A perfect example...

Stan Shannon

... of the new morality[^]... Not so long ago, a man like Frank would have been publically destroyed by charges of homosexuality. That was the morality of previous generations. Now, he himself demonizes an opponent as a "homophobe"... Thats a moral judgement, a social condemnation. And this new morality is not something rising naturally from the strata of society itself. It is being driven by the most powerful institutions in our society. It is a flagrant violation of the true meaning of separation of church and state - the state is not empowered to impose a moral code of ethics upon society. Scalia dissented from the court's ruling in 2003 that struck down state laws banning consensual sodomy. He has complained about judges, rather than elected officials, deciding questions of morality about which the Constitution is silent. Indeed. As did all the judges in American history when we were still a Jeffersonian republic.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

He has complained about judges, rather than elected officials, deciding questions of morality about which the Constitution is silent.

I find myself wondering how many of our laws enforce precepts from the Ten Commandments.

Stan Shannon wrote:

As did all the judges in American history when we were still a Jeffersonian republic.

I've never quite understood why you think that the legislature passing a law makes it beyond question. Suppose that Barney Frank decided to get a law passed requiring every male over the age of 18 to have sex with another male before he can be allowed to vote. And Obama, ever mindful of his need to placate Pelosi's constituents, signed it. Would this make that law holy? Would that particular morality, codified not by Judges but by Legislature and Leader, be unchallengeable except by attempting to get a whole new group of legislators in (and since all strict heteros are now barred from voting, that may take awhile)? Would you then suddenly sing the praises of the Supremes?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Ilion

Stan Shannon wrote:

Now, he himself demonizes an opponent as a "homophobe"... Thats a moral judgement, a social condemnation.

Not only is "You can't legislate morality" not true, but no one -- and most certainly those not those who employ the assertion as one of their tools for replacing traditional moral understandings with their own counter "morality" -- really believes it to be true.

Rob Graham

I think Stan's point here is that the Constitution reserves to the states those powers not specifically enumerated. Given that, Scalia's comment is correct, in my opinion. The state laws on the subject should have been outside the purview of the Supreme court. This doesn't argue as to the validity/propriety of the laws, just their "constitutionality" and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in the matter. In your scenario, Frank would be equally wrong for introducing his law, since it deals with "powers not enumerated", and should be outside the Federal government's realm. Besides, Frank is a hypocrite of the first order, as he knows full well that Scalia's opinion does not stem from homophobia but from his view of the Constitution and the role of the court, but is using the bludgeon of homophobia to please the target audience of the moment, and prevent any possibility of real debate on the issue at hand. [edit] the best thing that could possibly happen to the gentleman is to be appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia, preferably a lifetime appointment.[/edit]

Oakman

Rob Graham wrote:

I think Stan's point here is that the Constitution reserves to the states those powers not specifically enumerated.

I'm not as sure of that as you are, but the scenario is easily transferred to the state level. If Indiana suddenly demands homosexual contact as a requirement for voting and the governor signs it - who then does Stan appeal to?

Rob Graham wrote:

The state laws on the subject should have been outside the purview of the Supreme court.

It's established law, whether written in the Constitution or not, that the protection afforded individuals by the Constitution applies to their relationship with their state as well as to the Federal Government. It seems that would apply here. Such, I believe, was the reasoning behind the striking down of the various state laws against miscegenation, for instance.

Rob Graham wrote:

Frank is a hypocrite of the first order,

Nothing I say in this discussion should be taken as an approval of, or defense of, that fat, ugly, lascivious, creepy, lisping old queen.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

_Damian S_

Oakman wrote:

fat, ugly, lascivious, creepy, lisping old queen

You say that like it's a bad thing! :laugh: :laugh:

Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad!! Booger Mobile - Camp Quality esCarpade 2010

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

I find myself wondering how many of our laws enforce precepts from the Ten Commandments.

And I find myself wondering why that would even be an issue.

Oakman wrote:

I've never quite understood why you think that the legislature passing a law makes it beyond question.

I don't. Obviously, it must be constitutionally valid. And that is where the judges come in. But, among the divisions of power envisioned by the founders included that between the federal government and the state and local governments. Constitutionally, the 10th amendment strictly limits the power of the federal government to those powers strictly and explicitely defined in the constitution. And federal judges are supposed to respect that as much as they do any other portion of the constitution. This is an example of the formulation of a code of morality which can be imposed by the state. It is a rearticulation of the languague of moral authority in such a way that people such as Barney Frank can use the power of the federal government to impose his own morality upon all of us. It is not a way of enforcing the separation of church and state, it is a way to get around the true intent of separation of church and state. Separation of Church and state makes it impossible for the ruling elites to use traditional religion to control the social agenda, so they need an entire redefinition of morality, a new language of morality, which they do have ultimate control over. That is what this is all about. They are, in fact, empowering themselves to define what represents appropriate sexual behavior (along with everything else) and they are doing it in a way which will pass constitutional evaluation - given the appropriate judicial world view of the courts.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

It's established law, whether written in the Constitution or not, that the protection afforded individuals by the Constitution applies to their relationship with their state as well as to the Federal Government.

But where does the constitution afford any one the right to be a homosexual? Where does the constitution actually give the federal government the explicite authority to override the power of the state and the people to define appropriate sexual conduct?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Rob Graham

Oakman wrote:

who then does Stan appeal to?

The Indiana State Supreme court. The real question is on what grounds does he appeal? If precedent has allowed laws against bestiality, and pedophilia, why not this? (actually, I also see a significant difference in mandating an act and prohibiting the same act; the impact on the population as a whole is radically different).

