as biological as skin color, then yes, the Constitution would protect them. If it is behavior that can be learned or addiction, then no, the Constitution can’t be employed to protect such from legislative discrimation.
You are right that banning a certain religious practice is discrimination. But marriage doesn’t ban gays from marrying at all. They can still marry a women, just like everyone else. But marriage bans all men, straight or gay, from marrying another man. Therefore, it isn’t discrimination against gays only, but against men. A gay man has the same rights to marry as a straight man within the same conditions and parameters.
I believe so, and they would be the first. No one would have an argument against that. Perhaps people would disagree with it, but they wouldn’t feel it is unfair and undemocratic as in the case of the Court stepping in and nullifying legislation.
Vermont is probably our most liberal state in the Union. They are the American microcosm of France or Sweden. So it should be expected that they would be the first state to do so. Iowa is in the Midwest; there is no way the court decision reflects the will of the people. And neither California, since the people successfully voted down the arrogant court decision. Iowa would too, if they had the chance or could go through the same process.
[quote=“Vay”]I don’t know enough about the legal system to know why you feel this is the case regarding Jotham’s statement. Can you elaborate?
[/quote]
It was painful to read Jotham’s writing, and it’s painful to have to go back now and parse through it. There’s some valid issues lying in that mess, but seems to me, he’s just parroting something he heard or read without understanding - that is just pretension.
it’s obvious jotham is educated, but it’s tragic that he doesn’t seem to have learned much.
btw, “separate but equal” is a nice example of conservative judicial activism posted by Vay. I have also never liked that “corporations” could be “persons”. That was a door best left closed… sure, it’s allowed more capital creation, but I’d be damned sure those Bank CEOs and owners would be a lot more responsible if their necks were on the line instead of the “corporate person”… but that’s a whole other topic.
As for Jotham’s points:
- “they feel first and then write what they want”: this is one of the few legitimate general concerns with judges that I can understand, but this isn’t a issue monopolized by Jotham’s so-called “left-leaning, liberal” courts as Vay pointed out with plenty of examples. The politics of “packing the [Supreme] Court” and nominating “left” or “right” judges confirms that. Of course, there are always exceptions. Some “right” judges turn out to be more “left” than what you thought after appointment, etc. And some judges really have a consistent record that would not (easily) evince his/her personal convictions. But this is a human problem, and it won’t get fixed.
The simple answer is that you continue with the legal process: the legislature (as pointed out in the article) is free to redraft the law, the state supreme court may hear it, etc. and eventually, it may go up to the S. Ct., the people are free to have Congress do something (either pass an act or amend the Constitution). It’s not perfect, but it’s the best there is. maybe when we get AI judges. lol.
Specifically, in this case (and in many cases), we won’t know if “judicial activism” is what happened - I don’t know the background of those judges, their records, their opinions - I’d be very surprised if Jotham knows or has credible links. Of course, the opponents will always cry foul, but that doesn’t mean that’s what happened in this case. This is Jotham’s knee-jerk reaction.
- ‘As [Jotham] has said before… no one has complained about the [illegality] of boys and girls basketball.’
His writing is so crappy, what does he mean? boys playing ball in the park? girls’ intramural ball club at the collegiate level? and excluding whom? 4’ boys from playing college ball? ugly girls from playing intramurals? or does he mean girls from playing in boys’ college basketball and vice versa?
first, equal protection traditionally applies to state actors ie governments and their agents e.g. Jim Crow laws. laws like Title 9 expands that to entities that receive federal funds. Equal Protection was also expanded to businesses (like a motel via the Commerce Clause haha). But there are exceptions like sororities or private associations (the Boy Scouts v. Dale case was written by a Conservative, Rehnquist FYI). and if Jotham does mean girls from joining boys (collegiate basketball, for example), well that’s still stupid and not analogous, specially since he conceded “no one has complained”, because…
a. No one has complained in single-sex sports clubs. well, people have complained in same-gender marriage bans. So what’s his point? is he suggesting marriage should be viewed with the same standard as sporting clubs? Nonsense. (Equal Protection has different levels of protection; Title 7 and Title 9 protect different aspects of civic life using different levels of protection).
b. More to the point, what have these people not complained about in single-sex sports clubs? and who are these people? Put another way, who is being excluded and for what reasons? is it that girls want to be on the boys’ college team? or is it that girls want to play on a college team?
this bring us to the next point:
- Jotham says “The laws are not discriminatory because they apply to everyone.” but then he adds it may be gender-inequality… well, which is it?
