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
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Posts
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.
Statewide by SCOCA, actually.
Ah yes.
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.
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.
EDIT: Yes he did.
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.
yeah, Loving was in the 60's. Burger, maybe? To the wikipedia mobile!
OK, Warren. Ah, the good old days.