Activist Judges

Talk about a buzz word!  The phrase 'activist judges' is a real hoot!  The judges are not activist, they are just political appointees who act as their own independent legislature.  The issue is not that a judge is 'activist' it is that the judges are political.  There was once a time when the judiciary was far less influenced by politics, there were few published decisions that one could read and truly see an expression of opinion not law.  When those cases happened, Law Review articles bloomed and a public outcry ensued.  Today the fact is that laws are being created and written by members of the judiciary not elected legislators.

Only members of the MSM like Howard Kurtz, and liberals who can't win an election (so have no other way to pass legislation they like), appreciate what is happening today in the judiciary.  Kurtz, who stopped being coherent long ago, appears to have skipped his eighth grade civics classes.  He writes in response to Jonah Goldberg's column:

"But aren't judges supposed to be independent? And wasn't it Republicans who stepped in when judges in the Schiavo case ruled in "flagrant defiance" of what DeLay and company wanted?"

Lets help the guy out just a bit...it is legislatures that write laws.  Repeat after me Howard...

"I'm just a bill,
yes, I'm only a bill,
and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill,
Well, it's a long, long journey
to the Capitol City,
It's a long, long wait
while I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law someday,
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I'm still just a bill.

I'm just a bill,
yes I'm only a bill,
and I got as far as Capitol Hill.
Well now I'm stuck in committee
and I sit here and wait
While a few key congressmen
discuss and debate
whether they should
let me be a law,
how I hope and pray that they will,
but today I am still just a bill.

I'm just a bill,
yes I'm only a bill,
and if they vote for me on Capitol Hill,
well then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
with a lot of other bills
For the president to sign.
And if he signs me then I'll be a law.
How I hope and pray that he will,
but today I am still just a bill. (Spoken:)
Congressman: He signed you, Bill! Now you're a law!

Now Howard should at least remember this song...it was from the famous Saturday morning cartoon series School House Rock.  No person Howard's age can not remember that famous series.  We all watched it.

Notice that the bill is on Capitol Hill...where the legislature meets.  This is because our constitution divides the power to create laws between two branches of government, the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch.  At no point does the Judicial Branch have the ability to create laws...unless a judge decides that he or she doesn't like the law...

Today that poor bill that wants to be a law can just skip Capitol Hill altogether and go directly to a special interest group who will file a lawsuit.  Then the bill works its way through the courts until an activist judge 'interprets' the existing law to include the bill.  That is how Bills become laws today.  It is a surrogate legislative process.

Take the question of whether a State can allow the execution of juveniles.  Regardless of what you think of the issue, it is awfully hard not to acknowledge that the practice was 'legal' and 'constitutional' in this country for many years.  That said, if the public does not like it anymore, the way to change it is by passing a law through the Legislative Branch, not re-interpreting the Constitution to decide if it is 'unconstitutional'.  But what do you do if you don't like the law, but can't win enough seats in the legislature to pass a different law?  You use the surrogate legislative process.  This case presented such a naked judicial power grab that is was nothing short of shocking.

The Supreme Court had previously decided that juveniles could be executed for their crimes.  They just recently decided that no, that practice was unconstitutional.  What changed?  Simple answer, Justice Kennedy changed his mind.  He justified his change of mind by pointing to 'international law' and the fact that 5 states had passed laws since their previous decision, changing the law in those states to no longer permit the execution of juveniles.  That brought the total number of States to...19.  50 from 19 is 31.  31 states permitted the execution of juveniles.  Almost a 2/3rds supra-majority.  No matter, Justice Kennedy disagreed with the citizens of those states and he is the only person who matters.