Anyways, that is the beginning, not the end of inquiry. A law may, on its face, sound like it doesn’t discriminate against a certain class of people (trad., blacks, then on basis of race, gender, etc.). If a law is deemed to be facially non-discriminatory (and that probably means it doesn’t target a suspect class, therefore a rational purpose standard is most likely), the court would then try to determine what the intent of the law was by looking at several factors such as: legislative history, official statements, departure from normal procedure, events, impact, and then decide based on that, if the law has a rational purpose.
- I elaborated on the single-sports clubs example and the absurdity of saying that the law should help a 4’ boy get into a boys college team, because of this last most important point.
Probably what Jotham wanted to say but failed to express, and what other conservatives are saying, is that gay people should not be a “protected class” (ie the Suspect Class). Because that’s a key feature of equal protection (to trigger the highest standard or protection via strict scrutiny). That’s why a black guy can’t be prohibited from drinking at a water fountain, but the law can’t force a state college team to take in the 4’ boy. Because 4’ boys are NOT a suspect class.
So, at the end of the day, and what hasn’t been clearly resolved in the current political and legal climate is, do Americans want to protect gays as a suspect class.
Lastly, I disagree with original intent doctrine. While I appreciate that the Constitution should not simply be re-interpreted every generation to meet (or validate) its changing perspectives, it’s ridiculous to pretend that we should (or even could) be forever interpreting the Constitution through the eyes of the Framers as though it were the 18th century.
I think, on a conceptual level, if there is no “judicial activism”, no “living” Constitution, we would still be living in a society with Jim Crow laws. Because after all, those laws were passed democratically by the Southern States. The Founders recognized that even a majority could be tyrannous; that was one of the reasons they then added the Bill of Rights, because they recognized individual liberty had to be further protected.
Ok, I’m outta time.
edit: I see in Jotham’s later posts that he clearly disagrees that “gays” could be a protected class by his definition, probably because he feels “gay” is a behaviour and a choice rather than “who they are”. Well, that’s a whole other discussion.
Wow. What a post. Who would have known that JB had it in him? Very well reasoned and very well argued.
[quote=“Jack Burton”]
As for Jotham’s points:
- “they feel first and then write what they want”: this is one of the few legitimate general concerns with judges that I can understand, but this isn’t a issue monopolized by Jotham’s so-called “left-leaning, liberal” courts as Vay pointed out with plenty of examples. The politics of “packing the [Supreme] Court” and nominating “left” or “right” judges confirms that. Of course, there are always exceptions. Some “right” judges turn out to be more “left” than what you thought after appointment, etc. And some judges really have a consistent record that would not (easily) evince his/her personal convictions. But this is a human problem, and it won’t get fixed.[/quote]
You’re trying to say that all judges feel the issues, but in fact, right-leaning judges as a definition is generally accepted have a rigid view of the Constitution. They strictly adhere to what the Constitution says with the intent of the Fathers in mind. It is a very objective standard. A judge may personally disagree with something the Constitution says, but still interpret it dutifully. Or a conservative judge may personally disagree with a law, but objectively rule that it falls within the parameters of the Constitution. That judge may personally agree with the law, but object to it as unconstitutional. The liberal judge, like yourself, believes the Constitution must be flexible to the times. Since this requires a lot of subjective opinion, without a certain standard, it causes controversy. If a judge personally likes or doesn’t like a law, they may hunt for rhetorical devices and make the flexible, living Constitution appear to say anything in support or opposition to any law, so as to conform with the spirit of the age. Thus two liberal judges could disagree with each other, in which one supports a law and the other doesn’t. Those judges could each find a phrase in the Constitution that would support their respective subjective opinions, even though the Constitution doesn’t objectively address such law at all.
[quote]2. ‘As [Jotham] has said before… no one has complained about the [illegality] of boys and girls basketball.’
