tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post8896658217014782190..comments2024-03-25T17:38:55.490-07:00Comments on Dar Kush: Can You Feel The Love Tonight?Steven Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-77508034597419975302022-04-30T00:42:44.850-07:002022-04-30T00:42:44.850-07:00replica wholesale handbags luxury replica bags l...<a href="https://lethaez23436.blogspot.com/2022/04/while-you-may-consider-wholesale-as.html" rel="nofollow">replica wholesale handbags</a> <a href="https://teanos55101.blogspot.com/2022/04/but-we-cant-neglect-star-influence-that.html" rel="nofollow">luxury replica bags</a> <a href="https://mcseate21974.blogspot.com/2022/04/compact-and-also-simplistically-formed.html" rel="nofollow">luxury replica bags</a>sloalaslhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02388728585900848558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-47946525509094613592008-06-21T00:06:00.000-07:002008-06-21T00:06:00.000-07:00Nancy:I think that people here have been confusing...Nancy:<BR/><BR/>I think that people here have been confusing my personal opinions with society's views (or more accurately, how I have described society's views). I also think that people have been confusing my personal views on gay marriage with my views on the proper roles of the various branches of government.<BR/><BR/>Marriage is a social construct. In other words, marriage means what society wants it to mean. Human societies across the planet independently developed multiple variations of marriage. In my opinion (and that of many others) one of the driving forces for the creation of marriage in pre-historic times was for the creation and protection of children. This is what marriage meant in the past. Marriage has not, however, been a stable, immutable institution throughout history or across societies. Any society needs to ensure its own survival and children are the single most important factor for the survival of a society. Thus, every society has a vital interest in the creation and protection of children. Our society (like many others) historically has used marriage laws to influence the creation and protection of children . Since society has a vital interest in its survival, there is a valid societal interest in promoting the creation and protection of children. Since gay couples cannot creat children, society has every right to deny marriage to gay couples. However, since marriage means whatever society wants it to mean, society can change what social goals marriage is meant to accomplish. It does not have to be all about children. In fact, marriage in the United States has clearly become less about the children in the last century (e.g., no-fault divorce). <BR/><BR/>My personal views are as follows: The Court usurped the power of the Legislature. Just because Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the Legislature's gay marriage bills does not give the Court additional powers. Given the fact that the Legislature passed the bills, it clearly was only a matter of time before gay marriage became a reality in California through legislative action. Gay people are people; they want to love, work, contribute to society and have children. Children raised in stable households with two parents (actually, the studies I've seen focused on mother/father relationships) have significant advantages over children raised by a single parent. I want children to be raised in stable two parent households. I want society to discourage (not prohibit) unmarried couples from having and rearing children. <BR/><BR/>Time for bed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-79104156325507688452008-06-20T18:38:00.000-07:002008-06-20T18:38:00.000-07:00Nancy: I agree that you don't understand how kukul...Nancy: I agree that you don't understand how kukulkan and my mind work. Let me try to state my position in such a way that you can see my thinking. The great science fiction writer Robert Heinlein coined the term TANSTAAFL, which stands for "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch". That is the premise that I approach all decisions with. No matter how good some of the consequences of decision is there are negative results as well. In the case of gay marriage I personally consider the federal benefits gays would acquire like reduced taxes and more social security benefits to be a negative consequence of allowing gay marriages. I look at it this way because if you reduce the governments available income by giving gay couples this benefit then there are only three possible results. The government reduces other spending, most likely of more benefit then giving the money to the gay couples. The government raises taxes on other people to make up the difference or we grow a bigger deficit. Now if the only other choice were to give gay couples none of the rights of married couples I would say the benefits outweigh the above. However, if we have the alternative of defining a status of domestic partnership which gives gays all benefits of a married couple except the federal financial ones, then I favor that option over regular marriage. If you can give me a good reason why gay couples getting these financial benefits outweighs the disadvantages, I'm willing to listen.