Prop 8 Unconstitutional

[Bubba1]

You're intellectually exhausting.[/quote]

Just curious, would you hire him to represent you in court?

[stebo0728]

You're intellectually exhausting.

Just curious, would you hire him to represent you in court?

Actually, yes I think I would.

[IBCoupe]

That's heartening. There's a future for me, after all!

[IBCoupe]

And I'm stealing that for my sig.

[stebo0728]

And I'm stealing that for my sig.

Steal away

Im going to re-ask this question because it seemed to slip right by everyone.

What rights of any of ours are being threatened by 2 men or 2 women deciding to marry? They are going to be together whether we like it or not, thats not the issue, saying no to marriage is not going to keep them apart. So what rights or liberties of yours are so threatened?

Trust me I am Fundamental Baptist so its a lump in the throat to ask such questions, but then we are not talking about religious court here, we are talking about legal court. Let the many religions handle homosexuals as they see fit, and government should not see fit to stick their nose into religion to instruct how they respond. But as far as the legal scene goes, whats the real harm?

I dont follow the "what about beasts, and multiples" logic, at least not completely. I think its a bit of an absurd leap, but then also, if youd have mentions in other discussions 20 years ago that we would be nationalizing banks and major corporations, people would have labeled them equally absurd. Still I dont think gay marriage is going to necessarily LEAD to the other things mentions, if we get there it will be under much sicker circumstances than just legalizing gay marriage Im afraid (no to label gay marriage sick, not my intention there).

The one thing tho that I am a bit concerned about, is the whole notion of hate crimes, and hate speech. Will there be a point in the future that religious scholars are brought up on charges of hate speech for teaching that homosexuality is wrong? Will people convicted of murder also be convicted of a "hate crime" because the victims were gay? I dont agree with hate crime legislation, although thats probably better served in another thread. But if there was any one concern, it would be this. But then that could happen whether gay marriage is allowed or not really, so perhaps a moot point.

[AZhitman]

^ Good stuff. I, too, oppose all hate crime designations (again, great topic for another thread)... but I wonder about the unintended consequences (if any) to a wholesale authorization and legal acceptance of gay marriage.

I'm fairly confident in my fellow man to "evolve" socially, so ultimately I think we'll all find common ground and this will be no different than women CEO's, no smoking in public buildings, and Blacks sharing a table with Whites at the local deli.

My Dad is 80. He says things on occasion that seem, to me, reprehensible. I have to remind myself that he's the product of another time, a time when things were much different, and that he's had a whole different set of experiences than I have. It's an interesting perspective.

[IBCoupe]

I'm not too concerned about the hate crime thing being applied in the way the way you're worried about. People can still freely say whatever they want about blacks without being convicted of anything. They can do the same about Jews. I see no reason to expect that anything would be different about gays in the event that bans on gay marriage are outlawed.

Usually, "hate crime" charges are tacked onto other criminal charges, and aren't a standalone charge.

Edit: I should say that I'm saying all of this based on personal belief arising from a passive research and interest in the issue; not on my legal training. I haven't done formal research to confirm this belief.

[stebo0728]

Hopefully, you are correct. But I know how slimy things seems to creep in through the "cracks". Usually unexpectedly.

[IBCoupe]

This is another one of those situations where there's nothing I can write to dissuade certain beliefs. Conspiracy theories and estimations that somehow, something might happen are things that can't be logically eliminated. I can't tell you for sure that the First Amendment will never be repealed. I can't tell you for sure that we won't see an entirely tyrannical government and martial law. All I can point out is that we have a number of checks against those things from happening, and that they are still in place.

I'd be a lousy employee at the Central Intuitive Angency.

[AZhitman]

Conspiracy theories and estimations that somehow, something might happen are things that can't be logically eliminated.

All I can point out is that we have a number of checks against those things from happening, and that they are still in place.

Kinda like in the case of SB1070.

[stebo0728]

Agreed, you cant really make policy based on what MAY happen. But making sure said checks and balances remain intact could certainly help (hint..hint..) and perhaps repealing legislation that has removed checks and balances that once existed (hint ... hint ...)

[IBCoupe]

Kinda like in the case of SB1070.

Exactly like it. There is literally nothing you can argue that will convince people that there won't be massive abuses, that Hispanics will be beleaguered in Arizona once the law went into effect. But those complaints started before the law went into effect.

That's why the Justice Department (and I) argue against SB1070 on grounds that are provable: it's a violation of the limitations of State governments (by virtue of it being an assigned task for the federal government) found in the Consitution. You don't need the law to go into effect to argue that - you just need the law's text.

Arguments about "disparate effect" or something similar under Civil Rights laws ultimately fail, if only logically, because the effects can't have been measured yet, and in the purely hypothetical realm, we can argue all kinds of things.

[stebo0728]

Whats catch 22 about the whole damn thing on SB1070, is even if it goes into effect, its doomed because im sorry, but most illegals there are mexicans, and when then numbers of checked and reported start coming in, theres no way its gonna not be latino heavy, then enters the "civil rights" mob.

[IBCoupe]

Whats catch 22 about the whole damn thing on SB1070, is even if it goes into effect, its doomed because im sorry, but most illegals there are mexicans, and when then numbers of checked and reported start coming in, theres no way its gonna not be latino heavy, then enters the "civil rights" mob.

Well, that's not a sure bet, either. A policy that has a disparate effect isn't necessarily receiving a death sentence. The Civil Rights Act had some checks built in that allowed for policies that had a real and demonstrable purpose, even if they created a racially disparate result.

[ADDirishboy]

That's why the Justice Department (and I) argue against SB1070 on grounds that are provable: it's a violation of the limitations of State governments (by virtue of it being an assigned task for the federal government) found in the Consitution. You don't need the law to go into effect to argue that - you just need the law's text.

Tell the feds to start doing their job and we won't need SB1070. Until then, VIVA LA 1070!

[IBCoupe]

Whether you need SB1070 is entirely immaterial to the discussion. It's whether Arizona had the Constitutional authority to legislate the issue of enforcement, and the extent of enforcement.

But you raise a different issue: the feds say that they're not enforcing the law to its fullest extent for a reason - they don't have limitless resources, and they do have bigger fish to fry. If Arizona starts enforcing the law where the federal government doesn't, the United States border no longer has one cohesive policy.

[stebo0728]

Whether you need SB1070 is entirely immaterial to the discussion. It's whether Arizona had the Constitutional authority to legislate the issue of enforcement, and the extent of enforcement.

But you raise a different issue: the feds say that they're not enforcing the law to its fullest extent for a reason - they don't have limitless resources, and they do have bigger fish to fry. If Arizona starts enforcing the law where the federal government doesn't, the United States border no longer has one cohesive policy.

Agreed on the face, but in actuality, if AZ enforces the law, the break in cohesion is not on the part of AZ, but rather on the part of the other states, or federal officials NOT enforcing the law.

[IBCoupe]

Agreed on the face, but in actuality, if AZ enforces the law, the break in cohesion is not on the part of AZ, but rather on the part of the other states, or federal officials NOT enforcing the law.

This would be true if it were the case that States simply didn't follow Federal direction. Arizona's regulating enforcement of Federal law by State statute. This might not be as big a problem if immigration and border defense weren't explicitly written into the Constitution as federal matters.

[ADDirishboy]

So the Feds admit to not doing their job to the fullest extent due to lack of resources. Why not allow AZ to help out? I'm really sick of all my crap being stolen. Hell, a Mexican guy tried to car jack me the other night. The Feds not doing their job due to lack of resources puts my life in further danger. We have our own rapists and murderers in America to deal with, we don't need Mexico's adding to that.

[IBCoupe]

I'm not saying it's solely a lack of resources. It's probably more so a prioritization - they don't care about migrant workers; they care about drug lords.

And tell me, the Mexican guy who tried to carjack you... was he an American citizen? Did you ask for papers? Are you sure he wasn't our own American carjacker?

[ADDirishboy]

71% of stolen vehicles that are recovered in AZ, TX, NM, CA, and NE were stolen by illegals. So statistically, yes. He was most likely Illegal.

But this thread isn't the place for this.