For your consideration...
-
As usual you miss the point. I'm not threatened by the behavior of people in their bedrooms. I'm threated by the behavior of 5 or 6 people on the Supreme Court. Had I been a citizen of Texas I would have voted to get rid of the silly sodomy laws. But, thanks to the Supreme court, I no longer have such democratic power to infludence the direction my culture is going to take. That power has been usurped from me and taken by an elite group of lawyers. What amazes me is those on the left who cry rivers over Ashcroft's abuse of his authority (even though he is actually well within the constitutional limits of his power) yet think it a good thing when the supreme court commits far more heinous assaults on our constintutional rights simply because it fits comfortably within their own moral agenda. "More capitalism, please..."
Stan Shannon wrote: As usual you miss the point you linked to an article that was largely about "sins", "dignity", moral culture", "sanctity", "license", "dark passions", "vice", "virtue", "traditional laws", etc.. forgive me for thinking you had a moral issue here - especially since you referred to *your* "way of life". should i read between the lines more, or less, from now on? Stan Shannon wrote: What amazes me is those on the left who cry rivers over Ashcroft's abuse like you've told me many times : suck it up. on the hopeful side, maybe the USSC will get a similar case some day and will rule in a way that reverses this. nothing is permanent. and maybe that same day, each of the states will realize that they have no business interfering in the private lives of their citizens. -c CheeseWeasle
-
http://www.spectator.org/article.asp?art_id=2003_6_27_0_4_17[^] Sums up my sentiments nicely. The antics of the Supreme Court are why I can never take the Ashcroft (et al) "threat" too seriosly. "Constitution? What Constitution?" The threat to *my* liberties and *my* way of life comes from the left not from the right. "More capitalism, please..."
The framers would reverse the judgment: it is sodomy that compromises their dignity, and it is the rule of law which points to and protects that dignity. The framers belonged to communities that passed such laws so as to safeguard a moral culture in which human dignity is possible. For some reason, it almost sounded like he was saying, "The framers would reverse the judgment: it is interracial marriage that compromises their dignity, and it is the rule of law which points to and protects that dignity. The framers belonged to communities that passed such laws so as to safeguard a moral culture in which the dignity of whites is possible." The framers thought those laws would discourage people from demeaning each other through the slavery of sin. Amen! Preach it brother! Uh.. sorry. I guess I thought I was in a church for a minute there. :-O (Next week: why prohibition should be enforced to protect society from the slavery of sin.) Stan Shannon wrote: The threat to *my* liberties and *my* way of life comes from the left not from the right. So, your liberties are threatened by the legality of two gay men having sex? Indeed, these are difficult times we live in. On a related note: Frist backs constitutional ban on gay marriage[^] ------------------------------------------ "I had no interest in trying to actually drive [in Italy], that would have been suicide. It would have been comitting my body entirely to game with indistinct rules, playing with a nation of opponents who are professionals at the sport."
-
As usual you miss the point. I'm not threatened by the behavior of people in their bedrooms. I'm threated by the behavior of 5 or 6 people on the Supreme Court. Had I been a citizen of Texas I would have voted to get rid of the silly sodomy laws. But, thanks to the Supreme court, I no longer have such democratic power to infludence the direction my culture is going to take. That power has been usurped from me and taken by an elite group of lawyers. What amazes me is those on the left who cry rivers over Ashcroft's abuse of his authority (even though he is actually well within the constitutional limits of his power) yet think it a good thing when the supreme court commits far more heinous assaults on our constintutional rights simply because it fits comfortably within their own moral agenda. "More capitalism, please..."
Stan Shannon wrote: those on the left No, no - Stan, they're called progressives. Not left, not liberal but progressive. Mike
-
As usual you miss the point. I'm not threatened by the behavior of people in their bedrooms. I'm threated by the behavior of 5 or 6 people on the Supreme Court. Had I been a citizen of Texas I would have voted to get rid of the silly sodomy laws. But, thanks to the Supreme court, I no longer have such democratic power to infludence the direction my culture is going to take. That power has been usurped from me and taken by an elite group of lawyers. What amazes me is those on the left who cry rivers over Ashcroft's abuse of his authority (even though he is actually well within the constitutional limits of his power) yet think it a good thing when the supreme court commits far more heinous assaults on our constintutional rights simply because it fits comfortably within their own moral agenda. "More capitalism, please..."
