Important Prop. 8 Ruling Today

[Jacob]

Yikes. He sounds like Glenn Beck.

Help me out here, LA Ute. From the interview:



How does this constitute "changing the constitution"?

And what does he mean by "people are the final arbiter of the law"?

It almost sounds as if he believes that the judiciary should never rule on constitutionality of a law passed by a majority. In spite of his rhetoric, I can't help but wonder who is really on the side of the constitution here.

I have a hard time believing that you don't understand how someone might think this constitutes a change in the constitution. He said nothing about the supreme court never taking on the constitutionality of a law. Quite the contrary, he's said many times that different laws or policies are unconstitutional. So here you go putting your worst possible spin on what someone says and setting up straw men.

If you were honestly confused as to how Mitt Romney might think this is a change in the constitution rather than an interpretation of its text, I would respond very simply:

The constitution doesn't mention gays or gay marriage.
The constitution has never been thought of to include anything like a right to gay marriage.
Nobody who wrote or voted on any of the language in the constitution could have ever imagined that a judge would issue a ruling declaring that it requires gay marriage.
Supreme court justices have said in dictum that gay marriage is clearly not required by the constitution.
Now a judge has said that the constitution requires gay marriage.
History is erased. Language is meaningless. The constitution is changed.

[TripletDaddy]

I have a hard time believing that you don't understand how someone might think this constitutes a change in the constitution. He said nothing about the supreme court never taking on the constitutionality of a law. Quite the contrary, he's said many times that different laws or policies are unconstitutional. So here you go putting your worst possible spin on what someone says and setting up straw men.

If you were honestly confused as to how Mitt Romney might think this is a change in the constitution rather than an interpretation of its text, I would respond very simply:

The constitution doesn't mention gays or gay marriage.
The constitution has never been thought of to include anything like a right to gay marriage.
Nobody who wrote or voted on any of the language in the constitution could have ever imagined that a judge would issue a ruling declaring that it requires gay marriage.
Supreme court justices have said in dictum that gay marriage is clearly not required by the constitution.
Now a judge has said that the constitution requires gay marriage.
History is erased. Language is meaningless. The constitution is changed.

Clearly this statement is wrong, as there are many that do think that the Constitution does include such.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I have a hard time believing that you don't understand how someone might think this constitutes a change in the constitution. He said nothing about the supreme court never taking on the constitutionality of a law. Quite the contrary, he's said many times that different laws or policies are unconstitutional. So here you go putting your worst possible spin on what someone says and setting up straw men.

Irony alert.

If you were honestly confused as to how Mitt Romney might think this is a change in the constitution rather than an interpretation of its text, I would respond very simply:

The constitution doesn't mention gays or gay marriage.
The constitution has never been thought of to include anything like a right to gay marriage.
Nobody who wrote or voted on any of the language in the constitution could have ever imagined that a judge would issue a ruling declaring that it requires gay marriage.
Supreme court justices have said in dictum that gay marriage is clearly not required by the constitution.
Now a judge has said that the constitution requires gay marriage.
History is erased. Language is meaningless. The constitution is changed.

And I would respond by saying that this is an extremely nutty view of the constitution.

Of course the constitution doesn't explicitly spell out each and every case or issue that may arise over time. But the constitution clearly spells out certain foundational principles (equal protection for example) and provides a pattern and a mechanism for how to address new issues as they arise. I have seen zero convincing evidence that the processes spelled out in the constitution have been violated in this case.

[Jacob]

Funny.

But I would say that people for Prop 8 are against reason and common sense.

I'm still trying to figure out what motivates anti gay marriage people other than "gay sex is gross and I want to pretend it doesn't happen" type of thinking.

Why do people on your side seem to have such a hard time understanding what might motivate the other side while the other side has no trouble stepping into your shoes to understand your motivations, which we on the other side largely agree are legitimate and even good or honorable?

It must be because we on the other side are irrational bigots.

