To everyone,

I repeat:    Thank God Bush is in power and we have a Republican Senate and House.  Now he can stack the court for decades to come.

I WISH IT DIDN’T HAVE TO COME TO THIS, BUT YOU ALL BROUGHT THIS UPON YOURSELVES

To Zilch: “Now that’s democracy in action.“

Darn straight.  Our nation was constructed with checks and balances.  To offset Tyranny of the Majority, there is the Judicial Branch.  When the Judicial Branch goes too far and abuses its power by issuing extra-constitutional edicts (hence tyranny of the judiciary), then there are ways for the executive and the legislative branch (the purest democratic institutions) to check this tyranny.  We elected a President, we installed the Congress, WE (through ELECTED representatives) can stack the courts to ensure that enemies of the Constitution do not continue to infiltrate the Courts and thwart the will of the people. 

I wish it didn’t have to come to this, but when you push too hard against the will of the people, you shouldn’t be surprised when the people push back.

Rick, the only problem with your triumphant tirade is this:

YOU ALL BROUGHT THIS UPON YOURSELVES

Who, exactly, is “you all”?  And how did we do this?  How did these supposedly “activist” judges get ON the Supreme Court to begin with?

That’s right.  They were placed there by duly elected representatives of the people.

So don’t go trying to pretend that you’re “the will of the people” and anyone who disagrees with you isn’t.  The fact is, the pendulum swings often, and any right-wing extremism you want to try to install will eventually be corrected.

All this “enemies of the Constitution” crap, from someone who wants to restrict the civil rights of some of our citizens and place your fictional book as our rule of law.  It makes me sick.

For decades now we have stood by and allowed our culture and society to be degraded by “You all” and we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore. This “pendulum” swung the other way in large part because of the activism of the ACLU and the extra-constitutional decisions of the courts.  Now Bush can install YOUNG judges, perhaps up to four of them, who will be on the Court for decades.  If “you all” (those who support the ACLU and others who have pushed an anti-God agenda into the courts) hadn’t have pushed so hard, perhaps it wouldn’t have had to be like this.

So don’t go trying to pretend that you’re “the will of the people� and anyone who disagrees with you isn’t.

Uhh… When 70% of Americans think Partial Birth abortion should be outlawed.  When 66% of the Congress think it should be out outlawed.  When a supermajority of Americans believe marriage should be defined and codified in law as only between a man and a woman… When all but 9 of the 535 elected members of Congress vote to condemn the 9th Circuit Pledge Ban… On and on and on and on…  No, it’s not “my” will, it’s “the” will of the people…

Also “restrict the civil rights” - you are assuming that the issues you are pushing are about civil rights.  They are to you, but they certainly aren’t to me.  Why is what you say correct and what I say not correct? 

Oh… Because it is you who is saying it.  I got ya.

Rick, asking the government to stay the heck out of religion isn’t “anti-God.“  In fact, many very religious people prefer it that way.

No one is being prevented from practicing their religion by asking the government (federal, state, and local) to tend to its knitting.

As for the culture being degraded, that sounds a lot like “less supportive of your prejudices.“  My country’s culture is enhanced, not degraded, by freedom of expression and living.  It becomes richer and more textured and interesting.

As for “partial-birth abortion,“ that isn’t a left-right issue at all.  It has been distorted by people on both sides.  Personally I’d make abortion totally unrestricted in the first trimester, some restrictions in the second, and many restrictions in the third - purely on the basis of detectable frontal-lobe activity of the developing foetus.  (Well, a side-bonus is that it would annoy people on all sides of the issue, because I find all of them annoying!)

And guess what?  I’m just some schmoe, so who the hell cares what I think?  The law has to accomodate everybody.  One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Next up: Rick’s rant on abortion… 

As for the culture being degraded, that sounds a lot like “less supportive of your prejudices.â€? My country’s culture is enhanced, not degraded, by freedom of expression and living.  It becomes richer and more textured and interesting.

RAybull—Dam-ned Raaaaaybull!  Every Nay will Baynd!

(Surely threats of ‘smiting’ will follow!)

When a supermajority of Americans believe marriage should be defined and codified in law as only between a man and a woman…

Hey Ricky boy, you guys all get spandex tights and decoder rings with your inclusion into the American SuperMajority? What special powers you got… well, with the exception of the ability to think and type at the speed of hyperbole. What is your mild mannered disguise? Toothless hick in a wife-beater tee driving a bitchin’ up Camaro?

Get real Mr. Mad-as-hell-and-ain’t-gonna-take-it-anymore your “majority” is about as substantial as Bush’s “mandate”, it’s all on paper. Sure, you have drunk enough of the koolaid given to you by your party, religion, secret society, or cult so I don’t blame you for thinking you are in the majority (like that matters) and that you are right by divine decree but sparky, if there is a dark planet circling a burned out sun headed into a blackhole where no intelligence can escape from then that MUST be where you are writing us from.