Stan Shannon wrote: Had I been a citizen of Texas I would have voted to get rid of... This is probably a good time for a Lesson On How The US Does It. I have almost zero idea about how laws are passed in the US. My vague idea was that some voters who are keen vote in people who have raised a lot of money by promising special interest groups certain advatages should they (the potential votee) get elected. These people (the ones voted in) then draft laws with the help of their staff and then try and get the other elected members to themselves vote on this law and pass it. Sometimes they draft laws and get them passed by saying "I'll only support your law if my law is passed as well". So how then does a single citizen actually get to vote on a particular law? Is it only done by voting in someone who has indicated they will table a certain law, or are laws in some states put up for general vote (eg a referendum)? Confused in Canada.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Had I been a citizen of Texas I would have voted to get rid of... This is probably a good time for a Lesson On How The US Does It. I have almost zero idea about how laws are passed in the US. My vague idea was that some voters who are keen vote in people who have raised a lot of money by promising special interest groups certain advatages should they (the potential votee) get elected. These people (the ones voted in) then draft laws with the help of their staff and then try and get the other elected members to themselves vote on this law and pass it. Sometimes they draft laws and get them passed by saying "I'll only support your law if my law is passed as well". So how then does a single citizen actually get to vote on a particular law? Is it only done by voting in someone who has indicated they will table a certain law, or are laws in some states put up for general vote (eg a referendum)? Confused in Canada.
At the state and local level, many issues are required to be put on the ballot for voters to approve. Which items vary by state, but generally anything having to do with taxes, property issues, and creating new classes of law (like the effort to decriminalize marijuana or laws to change what legislators may do) go on the block for the Great Unwashed to to vote on. In some states the people have the right to place their own laws on the ballot, which explains some of the more ridiculous laws they have in the PRC to the west of here. These are called Referendums, emphasis on the DUMb part. Federal laws are never voted on directly by the people; only the Congress has the Constitutional right and duty to make federal laws.
"The Lion shall lie down with the Lamb;
but the Lamb will not get much sleep..."
Lazarus Long -
Stan Shannon wrote: Had I been a citizen of Texas I would have voted to get rid of... This is probably a good time for a Lesson On How The US Does It. I have almost zero idea about how laws are passed in the US. My vague idea was that some voters who are keen vote in people who have raised a lot of money by promising special interest groups certain advatages should they (the potential votee) get elected. These people (the ones voted in) then draft laws with the help of their staff and then try and get the other elected members to themselves vote on this law and pass it. Sometimes they draft laws and get them passed by saying "I'll only support your law if my law is passed as well". So how then does a single citizen actually get to vote on a particular law? Is it only done by voting in someone who has indicated they will table a certain law, or are laws in some states put up for general vote (eg a referendum)? Confused in Canada.
In addition to Roger's reply: In this case the Supreme Court (all appointees, not elected) decided that an existing Texas law was unconstitutional thus making it null and void. Stan's point (although it wasn't obvious from his first post) was that the Supreme Court should leave these things to Texans (ie. It wasn't a federal matter, but better left to state lawmakers).
Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching. -
In addition to Roger's reply: In this case the Supreme Court (all appointees, not elected) decided that an existing Texas law was unconstitutional thus making it null and void. Stan's point (although it wasn't obvious from his first post) was that the Supreme Court should leave these things to Texans (ie. It wasn't a federal matter, but better left to state lawmakers).
Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.Ah. It all makes sense now. Thanks for the lesson. It's a good day when you learn something new ;) cheers, Chris Maunder
-
http://www.spectator.org/article.asp?art_id=2003_6_27_0_4_17[^] Sums up my sentiments nicely. The antics of the Supreme Court are why I can never take the Ashcroft (et al) "threat" too seriosly. "Constitution? What Constitution?" The threat to *my* liberties and *my* way of life comes from the left not from the right. "More capitalism, please..."