His writing is so crappy, what does he mean? boys playing ball in the park? girls’ intramural ball club at the collegiate level? and excluding whom? 4’ boys from playing college ball? ugly girls from playing intramurals? or does he mean girls from playing in boys’ college basketball and vice versa?
first, equal protection traditionally applies to state actors ie governments and their agents e.g. Jim Crow laws. laws like Title 9 expands that to entities that receive federal funds. Equal Protection was also expanded to businesses (like a motel via the Commerce Clause haha). But there are exceptions like sororities or private associations (the Boy Scouts v. Dale case was written by a Conservative, Rehnquist FYI). and if Jotham does mean girls from joining boys (collegiate basketball, for example), well that’s still stupid and not analogous, specially since he conceded “no one has complained”, because…
a. No one has complained in single-sex sports clubs. well, people have complained in same-gender marriage bans. So what’s his point? is he suggesting marriage should be viewed with the same standard as sporting clubs? Nonsense. (Equal Protection has different levels of protection; Title 7 and Title 9 protect different aspects of civic life using different levels of protection).
b. More to the point, what have these people not complained about in single-sex sports clubs? and who are these people? Put another way, who is being excluded and for what reasons? is it that girls want to be on the boys’ college team? or is it that girls want to play on a college team?[/quote]
I am saying that there are several instances that we discriminate regarding gender. So the marriage concept being gender-specific is not at all radical. Now granted, if there were a boys’ basketball team (which doesn’t accept girls), but not a girls’ basketball team, then that would be unfair and gender discrimination. But the fact that they offer equal oportunity for both boys and girls to play basketball, even though under certain well-defined parameters and restrictions, is not discrimination. Likewise, the marriage concept doesn’t exclude or discriminate against gender. It allows all genders to participate in marriage, but they all have the same restrictions, just like girls can’t play on the boys’ team, so also men can’t marry men.
[quote]this bring us to the next point:
- Jotham says “The laws are not discriminatory because they apply to everyone.” but then he adds it may be gender-inequality… well, which is it?[/quote] The laws are not discriminatory against homosexuals, because they apply to everyone. Then I said if there is any basis at all for any discrimination, it would have to be gender-based. In other words, lesbian girls can’t play on the boys’ team – and this not because they’re lesbians, but because they’re girls. They have to play on the girls’ team just like the straight girls do. Likewise, homosexuals can’t marry guys not because they’re gay, but because they’re men.
You see, that’s what legislatures are for. They legislate laws that keep up with the times. The Constitution was meant to be an anchor, to keep the spirit of democracy intact; it was meant to be a conservative stabilizing branch of the government, whereas the legislative would be the more progressive branch. But when you have liberal judges, the courts often become more progressive than the legislatures, which exacerbates problems rather than quell them.
The Republicans created amendments that protected blacks sufficiently enough if the spirit of the law were adhered to. The problem with those Republicans is that they didn’t word those amendments clearly enough to prevent rhetorically sneaky Democrats from circumventing them. Jim Crow laws were evil Democrats trying to get away with racism through rhetorical shenanigans.
At any rate, the Constitution doesn’t ensure that laws are all just. If it did, then it would have to be a huge book. The Constitution is only a framework for the best democratic governance and avoidance of tyranny. States had the leeway to make just or unjust laws. The Constitution can’t stop every unjust law. That’s why the Founders stated the importance of virtue and godliness in order to make democracy operate. They said if the people were evil, so would their democratic legislators and government. The Constitution can’t secure against that. At any rate, the Founders allowed the Constitution to be amended in order to comport with the times. And indeed, we have several amendments addressing the racism and inequality of blacks.
Well, no, I don’t think it is always a choice. But yes, homosexuality is necessarily defined by behavior. There is no biological way we know to identify with certainty that one is or isn’t.
In the final analysis, and with ultimate irony (or hypocrisy, if you will) that one of the main targets of Jotham’s arguments is “judicial activism”, Jotham’s argument seems to be that because (a) the premise that “homosexuals” are not/should not be a “suspect class” (protected by the Constitution) because of his own personal convictions, ergo (b) laws such as these marriage bans do not discriminate, and hence constitutional.
I’m not going to bother rebutting your claim that “conservative” judges are objective and hold up the law objectively as pronounced by the legislature and no more and no less, and “liberal” judges throw the law out the window. You obviously have your blinders on; you clearly ignored Vay’s many examples to the contrary of many historical cases of conservative “judical activism”.
I say to you: continue being a happy parrot in ignorant bliss. Just don’t presume to “educate” others.
I will agree with you that I would favour constitutional amendments more if the Constitution is to change (I’m not a big fan of Commerce Clause “judicial activism”), but I laugh at the notion that Original Intent is somehow the proper and practical way to go. The Founders are dead - how do you go about showing intent (beyond the limited use of legislative papers, contemporary documents, which one must remember IS NOT LAW)?