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-21413170730385258992008-06-20T16:19:00.000-07:002008-06-20T16:19:00.000-07:00"That looks to me as though you think gay marriage...<I> "That looks to me as though you think gay marriage is a bad, or at least useless thing. As far as I can tell, you come to that conclusion by assuming that gay people aren't part of society, and therefore their interests need not be considered."<BR/><BR/> I've stated at least twice that feeling "normal" has societal benefits. I've also acknowledged that gays raise children, but that I do not know any numbers. If a societally significant number of children are being raised by gay parents, then allowing the parents to marry provides a societal benefit. But, not knowing the numbers of children being raised by gay parents, I can't say this is of societal benefit. I've asked if anyone here has any information on this point, and all I hear is the sound of silence. You are assuming that there are societally significant numbers of children being raised by gays. But for all that is holy, my point is that the courts should stay away from determining what benefits society. The Cal. Supreme Court decided what society should allow and refused to allow the people an opportunity to amend the constitution. My problem is not with gay marriage.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm beginning to think I simply don't understand how your mind works. It seemed to me that you were arguing that the only important reason for marriage as an institution was children. (Possibly biological rather than adopted-- I'm not sure.)<BR/><BR/>And that seemed like such an arbitrary choice that I assumed you were using it as an excuse to be against gay marriage.<BR/><BR/>And on the other hand, you don't seem to understand me, either. I don't think children are the only important purpose for marriage, so it doesn't matter to me if no gay couples are raising children.<BR/><BR/>And if you believe the courts shouldn't care about societal benefit, then why did you bring societal benefit up in a discussion of whether gay marriage should be legalized?Nancy Lebovitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068537632391466902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-51251014435177261182008-06-20T13:27:00.000-07:002008-06-20T13:27:00.000-07:00Nancy:"That looks to me as though you think gay ma...Nancy:<BR/><BR/>"That looks to me as though you think gay marriage is a bad, or at least useless thing. As far as I can tell, you come to that conclusion by assuming that gay people aren't part of society, and therefore their interests need not be considered."<BR/><BR/>I've stated at least twice that feeling "normal" has societal benefits. I've also acknowledged that gays raise children, but that I do not know any numbers. If a societally significant number of children are being raised by gay parents, then allowing the parents to marry provides a societal benefit. But, not knowing the numbers of children being raised by gay parents, I can't say this is of societal benefit. I've asked if anyone here has any information on this point, and all I hear is the sound of silence. You are <B>assuming</B> that there are societally significant numbers of children being raised by gays. But for all that is holy, my point is that the courts should stay away from determining what benefits society. The Cal. Supreme Court decided what society should allow and refused to allow the people an opportunity to amend the constitution. My problem is not with gay marriage.<BR/><BR/>Josh:<BR/><BR/>"And you never said you were OK with the decision, just that the lack of a halt before November was your "biggest problem". Based on your language, there were others." <BR/><BR/>Certainly I have other problems with the Court's decision. Have you read the opinion? Talk about diarrhea of the word processor. Also, since I think there are societally valid reasons to limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman, I think that the Court's rationale is flawed. I don't think that the rationale is absurd, I just think that the Court's position is not strong enough to hold that limiting marriage to those between a man and woman is unconstitutional. My objection here, however, isn't very strong. Certainly society has been moving away from the traditional meaning of marriage. But this gets me back to my main problem -- which I have identified <I>ad nauseum</I>. <BR/><BR/>Is there any evidence that a constitutional amendment was in the works when <I>Perez</I> was decided? If not, your comment is inapplicable to the current situation. Here, the Cal. Supreme Court was asked to stay implementation until after the November elections to see if the constitution is amended. Can you imagine the chaos if the constitution is amended to limit marriages to unions between men and women? What if the constitutional amendment is found to apply retroactively? What do you do with the marriages that have already taken place (sorry, you got to be married for 5 months, but that's it for you)? How do you console the people who were too young to marry while the law allowed for gay marriages?