BVS

I honestly have clue what you are talking about... Giving homosexuals equal rights is change for change sake? You said don't do this, but honestly what else am I suppose to get from this post?

I guess what I am trying to say is show me a legitimate law that is based purely on tradition and I'll show you a flawed law.

Where does tradition play a role in law? Please tell me.

__________________
my music

Music Facebook

^Apparently he did.

MyBloodySleeve

Irvine511

you've got it all backwards.

the argument put forth is that someone's personal discomfort is a reason to override or amend jurisprudence. the courts exist for a reason. what happened in California was a perfect example of the tyranny of the majority and how fast and loose constitutional amendments can be used to deny basic rights to minorities.

__________________

THE WORLD ONLY SPINS FORWARD

financeguy

BVS

'Precedent' does not equal 'tradition'.

__________________
my music

Music Facebook

^Apparently he did.

MyBloodySleeve

anitram

I think tradition can and does play a role in informing jurisprudence to a degree. Of course we are free to discard it as it becomes irrelevant in a progressive society.

A swing on the progressive scale should not be a mindless discarding of tradition, however, and that sort of attitude probably does not help the cause. It is quite possible that in certain areas of law, it is true that an "ideal" may exist, or if not an ideal, then a situation that is "better" or "preferred" to other situations. It could be that the traditional situation is the better one in some cases. BUT if you want to make that argument, then you need to bolster it with something other than "this is how it has always been."

For example, in the area of family law, and particularly adoption, it may very well be true that a two-parent home is preferred. You can probably find multiple, credible sociological studies to reinforce that fact. So in that sense, perhaps tradition is symbiotic with the law, but it does not mean that it is the only or exclusive way. And the fact that the traditional family set up has its benefits does not mean that we are relying on tradition to shape our law, we are merely admitting that social studies indicate that this may be the case in this one example.

Anyway, I have rambled, but just as tradition shouldn't shape our law, it doesn't mean that it doesn't inform it (surely it does, anybody who's read case law knows as much).

deep

I am sorry for your loss.

BVS

I agree 100% with your post anitram, maybe I just prefer the word precedent to tradition.

Tradition to me implies the beginnings to be more of accident or randomness than precedent does.

__________________
my music

Music Facebook

^Apparently he did.

MyBloodySleeve

Irvine511

laws aside, it seems to me that another focal point in this discussion is that some people seem to be upset that the public expression of homophobia religion might now carry with it a stigma that's akin to racism and sexism.

i can see why that would be upsetting to someone who feels as if he has a principled stand against marriage equality that has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with freedom of religious expression and whatever anti-judiciary viewpoint he's espousing.

but he must also deal with it. people under 35 view laws and attitudes that harm gay people as bad things pushed on society by likewise bad people. you're free to argue with the kids, because this is a free society, but you're not free to get to have your beliefs go unchallenged and/or codified into law.

i know it's tough for a certain breed of Christian to suddenly find himself disapproved of by mainstream society -- since now a majority of Americans endorse either gay marriage or gay civil unions, two things outright condemned in that NRO piece -- but don't worry. gays have been disapproved of by mainstream society for a long, long time, and look at how well we're doing now! you'll survive some cultural disapproval, i just know it.

__________________

THE WORLD ONLY SPINS FORWARD

BVS

great post, and very very true...

__________________
my music

Music Facebook

^Apparently he did.

MyBloodySleeve

yolland

And gender essentialism; the notion that permitting a contract symbolically associated with cultural sanction to same-sex couples is lethal poison to society, because it implicitly rejects the claim that children raised in such a household are doomed to be morally, spiritually and developmentally stunted for not having grown up intimately exposed to both the 'feminine' and 'masculine' natures, which reputedly only having both a mother and a father at home can provide.

One thing I found quite interesting about the Iowa decision was how the Court reviewed the given justifications for Iowa's same-sex marriage ban and repeatedly pointed out where in practice the law had the effect of uniquely singling out same-sex couples for penalization on these grounds, therefore it was unjust.

__________________
yolland@interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης

MrsSpringsteen

New York Gov. David Paterson (D) today said that he plans to re-introduce legislation making same-sex marriage legal in the state. “We’ll put a bill out and let the people decide one way or the other,” Paterson told WHCU-AM in Ithaca. In 2007, then-governor Eliot Spitzer introduced similar legislation, but it stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate. The state Senate is now controlled by Democrats but “still appears a few votes shy from having the 32 votes needed for passage.” New York state currently recognizes same-sex marriages performed legally in other states.


ATHENS, Ga. (AP) - Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Tuesday that a recent Iowa Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage was “outrageously wrong,“ but called a legislative override that made it legal in Vermont “healthier.“

Gingrich, who has been mentioned as a possible Republican presidential contender in 2012, spoke after wrapping up a class he has been teaching on the judicial system at the University of Georgia’s law school.

Gingrich said he sees the beginning of a “major movement” to bring the judicial branch into check in the wake of last Friday’s Iowa Supreme Court decision. The ruling said a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.

“It’s the height of judicial arrogance,“ Gingrich said. “You have seven lawyers who have decided, on their own, to fundamentally change Iowa.“

Gingrich’s remarks came on the same day Vermont’s Legislature voted to legalize gay marriage, becoming the fourth state to recognize the same sex unions and the first to do so through a vote of the Legislature. The others are Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa. Vermont’s process, Gingrich said, was “healthier.“

“The people of Vermont have every right to elect the legislators they want and if they disagree with this decision they have every right to replace them and so it is the people’s branch overriding the governor, who’s elected, and it’s not an isolated imposition by the elite.“

He added: “Even for people who don’t agree with the outcome, it’s a much better process.“

Irvine511

i agree. setting aside the fact that many married people do not have children, i've never understood why, if gender and gender-roles are so timeless and rooted in nature and god-given, they must be protected at all costs.

if we have 5,000 years of tradition and what not, wouldn't you think said institutions probably would survive allowing 5% of the population to have access to said institution?

__________________

THE WORLD ONLY SPINS FORWARD

martha

Newt

He's on marriage #3 now, right?

__________________



Skywheel
Skywheel Blog

Irvine511

i agree with Newt here. it does give the Right less breathing room if it goes through the legislature. that is the best way to go for the movement as a whole, no question.

__________________

THE WORLD ONLY SPINS FORWARD

Irvine511

so he has at least 3 different children from each of those marriages, yes?

because the sole function of marriage is to civilize heterosexual sex and direct it into the breeding and raising of children, yes?

yes?

__________________

THE WORLD ONLY SPINS FORWARD