No. I wouldn't have used the word "Contintental" myself, though I do see how it fits the borders he meant. I would have said European Social-Progressive views of equality.
Printable View
No. I wouldn't have used the word "Contintental" myself, though I do see how it fits the borders he meant. I would have said European Social-Progressive views of equality.
Is that ironic or pathetic? The US was supposed to be the bastion of "natural rights" in the New World, with a government that protected All The People, regardless of religious beliefs or affiliations. Seems to me the US has regressed to many Old World 'principles', while Europe is adopting the kind of Equality that founded the US in the first place. :mong:
Making the Declaration of Indepence and the 14th amendment experiments in european social progressive politics ?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I think the people who drafted them would have been surprised to be placed in such a tradition.
You're making a judgement call on who is right. I happen to agree with the morality of that judgement call, but it's still simply one side of a public policy debate. The folks arguing against gay marriage are making their own public policy/moral argument. Surely you see that. :weird:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I was never placing the Constitution in the tradition of European Social-Progressivism; such a movement didn't really exist at that point. I am simply outlining the contemporary filter that some people are using to look at the US Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Just because someone claims that something is in the public interest doesn't mean that they have any kind of a case. Just like having Putin claim that there are no Russian troops in the Crimea doesn't make that true. I've yet to hear an even semi-credible argument about how banning gay marriage was in the public interest. There are at least some semi-credibly arguments for the other policies you mentioned being in the public interest. I'd even make that case for a ban on abortion, though I disagree with such a ban.
Just because they don't have any kind of case doesn't mean they aren't making a public policy argument.
They could be dead wrong, or crazy. But they are still making a policy argument and motivating millions of voters.
It's not enough to make an argument; the argument must have at least some merit. :bored:
They aren't such experiments and Dread hasn't placed them as such. He did, however, opine that GGT was expressing such a viewpoint rather than the one they actually embody. Equality depends on perspective. What type of equality are we talking about? Equality in treatment? In opportunity? In outcomes? And even equality in treatment is vague. There is a perfectly comprehensible and somewhat defensible viewpoint that gays and straights were already treated equally marriage, as per the definition of marriage as being something between two people of different sexes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
One can make the same argument about interracial marriage.
Actually I don't think so; the Constitution didn't address the legislation on marriage, it addresses the question of equality. That means that makers of laws, any laws, under that Constitution have to take equality of all into account. Nothing has really changed since the Constitution became positive law; the only thing that changed is that laws that aren't up to scratch are being challenged (finally) and by and large found not in line with the requirements of the Constitution. There is nothing particularly new about equality for the last two centuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
As for irrational considerations being valid; shall we try a referendum on the right to live for Jews in Egypt before I take the position that democracy is the only and sufficient road to justice ?
One could, but I don't know how historically accurate it would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That they were "equally treated" by not allowing it is the exact argument that was used to ban interracial marriage - and unanimously ruled unconstitutional half a century ago in Loving v Virginia. If you're going to argue they're "equally treated" by banning all from that, why not argue that anti-sodomy laws that SCOTUS has already struck down were legitimate as they treated people equally?
Are you really that simple? You believe that having one law which has a very different effect on people in very similar circumstances equates equality? You think a prohibition on face-covering has the same effects on the life of a conservative muslim woman as on the life of the average American woman? You think a prohibition on circumcision is the same for all Americans? Maybe you also think that, in the American reality, identification at the ballot box is equally burdensome on all citizens?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Really Fuzzy, injustice does not bring about equality.
You're the one being rather simple about it, pounding on the table and shouting "equality equality equality". It's a complex legal and moral concept, with a number of possible interpretations as Fuzzy outlined.
The creation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was far more rooted in criminal law and property rights than our modern notions of equality. Our courts have specifically debated and evolved whether the 14th Amendment applies to homosexuals in even the most basic ways since about 1996 or so.
I'm bringing this up because I think certain issues of homosexuality merit distinction as legal issues of equality, but also because I recognize that it's been a cloudy legal path and not every issue can simply be advanced under the banner of "equality".
And you seem to forget that I see marriage as nothing more than a civil contract. Which makes is eminently a property rights issue. I don't want to pay 1 cent more in taxes just because of the gender of my partner.
