1. “There is not one truth for Fox News and another for The Nation. Fair is not always balanced, and balanced is not always fair.”
    — John Walcott, Washington bureau chief for McClatchy Newspapers, in a speech delivered 7 October, 2008, upon accepting the I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence from Bob Giles of the Nieman Foundation. Reprinted 9 October 2008 as “John Walcott: Truth is not subjective.”
  2. Welcome to The Infinity Program, a general discussion forum that has been around since June, 2004. As the founder, one of my goals is to maintain this community even as others fall to the wayside. Also, I want to encourage engaging conversation by regularly submitting new topics that contain thoughts and insights rather than just aggregated material. Finally, none of the posts here are the result of “exchanges” or “packages”—i.e., all participation at this forum is “organic.”

    If you are a first time visitor and want to know more about this place, read the “Guide,” “A Short History of the Forum,” “Five Reasons to Switch to the Infinity Program,” and the highly entertaining “A Brief History of the Universe.” Along those lines, The Infinity Encyclopedia describes notable members and topics, and notable events of the forum. Alternatively, if you want to submit feedback, contact us.

Gender Neutral Marriage...

Discussion in 'Headlines' started by Kanastrous, Jun 17, 2008.

  1. Kanastrous Resident Stalker

    ...in practice in California, since Monday evening.

    I'm surprised there isn't already a thread about this, either praising it or damning it as the End of Civilization as We Know It, or both.

    Or maybe there is, and I missed it.
  2. X The Wolf

    There hasn't been much talk here because, as shameful as the need for a Civil Rights Movement was, people know by now that human beings are human beings regardless of their circumstances and generally should be treated as social and legal (or, sociopoliticalllawlpostmodernism) equals.
  3. Kanastrous Resident Stalker

    I'm mostly surprised at the lack of panic mongering from certain conservative/Christian quarters.

    Maybe they're too embarrassed by the loss, to want to talk about it.
  4. X The Wolf

    This matter is embarrassingly simple. That makes it difficult to talk about at any level of depth other than simply stating that gay people should be allowed to marry.
  5. Kanastrous Resident Stalker

    In the past that hasn't prevented a lot of huffing and puffing from ConservChristian types, when gay marriage was being discussed as a possibility, rather than as a reality...
  6. X The Wolf

    Another part of what makes it so difficult to discuss is how it makes me feel. I feel belittled when I'm forced to treat it as anything other than a non-issue. I feel reduced. I feel as ridiculous as parents look when they sit there and have an actual full-on argument with their three-year-old child.
  7. Kanastrous Resident Stalker

    Well, imagine a pack of three-year-olds who pay taxes and are enfranchised to vote, and you sort of have something like the religious conservative crowd, when it comes to this sort of thing.
  8. X The Wolf

    LMFAO!!! I didn't even have to finish the post after this.
  9. X,

    You consider judicial tyranny a non issue? Maybe you should do some research into this particular case so that you can understand why the ruling is being considered judicial tyranny.

    I guess the first question should be; do you know what judicial tyranny is?
  10. Kanastrous Resident Stalker

    Judicial Tyranny does not even begin to apply, in this context, and it's a desperate reach on the part of people who just can't accept that their ends are unconstitutional.
  11. X The Wolf

    You know, maybe I don't know what judicial tyranny is. But I know what it ISN'T: It isn't when a judge makes a determination that has NO EFFECT ON YOU. You can still marry!

    In the beginning of this so-called debate, what you have is a sanctimonious asshole who thinks gay people are gross or evil or something. Then, in the face of intellectual scrutiny that asshole is forced to concede to social toleration. But they hold on to their prejudices by claiming that marriage is "defined" as something that is specifically heterosexual.

    Obviously, those among us with functioning brains are forced to comprehend the fact that marriage, in a court of law, has next to nothing to do with religion and therefore does not give respect to person or sexual preference. Your religion has nothing to do with the government of this nation, and if you disagree then you can argue about it with Christian politicians like Thomas Jefferson and Barack Obama.

    The core of the debate, however, is just as stupid but a hell of a lot deeper. Civilization is maintained by order; the argument in this country is that this order is comprised at least partly of monogamous heterosexual families. The Communists challenged all of those ways of thinking, which is one of the reasons why the American government hated them so much. America has rigid and unsophisticated sexual doctrines. People are allowed to copulate whomever they please as long as they don't do it for profit, homosexuals are treated like second-class citizens, and telling people not to have sex is thought of as "sexual education."