Oakman wrote:

It's established law, whether written in the Constitution or not, that the protection afforded individuals by the Constitution applies to their relationship with their state as well as to the Federal Government. It seems that would apply here. Such, I believe, was the reasoning behind the striking down of the various state laws against miscegenation, for instance.

Shaky ground, though. How can one use that reasoning to overturn a law prohibiting say consensual sodomy, but not one prohibiting prostitution, or bestiality, or even suicide? Frankly (no pun intended), I couldn't care less what Barney and his bunghole buddy do in private. Laws of that nature are practically impossible to enforce, and I'd rather spend my police taxes on more important things.

Lost User

Oakman wrote:

that fat, ugly, lascivious, creepy, lisping old queen.

You forgot mincing. No idea who you're talking about but most of them mince

modified on Monday, March 23, 2009 11:10 PM

Gary Kirkham

Ilíon wrote:

Not only is "You can't legislate morality" not true

It is true, you can't legislate morality. You can only legislate against immorality. It's not semantics, there is a difference. A moral person doesn't need a law to govern his behavior and an immoral person pays no more heed than what is required not to get caught.

Ilíon wrote:

those who employ the assertion as one of their tools for replacing traditional moral understandings with their own counter "morality"

There are certainly those who do that.

Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read

Tim Craig

Stan Shannon wrote:

But where does the constitution afford any one the right to be a homosexual?

Where does it afford the right for you to be a stupid old white dude?

Stan Shannon wrote:

Where does the constitution actually give the federal government the explicite authority to override the power of the state and the people to define appropriate sexual conduct?

You seem to think it does when the wind blows your way.

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

And I find myself wondering why that would even be an issue.

Since I think you are more than smart enough to know why, I'll assume you just don't have an answer that you want to subject to public scrutiny.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Constitutionally, the 10th amendment strictly limits the power of the federal government to those powers strictly and explicitely defined in the constitution.

Like it or not there's a lot of established law that has expanded the power of the Federal Government, some by Constitutional amendment, and some by the choices of the Supreme Court - from the days of Jefferson, this has been true. Yes, the 10th amendment was offered up as a sop to the libertarian elements of the Founding Fathers who believed that the government that governed least governed best. But to think/hope that the Feds will give up power obtained by all the strong-man Presidents you say you admire, simply becasue the latest one doesn't agree with your brand of morality is wishful thinking.

Stan Shannon wrote:

They are, in fact, empowering themselves to define what represents appropriate sexual behavior (along with everything else)

They were empowered to do this a long time ago, Stan. What appears to be bothering you is that they are changing the definitions in a way that ignores your biases. I agree that the government shouldn't determine morality. In this specific instance there is no reason for the state - at any level- to try to define what marriage it. It should concern itself with contractual matters between individuals who have agreed to raise kids, share insurance, pay joint taxes, etc - and leave the definition of what makes a marriage up to the Churches - including those who think that more than two people can marry each other, even if they are the same sex. Arguing about who can do what to whom with what is something that the Supreme Court, and Barney Frank shouldn't bother with.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Rob Graham wrote:

The Indiana State Supreme court.

And if Indiana lost that appeal, they would take it to the Supremes. Equal protection under the law is a Constitutional issue.

Rob Graham wrote:

If precedent has allowed laws against bestiality, and pedophilia, why not this?

Because in both cases the law concerns an assault on beings unable to defend themselves or decide whether they wish to participate as equal partners. Two men, or sixteen of both sexes or whatever are consenting adults, fully capable of contracting out to pay taxes, share child-rearing responsibilities, have a joint bank account, etc. They are entitled to equal protection, are they not?

Rob Graham wrote:

How can one use that reasoning to overturn a law prohibiting say consensual sodomy, but not one prohibiting prostitution, or bestiality, or even suicide?

Bestiality is rape; but to my mind, neither of the other two acts are legally reprehensible. If the state has a valid interest in either it should be to tax them.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Synaptrik

So, ruling on discrimination against gay people is a violation of church and state?

Stan Shannon wrote:

It is a flagrant violation of the true meaning of separation of church and state - the state is not empowered to impose a moral code of ethics upon society.

I assume you mean that the church is empowered to impose a moral code of ethics upon society? And that's the violation? Neither should in my opinion. If homosexuality is biological, which they can show now that it happens in the womb, and not a choice, then discrimination is wrong. If you argue otherwise, we might as well argue for eugenics.

This statement is false

oilFactotum

Stan Shannon wrote:

"homophobe"... Thats a moral judgement

Homophobe is simply a noun that describes someone who has homophobic characteristics and that fits Scalia. That's like saying 'Barney Frank is a homosexual' is a moral judgement. What moral judgement am I making with that statement?

Tim Craig

Synaptrik wrote:

If you argue otherwise, we might as well argue for eugenics.

But Stan is for that. As long as he's the one getting to decide whom to pull the plug on. :suss:

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

Ilion

Gary Kirkham wrote:

It is true, you can't legislate morality. You can only legislate against immorality.

And I thought I was pedantic. The people who like to chant the "You can't legislate morality" trope mean precisely that you can't legislate against immorality ... and that it's "immoral" to do so.

Gary Kirkham

Ilíon wrote:

And I thought I was pedantic.

You are, and I am.

Ilíon wrote:

precisely that you can't legislate against immorality ... and that it's "immoral" to do so.

Surely not in regard to all morality. I doubt they have any issue with laws against murder, rape or theft. Which, of course, means they are hypocrites. If your goal is to have a society that behaves morally, then making laws isn't the way to go about it. If righteousness came by the Law, then Christ died in vain.

Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read

Stan Shannon

Tim Craig wrote:

Where does it afford the right for you to be a stupid old white dude?

It doesn't.

Tim Craig wrote:

You seem to think it does when the wind blows your way.

No, I don't.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.