Except, as I mentioned before, different civil contracts have stupid tax incentives built into them all the time. Which is why I prefer to campaign on the moral and public-policy merits, instead of pursuing amorphous "rights".
Excuse me for not caring for your middle class mores.
You're never going to reconcile everyone's morals, but laws only have so many different reasonable interpretations. We have a constitution for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Of course it's not equality. But that's not what the 14th amendment actually demands. It requires "equal protection under the law," which is way more limited and as the many variations of laws and punishments for unlawful killing indicate, exact circumstances can matter without being a violation of that requirement. Which is not to say there aren't problems here. While I think refusing to recognize gay marriage, considered purely on its own, could get by the equal protection clause, the rise of same-sex recognition in civil unions indicates that states are viewing same-sex and hetero partnerships as functionally equivalent which does give them Constitutional problems. And just ignoring us entirely is no longer practical from a socio-political perspective, hasn't been for some time. The context and details matter in law, you know this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
:confused: I was pointing out that the Constitution has Amendments. Important, valid, and legal changes to the original document, in accordance with our founders vision. Everyone loves to talk about 1st or 2nd (or 14th) Amendment Rights, without recognizing the amendment part.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Hell, I'm not sure many people know what the 21st Amendment is (without googling it first).
Eh, I doubt very much that the original Bill of Rights was intended as an actual change to the Constitution.
That's a load of bullshit. We've already noted (which you ignored) that said business types have nothing to do with a person behind it and is entirely to do with business structures that anyone can enter into.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Tax incentives for sole traders etc are one thing, tax incentives for sole traders who are white, straight, protestant males is something completely different. One is constitutional, one would not be.
Furthermore why do you put "rights" into quotation marks? Your Supreme Court has for decades if not centuries ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. The question before us is whether or not that applies to gays as much as straights (answer should be yes), there is no question that it is about a legitimate right though and no need to call it amorphous.
From memory (not Googled it) the 21st is an excellent example of Amendments being changes. It is I believe from memory the revocation of the 18th (ie prohibition). Probably got one of those two numbers wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
This has what to do with anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
No, no one will ever reconcile everyone's morals. But we have a political process that nonetheless tries to come to a broad consensus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
If not, why bother with anything. We should just descend into anarchy because people disagree about what goes in what hole. :weird:
As I said before, it's plainly obvious that the Supreme Court of 1967 would not considered a consensual civil union of two gays to be remotely within the definition of marriage. I think it's silly to try and build a foundation on that. Not that you care much for the EU CHR, but even that defers to national laws to define marriage (albeit opens a backdoor for gay marriage)Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
As for why I use "right" in quotation marks, Fuzzy has outlined views that I mostly agree with about how our constitution defines "rights".
With your ideas on marriage of course; marriage as a romantic concept is for idiots. And if you think that's particularly European or modern; I didn't invent prenuptials.
You mixed up the ECHR with the EU by the way; the two are not related. The ECHR typically would not define a right to marriage, it's quite big on the equality issue though.
Is there a reason they should? I think we're all aware here that I'm very interested in the US Constitution and US con-law but I had to check to remind myself which one that was. More than anything else in the Constitution, it and its predecessor amendment are the two that matter the least. They are pure historical trivia at this point, they have absolutely no meaning or effect on the legal landscape in the US, for the Feds or for any lower jurisdiction. I appreciate historical knowledge too, of course, but pure trivia isn't real knowledge, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I wouldn't call it "trivia", since several states (and the feds) are engaged in legal challenges surrounding marijuana, and Prohibition era precedents. That makes it relevant to HS kids studying 'current events' in sociology, history, civics, and government.
Maybe my Hoosier roots were showing (a common liquor store chain was named "The 21st Amendment"), or because I visit Philly for exhibits like "The Constitution", and Washington, DC museums. I didn't mean the term googling in a derogatory way, because few people know all the amendments by number or memory.....
but I was making a comment about people who cite the 1st Amendment, using their personal religious affiliations and associations, to deny freedoms to others that are protected in following Clauses or Amendments.