    Even the Republicans could tell you that all this is wrong. The real Republicans, anyway; the ones that hated taxes, hated authoritarian government, and freed the slaves. They would tell you that no one has any business telling anybody what to do to each other behind closed doors unless someone was getting hurt. And they'd tell you that marriage is not a declaration as to what kinds of people you'll be rubbing your genitalia on, but a spiritual bond between two adults that love each other.
  12. Saint The Only Man Ever

  13. Kanastrous,

    Are you aware that it took just four judges to overturn the will of the people and the historical definition and of marriage in California? The split between the judges was 4-3.

    Are you aware that in the 2000 election 4,618,673 (61%) Californians’ adopted legislation to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman?

    You claim that: "judicial tyranny does not even begin to apply, in this context, and it's a desperate reach on the part of people who just can't accept that their ends are unconstitutional."

    Obviously you are much more intellectually astute than the Judges on the California Supreme Court; so explain that to the 3 dissenting Judges. Here are remarks two of them made in their dissenting opinion they wrote.

    Justice Marvin R. Baxter said:
    Justice Marvin R. Baxter said the majority should have deferred to the state Legislature on whether to allow same-sex marriage, particularly given the increased legal protections for same-sex couples enacted in recent years.

    Justice Carol A. Corrigan said:
    Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote that her personal sympathies were with the plaintiffs challenging the bans on same-sex marriage. But she said the courts should allow the political process to address the issue.

    I could go on by presenting a couple more points grounded in factual evidence to support my position but I believe that this is a good start. In addition it is more than you, or anyone here, have presented to support your view, other than your personal opinion, which simply means its another typical discussion at ITP today. Imagine that?
  14. X The Wolf

    Evidence.

    hahahah. Alright then, a list of evidence:

    1) Gay marriage bans are unconstitutional in California.

    The interesting thing about this ruling is that the California High Court cannot make an issuance contrary to the Constitution of California. That means specifically that whatever was ruled against was unconstitutional -- in this case, bans on gay marriage.

    2) Gay marriage bans are unconstitutional in California.

    The interesting thing about Evidence #1 is that it was proven by the California Supreme Court ruling, whereas Evidence #2 was proven by the opposition to the ruling. You see, the opposition's response to the ruling was to put forth an amendment to the California Constitution for the people to vote on in November. This means that for the ruling to be unlawful, the law would have to be different from what it is now.

    3) Gay marriage bans are unconstitutional in California.

    The interesting thing about doing something unconstitutional is that it is the only time in this nation that you will have no support whatsoever from any group of any kind. If you do something unconstitutional then you are nothing but a criminal and just a general son-of-a-bitch. Speaking of sons-of-bitches, the argument of the ruling was that the California Constitution deems the banning of gay marriage to be socially unequal and irresponsibly threatening to the personal liberty of its citizens. The chief argument for the ban? Tradition.

    4) SHUT UP. You are mentally deficient and I hate everything you stand for.

    Yes, you. And you know what someone told me? "Fuck the California Supreme Court for overruling the state and the people [because there it was voted 61% five years ago to ban gay marriage]." You know what my immediate response was? "FUCK the state and the people." Those were my exact words. No one is above order. Order is the backbone of society. You are not the backbone of society. Your inhumane ancient teachings of indignant seperatism are not the backbone of society.

    No one has the right to do something unconstitutional.
  15. Medora The New Architect

    S&L's point about the 2000 referendum, and X's point about constitutionality reminded me of an article by Gleen Greenwald submitted 15 May, 2008. The following is much of that article (formatting consistent with author's, including URL sources provided):

  16. Dhampir Boy Administrator

    Well, Hyperion just covered almost anything I could have possibly added to this discussion, and did it better than I could have.

    All I think I can add is this:
    The issue is simple.

    1) Unequal treatment based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, political leanings, etc. is unconstitutional, and this is especially true in government services and institutions.

    2) Marriage is a legal institution with support from government services.

    3) Thus, providing unequal treatment based on race, gender, sexual orientation, et al. in regard to marriage is unconstitutional.

    Also, if legislation encourages unequal treatment (e.g.: defining marriage as between a man and a woman), then it it is declared unconstitutional on principle based on the above premises.

    Furthermore, I really do not consider this to be all that much different from the past issue of desegregation in the US, particularly in the case of schools. I am sure there were people who were for desegregation who said then that the American people just were not ready for it. "Give it time." Sorry, but what is right really is right, regardless of who is ready for it. If someone is not ready for justice, then they are just going to have to sit in the corner and mumble to themselves about how pissed off they are because, ready or not, Eisenhower is going to send black kids to your whitebread schools with help from the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army and the federalized Arkansas National Guard.
  17. Kanastrous Resident Stalker

    The result of the vote is binding, and therefore significant. The margin by which the vote passed, is not. At least, not until the next changeover election.

    Anyway, had the vote been unanimous, I feel certain that you would be complaining about "just seven judges" thwarting the "will of the people, " rather than complaining about "just four judges" having done it.

