1. SPS Accounts:
    Do you find yourself coming back time after time? Do you appreciate the ongoing hard work to keep this community focused and successful in its mission? Please consider supporting us by upgrading to an SPS Account. Besides the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from supporting a good cause, you'll also get a significant number of ever-expanding perks and benefits on the site and the forums. Click here to find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You are currently viewing Boards o' Magick as a guest, but you can register an account here. Registration is fast, easy and free. Once registered you will have access to search the forums, create and respond to threads, PM other members, upload screenshots and access many other features unavailable to guests.

BoM cultivates a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. We have been aiming for quality over quantity with our forums from their inception, and believe that this distinction is truly tangible and valued by our members. We'd love to have you join us today!

(If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you've forgotten your username or password, click here.)

Marriage, Back door laws and policies, and tolerance issues

Discussion in 'Alley of Dangerous Angles' started by LKD, Dec 10, 2008.

  1. Splunge

    Splunge Bhaal’s financial advisor Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    6,815
    Media:
    6
    Likes Received:
    336
    I would just like to reiterate my disgust with the gay community for its ongoing attempts to defile the divine institution of marriage (and thus lessen the sanctity of my own marriage), and with the government for continuing to erode the basic principle of freedom of religion.
     
    Death Rabbit likes this.
  2. Blackthorne TA

    Blackthorne TA Master in his Own Mind Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    10,410
    Media:
    40
    Likes Received:
    232
    Gender:
    Male
    Typically it's because those democracies/republics have constitutions that guarantee equal protection under the law. I think some quotes from an LA Times article I read about the recent Iowa decision say it pretty well:

     
  3. T2Bruno

    T2Bruno The only source of knowledge is experience Distinguished Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Messages:
    9,772
    Media:
    15
    Likes Received:
    440
    Gender:
    Male
    Welcome to the boards, Splarff.... ;)
     
    Death Rabbit likes this.
  4. Death Rabbit

    Death Rabbit Straight, no chaser Adored Veteran Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Messages:
    6,103
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    241
    Gender:
    Male
    Coffee, meet keyboard. :lol:

    :thumb: Thanks, I needed that today.
     
  5. Splunge

    Splunge Bhaal’s financial advisor Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    6,815
    Media:
    6
    Likes Received:
    336
    Actually, I was going to go with Gnunge, but Splarff will do just as well. :D
     
  6. LKD Gems: 31/31
    Latest gem: Rogue Stone


    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Messages:
    6,284
    Likes Received:
    271
    Gender:
    Male
    A Representative from a right leaning constituency will likely vote as the constituents wish (that's good democracy) even though he or she may disagree with an issue (that's poor governance, but good democracy.) They have to be more responsive to the opinions of their constituents because they face reelection every 2 years.

    Senators are different. They have nice 6 year terms. Plenty of time for the constituents to forget this vote, and plenty of time to do other things that pander to the electorate and therefore increase the chances of reelection. They can afford to make some votes that their constituents won't like. Representatives can't do that near as much.

    Quite right -- that was my own conclusion -- I'm sorry if I made it sound like it was in the article.

    I see the 82% as pretty amazing. The House at 67% is not (I didn't do the math on that one -- 67% is barely a 2/3s margin)

    Of course there are! I never said that my thought was the only possible explanation. I think mine has merit, but I don't think it's the only one in town.
     
  7. Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    12,434
    Media:
    46
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not as familiar with Vermont, but it should be noted that just beacuse US Senators serve 6 year terms, it does not necessarily follow that Vermont Senators have 6 year terms. Maryland Senators, for example, have 4 year terms. Also, even if they are 6 year terms in Vermont (and they very well could be - I don't know either way!) 1/3 of the Senate would run every 2 years.
     
  8. NOG (No Other Gods)

    NOG (No Other Gods) Going to church doesn't make you a Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Messages:
    4,883
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    148
    Gender:
    Male
    And this is exactly what the judiciary branch SHOULD NOT do! It isn't their job to decide what further's governmental objectives, or which objectives should be prioritized. It is their job to determine whether a law is enforcable (i.e. not too vague) and constitutional (i.e. does not contradict the constitution). The mere fact that the constitution does not explicitly support such a law should not be sufficient grounds to revoke the law. IMO, Justice Mark Cady stepped well out of his role as a judge and far into the role of the legislature.
     
  9. The Great Snook Gems: 31/31
    Latest gem: Rogue Stone


    Adored Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    4,123
    Media:
    28
    Likes Received:
    313
    Gender:
    Male
    You beat me to the punch. If I could give you a million rep I would. When conservatives complain about "activist judges" this is what they are complaining about.
     
    NOG (No Other Gods) likes this.
  10. Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    12,434
    Media:
    46
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    NOG, that's not the way I read it at all. While I agree that it isn't a judge's job to decide what furthers governmental objectives, the court is saying that unless denying homosexuals the right to marry furthers some objective, then there is no reason to deny them this right. It is very much a judge's job to determine constitutionality. Any right given in a constitution is a right possessed by everyone, unless for some reason there is a need to exclude a particular group of people. I read the statement of:

    to mean that they cannot deny this right to anyone without good cause. That the constitution does not explicity support such a law is moot, in that it is implicit that the laws set forth in a constitution apply equally to everyone.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2009
  11. Death Rabbit

    Death Rabbit Straight, no chaser Adored Veteran Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Messages:
    6,103
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    241
    Gender:
    Male
    Exactly, Aldeth.
    Then I would say these conservatives don't understand the role of the judiciary.
     
  12. LKD Gems: 31/31
    Latest gem: Rogue Stone


    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Messages:
    6,284
    Likes Received:
    271
    Gender:
    Male
    Fair enough -- I made an assumption here.
     