The amendments don't matter. They have zero impact on government authority, they tell us nothing about the scale or scope of what the feds or the states can do. The forces behind them might be of historical study, the sociology behind the evasion of government edicts is of constant interest and the consequences of the prior amendment was and remains an excellent case study but the amendments themselves are still nothing but dead letters, material that might as well not be in the text at all, and have absolutely no bearing on any legal challenges pertaining to topics which you think are similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
If you were saying that, it was completely opaque and I don't see how anyone could infer such a meaning from what you typed in that post. Instead you seemed to be trying to make a distinction between amendments and the text of the Constitution as originally ratified which made absolutely no sense in the context of the discussion in the thread to date and certainly neither it nor the above has anything whatsoever to do with the post of mine you'd quoted in your reply.Quote:
but I was making a comment about people who cite the 1st Amendment, using their personal religious affiliations and associations, to deny freedoms to others that are protected in following Clauses or Amendments.
I'm not into parsing legalese (your run-on sentences are difficult enough). Can you explain what you mean a bit better, so I won't have to assume you mean it's legislation that matters more than "dead letters"? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I'm talking about how 'average' or lay people refer to the Constitution and its Amendments, as parts of a whole. Current examples: IRS employees couldn't ignore subpoenas to appear at congressional investigations/hearings, but they could refuse to testify by invoking their "5th Amendment Right" against self-incrimination. Same thing in the NJ Bridge-Gate scandal, where cabinet level employees aren't even testifying before a 'court authority' but a legislative investigating body.Quote:
If you were saying that, it was completely opaque and I don't see how anyone could infer such a meaning from what you typed in that post. Instead you seemed to be trying to make a distinction between amendments and the text of the Constitution as originally ratified which made absolutely no sense in the context of the discussion in the thread to date and certainly neither it nor the above has anything whatsoever to do with the post of mine you'd quoted in your reply.
In every debate about guns, people commonly refer to the 2nd Amendment that includes legislation and "government edicts", not esoteric definitions of "dead letters"....
[QUOTE=GGT;150297]I'm not into parsing legalese (your run-on sentences are difficult enough). Can you explain what you mean a bit better, so I won't have to assume you mean it's legislation that matters more than "dead letters"? :confused: [/qupte]
The 21st amendment is about repealing a prior amendment. What it does is nullify the earlier amendment and for all intents and purposes we can consider the text of neither to be in the Constitution. Their combined effect on the government, the people, or anyone or anything else of relevance to policy now is precisely zero.
First, you are not an average or lay person and at this point I think the forum would be better off if you would stop pretending the way you perceive and interpret things is representative of the broader population. Second, that does not excuse or make valid, for you or for the putative average person, the flat inaccuracy of the statements you try to make.Quote:
I'm talking about how 'average' or lay people refer to the Constitution and its Amendments, as parts of a whole. Current examples: IRS employees couldn't ignore subpoenas to appear at congressional investigations/hearings, but they could refuse to testify by invoking their "5th Amendment Right" against self-incrimination. Same thing in the NJ Bridge-Gate scandal, where cabinet level employees aren't even testifying before a 'court authority' but a legislative investigating body.
In every debate about guns, people commonly refer to the 2nd Amendment that includes legislation and "government edicts", not esoteric definitions of "dead letters"....
I'm not following your "current examples." I don't see how those bear on either your original statement, or the one I quoted two posts ago. In fact, I don't see what they're demonstrating at all. People are subpoened, which is not and has not been a power held only by the courts, are testifying (again, something which is not only done in a court purview) and are exercising rights whose use are likewise not limited to a courtroom.
The original text of the Constitution was a bare-bones document that required clarification, interpretation, and Amendments. I have no idea how you misinterpreted by comments -- about how people refer to "Constitutional Rights" that focus on certain Amendments while excluding/nullifying others. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I was making a socio-political statement about language commonly used in debates about "Rights", from birth control to marriage, and those who frame them as a 1st Amendment religious freedom issue. I can make 'putative' comments about what the discourse looks like in many states, political circles, and media....even if they're technically inaccurate to constitutional scholars or pedantic nit-pickers like you. :donkey: