The Daily Universe -- Defending Proposition 8

[Surfah]

You always say that. Clearly you do not appreciate weird senses of humor. Or maybe you're just normal, in which case,what are you doing on this board?

Validating normalcy.

[Green Monstah]

What's the position of the Anti-Prop 8 side? That marriage is a fundamental civil right or that it is not a fundamental civil right?

How is marriage a fundamental civil right?

[Jarid in Cedar]

I don't think you understand how these things work, Eddie Jones. You don't get to mention the words Mrs. Tim, Tim's Wife, Sister Tim, etc., without first having earned my friendship. You don't even get to THINK about Mrs. Tim without first earning my friendship. You may think that just because I joke about Mrs. Tim with others on the board, that it's all fair game, but it's not.



I agree that I'm not above being corrected, but what makes you think you're in a position to correct me? Do you what the word is for people who think it's their place to correct/change/influence people who don't want to be corrected/changed/influenced by them? It's "bully."

The irony of this sentence cyber-smacked me this evening.

[LA Ute]

I'M NOT SAYING IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME THING LA, I JUST THINK IT IS INTERESTING.

It is nothing if not interesting. Yes, I'm sick of it, but it is interesting.

[Tim]

The irony of this sentence cyber-smacked me this evening.

Hack!

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...&postcount=123

[UtahDan]

It is nothing if not interesting. Yes, I'm sick of it, but it is interesting.

I'm not sick of it at all. I think it is one of the the foremost moral issues of our time, though certainly in a different way than you do.

[LA Ute]

I'm not sick of it at all. I think it is one of the the foremost moral issues of our time, though certainly in a different way than you do.

[Flystripper]

I'm not sick of it at all. I think it is one of the the foremost moral issues of our time, though certainly in a different way than you do.

I agree.

[smokymountainrain]

I don't think you understand how these things work, Eddie Jones. You don't get to mention the words Mrs. Tim, Tim's Wife, Sister Tim, etc., without first having earned my friendship. You don't even get to THINK about Mrs. Tim without first earning my friendship. You may think that just because I joke about Mrs. Tim with others on the board, that it's all fair game, but it's not.

If serious, this has to be one of the most ridiculous paragraphs I've ever read on CUF - and that's saying something...I'm assuming I'm at about the same level as Eddie Jones in terms of not having "earned" Tim's friendship (hell, just typing that made me laugh),

Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife, Mrs. Tim, Sister Tim, Tim's Wife,

so there! <sticks tongue out at Tim>

[SoCalCoug]

SCG, you're a good man with whom I will probably never agree on this issue. I'll just say that the article was an op-ed that did make specific points in a pointed way, but calling it a "rant" is really a stretch. Also, whether it is proper for a trial court judge (or any court, at any level) to take on the responsibility of making sweeping decisions about social policy is a subject of legitimate debate. Nagel's point here is sound:



You may like Walker's opinion, but those who don't like it have intelligent reasons for doing so. That I even need to say that speaks volumes about the debate.

But isn't that what judges have been doing over the last 225 years? Making decisions about social policy?

I'm not saying those who don't like Walker's opinion don't have intelligent reasons - perhaps I'm using the term "rational" too loosely. I think the only rational reason for supporting Prop. 8 for LDS people is that the Prophet said so. I'm not saying it's a bad reason; I think it's a legitimate reason. But the problem I saw a lot of LDS Prop 8 supporters running into was purportedly relying on factual evidence of the harm gay marriage will cause to heterosexual marriage. But when you really look at the facts and circumstances that were pointed to, they all fell apart under scrutiny. In my opinion, they were all nothing but false propaganda.

You, as a lawyer, certainly know that if you base your argument on a faulty premise, it's going to fall apart.

This was the problem with the case - there was no actual evidence of any harm that would happen to marriage as a result of gay marriage, because it's purely a religious question. This is the sense where I mean there was no "rational" reason.

But I still think Nagel's article is more rant than anything, because it doesn't address the factual basis for the decision, whatsoever. It merely attacks it on the basis that Nagel disagrees with the result.

[SoCalCoug]

How is marriage a fundamental civil right?

You'll have to ask the Supreme Court that question - they're the ones who said it is: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)" (from Utah Dan's post).

[TheBYUGuy]

You'll have to ask the Supreme Court that question - they're the ones who said it is: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)" (from Utah Dan's post).

Can someone provide any more context behind that statement? I'd be interested to know what the SC was thinking there. Outside of linking reproduction to marriage (a stronger link in 1942 than it is now, right?), I don't see how it is fundamental to survival and existence of humanity.

[LA Ute]

Can someone provide any more context behind that statement? I'd be interested to know what the SC was thinking there. Outside of linking reproduction to marriage (a stronger link in 1942 than it is now, right?), I don't see how it is fundamental to survival and existence of humanity.

The most important thing to know is that those cases were all about marriage as historically defined, i.e., between a man and a woman.

[Non Sequitur]

The most important thing to know is that those cases were all about marriage is historically defined, i.e., between a man and a woman.

How was the right to vote historically defined before the 15th amendment? And before the 19th amendment?

[Portland Ute]

It wasn't the FP that got people to "mobilize," though, it was additional instructions provided by leaders at a lower level than the FP. The FP said nothing about standing on street corners, canvassing neighborhoods, setting up morality police patrols inside the wards to identify those who hadn't donated to the cause, nor taking all of one's savings and sinking it into the campaign (like my sister-in-law's parents did). Local leaders took general words from the FP and layered on much stricter instructions and adminitions.

I guess even adults like to use anecdotes in an attempt to further their arguments.