Now I do not support the execution of juveniles, but I am profoundly disturbed by this decision.  It is clear that when an elected body pass a law, the people have the ability to hold them accountable for it.  That is the very essense of Democracy.  If the people do not like a particular law, they can vote in politicians who say they will do something about it.  We can do almost nothing to hold a Judge accountable for 'passing a law' in the guise of a legal decision.  When laws are passed by a non-elected officials, that form of government is known as an Autocratic government.  When those officials are guided by religious beliefs, it is called a Theocracy.  The United States is only partially a Democratic government today, we have a shadow version of governing that is Theocratic in nature.  We are becoming almost exactly like Iran in the way our government actually functions.

While we are supposed to have an 'independent judiciary' like Howard Kurtz wrote, it is not supposed to be an independent Legislature empowered to re-write laws the judge does not care for based upon his or her own religious beliefs.  Howard ought to be honest enough not to cheer-lead the kind of flawed judicial reasoning that created the constitutional decision in that case.  He is not going to like where this form of government is leading.  Let's look at the Schiavo case...

The Schiavo case is a clear example of a judge who decided that he could use his position as an appointed Judge, to thwart the rather clear and obvious will of the elected Legislature.  I am not certain that I agree with the law which was passed by Congress, but an elected body representing the citizens of this country passed a law, the intent of which was clear.  It was a single judge who abused his power to interpret that law in a deliberate effort to frustrate the intent of Congress.  That on its face is an abuse of judicial power.  Liberals should not be cheering this on...if this practice is adopted by conservatives, it is going places liberals are not going to like.

This is not hard to comprehend...unfortunately for Howard Kurtz and his liberal buddies, the next law which gets interpreted may be something he doesn't like.  You can bet that Howard and all his liberal buddies will start wringing their hands over the political nature of the decision.  The amnesia that sets in about how easy it was to approve of the Schiavo and the Juvenile death penalty cases will allow them to decry the same behavior they support today.

The truth is that this is all about a generation that has become 'the establishment'.  This new establishment is represented by the baby boomers and every generation that has come after them has been more conservative.  Every one.  Through the Roe effect, (liberals practicing abortion, 3 million liberals aborted) and the growing wealth of minorities; the country is becoming more conservative every year.  This aging liberal establishment, specifically in education and politics, has turned off the young people (establishments tend to do that) and are watching their influence wane.

Wiser pundits might be able to recognize the long term impact cheering on the politicization of the Judiciary is going to have.  Howard Kurtz is not showing himself to be a very wise pundit.  Sadly, he is not alone.

Comments

[blogsy mcblog]

Carol, if you are asking whether I support stoning, the answer is no. I personally do not support any form of capital or corporal punishment. However, if you are asking me whether the standards of the "cruel and unusual" punishment portion of the 8th Amendment should be modified to a limited extend to reflect world opinion, then my answer is yes. My answer is "yes" because the established precedent for interpreting the 8th Amendment has incorporated the opinion of representative democracies for many years, and I do not beleive in mindlessly abrogating established standards.

Mr. Hamilton, you should read a judicial opinion before you spout off about a judicial opinion. Much has changed after the previous case that allowed juvenille execution. Several states changed their laws, and many countries explicitly condemned the practice.

[Kevin B.]

Bloggy,

You defense of same-sex marriage implying bigotry on those who oppose it applies equally to prohibitions on polygamous and incestual marriage.
Mahatma may disagree with me on this, but in terms of Equal Protection and same-sex marriage, I don't see how a state has any compelling interest in precluding polygamous or incestual marriages that it lacks in precluding same-sex marriage. In other words, if you're going you use Equal Protection as a precedence or foundation for ruling IN same-sex marriages, you can't logically or consistantly rule OUT other types of consentual adult marriage relationships.

And actually, polygamous and incestual marriages change the nature of marriage less than same-sex marriage. The only difference between traditional marriage and polygamous marriage is that one person could potentially be married to more than one member of the opposite sex simultaneously. Still consentual adults, still marrying the member of the opposite sex of one's choice. And it's not like you have to look hard to find proponents of polygamous marriage, they are in the news all the time. Likewise, incestual marriages would feature consenting adults marrying a member of the opposite sex of their choice, they just happen to choose cousins, fraternal twins, etc.
So how does one decide? Does the opinion of an unelected judge (or panel of them) really represent the opinion of the majority of Americans simply by exercising their opinion on which type of marriage they personally view as more acceptable than others?