How does this threat your liberties? Unless you're homosexual, this will have no effect on you. Right? -- Seid bereit - Hier kommt der Panzermensch!
-
Ah. It all makes sense now. Thanks for the lesson. It's a good day when you learn something new ;) cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: Thanks for the lesson. It's a good day when you learn something new You're quite welcome. :beer: I've learned SO MUCH about C++ and MFC from your articles in particular and CP in general, it's nice to give even a little bit back. :-O
Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching. -
Stan Shannon wrote: Had I been a citizen of Texas I would have voted to get rid of... This is probably a good time for a Lesson On How The US Does It. I have almost zero idea about how laws are passed in the US. My vague idea was that some voters who are keen vote in people who have raised a lot of money by promising special interest groups certain advatages should they (the potential votee) get elected. These people (the ones voted in) then draft laws with the help of their staff and then try and get the other elected members to themselves vote on this law and pass it. Sometimes they draft laws and get them passed by saying "I'll only support your law if my law is passed as well". So how then does a single citizen actually get to vote on a particular law? Is it only done by voting in someone who has indicated they will table a certain law, or are laws in some states put up for general vote (eg a referendum)? Confused in Canada.
Chris Maunder wrote: I have almost zero idea about how laws are passed in the US. Dear Confused, There is a saying that there are two things you should never watch being made: Sausage and laws. That goes double for the US (the laws part, not the sausage... although that is rather gross too). -- Cynical in LA --Mike-- "So where does that leave us? Well, it leaves us right back where we started, only more confused than before." -- Matt Gullett Ericahist | Homepage | RightClick-Encrypt | 1ClickPicGrabber
-
http://www.spectator.org/article.asp?art_id=2003_6_27_0_4_17[^] Sums up my sentiments nicely. The antics of the Supreme Court are why I can never take the Ashcroft (et al) "threat" too seriosly. "Constitution? What Constitution?" The threat to *my* liberties and *my* way of life comes from the left not from the right. "More capitalism, please..."
"The Supreme Court says anti-sodomy laws "demean" people. The framers thought those laws would discourage people from demeaning each other through the slavery of sin. It would befuddle the framers greatly to hear sodomy and dignity in the same sentence." The slavery of sin?, what IS this. Do the editors of this shit, want religious police scrambling around in pickups after dark and beat up homosexuals, jews and redeheads?... "If citizens couldn't govern their own dark passions" Dark passions indeed, this is nonsense from another century! "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
How does this threat your liberties? Unless you're homosexual, this will have no effect on you. Right? -- Seid bereit - Hier kommt der Panzermensch!
The issue has nothing to do with homosexuality. The issue is whether or not I, or anyone else, have any voice at all in how my country, or my state, is to be governed. It is the Supreme Court's liberal majority who have decided to make this a cultural issue. By doing so, it is they who are forcing their will upon the people, their personal, political,cultural points of view, not a view predicated in any way on the legal traditions they are supposed to have some respect for. Personally, I don't care about homosexuality one way or the other, but I will be goddamned if I am going to be forced to accept it whether I want to or not. Do the people of a state have the authority to define "vice" and "virtue" for themselves as the framers intended, an authority respected by every previous generation of judges, or not? Apparently not... "More capitalism, please..."
-
The framers would reverse the judgment: it is sodomy that compromises their dignity, and it is the rule of law which points to and protects that dignity. The framers belonged to communities that passed such laws so as to safeguard a moral culture in which human dignity is possible. For some reason, it almost sounded like he was saying, "The framers would reverse the judgment: it is interracial marriage that compromises their dignity, and it is the rule of law which points to and protects that dignity. The framers belonged to communities that passed such laws so as to safeguard a moral culture in which the dignity of whites is possible." The framers thought those laws would discourage people from demeaning each other through the slavery of sin. Amen! Preach it brother! Uh.. sorry. I guess I thought I was in a church for a minute there. :-O (Next week: why prohibition should be enforced to protect society from the slavery of sin.) Stan Shannon wrote: The threat to *my* liberties and *my* way of life comes from the left not from the right. So, your liberties are threatened by the legality of two gay men having sex? Indeed, these are difficult times we live in. On a related note: Frist backs constitutional ban on gay marriage[^] ------------------------------------------ "I had no interest in trying to actually drive [in Italy], that would have been suicide. It would have been comitting my body entirely to game with indistinct rules, playing with a nation of opponents who are professionals at the sport."