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-64115190823538744892008-06-20T10:41:00.000-07:002008-06-20T10:41:00.000-07:00Josh: You definitely read something into my commen...Josh: You definitely read something into my comment that wasn't there. I did not draw an analogy specifically between the gay marriage decision and blowing up an abortion clinic, I drew analogy about any act of judicial activism and blowing up a clinic. I would be against a conservative judge making a ruling against abortion clinics even if I agreed with the result, because I don't see making the rules as part of their job.<BR/>To use another analogy I see any judicial activism as equivalent to a president going to war without congressional approval. Perhaps you prefer that one.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-11407762030799505102008-06-20T10:05:00.000-07:002008-06-20T10:05:00.000-07:00The Duck Test:"If a bird looks like a duck, swims ...The Duck Test:<BR/><BR/>"If a bird looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."<BR/><BR/>If it looks like a bigot, walks like a bigot, talks like a bigot, then ...Steve Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079658447270792228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-76577078978118033452008-06-20T07:12:00.000-07:002008-06-20T07:12:00.000-07:00Marty: I'm confused about the insult. I implied th...Marty: <I>I'm confused about the insult. I implied that bombing abortion clinics was a horrible thing to do. Unless your friends did bomb an abortion clinic I don't see how I insulted them.</I><BR/><BR/>Either you're playing a game here, or you're simply not getting the analogy you made. You said that<BR/><BR/>"<I>Ignoring the general will of the majority of the country to force ones own beliefs is IMO the <B>judicial equivalent</B> of blowing up an abortion clinic because you believe abortion is a sin against god.</I>"<BR/><BR/>The analogy you used was pretty clear. You drew lines of equivalence between supporters of the recent marriage decision and supporters of abortion clinic bombings.<BR/><BR/>You compared my friend's marriages to the aftermath of an abortion clinic bombing.<BR/><BR/>It's nice that Steve keeps things here polite in language. But I feel you really crossed a line there. Without using foul language, you said about the foulest thing I've read here. That you don't get it doesn't make it any less horrible a thing to say.Josh Jasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08441897278413737658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-24018598522212521832008-06-20T07:05:00.000-07:002008-06-20T07:05:00.000-07:00Kukulkan : I don't know how I can be much clearer....Kukulkan : <I><BR/>I don't know how I can be much clearer. I have not said that the Cal. Sup. Ct. had no right to make the decision or that it reached the wrong result. I think that the Court should have stayed its ruling until after the Nov. election.</I><BR/><BR/>Why? The Perez v. Sharp case didn't require a halt after it was decided for people against mixed race marriages? <BR/><BR/>And you never said you were OK with the decision, just that the lack of a halt before November was your "biggest problem". Based on your language, there were others.Josh Jasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08441897278413737658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-52147101906633515882008-06-20T03:14:00.000-07:002008-06-20T03:14:00.000-07:00Kulkulan, you say:I have not said that the Cal. Su...Kulkulan, you say:<BR/><BR/><I>I have not said that the Cal. Sup. Ct. had no right to make the decision or that it reached the wrong result.</I><BR/><BR/>But you've also said:<BR/><BR/><I>Again, what is the societal benefit of gay marriage? As near as I can tell, the whole point of gay marriage is so that gay couple can feel like they are "normal." In other words, gay marriage is not meant to benefit society or protect children; it's meant to make homosexuals feel good about themselves.</I><BR/><BR/>That looks to me as though you think gay marriage is a bad, or at least useless thing. As far as I can tell, you come to that conclusion by assuming that gay people aren't part of society, and therefore their interests need not be considered.Nancy Lebovitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068537632391466902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-87773670262172657172008-06-19T20:03:00.000-07:002008-06-19T20:03:00.000-07:00Josh:I don't know how I can be much clearer. I ha...Josh:<BR/><BR/>I don't know how I can be much clearer. I have not said that the Cal. Sup. Ct. had no right to make the decision or that it reached the wrong result. I think that the Court should have stayed its ruling until after the Nov. election. If the people are unable to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage then the the Court's decision would be implemented. I have not objected to the Court's decision as judicial activision.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-78394334055411398572008-06-19T19:49:00.000-07:002008-06-19T19:49:00.000-07:00Josh: I'm confused about the insult. I implied tha...Josh: I'm confused about the insult. I implied that bombing abortion clinics was a horrible thing to do. Unless your friends did bomb an abortion clinic I don't see how I insulted them. If they ran an abortion clinic, I never criticized abortion clinics I merely said there are crazies who see them as evil use that to justify their actions. <BR/><BR/>I was merely expressing the fact that historically a lot of bad things have been done in the name of good, by labeling that with which they don't agree as evil.