Here ya go Rush, got some Oxies for ya!
What kind of society is it where people listen to the deranged ravings of a depraved junkie?
Colbert weighs in on the debate:
The Colbert Coalition’s Anti-Gay Marriage Ad
:bravo: 
:roflmao:
And he did this on my b-day, no less. More ammo for those who say I’m gay and just don’t know it myself!
I don’t remember any posters saying any such thing. Um, maybe you’re referring to the people in your personal orb and daily life?
I don’t remember any posters saying any such thing. Um, maybe you’re referring to the people in your personal orb and daily life?[/quote]
Yup, that was what I meant (IE people in my personal orb/daily life, not people in this forum).
OH. MY. GOD. Yet AGAIN, Limbaugh refers to Obama as a “little boy”, a “man-child”:
That’s a transcription - looks like Rush is grabbing up all the videos, but I can direct you to audio if you doubt the veracity of the quote. And this is not the first time he has referred to Obama this way.
Now, does anyone DARE to deny that this is anything but a wink wink nudge nudge racist slur that Rush - in the fine tradition of the Republican “Southern strategy” - is making to score points with the conscious or subconscious feelings of his listeners? Everyone knows Karl Rove, but here’s the Emperor to his Darth Vader, Lee Atwater on that particular strategy:
Can that make it any clearer?
The term “boy” was used in the segregated South to constantly show who was had the power and who was under thumb. The age of the black person referred to or the white person saying it was irrelevant. A white teenager could say “Boy, get over here” to an 85-year-old black man. Or a president, apparently.
So when Limbaugh calls Obama a little boy, a man-child, it’s his Dixie dog whistle to the racists: “We gotta put this UPPITY N- in his place!”
Another nasty racist stereotype is the “lazy Negro.” Somewhat ironic, being applied as it is to the very group which was practically worked to death building so much of our nation. But of course, when Limbaugh goes off on Obama’s “primary job” in life having been leisure, gee, guess what he’s saying?
Not to mention the fact that Obama started out - in stark contrast with, say GWB - with little in life and achieved his academic and then political success through nothing other than brain power, will-power and good old-fashioned hard work. Isn’t that a quality Republicans are supposed to admire?
[quote=“Vay”]OH. MY. GOD. Yet AGAIN, Limbaugh refers to Obama as a “little boy”, a “man-child”:
That’s a transcription - looks like Rush is grabbing up all the videos, but I can direct you to audio if you doubt the veracity of the quote. And this is not the first time he has referred to Obama this way. [/quote]
There are very few human beings on the face of the planet who are more full of shit than Rush Limbaugh, and everyone, even the right-wingers, knows it. Why even bother?
Er, have you seen the 23-odd pages of this thread? That got started after part 1 got too long? Or the thread on the recent Limbaugh interview? I think, sad and ridiculous though it is, Rush, Bort, Beck all still get a lot of traction in society. They do very well at walking the tight-rope, talking the double-speak, executing the strategy exactly as Atwater spelled it out above.
And at 23 pages, it’s enough. Please start Part III if you wish to give Rush more ink.
Rush Limbaugh, conservative media icon, dead at 70 following battle with cancer - CNN
This man did immeasurable damage to the United States politically and culturally. May karma treat him better than he treated other humans during his lifetime.
3 Likes
The man is dead. Give it a rest.
6 Likes
That is an uncivil comment.
Limbaugh is dead but the legacy of his talk radio propaganda machine are very much alive. My words were more polite than that person deserves; If there’s a Christian afterlife, it’s very hot where he’s going.
“Rush Limbaugh helped create today’s polarized America by normalizing racism, bigotry, misogyny and mockery,” tweeted Shannon Watts, founder of the gun control group Moms Demand Action. “He was a demagogue who got rich off of hate speech, division, lies and toxicity. That is his legacy.”
1 Like
Rush Limbaugh Remarks to Conservatives
Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh spoke to conservative activists about the future of the conservative movement and Republican Party. In his remarks he criticized the Obama administration’s economic proposals and suggested that the conservative movement might benefit from the president’s failure. He also spoke about developing political strategies and a voice for the conservative movement in the next several years.
This speech was given at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which was sponsored by the American Conservative Union at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C.