tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post2195866314154054413..comments2024-02-29T02:10:56.878-08:00Comments on J O S H U A P U N D I T: A Few Words On The DOMA And Prop 8 Supreme Court DecisionsFreedom Fighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-64821547732163115452013-06-27T12:01:32.541-07:002013-06-27T12:01:32.541-07:00Okay.
BTW, I'm surprised that the opposition ...Okay.<br /><br />BTW, I'm surprised that the opposition would want these particular Jews to recuse themselves.<br /><br />IMO Breyer, Kagen and Ruth Bader Ginsberg would definitely vote against Israel and Jerusalem receiving equal treatment.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13332213651195340500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-74941795372395502762013-06-27T11:54:25.963-07:002013-06-27T11:54:25.963-07:00Hi Rob,
Actually the reference to the Jerusalem p...Hi Rob,<br /><br />Actually the reference to the Jerusalem passport case was because some in the opposition to putting Jerusalem, Israel on the passport, actually said that the fact that three of the justices are Jewish would influence their legal decision. Even as it is a power-fight between Congress and the executive branch, personal feelings can and do influence court decisions all the time. For the same reason that so many tried to have Justice Thomas recused from the Obamacare decision since his wife ran a PAC dedicated to it being overthrown.<br /><br />I generally never have an issue with how the majority of voters vote. It's how we have elections. But when a law is unconstitutional then I have a problem with it whether it was through the legislative process by referendum. Remember the laws forbidding interracial marriages were also passed by legislatures, as are all laws. <br /><br />I suppose it comes down to the fact that I do not trust the majority of the country to actually always do what is right. I always remember the admonition that everything that Hitler did was legal in Germany. So I have no problem with the right of judicial review by the Supreme Court.<br /><br />As far as those of us who chicken out in debating you on same-sex marriage. As I wrote, I know how I feel, I know what I believe to be the law. But I do not consider myself expert enough to actually debate in any other style than here on your blog.<br /><br />As far as the agenda of gay rights activists...they can have any agenda they want. The law will either support them or not. I also cannot define what I believe equal protection to be by what some particular group stands for or doesn't stand for. To me its all and only about the Constitution.<br /><br />I suppose in many regards I see equal protection or equal rights as farther reaching than the issue of same sex marriage. It is the idea of the "other" in society being sidelined or shunted aside. Read my latest post at my autism blog and you will see what I mean.<br /><br />http://asd2mom.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-is-it-that-people-dont-get-about.html<br /><br />Take care,<br /><br />EliseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-67542326028075488962013-06-27T10:49:40.946-07:002013-06-27T10:49:40.946-07:00Hi Elise,
No problem with agreeing to disagree. Bu...Hi Elise,<br />No problem with agreeing to disagree. But if I may interject...<br /><br />The tax issues involved in the part of DOMA that was rescinded (a decision I agree with, BTW)mostly do not concern state issues but Federal ones.<br /><br />These could have been fixed with a simple amendment by Congress, but that solution was continuously torpedoed by gay marriage advocates in Congress. <br /><br />Again, ask any gay person of your acquaintance who rabidly favors legalized same sex marriage on the grounds of 'equal rights' if they would be satisfied with law that establishes every one of those rights they claim they want with same sex marriage but legally refers to them as civil unions instead of marriages.<br /><br />They'll almost always say no.<br /><br />Obviously the agenda was quite different than simply 'equal rights'.<br /><br />States cannot 'get out of the marriage business' because of the Full Faith and Credit doctrine all states honor. It's why your driver's license is good in all fifty states, at least for a certain time period (which differs in each one). The SCOTUS just damaged this concept by failing to rule definitively.<br /><br />As for Vaughn Walker, he was a public and open homosexual and advocate for gay marriage. A judge with any integrity would have recused himself. As for your example of the "Jerusalem Passport" case, that is not a Constitutional matter of religion or pro-Israel sentiments but a matter of the legislative branch's authority versus the executive, and whether Israel as a sovereign nation is singled out for discriminatory treatment meted out to no other country by the State Department (and yes, it is).<br /><br />If a majority of people in Maryland like the idea of gay marriage and vote for it, I'm fine with that. Why are you so unwilling to honor the wishes of the majority just because it conflicts with <i>your</i> personal views?<br /><br />BTW, there are a number of big picture reasons why same sex marriage as opposed to legal civil unions is an incredibly bad idea for society that has nothing to do with religion. (Hah, read your mind !)<br /><br />Believe it or not, I've been approached three times to debate this subject online and in every case the 'pro' side canceled out.<br /><br />That in itself says something.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Rob<br /><br /><br />Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13332213651195340500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-39247855937501648522013-06-27T10:21:43.263-07:002013-06-27T10:21:43.263-07:00Hi Rob,