[Jacob]

Irony alert.



And I would respond by saying that this is an extremely nutty view of the constitution.

Of course the constitution doesn't explicitly spell out each and every case or issue that may arise over time. But the constitution clearly spells out certain foundational principles (equal protection for example) and provides a pattern and a mechanism for how to address new issues as they arise. I have seen zero convincing evidence that the processes spelled out in the constitution have been violated in this case.

What is nutty to you is normal for about half of our federal judiciary. You think my view is nutty, I think yours is. But you never actually state your view. You just enjoy criticizing mine.

Also, where's the straw men I've been setting up?

[Jeff Lebowski]

What is nutty to you is normal for about half of our federal judiciary. You think my view is nutty, I think yours is. But you never actually state your view. You just enjoy criticizing mine.

You poor thing. I didn't realize that my questions to LA Ute about Mitt's comments were in fact a criticism of you.

[Jacob]

You poor thing. I didn't realize that my questions to LA Ute about Mitt's comments were in fact a criticism of you.

You have serious comprehension problems. You enjoy diverting and not responding, especially when it allows you to be condescending. Enjoy.

[woot]

Why do people on your side seem to have such a hard time understanding what might motivate the other side while the other side has no trouble stepping into your shoes to understand your motivations, which we on the other side largely agree are legitimate and even good or honorable?

It must be because we on the other side are irrational bigots.

I don't like to believe that the other side are just irrational bigots, because it makes me feel like an extremist. I would seriously love it, therefore, if somebody would present a coherent case.

[Viking]

Why do people on your side seem to have such a hard time understanding what might motivate the other side while the other side has no trouble stepping into your shoes to understand your motivations, which we on the other side largely agree are legitimate and even good or honorable?

It must be because we on the other side are irrational bigots.

NO, we just think you are un-American.

[woot]

Also, and just for informational purposes, santorum is not unique to homosexual relationships. All you folk grossing out about it are clearly not exploring all your options.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You have serious comprehension problems. You enjoy diverting and not responding, especially when it allows you to be condescending. Enjoy.

Ah geez...

[Flystripper]

Also, and just for informational purposes, santorum is not unique to homosexual relationships. All you folk grossing out about it are clearly not exploring all your options.

[YOUTUBE]zXZT_6Nbq-Q[/YOUTUBE]

[Jacob]

I don't like to believe that the other side are just irrational bigots, because it makes me feel like an extremist. I would seriously love it, therefore, if somebody would present a coherent case.

And lots of us would like to see a coherent case for your side.
Look around. The case has been made. You may not buy it. But even more people don't buy yours. (I'm not saying that the popularity of an argument is evidence of its coherence).

[All-American]

I don't like to believe that the other side are just irrational bigots, because it makes me feel like an extremist. I would seriously love it, therefore, if somebody would present a coherent case.

Have you read the dissent in the case? Probably a good place to start.

[woot]

And lots of us would like to see a coherent case for your side.
Look around. The case has been made. You may not buy it. But even more people don't buy yours. (I'm not saying that the popularity of an argument is evidence of its coherence).

The case for equal rights isn't a hard one to make, or a hard one to understand. The case against equal rights seems to be based on a narrow reading of 250 year-old document that doesn't actually talk about the matter at hand, but does talk about the importance of equal rights. If that's all you've got, it's really easy to assume that the view is born of irrationality, and that the constitution simply makes for a convenient shield to hide behind. This is particularly true of people like Santorum, who has said he's going to try to turn his nutty religious morality into law.

I'm sure there really are many people who consider the constitution to support their side. What I don't think it's possible for any reasonable person to believe, however, is that the quickly-shrinking side that is against gay marriage hold their beliefs because of their constitutional interpretation rather than for explicitly irrational reasons. To say that most people share your view for similar reasons is 100% bullshit. They share your view because of religious indoctrination, unquestioned adherence to primitive instincts, party brainwashing, or some other form of irrationality.