This sounds frighteningly like a Theocracy to me (or in the case of liberal agenda judges, an Atheocracy.)

Loving v. Virginia was a ruling that struck down a law that precluded interracial marriage in the state and punished those who left the state to get married, upon their return. However, permitting a heterosexual couple to marry the member of the opposite sex of their choice without regard to skin color does not fundamentally change the foundation of marriage.
It's still a man and woman. They must still be of legal age to marry, cannot be married to anyone else, and cannot be closely related.

In addition, there was already a constitutional amendment (14th) in place which was intended to protect the rights of Americans regardless of race. Loving v. Virginia simply affirmed that constitutional rule and struck down a state law which was not in harmony with the constitution.

There is no constitutional amendment in place regarding same-sex marriage, so any judicial ruling to that effect is striking new ground in law, i.e. creating judicial legislation without representation. States which HAVE enacted democratic laws originating from a political process of engaged voters have all sided FOR traditional marriage of one man and one woman. What does that tell you?

[Dan Hamilton]

The judges in Schiavo. If they followed the plain written language of the law, I have no problem with them. The question is 'Did they?'. From what I have heard you are correct the law said that the judges were to review the case not retry it.

But is there any evidence that the judges did indeed review the case?

Did they ask for and receive transcripts, copies of rulings, other paperwork on the cases? If they did great. If they didn't? If they just decided that they knew enough already and wrote out their decision. If that is the case. Don't you have a problem with that?

blogsy mcblog
You still refuse to see the problem. Just like everyone on the Left. You can nit pick. Bury your head in the sand. Make happy faces everytime the Left wins in the courts what it could never win in the legislature. You, like the Left, will wake up some day and wonder what happened.

When you are thrown into jail because you burned a flag in protest. The SC decided 5/4 that Flag Burning was a Federal felony.

Abortion at any time is murder. The SC decided 5/4 that a fetus has all rights, from conception on. Abortion is murder by the doctor, the woman and anyone else involved.

That gays are not protected in any way. The SC decided 5/4 that being gay is totally a lifestyle choise and thus not protected any more than being a Democrat is protected.

Activist Judges from the Right. And they would have the majority BEHIND THEM. The decisions don't even stretch the law. In the abortion case, the law isn't stretched it at all. The SC defined the fetus as not having rights. The SC can define the fetus as HAVING rights. And the States can't change it. It would require a SC change to redefine it again or a Constitutional Amendment(Like that could ever pass).

THINK ABOUT IT. There is a PROBLEM. The Right is fighting the problem. Once they stop fighting and join the problem. The Left loses BIG and FAST. The Left will have NOWHERE to turn. Nothing they can do. Remember the Left doesn't like violence and does it really really badly.

Fight the problem NOW, while words and votes can solve it.

But you will not listen. The Left will not listen. They will just yell as they are dragged off to jail.

'See I TOLD you that the US was a police state'.

Only because OF THE LEFT and their BLIND stupidity.

Thank you, Mahatma.
Keep up the good work. Maybe, just maybe enough people will listen.

[blogsy mcblog]

Kevin, your defense of bigotry is barely comprehensible. You don't support any of the points that you make. I could say that polygamy is a further stretch from the traditional definition of marriage than same-sex marriages because the traditional notion (in the West) incorporates the notion of simultaneous monoganimity between two people much more heavily than the notion of heterosexuality. (If you would like articles about this, read Prfoessor David Chambers pieces "Couples: Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership" or "What If? The Legal Consequences of Marriage and the Legal Needs of Lesbian and Gay Male Couples" 95 Mich. L. Rev. 447; they contain much more substantive, empirical discussion of the history and ramifications of extending marriage to everyone).