Brit wrote: So, your liberties are threatened by the legality of two gay men having sex? Indeed, these are difficult times we live in. My liberties are threatened by having my democratic will taken away from me by the court. Thanks to the court I now live in a country where I can freely stick my dick up another man's ass if I want to, but I can no longer stand shoulder to shoulder with that same man and cast a free vote to decide the cultural fate of my society the way my ancestors have done for 200+ years. If that constitutes an increase in my liberty I prefer John Ashcroft's world view. "More capitalism, please..."
-
"The Supreme Court says anti-sodomy laws "demean" people. The framers thought those laws would discourage people from demeaning each other through the slavery of sin. It would befuddle the framers greatly to hear sodomy and dignity in the same sentence." The slavery of sin?, what IS this. Do the editors of this shit, want religious police scrambling around in pickups after dark and beat up homosexuals, jews and redeheads?... "If citizens couldn't govern their own dark passions" Dark passions indeed, this is nonsense from another century! "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: The slavery of sin?, what IS this. Do the editors of this shit, want religious police scrambling around in pickups after dark and beat up homosexuals, jews and redeheads?... The tone of the article is that the framers considered it the people's responsibility to define vice, not the court's repsonsibility to redefine vice as virtue. Is the only way we can avoid "Religious Police" to give more authority to the state, via the court, to define the parameters of culture? Don't you see how counter-intuitive that is? Isn't the court acting now as the "Religious police", enforcing their own religion on the people of Texas? jan larsen wrote: Dark passions indeed, this is nonsense from another century! So progress is represented by the court shoving its own moral agenda down the throats of the nation? "More capitalism, please..."
-
Brit wrote: So, your liberties are threatened by the legality of two gay men having sex? Indeed, these are difficult times we live in. My liberties are threatened by having my democratic will taken away from me by the court. Thanks to the court I now live in a country where I can freely stick my dick up another man's ass if I want to, but I can no longer stand shoulder to shoulder with that same man and cast a free vote to decide the cultural fate of my society the way my ancestors have done for 200+ years. If that constitutes an increase in my liberty I prefer John Ashcroft's world view. "More capitalism, please..."
I understand your viewpoint on this, but would Frist etc. give you the chance to vote on it ? The tigress is here :-D
-
The issue has nothing to do with homosexuality. The issue is whether or not I, or anyone else, have any voice at all in how my country, or my state, is to be governed. It is the Supreme Court's liberal majority who have decided to make this a cultural issue. By doing so, it is they who are forcing their will upon the people, their personal, political,cultural points of view, not a view predicated in any way on the legal traditions they are supposed to have some respect for. Personally, I don't care about homosexuality one way or the other, but I will be goddamned if I am going to be forced to accept it whether I want to or not. Do the people of a state have the authority to define "vice" and "virtue" for themselves as the framers intended, an authority respected by every previous generation of judges, or not? Apparently not... "More capitalism, please..."
I posted too soon, I saw your reply to Chris and others afterwards. I'm no constituion guru, nor do I claim to be. However, isn't a law against homosexuality _un_constitutional? Aren't they free to do whatever they want, as long as it does not affect the freedom of others? Wouldn't you think a law, which prohibited you from having sex with your wife between 5pm to 5am, is unconstitutional? From an onlookers point of view, I don't see this change in laws as a violation of anybodies freedom. In fact, it has given more people freedom. Isn't that what the constitution is all about, or have I missed something? Stan Shannon wrote: Personally, I don't care about homosexuality one way or the other, but I will be goddamned if I am going to be forced to accept it whether I want to or not. What's there to accept? As long as you stay out of the Blue Oyster Bar, you shouldn't really have a problem, should you? There's nothing to accept nor refuse - it just is. However, you should have the right to voice your oppinion about it. Anything less would be death to democracy. Stan Shannon wrote: Do the people of a state have the authority to define "vice" and "virtue" for themselves as the framers intended, an authority respected by every previous generation of judges, or not? Apparently not... Yes of course you should have the right! But only if it affects you. What gay people do in their bedrooms is hardly any of your concern, is it? How exactly does vice and virtue come into the picture? I just cannot understand your point of view here, I'm sorry! :confused: -- Seid bereit - Hier kommt der Panzermensch!