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-85700242603437067102008-06-19T18:37:00.000-07:002008-06-19T18:37:00.000-07:00http://bangornews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=1...http://bangornews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=165972&zoneid=500<BR/><BR/>An anti-gay rights, marriage, and adoption initiative failed in Maine because there wasn't public support for it.Nancy Lebovitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068537632391466902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-6961600749153589732008-06-19T14:01:00.000-07:002008-06-19T14:01:00.000-07:00Marty: Ignoring the general will of the majority o...Marty: <BR/><BR/><I>Ignoring the general will of the majority of the country to force ones own beliefs is IMO the judicial equivalent of blowing up an abortion clinic because you believe abortion is a sin against god.</I><BR/><BR/>Great, so Loving v Virginia was the moral equivalent of murder?<BR/><BR/><I>With respect to the recent gay marriage ruling for instance they have ignored the DOMA act passed by congress in 1996 and signed by Bill Clinton.</I><BR/><BR/>DOMA didn't stop states from passing laws or having judges decide to allow same sex couples to marry. It was designed to prevent people in one state from moving to another and bringing those rights with them.<BR/><BR/>It's also unconstitutional. It will require either being overturned, or someone to contest it, and bring it to the US Supreme Court. It's exactly why Bush and the Republicans tried to amend the US constitution to include it. They failed, in case you missed it.<BR/><BR/>Also, on a personal note, he abortion clinic bombing was incredibly insulting. Some of the people who helped make this happen are dear friends of mine, and have been since the birth of their seven year old daughter.<BR/><BR/>Do you even know what your comments say about them?Josh Jasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08441897278413737658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-62680944932150582022008-06-19T13:51:00.000-07:002008-06-19T13:51:00.000-07:00Where have I ever said that I am giased against ga...<I>Where have I ever said that I am giased against gay marriage? I was answering your question: "What makes "In re Marriage Cases" different from "Plessy v. Ferguson" or "Loving v Virginia"?" You assume I'm against gay marriage. Read my posts, I have no problem with gay marriage so long as it is effectuated by the will of society.</I><BR/><BR/>So my question was, does interracial marriage get a pass by being made to happen by judges, but same sex marriage does not not get a pass?<BR/><BR/>Was Loving v Virginia decided wrongly? It's a simple question.Josh Jasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08441897278413737658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-73306001200782576002008-06-19T11:48:00.000-07:002008-06-19T11:48:00.000-07:00Josh:"I could have said you were biased, that was ...Josh:<BR/><BR/>"I could have said you were biased, that was the other option."<BR/><BR/>Where have I ever said that I am giased against gay marriage? I was answering your question: "What makes "In re Marriage Cases" different from "Plessy v. Ferguson" or "Loving v Virginia"?" You assume I'm against gay marriage. Read my posts, I have no problem with gay marriage so long as it is effectuated by the will of society. I stated my biggest problem with the Court's decision was its refusal to stay its decision until after the November elections (which would allow the people of California to express their feelings on the issue). I've never said that the Court decided the issue incorrectly. If society decides that gay marriage is ok, then fine. I want gays to be happy productive members of society. If getting married makes gays happier and more productive, then I want them to marry. That is my opinion -- which is different than explaining why "In re Marriages" is different than Plessy and Loving. Do you understand the difference?<BR/><BR/>"These are my dearest friends you're talking about as if they were petulant children trying to break something because their feelings are being hurt."<BR/><BR/>Umm, whatever gave you the idea I thought gays were acting like petulant children? They want to feel "normal" is what I said. There is nothing wrong or childish about wanting to be normal. <BR/><BR/>You seem to read many things that I don't write.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-87112605327705408422008-06-19T10:26:00.000-07:002008-06-19T10:26:00.000-07:00"Ignoring the general will of the majority of the ..."Ignoring the general will of the majority of the country to force ones own beliefs is IMO the judicial equivalent of blowing up an abortion clinic because you believe abortion is a sin against god."