    And the number of judges involved, is meaningless. The point is that under our Constitution and system of government, the courts have an obligation to evaluate and rule upon the constitutionality of any given law. Whether one judge or four out of a panel of seven find a law fails constitutional muster - that's it.

    And, I expect you to prove that there is even such a thing as a "historical definition of marriage in California," by furnishing state documents from the state's history, that define it.

    Yes, I am aware of that. So what? If 61% of Californians voted to reintroduce slavery (once a long-standing tradition), would that matter? If 61% of Californians voted to disenfranchise women from voting (once a long-standing tradition), should that matter? The fact that a majority of Californians want something that can't pass Constitutional muster, doesn't mean that they get what they want. Part of life in a Constitutional Republic, is that you have to content yourself with living under the terms and requirements of that Constitution, whether you like them or not, unless you can swing an Amendment to change them.

    And we'll just see how that goes.

    Baxter essentially feels that the smaller group of people should be denied equal protection, because as a matter of policy the larger populace isn't entirely comfortable with it. Well, fuck him. I bet the Emancipation Proclamation made a fair number of people uncomfortable, too.

    And he didn't even use the phrase "judicial tyranny," while saying so.

    Corrigan says flat out that her sympathies are with the plaintiffs. And her perspective is once again rooted essentially in people's comfort level - let things play out by themselves, over time, so that people can feel happy about it. Well, fuck her, too. Deciding that one group of people should be denied a right not specifically denied them under the Constitution, so that other people can feel comfortable about it, isn't even a Constitutional argument. It's pandering.

    And she doesn't use the phrase judicial tyranny, either.

    Since neither of the actual justices you quote in dissent, even mention "judicial tyranny," I think we can safely dismiss your use of the phrase as bullshit.

    You have presented nothing by way of "factual evidence;" I doubt you even understand what the phrase means.

    You have presented excerpts from the opinions of a pair of judges whose positions are that the comfort-level of the public trumps the guarantees made by the state Constitution.

    If a majority the public were to eventually decide that church revenues should be taxed, or that clerics should be publicly licensed, or that religious expression was to be absolutely banned on any and all public property, right down to Christmas creches, you and I both know that you would be shrieking for the courts to come in and protect your interests, from a public that didn't give a crap about your freedoms.


    It's no kind of start, at all. You have not presented a single argument based upon Constitutional law. However, a majority of the highest-ranked legal officers in the state, have evaluated the arguments and found against your position.

    How about that.

    Except that the highest court in the state, by majority opinion, agrees with my position. Or, alternately, I agree with theirs. So in addition to my personal opinion, on the matter, I have a majority of the highest-ranking jurisprudents in the state, on my side and against yours.
  18. Kanastrous,

    You are truly a hoot!

    You say that historical precedent has no bearing in determining the definition of marriage. What information do you suggest should be reviewed in determining the definition of marriage?

    You say that the vote of the people is irrelevant. Then you say that my position isn’t based on Constitutional Law. Doesn’t the Constitution establish government of the people, by the people, for the people? Or isn’t the United States a Democracy anymore? Maybe it has been redefined along with the many other terms that have been redefined in this post modern society.

    You say that I have not presented factual evidence to support my position. Well Kanastrous, my friend, what have you presented besides a flaming unsubstantiated rant pointed entirely at me rather than the topic?

    You are right on one thing. That is that the California Supreme Court handed down a ruling, by majority, and that ruling must be honored, at this time, for our Democracy to function.

    Thanks,
    Salt & Light
  19. X,

    I must say you are more creative than Kanastrous. :msn wink

    In affect the decision handed down by the California Supreme Court amended the Constitution of California while circumventing the people from the process. This is what judicial tyranny is. That is why I asked you in the beginning of the discussion if you knew what it was. You said: “maybe I don't know what judicial tyranny is.” Your reasoning shows that you don’t and therefore didn’t recognize it when you wrote your opinion.

    I see no need to address any of the other points on your “list of evidence” because they either hinge on item 1 or are absurd personal opinion, not evidence.

    Thanks,
    Salt & Light
  20. Kanastrous Resident Stalker

    Please quote verbatim where I said precisely that, on this thread. I don't believe you can, because I never said that. So don't lie and say that I did.

    I did, however, ask you to cite documents demonstrating that the State of California has an established "historical definition of marriage."

    Care to do that? Or admit that you can't?

    In the specific context of voting up an unconstitutional law, yes, the vote is irrelevant to the constitutionality, and therefore permissibility, of that law. That is one reason why we have courts: to interpret the Constitution and determine whether laws passed by legislature or referendum conform to its requirements.