The ACLU is one of the last bastions of hope saving us from all being absorbed by the blob like tendrils of your “majority” that is doing it’s very best to turn what passes for Democracy in the USA into Theocratic Facism. If fighting against the likes of you is wrong I don’t ever want to be right again in my life! You think “we all” pushed too hard you poor put upon soul? You delicate little flower? You will get no quarter from me and my elected representatives in the House and Senate.

I would rather see complete legislative gridlock in Washington than four years of your kind of witless worship of the neocon morons squatting in the oval office.

Why is what you say correct and what I say not correct?

Because I make allowances for the fact that I could be wrong. I don’t think the idea you could be ever crosses your mind, what with all that gleeful counting of all those folks who agree with your positions and all. Hell, you just HAVE to be right with numbers like those. If 80% of the people agree that up is actually down well who can argue? It’s a stone cold fact!

Rick, isn’t the right to marry the person you love a civil right?  Isn’t the right to save your own life when your pregnancy is killing you?

Why aren’t those civil rights to you?  Oh ... because you don’t believe in the same rights for people who don’t buy your particular little book.  I got ya.

The point being, you’re upset because “the will of the people” put the people on the bench that you’re now blaming “us” for.  You didn’t seem content to accept “the will of the people” when it wasn’t YOUR agenda. 

Personally, I’m glad that the justices have the courage to decide what’s FAIR even when the “majority” tries to deny it to the minority.  And I fervently hope that anyone Bush manages to put on the bench will be smart enough to disappoint the so-called “pro-life” hypocrites who have been slavering to impose their fictional god on the country.

Eric,

  That SuperMajority spandex and ‘decoder ring’ crack made me laugh out loud.  Now the dogs are lookin’ at me funny.

  Thanks a lot, now my dogs think I’m crazy.

No, Rick is right. Let us undo the damaged caused by “us all” during the civil rights movement in the 60s. Tie the next Negro you find to the back of your car and drag him down the road! He was probably going to get uppity and try to chat with a white woman anyway. While we are at it, bring back businesses that refuse to give service to the oily, hooked-nosed Jews. Let us get rid of that nonsense about letting women vote and own property as well! Also, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 should be re-enforced! Every other thing that the ACL-JEW or its forerunners forced to be overturned, thus degrading our society, should be brought back in full force. Damn liberal, pinko commies! 

Thanks a lot, now my dogs think I’m crazy.

nowiser, even your crazy recognizing dog can see who the real crazy is in this thread. Prick justifiably contains the letters r, i, c and k.
Welcome home Eric. Where the hell have you been? (And no, pun not intended.)

What’s that great line about being all stocked up with crazy and how you should go sell it someplace else, Rick? Yeah, that one. It had to be written with people like you in mind.

On a bit of a side note.  I read today in the Globe and Mail that more than 73% of Canadians report themselves as being Christian (of one denomination or another).  However, the majority of them would also report themselves as liberal or left of center as well.  I wonder why Christians here in Canada are less excited about banning homosexuality, teaching creationism in school and revisionist history than Christians down south in the States.  I would assume that one doesn’t become more Christian just by crossing the border….  I’m curious as to what the basis of the difference is….

I wonder why Christians here in Canada are less excited about banning homosexuality, teaching creationism in school and revisionist history than Christians down south in the States.

It must be something in the water in Jesusland…

Why is what you say correct and what I say not correct?

Because I make allowances for the fact that I could be wrong. I don’t think the idea you could be ever crosses your mind, what with all that gleeful counting of all those folks who agree with your positions and all. Hell, you just HAVE to be right with numbers like those. If 80% of the people agree that up is actually down well who can argue? It’s a stone cold fact!

Actually, I do make allowances for the fact that I could be wrong.  Because we both could be wrong and the Government should not be on “inalienable rights” endowed by our Creator, but instead on our Constitution, I do not think some life tenured elected judges should EVER rule contrary.  Who decides who is wrong?  I say, on issues not explicilty codified in the Constitution, the people should decide.  If your way is right, you need to convince people that your way is right. 

As far as Brown v. Board- c’mon.  Any reasonable reading of the 14th Amendment covers that. 

Rick, isn’t the right to marry the person you love a civil right?

Why “person”?  Why not 1000 people mary each other?  Why not if they “love” each other and they are consenting adults?  Why not?  On what grounds do we deny this right to others? 

I want my judges to be consistent.  If they rule that there is a Constitutional right to gay marriage, then I would like to hear why there isn’t a constitutional right to polygamy, or to marriage between two brothers, or two sisters, mom and daughter, etc.  Why not?  I’m not appealing to the galley here, I am simply asking a question that I must have resolved in my head before I would EVER consent to a court decision extending this right to myself and others.  If your side wants to win this debate, I suggest you deal with this issue seriously. 