You completely misunderstand my point about Loving. Carol argued that a state banning same sex marriage still gives everyone equal rights; everyone has an equal right to marry someone from the opposite sex. The same is true in a state banning interracial marriage; everyone can marry a person of the opposite sex who is of the same race. Why are the two different? Of course, banning same-sex marriage does violate the 14th amendment; it disporportionately affects homosexual people. When a statute disporportionately affects a group, and the group can show an intent to discriminate, the statute violates the fourteenth amendment (unless it meets strict scrutiny). It isn't difficult whatsoever to simply re-publish the odious things Republican state legislators say in defense of such acts to show an intent to discriminate against homosexuals. Now, one could argue that homosexual people are not a protected class under the fourteenth amendment, but that rests on incredibly weak legal ground.

[blogsy mcblog]

Dan, you seem confused in your post. The Supreme Court cannot decide that flag burning is a federal felony. Congress has to pass a law prohibiting flag burning, and the Supreme Court would have to say that the statute does not violate the First Amendment. Your proposal to eliminate judicial review would simply remove one more obstacle to the prohibition of flag burning. The same is true with abortion; the Courts act as a restraint on the legislature, not an accelerator. If there were no judicial review, do you think that abortion would be legal, or considered murder? How many minutes would it take for the Republican dominated US Congress to create a federal law banning it? Twenty? Thrity?

[Dan Hamilton]

I would like to let it go by but.

blogsy mcblog, yet again. What are you talking about???
I NEVER said ANYTHING about eliminating judicial review!

Yes the Congress would have to pass the Law about Flag Burning. If the SC signalled they would go along with it how long do you believe THAT would take?

As to abortion. The SC did not act as 'a restraint on the legislature'. The States were moving SLOWLY in the direction of allowing abortions. The SC decided to speed up the process and took it away from the legislatures and moved it into the courts. What the SC givith the SC can take away. The legislature can't now. All the SC has to do is decide that a fetus is a PERSON and has full rights. Abortion then becomes murder. If the SC wants to they could find a case in about 5 minutes to set up the finding they wanted to make.

There must ALWAYS be judicial review. Review based on the plain language of the Constitution, laws, and precedent. Reviewed by using legal reasoning as free of personal beliefs as possible.

That is NOT happening today. To many times judges are deciding cases based on their beliefs, what they WANT to be true, what they can stretch the law to mean. This is almost always on the Left. Your refusal to acknowledge the problem shows willful blindness.

Please stop changing the meaning of what I have said in plain language. I know that is what activist judges do. You must be practicing. Please don't. Disagree with what I say, don't change it or make something up.

Sorry, I forgot. You aren't a Republician anymore. You can't help yourself. You are of the Left. Anything to win, no matter what.

blogsy mcblog. You ARE RIGHT. Everything is fine. There is NO problem with 'activist judges'. The Left will ALWAYS win in the courts. The activist judges will ALWAYS be from the Left. You WIN. Aren't you happy?

Thanks again Mahatma.

[Kevin B.]

Sorry to confuse you, Blogsy. In future addresses to yourself (not counting this one) I will attempt to constrain myself to as many monosylabic words and single-phrase sentences as possible.
Or perhaps you simply meant that you choose not to comprehend a position with which you disagree so as to avoid addressing the points of that position, lest you run the risk of conceding any potential merit to them.

(Forgive me if that strikes you as rude, I have attempted to refrain myself from going quite so far from my manners as to-- for example-- imply bigotry in or impugn the intelligence of one with whom I disagree.)

That you disagree with my position on the irrelevancy of Loving v. Virginia in the application of structuring marriages in a manner which has not been previously applied in the U.S. (having no historical or cultural precedence) until it was foisted upon Americans by activist judges without a democratic vote, does not necessarily mean that I misunderstood your purpose in invoking the ruling.
I do understand that invoking such a ruling attempts to equate an involuntary circumstance such as race with a chosen behavior such as sexual preference where no direct equivilence exists.