  13. Blackthorne TA

    Blackthorne TA Master in his Own Mind Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    10,410
    Media:
    40
    Likes Received:
    232
    Gender:
    Male
    Incorrect. When the legislature creates a law denying a class of citizens rights granted to other citizens, they need to have a reason (or constitutionally sufficient justification) to do so when the constitution guarantees equal rights under the law. The judiciary decided that the legislature did not give a constitutionally sufficient justification to deny this class of citizens their rights under the constitution of Iowa.
     
  14. NOG (No Other Gods)

    NOG (No Other Gods) Going to church doesn't make you a Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Messages:
    4,883
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    148
    Gender:
    Male
    But again, this isn't theirs to say. This is the job of the legislature, to determine whether or not there is reason to provide or deny someone benefits under the law.

    The State constitution may be different than the national, but I don't believe marriage is a constitutional right (at least not under the national laws), but rather one of the rights reserved for the states and individuals in the 10th ammendment. That means that it is expected for the states to handle this on a case-by-case basis. Now, if marriage is designated as a uniform right in the State Constitution, then the judges acted rightly, but spoke wrongly, because then there should be no consideration of cause to revoke the right that isn't spelled out. If the US Congress decided to revoke the right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure from all immigrants, the Supreme Court would strike it down in a second. And assuming a right to be present in the constitution when it is never spoken of or even hinted at (such as the right to privacy, anyone?) is some of the shakiest legal grounds I have ever seen.

    So it was not just morally wrong, but blatantly unconstitutional to deny the right to vote to blacks or women for over a century? That's denying a citizen a right granted to other citizens, and I didn't really see any attempt to put forth a reason for a long time.

    The rights granted in the constitution are absolute, correct, but those not granted in the constitution should not be assumed. The right to own a switchblade knife is not universal, nor the right to own a crossbow. The right to drive a car is not universal, nor should it be. And as to appropriate reasons for having a law, I again believe this is the role of the legislature, not the judiciary. It is the role of the legislature to decide what laws have reason to be implemented (whether the reason is clearly shown or not) and how to best implement them. The judiciary is there to see that the laws are constitutional and that they are properly enforced. When necessary, the judiciary can interpret the laws, but it is not their job to decide if there is sufficient reason for the law.


    Now, again, if the right to marriage is spelled out in their state constitution, then that's something else all together, but my quick search of it didn't find anything. If any lawyers know better, please correct me.
     
  15. T2Bruno

    T2Bruno The only source of knowledge is experience Distinguished Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Messages:
    9,772
    Media:
    15
    Likes Received:
    440
    Gender:
    Male
    And your point was... ? Prejudice is an ugly thing. It sometimes takes a long time to correct when there is significant bias in the populace -- you gave two great examples and this thread is a third.
     
  16. Blackthorne TA

    Blackthorne TA Master in his Own Mind Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    10,410
    Media:
    40
    Likes Received:
    232
    Gender:
    Male
    I think where you are missing the point is that marriage laws exist and according to state constitutions (I believe all; correct me if I am wrong) equal protection under the law is guaranteed. So unless there is a "constitutionally sufficient justification" to deny a class of citizens the same rights as other citizens (in this specific case we are talking about the rights under the marriage laws) those rights apply equally to all classes of citizens.

    It is the judiciary's duty to make sure laws passed by the legislature are constitutional, including equal protection.

    EDIT
    The whole point of the equal protection laws in the constitutions is to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority. The minority is guaranteed the same rights as the majority unless there is something else in the constitution that allows their rights to be taken away.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2009
  17. Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    12,434
    Media:
    46
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    This is exactly correct. In fact, BTA's response is broad enough to even serve as a reply to what NOG said about my post. By NOGs logic, it would be A-OK for the legislature to pass a law that said republicans would lose thier right to vote. Of course, the legislature cannot do this because of the equal protection clause.

    Two ancillary points - 1) The equal protection clause is in the US Constitution so it's applicable everywhere, regardless of whether an individual state has an equal protection clause in its constitution. 2) That marriage is not covered specifically in the US constituion or whether or not it is specifically covered in the state constitution is irrelevant if you make the arguement from the equal protection clause.

    The bottom line is that everyone has to be given the same rights unless there is a sufficient reason to deny those rights. Therefore the onus is on the legislature to prove that gay marriage would be damaging enough to the community that they should be barred from marrying. The onus is NOT (even though it has often been portrayed in this way) on the gay community to prove they should be allowed to marry.
     
  18. NOG (No Other Gods)

    NOG (No Other Gods) Going to church doesn't make you a Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Messages:
    4,883
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    148
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok, the equal protection clause is a good point, and I didn't realize it was actually in the US Constitution. On those grounds, you are correct.

    I believe this is incorrect, because I'm pretty sure the right to vote is spelled out in the Constitution, so a law denying it to anyone would be unconstitutional regardless of an equal-protection clause.

    Thank you all for the enlightenment.
     
  19. Splunge

    Splunge Bhaal’s financial advisor Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    6,815
    Media:
    6
    Likes Received:
    336
    Well, I’m no U.S. constitutional expert, but I believe the right to vote is dealt with here

    So if I’m reading it correctly, citizens can be denied the right to vote as long as the denial isn’t based on race, color, or previous incarceration. I think there might have been an amendment which adds gender to the list.
     
Sorcerer's Place is a project run entirely by fans and for fans. Maintaining Sorcerer's Place and a stable environment for all our hosted sites requires a substantial amount of our time and funds on a regular basis, so please consider supporting us to keep the site up & running smoothly. Thank you!

Sorcerers.net is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to products on amazon.com, amazon.ca and amazon.co.uk. Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.