-
http://www.spectator.org/article.asp?art_id=2003_6_27_0_4_17[^] Sums up my sentiments nicely. The antics of the Supreme Court are why I can never take the Ashcroft (et al) "threat" too seriosly. "Constitution? What Constitution?" The threat to *my* liberties and *my* way of life comes from the left not from the right. "More capitalism, please..."
just ignorant about the issue. Aren't supreme court judges empowered to make decisions on constitutional issues? One silly thing is the judges mixing morals with judgements. Their job is to interpret the issues legally. What God given authority do they have to decide on moral issues? What makes them think they are morally superior? Protecting the society is one thing, but preaching morals is another.
-
jan larsen wrote: The slavery of sin?, what IS this. Do the editors of this shit, want religious police scrambling around in pickups after dark and beat up homosexuals, jews and redeheads?... The tone of the article is that the framers considered it the people's responsibility to define vice, not the court's repsonsibility to redefine vice as virtue. Is the only way we can avoid "Religious Police" to give more authority to the state, via the court, to define the parameters of culture? Don't you see how counter-intuitive that is? Isn't the court acting now as the "Religious police", enforcing their own religion on the people of Texas? jan larsen wrote: Dark passions indeed, this is nonsense from another century! So progress is represented by the court shoving its own moral agenda down the throats of the nation? "More capitalism, please..."
Stan Shannon wrote: Isn't the court acting now as the "Religious police", enforcing their own religion on the people of Texas? Or could it be seen as the court preventing the people of Texas forcing their 'religion' on all groups within that state. I might be wrong here; I don't fully understand how these things work; I didn't think the court just picked an issue and made a judgement. Doesn't someone have to bring a case to it to judge? If someone who was being penalised by the Texan state for being homosexual brought that issue to the USSC, then it would be the courts duty to make a judgement regarding that case. If the Texas law was unconstitional, then the court would have no other option than to override it. If courts were not able to override unconstitional laws, but instead had to rely on politicians... well there's a big safety net gone. You may as well not have a USSC. Cheers John Cheers The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest.
-
jan larsen wrote: The slavery of sin?, what IS this. Do the editors of this shit, want religious police scrambling around in pickups after dark and beat up homosexuals, jews and redeheads?... The tone of the article is that the framers considered it the people's responsibility to define vice, not the court's repsonsibility to redefine vice as virtue. Is the only way we can avoid "Religious Police" to give more authority to the state, via the court, to define the parameters of culture? Don't you see how counter-intuitive that is? Isn't the court acting now as the "Religious police", enforcing their own religion on the people of Texas? jan larsen wrote: Dark passions indeed, this is nonsense from another century! So progress is represented by the court shoving its own moral agenda down the throats of the nation? "More capitalism, please..."
Stan Shannon wrote: So progress is represented by the court shoving its own moral agenda down the throats of the nation? How can you believe that further restrictions means more freedom?. What the court has done is the opposite, it has prevented further restrictions on the actions of responsible adults. What they do in their spare time is not the business of anyone but those involved, the sodomi laws were just one step from forcing gay people to wear pink triangles in public places. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
I understand your viewpoint on this, but would Frist etc. give you the chance to vote on it ? The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: but would Frist etc. give you the chance to vote on it ? Well, indirectly, but yes. Unfortunantly, I would be compelled to support the Frist amendment and those who vote for it. The issue is no longer about individual rights to do anything. Rather, it is about the court setting itself up as a dictatorial authority. Therefore, anything that sends a message to the court that its behavior is unacceptable is what I am for. After that issue has been resolved, I will be free to once again be a good little liberal. Until then, however, I intend to be the most ultra-right-wing SOB on the planet. "More capitalism, please..."