Granted, the Constitution does still presumably afford protection towards selected chosen behaviors such as one's religion (much to the chagrin of the ACLU) but even then, it does in specific instances dictate the expression of that religion in the "best interest of society"-- even to the point of prohibiting polygamous marriages, which DOES have a historical and cultural precedence, and much stronger than any which same-sex marriage proponents could ever attempt to muster. (For the record, I have proposed to the one and only girl to whom I intend to be forever married; I have no personal interest in seeing polygamous marriages legally reinstated in the US. And no, I am not related to her, either.)

So yes, I fully understood the point and called B.S. on it. Much more tactfully then than I have now, but whatever.

Also, I noticed you chose to avoid addressing my question as to who should decide which types of marriage are permissable: an unelected, unaccountable judge, or a democratic process which involves a majority opinion by the American people.
I know which method liberals prefer, the highly-financed backdoor lawsuit method which requires no approval by an American majority (because they know it would be rejected.)
Hence my point in referencing the democratic state laws all thus far supporting the traditional definition of marriage.

On the other hand, on the basis of equal protection, I find it reasonable and consistant to recognize civil contracts which would support the extention of legal benefits to whomever one chooses in financial, medical and guardianship issues. But that's not a marriage issue.

[Peter Konefal]

You guys all know I am quite liberal in my views, so excuse me for saying this, but blogsy - it is very refreshing to hear your argumentation. This whole line of argument has been fascinating to read, because I have bumped up against very similar arguments in the past, and, due to my own laziness or from a lack of coherent responses, the discussion occasionally doesn't get to far (but often it does, and all parties deserve credit!).

It is difficult to disagree vehemently with ideas without impugning the person spouting those ideas.

So I think, for all those concerned, the following statement is key:

"Kevin, your defense of bigotry is barely comprehensible."

This may sound offensive to Kevin, but this statement is actually quite good because it attacks that which Kevin wrote, and not Kevin himself.

This is what keeps the discussion civil (its hard sometimes I know)...good work.

[Carol]

Blogsy,

First, I am not arguing the Schiavo case with you. I’ll leave that to the amply qualified Mahatma.

Secondly, not having a law background I am unaware of the cases you refer to, except for the juvenile execution case, where world opinion is considered an acceptable basis for measuring the constitutionality of U.S. law. But since you support it, let me ask you this. What happens when world opinion is in conflict with trends in this country? Let’s look at the example of stoning as a form of legal execution. The reason I picked that example is because it is not an accepted practice in this country. For a judge to find that stoning in the U.S. would not be cruel and unusual, due to its acceptance around the world (hypothetically), would be to allow world opinion to supercede the opinions of the American people in ruling on U.S. law. I fail to see how that could be acceptable to any American.

Finally, pulling the bigotry card on those you disagree with is probably the oldest, lamest trick in the book and completely unjustified in this case. It’s not a matter of whether I personally agree or disagree with same-sex marriage. The issue is whether or not the Constitution can be construed as allowing it under the umbrella of equal protection. I’m out of time. Thanks for the debate.

[blogsy mcblog]

Kevin, the desire to invalidate an entire group of people for no legitimate reason other than their group status is bigotry. I will continue to state that you defend and support bigotry. It is not necessarily an attack against your intelligence.

Congratulations on your engagement, Kevin! I am honestly glad that you were able to find your true love.

Nobody should decide whether a certain relationship constitutes marriage, unless the relationship is frequently a proxy for violence. Certain incestuous relationships (father-daughter, father-son) can be prohibited on this basis. The legitimacy of a private consensual relationship is not something that legislatures should be able to touch. That is not within their realm. People who are secure in their beliefs don't need to have the state de-legitmize other beleif systems. I am not homosexual, but my marital relationship wouldn't be affected in the slightest by the recognition of monogomous, homosexual relationships.

