For your consideration...
-
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..."
-
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
jan larsen wrote: What they do in their spare time is not the business of anyone but those involved Says who? jan larsen wrote: the sodomi laws were just one step from forcing gay people to wear pink triangles in public places. And that is an example of a government being granted too much power and authority, and taking decision making athotrity away from the people, which is exactly what the court is guilty of by making this decision. "More capitalism, please..."
-
jan larsen wrote: What they do in their spare time is not the business of anyone but those involved Says who? jan larsen wrote: the sodomi laws were just one step from forcing gay people to wear pink triangles in public places. And that is an example of a government being granted too much power and authority, and taking decision making athotrity away from the people, which is exactly what the court is guilty of by making this decision. "More capitalism, please..."
Stan Shannon wrote: Says who? me. who says they don't? CheeseWeasle
-
jan larsen wrote: What they do in their spare time is not the business of anyone but those involved Says who? jan larsen wrote: the sodomi laws were just one step from forcing gay people to wear pink triangles in public places. And that is an example of a government being granted too much power and authority, and taking decision making athotrity away from the people, which is exactly what the court is guilty of by making this decision. "More capitalism, please..."
Stan Shannon wrote: Says who? Says me for one. What business does ANYONE have deciding what consenting adults can and can't do behind closed doors? How does what they do affect you personally? Last time I checked this was the 21st century for f*cks sake. Live and let live Stan! Are there not still some old laws forbidding oral sex between a man and his wife in Utah or something? Would you be as bothered if these laws were repealed too? Alternatively, would you still be complaining if the courts had upheld the archaic sodomy laws? Would you then be bitching about governments having too much power? I doubt it.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Says who? Says me for one. What business does ANYONE have deciding what consenting adults can and can't do behind closed doors? How does what they do affect you personally? Last time I checked this was the 21st century for f*cks sake. Live and let live Stan! Are there not still some old laws forbidding oral sex between a man and his wife in Utah or something? Would you be as bothered if these laws were repealed too? Alternatively, would you still be complaining if the courts had upheld the archaic sodomy laws? Would you then be bitching about governments having too much power? I doubt it.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: How does what they do affect you personally? Last time I checked this was the 21st century for f*cks sake. Live and let live Stan! When it comes at the cost of depriving me of my right to vote my conscious,thats how it affects me personally. You guys seem to be willing to give unlimited amount of power to the federal state to ensure your absolutly freedom to fuck, and that is so important to you that you are willing to give up the one tool that allows you to stand up to government and tell *it* how you want to live. It amazes me that so many American's do not understand their own system of government. You now have the right to screw like a mad mink, but you no longer have a voice in what constitutes virtue and vice in your own society. Congratulations. "More capitalism, please..."
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: How does what they do affect you personally? Last time I checked this was the 21st century for f*cks sake. Live and let live Stan! When it comes at the cost of depriving me of my right to vote my conscious,thats how it affects me personally. You guys seem to be willing to give unlimited amount of power to the federal state to ensure your absolutly freedom to fuck, and that is so important to you that you are willing to give up the one tool that allows you to stand up to government and tell *it* how you want to live. It amazes me that so many American's do not understand their own system of government. You now have the right to screw like a mad mink, but you no longer have a voice in what constitutes virtue and vice in your own society. Congratulations. "More capitalism, please..."
Stan Shannon wrote: You now have the right to screw like a mad mink, but you no longer have a voice in what constitutes virtue and vice in your own society. Congratulations. Well here in the UK we have a General Election every 5 years which allows us to make a choice. What would you prefer - regular referendums on whether practises such as homesexuality, abortion, etc. should be legal??? I fail to see your point. It sounds to me like you're pissed at the fact that gays can now f*ck each other without fear of breaking the law and you're wrapping it up in some pointless debate about federal power.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: How does what they do affect you personally? Last time I checked this was the 21st century for f*cks sake. Live and let live Stan! When it comes at the cost of depriving me of my right to vote my conscious,thats how it affects me personally. You guys seem to be willing to give unlimited amount of power to the federal state to ensure your absolutly freedom to fuck, and that is so important to you that you are willing to give up the one tool that allows you to stand up to government and tell *it* how you want to live. It amazes me that so many American's do not understand their own system of government. You now have the right to screw like a mad mink, but you no longer have a voice in what constitutes virtue and vice in your own society. Congratulations. "More capitalism, please..."
Stan Shannon wrote: You guys seem to be willing to give unlimited amount of power to the federal state to ensure your absolutly freedom to f***, and that is so important to you that you are willing to give up the one tool that allows you to stand up to government and tell *it* how you want to live. Stan, how did anyone here give any power at all to the USSC? And how are we supposed to do anything about any decision they make? In other words - why the fuck are you yelling at us? Stan Shannon wrote: It amazes me that so many American's do not understand their own system of government. uh huh. -c CheeseWeasle
-
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..."
Well, people like you are the reason that we don't live in a pure democracy where the people directly can pass any silly ass law they want. The constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, is there to say that certain things are too important to be left to the whim of the people. The flip side of what you'd like to do is having gays target a town until they form a majority and then voting that heterosexual marriage is illegal. How would you like that as a taste of democracy?
-
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.
Yes, the only purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide the constitutionality of issues brought before it. They have NO God given authority to do anything. (See the First Amendment) Power in the US flows from the people to the government. The US Constitution has been set up to preserve basic rights for ALL people and to protect unpopular minorities from the great unthinking majority. There's a reason why the US Constitution is so difficult to change. If it was easy, the idiots would reign supreme.