<BR/><BR/>So, since the majority is always right, does that mean Bush's insistence in continuing this idiotic war that most Americans oppose, a man with an overall job approval rate down in the root cellar, is equivalent to blowing up abortion clinics? <BR/><BR/>Bad simile, badly presented.<BR/><BR/>Equating protecting somebody's rights to be happy with blowing up buildings is a reach even for you Marty.Steve Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079658447270792228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-27419909535560799452008-06-19T09:08:00.000-07:002008-06-19T09:08:00.000-07:00Perhaps, the supreme might have refused to rule on...Perhaps, the supreme might have refused to rule on Perez v. Sharp, or maybe they even would have made the wrong ruling, but that doesn't mean any judge or small panel of judges have the right to make up any rules they like for everybody else. With respect to the recent gay marriage ruling for instance they have ignored the DOMA act passed by congress in 1996 and signed by Bill Clinton. Ignoring the general will of the majority of the country to force ones own beliefs is IMO the judicial equivalent of blowing up an abortion clinic because you believe abortion is a sin against god.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-50838552446985254392008-06-19T09:05:00.000-07:002008-06-19T09:05:00.000-07:00Marty : As you stated, while domestic partnership ...Marty : <I>As you stated, while domestic partnership laws grant many rights to gay couples they don't grant federal tax benefits to these partnerships. They also don't need to be recognized across state lines. Since, the issue affects the federal government and other states it clearly should be decided at the federal level and based upon the U.S. constitution not the state constitution.</I><BR/><BR/>Marty, without getting past a state Supreme Court, it won't be taken to the US Supreme Court. It'll just die as an issue. It has before. <BR/><BR/><BR/>My original point wasn't "do you support judicial activism, yes or no", it's why are most people who're talking about the CA decision crying about judicial activism not taking the same stance against Loving.<BR/><BR/>It makes no sense to have opposing views of what's essentially the same decision, one by a state court, and one by a federal court. State supreme courts are empowered by the state constitution to make these decisions. It' *not* overriding the constitution when they do that. They're doing exactly what they should.<BR/><BR/>I'd love for you to have looked a mixed race couple in the eye while Perez v Sharp was decided, and have told them that no, they had no right to take that to the state supreme court. <BR/><BR/>In case anyone is interested, <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp" REL="nofollow">here's a link to the case</A><BR/><BR/>Marty is trying to say that state supreme courts have no right to decide who gets married. He's totally wrong, of course. State courts can and have been doing that for ages. It's part of the US constitution, and part of state constitutions.<BR/><BR/>If it's the wrong way to do things, we need to amend the Us constitution to fix it.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the data on the percentage of the US disapproving of interracial marriage, Lynn. That really drives the case home that Loving and Perez were decisions that overruled a majority, but anti-same sex marriage groups won't condemn them.Josh Jasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08441897278413737658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-54598375131886470882008-06-19T08:25:00.000-07:002008-06-19T08:25:00.000-07:00"Then maybe there would have been no need for Lovi..."Then maybe there would have been no need for Loving v. Virginia, as the whole issue would have been resolved 20 years earlier."<BR/><BR/>I'd be surprised. Nationally, only 4% of Americans approved of interracial marriage in 1958, ten years after Perez v. Sharp. In theory, courts can still hold a law unconstitutional over that large a majority, but in practice, they generally don't make their changes that far ahead of social attitudes. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/Most-Americans-Approve-Interracial-Marriages.aspx) (Of course, even in 1968, most Americans disapproved of interracial marriage, but by that point Gallup reports 20% approval, there were probably more people who disapproved but weren't prepared to continue to outlaw it, and multiple state bans had dropped. So there was a trend in shifting attitudes that the court rode.) I think, given the chance to rule on interracial marriage, any federal court in 1948 would have tried really hard to find some reason not to take the case at all. Just as the Supreme Court rejected two attempts to take birth control laws to it, starting in 1943, first on grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing and then on grounds that the case wasn't ripe, before it finally accepted Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965.Lynn Gazis-Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16775215056055972392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-8946236689672530252008-06-19T08:08:00.000-07:002008-06-19T08:08:00.000-07:00Lynn: Using one case of judicial activism, Perez v...Lynn: Using one case of judicial activism, Perez v. Sharp, to justify other cases seems kind of a incestuous to me. My view is that Perez v. Sharp should have been decided in federal court as was Loving v. Virginia. Then maybe there would have been no need for Loving v. Virginia, as the whole issue would have been resolved 20 years earlier. This might have saved a lot of couples grief for those 20 years.