Suffice it to say we are going to have to...Hi Rob,<br /><br />Suffice it to say we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. On this issue I of course agree with Constitutional authority, former solicitor general and conservative Ted Olson.<br /><br />The issue as I see it is that once the state gets to define what is marriage along with tax incentives to go along with that, then it becomes a Constitutional issue. It's disallowing tax benefit to a particular group of people. It's why the DOMA case actually came about in the first place. If governments (State Action) got out of the marriage business there would be no equal protection issue.<br /><br />Now as far as California. That of course is the ninth circuit and they tend to do what they want to regardless of the Constitution anyway. I would say that all politics is about money and who to cajole into giving you big bucks. That is afterall what Lobbying is all about too. However, again, if the State didn't stick itself into the middle of the marriage debate (taxes and other marital benefits given by a State) in the first place, none of this would be an issue.<br /><br />Again though, "mob rule" is synonymous with majority rule whether its constitutional or not. To also say that a Left-wing or openly gay judge shouldn't have ruled on the law is not fair of you. That is like saying the Jews and anyone else who might be considered pro-Israel on the Supreme Court should have recused themselves before they ruled on the "Jerusalem passport" case.<br /><br />EliseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-50478745058710941512013-06-27T08:02:28.098-07:002013-06-27T08:02:28.098-07:00Hello Elise,
I had a feeling you'd weigh in he...Hello Elise,<br />I had a feeling you'd weigh in here ; )<br /><br />Unfortunately like many opinions about this matter it's a thoroughly false argument.<br /><br />There is no right to same sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution. If the people of California voted to, say, evict all Jews from the state the Constitution would come into play and the law would be DOA.<br /><br />The US Constitution supersedes state ones.<br /><br />OTOH, if they voted to mandate voter ID's, that would be fine and their right under the Constitution as a sovereign state.That's why the SCOTUS punted.<br /><br />So we're not talking 'mob rule' here, but representative democracy that was suppressed by one openly gay and activist judge who should have recused himself and several Left wing state officials trolling for votes and campaign $$ who were derelict in their sworn duty towards the people whom elected them.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Rob<br /><br />Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13332213651195340500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-69946959780408089632013-06-27T06:22:32.405-07:002013-06-27T06:22:32.405-07:00Hi Rob,
I would remind you and everyone else, tha...Hi Rob,<br /><br />I would remind you and everyone else, that simply because a majority of people like a law or pass a referendum does not make it Constitutional.The majority of people may believe XYZ, but that does not mean it does not disenfranchise a minority of persons, hence the unconstitutionality of the law. The job of SCOTUS is to review the laws passed when appropriate and render the judgement on their Constitutionality. Rule by mob mentality is not what this democracy is all about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-21058953365238207402013-06-26T15:54:30.602-07:002013-06-26T15:54:30.602-07:00In DOMA; SCOTUS has ruled that Congress may NOT de...In DOMA; SCOTUS has ruled that Congress may NOT deny federal benefits to married gay couples in states that have already legalized gay marriage. Nor can Congress limit a state’s intent to give gay marriage the same legal standing as heterosexual marriage.<br /><br />I’m not sure that I have a basis in logic to disagree with this, at least as a states rights issue. Especially if a state has legalized gay marriage through a vote of the people.<br /><br />Now that DOMA has been struck down, the question of whether a state that has NOT legalized gay marriage MUST recognize same-sex marriages from a state that HAS legalized gay marriage arises anew. I can’t recall this issue having been directly addressed if, as has now happened, DOMA is struck down. Does Texas now HAVE to recognize Massachusetts’ legalized gay marriages? What happens when a married same-sex couple moves to a non-SSM state?<br /><br />What about the military when it transfers a gay couple who were legally married in Mass. to Texas?<br /><br />Then there’s the issue of plural marriage, which of course includes polygamy.<br /><br />Here’s Justice Kennedy’s reasoning in writing the majority opinion that strikes down DOMA:<br /><br />“…imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom <b>same-sex couples</b> interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others.<br /><br />The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others.” (my emphasis)<br /><br />Just substitute ‘plural marriage groups’ or ‘polygamous arrangements’ for the emboldened “same-sex couples” wording. Leave every other word intact and show me how the same reasoning does not apply in arguing against the two-person limitation upon ‘marriage’. By that reasoning, to ‘outlaw’ plural and polygamous marriages is inescapably unconstitutional discrimination.<br /><br />In Prop. 8, the SCOTUS has ruled that an activist judge and liberal/leftist state officials <i>or the same configuration at the federal level</i> can deny the people standing for redress of grievances, with the people effectively having no right of appeal. This way lies tyranny.<br /><br />None of this is surprising, just more examples of the left’s machinations; “Their goal is to dismantle capitalism, <b>one brick at a time</b>, and for them to become the new nomenklatura in a social democratic state.” FredHJr<br /><br />I would broaden Fred’s comment, their goal is not merely the dismantling of capitalism but the dismantling of the entire social foundations of American society.Geoffrey Britainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01663224962346593872noreply@blogger.com