"I do understand that invoking such a ruling attempts to equate an involuntary circumstance such as race with a chosen behavior such as sexual preference where no direct equivilence exists."

You didn't read the articles I mentioned, did you Kevin? Where is your proof that homosexuality is a "chosen behavior?" What peer reviewed, legitimate psychological/biological research are you basing your opinion on about the origins of homosexuality? Aside from that, you completely ignore the point that was the crux of debate with Carol. The question is, if you accept homosexuals as a protected group of people, are homosexuals denied the "equal protection" of the law if they are prohibited from marrying each other? If not, are minorities denied the "equal protection" of the law if people are prevented from marrying outside their races? I already gave you the argument about protected group status.

My final question to you, Kevin; if homosexual marriage was recognized tomorrow, would your relationship with your finacee be different? Would you feel differently toward each other?

[Kevin B.]

Peter,

Thanks for the gentle reminder of the need for civility.

I realized that his response was more tactful than it could have been and to be fair, I agree and commend Blogsy in refraining from troll-like behavior as many rely upon in lieu of making actual arguments.

I also realize that it's fruitless and rather insecure of one to take such discussions personally. I wasn't objecting to any characterization towards myself so much as the distractionary use of such characterization. Yes, I entertained similar methods in response, or in other words, I extended admitedly sarcastic possible reasons for him to consider my reasoning as incomprehensible, but did so to illustrate it's irrelevance to the topic at hand.

To reiterate, inferring bigotry or incoherancy upon an argument does not a rebuttal make. Yes, he did move on to actual arguments, and I addressed them.

Since my usual more subtle approach leaves more opportunity for wrangling of intent-- and since I'm in a no-nonsense mood today-- I dropped my sublety and called a spade for what it was.

I realize it's uncharacteristic of my normal writing, but I'm not taking anything personally, Peter, if that was your impression.

[blogsy mcblog]

BTW Kevin, when you say "an involuntary circumstance such as race," you are making an immutability argument. You might want to watch that; immutability is only a useful defense of a group or characteristic if that group or characteristic is negative (such as cleptomaniacs). Thus, you are basically saying that the constitution prevents discrimination against minorites not because that discrimination is irrelevant, but because "it's not their fault." I would prohibit discrimination against homosexuals because it is inherently irrational; not because "it's not their fault." But even to the extent that you feel that a group is somehow destructive toward society, you better be certain without a doubt that the group or characteristic is mutable.

[Peter Konefal]

Kevin,

having read everyone's posts, I have a few things to say.

It is a popular view in some circles to regard homosexual people as having made a "choice" to be homosexual, and have a homosexual "lifestyle".

If this is true, is not the reverse also true? That heterosexuals also make a choice to be heterosexual, and that heterosexuals actively produce their own "lifestyle"?

Popular british feminist gender-studies scholar Judith Butler has issued a provocative analysis which supports this view in some respects.

Before indulging in this analysis, however, a metaphysical consideration has to be given to that fact that the language used to have this conversation has its own biases and limitations. Specifically, in English the use of binarisms is quite problematic, especially when it comes to the question of individual identity.

In the 1950s, gender, sex and sexual orientation were conflated into the same concept. The term "man" was taken to refer not only to a human being with a penis, but moreover one with short cropped hair and a shaved face, who wore trousers and a shirt, and was attracted sexually to women.

After feminism re-emerged in the 1970s, and gender studies became a growing force in academia and on the ground, things changed.

As activists gained some moderate succcesses in their fight against racism, sexism and homophobia, and society began to think cogently about the identities of transsexuals and queer identities, things have changed considerably.

We now view

SEX: MALE/FEMALE

GENDER: MAN/WOMAN

SEXUAL ORIENTATION: HETEROSEXUAL/HOMOSEXUAL

as problematic categories. Some people are bisexual. Some people have mixed sex, having some female parts and some male parts. Some people are cross dressers, flirting with identification as a man or woman, or something in-between.