I think the reasonable answer to my questions above is that of course the government has a legitimate right to “regulate” marriage by saying what types of marriage are appropriate.  And no, this does not mean that marriage between blacks and whites would be banned.  This gets back to the choice v. not choice issue.  It has NOT been demonstrated that people can or cannot choose their orientation.  In fact, we know through studies of genetically identical twins that homosexuality certainly isn’t genetic. 

Therefore, could it be some other type of biological “defect”?  If so, so what?  One cannot help how one is born right?

Okay, but then perhaps tendancy to polygamy is biological?  Or incest?  MAybe?  We don’t know?  On what grounds then can we deny these consenting adults the right to marry?

Round and round we go. 

Isn’t the right to save your own life when your pregnancy is killing you?

I think the issue is between what is the “life” of the mother and the “health” of the mother.  I would support the right to abortion, in all cases, if it meant that the LIFE of the mother was in jeopardy.  From a religious standpoint this is justified because the baby is saved (not accountable yet), whereas the mother may not be saved.  Giving her life in this instance could lead to eternal life.  The problem is with the definition of “health.“  No, mental well being doesn’t justify killing an innocent.  Sorry. 

This was fun.  I have a mid-term in 4 hours.

I love decrepitoldfool!!!

Thanks Ellie for posting this because this very subject came up today in my… get this… critical thinking class, but was presented as “did you hear California won’t let teachers present the Declaration of Independence in schools anymore because of the references to God?“ (So asked a student)

As someone so far up this thread mentioned, a little critical thinking on that article reveals something quite different going on.

Anywho, now I get to print it out, take it to school, and put the smack-down on the OH MY GAWD THEY ARE KILLING JESUS ALL OVER AGAIN-kind of people in my class. 

As for all this debate on the forefathers… here’s an idea: regardless of what they believed about gods or lack thereof, I don’t understand the confusion over what they meant regarding the separation of church and state. I mean, the fact that there has been a S E P A R A T I O N for the last couple of centuries is pretty indicative that they were 1; serious about that, and 2; saw wisdom in protecting the state from religious rule.

Why is that so difficult? Where is the need for interpretation???

My brother in-law loaned me the December issue of Esquire magazine because it had a great article on Ricky Williams ex of the Miami Dolphins. 
  So I am reading through it and find this one page in the “Best and Brightest Alumni” article(I’ll get the page when I get home) on an economist who is publishing a book in April.  One of the things he’s been researching is the cause of the drop in the crime rate in the U.S. over the last 20 yrs.
  His claim is that the drop in crime rate directly correlates time-wise to the implementation of Abortion rights by state.  That is, state X legalised abortion rights and roughly 20 yrs later the crime rate starts to drop followed by the next state in the timeline.  He implied that large portion of crime is a result of unwantedness.  An interesting premise…

Heh. Interesting how this thread started out on an issue of proselytizing in schools and has now turned toward abortion and gay-marriage.

Why does it always slide that way… 

Rick, it’s not actualy about mariage it’s about taxation in the end anyway.  Incest is Incest, no t the same class, stays illegal.  I personally don’t have a problem with polygamy or several other varieties of open relationship if the parties are happy.  Perhaps the government shouldn’t be in the business of “recognising marriage”. they should change the tax law so that the “spousal deductions” are more like say a “personal support deduction” so any one person may use the deduction for another other person, like their infirm mom who they care for etc. Leave marriage to the churches.  The courts and government given time would work out rules for ending relationships etc based on current models.  If you are responsible for creating a child, you are responsible period.  the courts have no problem with mediating custody, access and support now and I doubt it will change in the future.

If they rule that there is a Constitutional right to heterosexual marriage, then I would like to hear why there isn’t a constitutional right to gay marriage, or polygamy, or to marriage between two brothers, or two sisters, mom and daughter, etc.  Why not?  I’m not appealing to the galley here, I am simply asking a question that I must have resolved in my head before I would EVER consent to a court decision extending this right to myself and others.  If your side wants to win this debate, I suggest you deal with this issue seriously.

Rick, it’s not actualy about mariage it’s about taxation in the end anyway.

Ahh.  You got me.  That is where I’ve been going with this.  If 1000 people can marry each other, then entire communities can form “tax shelters” in marriage or other such “agreements” and these agreements between consenting adults can be called “marriage.“

If they rule that there is a Constitutional right to heterosexual marriage,

I would be against any ruling that established a Constitutional right to heterosexual marriage.  I don’t see this right specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  If I want that right, I will support an amendment to the Constitution to make it a right.