-
Well, people like you are the reason that we don't live in a pure democracy where the people directly can pass any silly ass law they want. The constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, is there to say that certain things are too important to be left to the whim of the people. The flip side of what you'd like to do is having gays target a town until they form a majority and then voting that heterosexual marriage is illegal. How would you like that as a taste of democracy?
Tim Craig wrote: people like you Exactly what kind of "people" would that be? Tim Craig wrote: The constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, is there to say that certain things are too important to be left to the whim of the people. Exactly wrong. Those documents exist to define the limits of power of the federal government. The Bill of Rights was written precisely to give the state of Texas the authority to pass laws defining vice and virtue without being interferred with by the federal government. *That* is what the founders wanted. In other words, the Bill or Rights was written specifically to limit the power of the federal government not to expand it. The modern court exists with no constitutional retraints of any kind - they have defined them all away, and exist today as a source of dictatorial authority within our society. Tim Craig wrote: The flip side of what you'd like to do is having gays target a town until they form a majority and then voting that heterosexual marriage is illegal. How would you like that as a taste of democracy? I would like it just fine. That is exactly the power which any community in our nation is supposed to have. If you don't like it - don't live there. The *real* flip side of the argument is what would you do if the Supreme Court had decided that only heterosexual sex were legal under the federal constitution? They now have the power to do that thanks to the left's acceptance of these sorts of decision. After all, who are we to argue with decisions made by the supreme court? "More capitalism, please..."
-
Tim Craig wrote: people like you Exactly what kind of "people" would that be? Tim Craig wrote: The constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, is there to say that certain things are too important to be left to the whim of the people. Exactly wrong. Those documents exist to define the limits of power of the federal government. The Bill of Rights was written precisely to give the state of Texas the authority to pass laws defining vice and virtue without being interferred with by the federal government. *That* is what the founders wanted. In other words, the Bill or Rights was written specifically to limit the power of the federal government not to expand it. The modern court exists with no constitutional retraints of any kind - they have defined them all away, and exist today as a source of dictatorial authority within our society. Tim Craig wrote: The flip side of what you'd like to do is having gays target a town until they form a majority and then voting that heterosexual marriage is illegal. How would you like that as a taste of democracy? I would like it just fine. That is exactly the power which any community in our nation is supposed to have. If you don't like it - don't live there. The *real* flip side of the argument is what would you do if the Supreme Court had decided that only heterosexual sex were legal under the federal constitution? They now have the power to do that thanks to the left's acceptance of these sorts of decision. After all, who are we to argue with decisions made by the supreme court? "More capitalism, please..."
Stan Shannon wrote: Exactly what kind of "people" would that be? People who believe that the US being a democracy gives them the right to fois their religious and moral beliefs on everyone else by a simple majority vote. I certainly wouldn't want things run by the Ayatollah Stan. Stan Shannon wrote: Exactly wrong. Those documents exist to define the limits of power of the federal government. The Bill of Rights was written precisely to give the state of Texas the authority to pass laws defining vice and virtue without being interferred with by the federal government. *That* is what the founders wanted. In other words, the Bill or Rights was written specifically to limit the power of the federal government not to expand it. Yes, the Constitution limits the power of the federal government. It also limits the power of the state governments. States cannot do what the constitution does not allow. It does not allow Billy Bob and followers to vote locally for things that the constitution prohibits. Stan Shannon wrote: I would like it just fine. That is exactly the power which any community in our nation is supposed to have. If you don't like it - don't live there. That's exactly what you say when you think you're in the majority and you're getting away with murder. But I think you'd sing a different tune if you actually found yourself on the wrong end of the shitty stick.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Exactly what kind of "people" would that be? People who believe that the US being a democracy gives them the right to fois their religious and moral beliefs on everyone else by a simple majority vote. I certainly wouldn't want things run by the Ayatollah Stan. Stan Shannon wrote: Exactly wrong. Those documents exist to define the limits of power of the federal government. The Bill of Rights was written precisely to give the state of Texas the authority to pass laws defining vice and virtue without being interferred with by the federal government. *That* is what the founders wanted. In other words, the Bill or Rights was written specifically to limit the power of the federal government not to expand it. Yes, the Constitution limits the power of the federal government. It also limits the power of the state governments. States cannot do what the constitution does not allow. It does not allow Billy Bob and followers to vote locally for things that the constitution prohibits. Stan Shannon wrote: I would like it just fine. That is exactly the power which any community in our nation is supposed to have. If you don't like it - don't live there. That's exactly what you say when you think you're in the majority and you're getting away with murder. But I think you'd sing a different tune if you actually found yourself on the wrong end of the shitty stick.
Anonymous wrote: People who believe that the US being a democracy gives them the right to fois their religious and moral beliefs on everyone else by a simple majority vote. I certainly wouldn't want things run by the Ayatollah Stan. But that is exactly the direction we are going by accepting the dictates of the USSC, and losing our faith and confidence in those we share our communities with. When the Ayotollah finally comes to the US, he will be a Supreme Court judge, not Billy Bob down at the trailer park. Anonymous wrote: States cannot do what the constitution does not allow. It does not allow Billy Bob and followers to vote locally for things that the constitution prohibits And the constitution expressly gives the power to the states to enact vice laws. Those powers not expressly granted to the federal government by the constitution to the federal government are reserved for the states. The Supreme Court is obligated to respect that. Anonymous wrote: That's exactly what you say when you think you're in the majority and you're getting away with murder. But I think you'd sing a different tune if you actually found yourself on the wrong end of the shitty stick. The law exists to restrain the passions of the mob. We are a nation of laws, not of men. No doubt about it. But there is a limit to how far that logic can be taken, and the court has taken it far too far. "More capitalism, please..."