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-42010722956664021562008-06-19T07:44:00.000-07:002008-06-19T07:44:00.000-07:00"Since, the issue affects the federal government a..."Since, the issue affects the federal government and other states it clearly should be decided at the federal level and based upon the U.S. constitution not the state constitution."<BR/><BR/>Clearly? How so? There's no precedent for saying the decision must be made that way; in fact, the precedent is the opposite. Marriage is mostly governed by the states in our system, and only bubbles up to the federal level rarely. Perez v. Sharp was decided nearly 20 years before Loving v. Virginia.<BR/><BR/>(On the other hand, the application of the Full Faith and Credit clause to these marriages isn't going to be a slam dunk, and they may still wind up not so portable and lacking in federal benefits for a while. They'll allow <I>more</I> rights and benefits in that regard than domestic partnerships, since they can automatically be ported to Massachusetts without special legislation, and since some other states - currently apparently including New York - will recognize them. But many states, in the near future, won't recognize other states' same-sex marriages for many purposes.)Lynn Gazis-Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16775215056055972392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-31345178545029806952008-06-19T06:20:00.000-07:002008-06-19T06:20:00.000-07:00Josh: I gave my opinion on judicial activism as a ...Josh: I gave my opinion on judicial activism as a practice. I didn't give an opinion on any particular case, because in general I don't have the information to make a personal decision as to whether any particular decision constitutes judicial activism. Having said that, your last post states the case against this decision in particular and gay marriage in general.very well. As you stated, while domestic partnership laws grant many rights to gay couples they don't grant federal tax benefits to these partnerships. They also don't need to be recognized across state lines. Since, the issue affects the federal government and other states it clearly should be decided at the federal level and based upon the U.S. constitution not the state constitution. Thus I am inclined toward considering this a case of judicial activism because the judge probably should have referred the case to the federal courts.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-9597091565415562332008-06-19T04:37:00.000-07:002008-06-19T04:37:00.000-07:00Marty: Josh: You are interpreting my aversion to j...Marty: <I>Josh: You are interpreting my aversion to judicial activism based on your own biases. The constitution overrides state's right to legislate. If a state law is unconstitutional then overthrowing the state law is not judicial activism, its enforcing the rules.</I><BR/><BR/>This was exactly what the court did in CA. The CA Supreme Court decided that a law prohibiting same sex marriage violated the constitution.<BR/><BR/>If you want to oppose activism in this case, you're going to need to make a study of exactly where in the CA state constitution a line was crossed. The judge who made the decision is pretty well educated on the issue.Josh Jasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07967224493245832241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-66803309044065566252008-06-19T04:30:00.000-07:002008-06-19T04:30:00.000-07:00Kukulkan:Steve takes pride in the fact that discus...Kukulkan:<BR/><BR/><I>Steve takes pride in the fact that discussions on this board are polite. Please keep that in mind. I also suggest you look at Cal. Family Code Sect ions 297 and 297.5. Pursuant to these statutes gays in a registered domestic partnership have precisely all of the same rights as married couples.</I><BR/><BR/>I could have said you were biased, that was the other option. And you're still not in possession of all the facts, and acting as if you were. You're reciting right wing talking points.<BR/><BR/>Full marriage rights means that couples who're married in other jurisdictions can move the CA, and that CA couples can move elsewhere and keep those rights. And there's a whole host of federal tax benefits that CA domestic partnerships don't grant.<BR/><BR/>Those are not the same rights. These are my dearest friends you're talking about as if they were petulant children trying to break something because their feelings are being hurt. <BR/><BR/>Steve made the main mistake you did, though more politely - he said that <I>Gays want to feel that their love is as deep and lasting, their partners as precious and irreplacable as those of straights</I><BR/><BR/>That's not the only thing. Rights are incredibly important. Framing it as feelings makes it easy to dismiss.Josh Jasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07967224493245832241noreply@blogger.com