Penny Arcade Forums› Debate and/or Discourse
The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

[First Amendment] Separation of Church and State

123457»

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    That doesn't make Prop 8 a huge win for gays, because that decision (assuming Kennedy is feeling like he did the day he wrote Loving (he did write that, yes?)) was inevitably coming. It would have happened elsewhere in one of the many other retarded states that already banned gay marriage, such as my own.

    enlightenedbum on
    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    enlightenedbum wrote: »
    No, I took the part where you ignored the real world outcomes in favor of examining politics in a particularly craven and senseless way. Because politics is a fun game to talk about!

    Coming for really anyone on this board this is god damn hilarious.

    In no way are the fundies coming out of the Prop 8 thing better, and the homosexual community is.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Styrofoam Sammich wrote: »
    enlightenedbum wrote: »
    Yes, it's a huge win to not be able to marry when they could before!

    Christ.

    Way to pick one part of my post.

    And they could only marry in San Fransisco by mayoral decree as I recall.

    Statewide by SCOCA, actually.

    moniker on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    Styrofoam Sammich wrote: »
    enlightenedbum wrote: »
    Yes, it's a huge win to not be able to marry when they could before!

    Christ.

    Way to pick one part of my post.

    And they could only marry in San Fransisco by mayoral decree as I recall.

    Statewide by SCOCA, actually.

    Ah yes.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Styrofoam Sammich wrote: »
    enlightenedbum wrote: »
    No, I took the part where you ignored the real world outcomes in favor of examining politics in a particularly craven and senseless way. Because politics is a fun game to talk about!

    Coming for really anyone on this board this is god damn hilarious.

    In no way are the fundies coming out of the Prop 8 thing better, and the homosexual community is.

    By having their rights unduly restricted.

    moniker on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    Styrofoam Sammich wrote: »
    enlightenedbum wrote: »
    No, I took the part where you ignored the real world outcomes in favor of examining politics in a particularly craven and senseless way. Because politics is a fun game to talk about!

    Coming for really anyone on this board this is god damn hilarious.

    In no way are the fundies coming out of the Prop 8 thing better, and the homosexual community is.

    By having their rights unduly restricted.

    Its in the process of dying a very nasty death in court.

    Anyway, this is off topic, we can move it to the gay rights thread if you like.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    enlightenedbum wrote: »
    That doesn't make Prop 8 a huge win for gays, because that decision (assuming Kennedy is feeling like he did the day he wrote Loving (he did write that, yes?)) was inevitably coming. It would have happened elsewhere in one of the many other retarded states that already banned gay marriage, such as my own.

    No, but it's a pretty big silver lining. And it was written by Warren. I doubt Kennedy was even a Jurist at the time. Hell, he was probably barely out of law school/clerking.

    moniker on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Oops, sorry, I meant Kennedy wrote Lawrence and had a brain fart.

    EDIT: Yes he did.

    enlightenedbum on
    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Atomic Ross wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Atomic Ross wrote: »
    dojango wrote: »
    Candidate X can say 'my church has the truth and the right way, and the other churches are all false religions whose parishioners will suffer eternally' because he's 1) a free citizen, and 2) not 'the government' taking an official position. But if the church then gets up and says, 'why thank you candidate X, if you don't vote for him, be prepared for the eternal fires', then that church can lose it's 501(c)(3) exemption. Obviously it's a double standard, but that's OK, because they are two different entities.

    What about when the person saying those things is already a public official? Should the rules remain the same?

    If Congressman X proposes legislation to legalize the public stoning of unvirtuous women, a la Deuteronomy 22, is this still protected religious speech or is this an instance of failing to uphold the constitution?
    moniker wrote: »
    And when that happens [being enacted into law] it will have crossed a line into government endorsement/abridgment and be overturned by the Judiciary. Until it crosses that line it's just a guy being an asshole. Which is constitutionally protected. Yay checks and balances.


    Even when working at peak efficiency, the system of Checks and Balances is extremely slow. Look at something like Prop 8; it's obviously unconstitutional, and the financial support it gained very likely came from illegal endorsements by the LDS church. Despite that, it passed and became legislation over two years ago. Now, since then it's been a back-and-forth battle over its repeal on grounds of unconstitutionality, but that fight still isn't over yet.

    Should we really not have a mechanism in place to vet the constitutionality of legislation BEFORE it's passed into law, instead of taking years and millions in resources in the attempt to repeal things that never should be legislated anyway?
    We already do. It's called the legislature, which writes the laws, and the executive, which executes them.

    If the legislature believes a law is unconstitutional, it doesn't have to pass it. And the executive can veto laws which it considers unconstitutional.

    If an unconstitutional law somehow survives those two branches of government, there's always the judiciary as a backstop.

    I know how the system of checks and balances works.

    What I am saying is that it doesn't work very well, and indefensibly unconstitutional legislation can survive for years (if not generations) before the SCOTUS or the appellate courts overturns those laws, leaving a wake of civil abuses behind them.

    Is this not a problem we should seek to correct?

    Surely there's got to be a better way to vet such legislation before its enacted.

    Atomika on
  • dojangodojango Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    enlightenedbum wrote: »
    Oops, sorry, I meant Kennedy wrote Lawrence and had a brain fart.

    EDIT: Yes he did.

    yeah, Loving was in the 60's. Burger, maybe? To the wikipedia mobile!

    OK, Warren. Ah, the good old days.

    dojango on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    dojango wrote: »
    enlightenedbum wrote: »
    Oops, sorry, I meant Kennedy wrote Lawrence and had a brain fart.

    EDIT: Yes he did.

    yeah, Loving was in the 60's. Burger, maybe? To the wikipedia mobile!

    OK, Warren. Ah, the good old days.
    Burger never wrote anything worthwhile in his entire career. The best thing he ever brought to the court was Blackmun.

    Thanatos on
Sign In or Register to comment.
Penny Arcade Forums› Debate and/or Discourse