    By the Eternal Pipe, you are fucking ignorant. Don't they teach civics at all, in whatever educational system spat you out?

    The phrase is not from the Constitution; it's from Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address!

    [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]"that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

    [/FONT]I actually kind of feel like you owe the people on this forum an apology, for fouling their screens with the vileness of your uneducated, self-righteous shit. Do you even appreciate your own ignorance, while you smugly sit and crap away as though you have even read the Constitution?

    You uneducated, ignorant, pissant fuckwit.

    Oh, and to answer your question, no, the Constitution doesn't establish that, because those words are not in the Constitution.

    The United States of America has been - from the day of its inception - a Democratic Republic. The fact that you don't understand what that means, is no surprise considering the low grade of education you've displayed on the subject, so far.

    In a Democratic Republic the people don't get one-vote-per on every item of policy or law. The elect a system of accountable representatives who cast those votes on their behalf, subject to the review of a judicial branch and the veto of an executive one.

    Because you still haven't. Do you think that you are fooling anybody here, with your bullshit? Everyone can read and see that you don't offer any evidence at all, to underwrite your claims about Constitutionality or government; hell, you don't even know what's in the Constitution.

    How do you think others regard you, and what you have to say, when you are so flagrantly ignorant and arrogant, to quote from a document you know so poorly, as to be quoting something else, entirely?

    How seriously, do you think anybody takes what you have to say?

    I note from some of your posts that you like to think of yourself in the role of a teacher (So-and-so, I'm so glad you asked that question! The answer is...)

    Look, everybody, look at the big teacher, who pulls quotes from his ass out of documents he's never read, and thinks he's ever so smart and ready to teach the rest of us what's what.

    That, by the way, is what a rant directed at you would actually look like, should I choose to compose one, you whiny ignorant little punk.
  21. Kanastrous Resident Stalker

    You ignorant ass, the California Supreme Court did not amend the State Constitution; they struck down a law that they found unconstitutional under the State Constitution.

    Your smug uneducated stupidity is just disgusting.
  22. X The Wolf

    The people do not have judicial powers in California, so they were not circumvented at all; it's not a process they would have ever been involved in. Stop wasting your time and my time and read the consitution from which this ruling was derived. I think you will be surprised by what you find.

    They have nothing to do with Item 1. Simplified for the feeble-minded, they are as follows:

    2) The response of the opposition to this ruling was to propose a constitutional amendment. This shows that even they understand that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional under the current California Constitution. They want to change the constitution in order to legalize same-sex marriage bans.

    3) The chief legal argument for the banning of same-sex marriages was tradition. That evidences the ridiculousness of your position. And it is infantile next to the argument against: that your position is socially unequal and irresponsibly threatening to the personal liberty of California's citizens.

    4) Your position is born of doctrines that are inhumane, inconsiderate, and seperatist, seeking to castigate people simply for their circumstances and personal, private choices in life that have absolutely nothing to do with you. This is not opinion. It is the observation of the affect your position has on the people of this society. You are the enemy of liberty. You are the wrongdoer.

    The doctrines you follow were prescribed by men from another time, in another world, who knew nothing of what we know about ourselves and our world today. They were therefore ignorant. And they were intolerant, and they were prejudiced, and you have wasted your precious cognitive powers and waking moments by devoting yourself to such credulous and juvenile notions.

    I understand the emotional inertia behind all of the time, consideration, and effort you have invested into your primitive profession, but it's time now to be a responsible adult and let go of the pride which binds you to such spiteful, harmful, and just plain obnoxious ideals. Just let it go. If you have any mind left in that thick skull of yours, free it. Thinking for yourself isn't nearly as scary as it seems. It takes a lot more work than you're used to, but it'll pay off in the end. And you won't be an enemy of freedom anymore!
  23. It is difficult for me to respond to such hostility but I think it is necessary to highlight it for readers to understand your rebellion and aggression towards government – we the people.

    Indeed! The structure, which frames that order in the US, is the legislative, judicial and executive branches of the government. Your representation, given above, eliminates the legislative and judicial legs of the three-legged stool. What does that leave us with?

    Can you explain how the society according to X would be structured to maintain order?
  24. X The Wolf

    No one has the right to do something unconstitutional.

    Not even the state and the people. So, like I said, if the state and the people want to do something unconstitutional, FUCK them.
  25. Kanastrous Resident Stalker

    "You uneducated, ignorant, pissant fuckwit."

    Re-reading this a day later, I have to admit that it's over the top.

    While S 'n' L's posts make it obvious that he is uneducated and ignorant - at least, when it comes to the contents of the US Constitution - 'pissant fuckwit' is a conclusion I should have left others to choose to draw, or not, for themselves.

Share This Page