It’s not just about taxation.  It’s about the rights one has to care for a spouse, to pass on an inheritance, to share benefits.  It’s about my cousin being allowed to visit her partner of 20 years in the hospital.  Rick, just because you can imagine a “slippery slope” to absurdities doesn’t mean judges are going to rule that way.  You might just as well argue that if whites and blacks “choose” to love each other, they can very well “choose” to love their own kind instead, so you don’t need to allow interracial marriage. 

It’s a very simple one-on-one equation, with two consenting adults of legal age who are not related to each other, exactly the same conditions as any other marriage—with just ONE difference:  they’re both the same sex.  How is that going to bring down civilization and destroy the whole institution of marriage?  If your side wants to win this debate, you’re going to have to try a different argument from “we’ll have cats and elephants marrying in the street and the sky will fall”.  That kind of hyperbole won’t be taken seriously.

Oh, and the REASON the partial-birth abortion ban was struck down was PRECISELY because it did not allow exceptions to save the woman’s life.  Thank Zeus the judges were paying attention on that one.  SOMEONE’S got to care about a baby’s life after she reaches childbearing age.

So who’s demanding the right of 1000 people to marry one another?  No one I know- we had this “slippery slide” argument a couple of weeks ago, and it hasn’t improved.  The only issue here is the right of two consenting adults to marry- not men marrying grandsons, or women marrying lizards…

In fact, we know through studies of genetically identical twins that homosexuality certainly isn’t genetic.

Wrong.  We know through twin studies that homosexuality is certainly a mixture of genetic/physiological and environmental factors:

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

  * 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
  * 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
  * 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,� Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters

  * 48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
  * 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
  * 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual

Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,� American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277. {/quote]

What this means is fairly clear, despite some Christian websites insisting that since the correlation for monozygotic twins isn’t 100%, then there’s no genetic/physiological component at all.  But these are the same folks who gave us talking snakes and a 6,000 year old earth, so it’s perhaps not surprising if their logical faculties are a bit, well, warped.

This wouldn’t bother me if they would just keep their hands to themselves.  That’s what’s disconcerting about the ascendency of the Right- that they know what’s better for us.  Just because the majority believes something doesn’t make it right or good.

GM yes I can, BTW, I’ll let you look up on your own how many 3rd trimester abortions have been requested/performed for the health of the mother, & doctor’s opinions on when that would be the case.

Justice you’re welcome.  It never ceases to amaze me how one can sidestep the issue of the humanity of a fetus, move on to equating tax breaks with civil rights, to accusing opponents of mysoginy, racism, & homophobia.  Rick, you’re getting a good look at progressive dehumanization of dissenters.  The standard here seems to be the kind of intelligence that agrees with a multi-faceted, nuanced (translation, unfocused) position.

Since this guy wrote it best, I’ll just quote him: http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=9992
[So here’s a word to our liberal critics:

Nail us to the wall for having overly hard hearts. Hang us out to dry for sometimes seared consciences. Demonstrate for all to see that we are inconsistent when we may have used the government to feather our own nests while opposing programs that would have improved the lots of others. We confess our hypocrisy—sometimes inadvertent, sometimes too calculating.

But don’t ask us to pretend that wobbling carelessly around the road, or even crossing the middle line sometimes, is the same as deliberately driving at 80 miles an hour the wrong way on a one-way street. Some “moral values” deserve a good bit of discussion. Some need none at all. —•]

In Nazi Germany it went from accusing the ruling party of unfair siding with the rest of the world, to blaming the religious segment of the voters who put them in, to seperating them, to ...

Time to bail.  We’ve reached the organization level of a food fight.

Um, that part about the Nazis was mine since my 1st attempt at blue quotes failed me…

What THEOCRAT said too, we’ve obviously changed topics.  Rick, there is a post on the definition of marriage.  not a burning issue for me, but if you feel so inclined it’s probably more well placed there, but I don’t know of any on abortion or government structure.  They tend to rant on events rather than discuss the structure.

On another interesting (at least interesting to me) side note, in most cultures until very recently polygamy was acceptable (indeed, in some Christian denominations such was the case as well) and even encouraged.  It’s odd that polygamy now serves as a reason to disallow gay marriage.  Also, I have no idea how people assume that if gays will be allowed to marry that people will eventually be able to marry donkeys or something like that.  Back in the late ‘30s they re-legalized alcohol, and most people said that would lead to all sorts of social decay.  However, legalizing alcohol didn’t lead to the legalization of other mind-altering substances.

Also, once upon a time a black man could get thrown into jail for transporting a white woman across state lines.  Abolishing that abolition didn’t result in donkey/human interbreeding.  Why would we assume that letting gay people have the same right to make a legal commitment to a partner like the rest of us do will result in all sorts of crazy things happening?  Just because we think one thing is okay doesn’t mean we’re committed to saying that everything is okay. 

As for abortion, that’s one where I’m undecided.  I’m not even going to touch that issue with a 10 foot pole.