Many scholars and activists readily concede that binary oppositions fail to capture people very well. People are dynamic, and change, and are active in living identities, instead of being "assigned" one half of a binary identity from birth.

What it means to be a heterosexual man differs whether one is in Texas or Italy. In one culture, it is acceptable to kiss other men on the cheek, in another it isn't. In one culture, masculinity is occasionally associated with vehicular power, in another it isn't (or if it is, it is manifested in different ways, with an emphasis on fast italian race cars in lieu of trucks and so forth).

The whole point of presenting this viewpoint is that, even if one accepts completely the view that identity is a "chosen" process, with the implication that one's homosexuality or heterosexuality is only as stable as appearances and one's choices, their still remains no justification for discrimination between different people on behalf of their "lifestyle" choices.

Why should society elevate the performance of heterosexuality above homosexuality?

Kevin argues like some other religious social conservatives that allowing same sex civil marriages (contracts) opens the gateway to polygamy and incestuous marriages. Others have argued that it also opens a gateway for bestiality.

Aside: my first response is, they can't seriously be arguing this...but they do. So I have to respond in kind...

Kevin argued correctly that a vital principle in relationships that are consecrated by a "marriage" or affirmation of relationship vows by the parties involved has to be consensual. The consensuality paradigm is key.

My first response to the notion that ss marriage open the door for x, y, z, is show me proof. What it is about allowing people of the same sex to marry each other that will increase the chance that society will allow polygamous or incestuous marriages?

If the Netherlands is any example, we have absolutely nothing to worry about, other than, perhaps the possibility that a few more divorce lawyers might make a few more bucks down the road.

The operational parallel between heterosexual and homosexual marriages, is not that "the law allows people all heterosexual people of legal age to marry each other...therefore it doesn't treat anyone unequally".

Perhaps that might have been thought reasonable a few decades ago.

Now, we see that a new operational parallel is more appropriate if we are not to discriminate against our fellow citizens who happen to be gay (seperately, mcblog correctly argues that that line of logic, as used by carol, is exactly that which was used to justify interracial marriage prohibitions).

The most VALID operational parallel between homosexual and heterosexual marriages is that "all individuals of the same sexual orientation have the right to marry 1 individual of that same orientation, provided they are not related and are of legal age".

The alternative creates a class of people who are excluded. I for one, abhor the exclusion of people according to the class they belong to (women, men, gays, straights, blacks, whites, etc....etc...etc.)

The question of bestiality, incestuousness, etc, is ridiculous and irrelevant. IT IS NOT THE CASE IN QUESTION, THERE IS NO DEMONSTRABLE CASE THAT SS MARRIAGES SETS A PRECEDENT INVOLVING THOSE QUESTIONS, THUS, WE CAN EXCISE IT FROM CONSIDERATION.

All we need to ask ourselves, is, is the above reasonable?

I and most canadians under the age of 60 agree. Unfortunately, in Canada, most Canadians over 60 disagree, thus...in that specific sense...it is unfortunate that that generation is unable to see beyond the prejudices that have informed their thinking.

[Peter Konefal]

In addition,

I might add. 8 of 10 Canadian provinces have ALREADY LEGALIZED SS marriage.

I am proud to live in one such province, and no such predicted anarchy of bestiality, armaggedon or a vast locust of incestuous marriages have descended upon this beautiful province.

In fact, we are quite happy, and so are many couples from Washington and throughout the US who have spent their lucrative tourist dollars up here in Vancouver.

We welcome them, as we welcome all Americans regardless of race,sex,and sexual orientation.

[blogsy mcblog]

That's a good point, Peter. Kevin seems to think that there are scores and scores of young, beastial men out there, just waiting for the day when their forbidden love is no longer prohibited by the state. I have never met someone who wanted to engage in polygamy. Kevin, do you know large numbers of these folks? Where are you meeting them?

[Peter Konefal]

Most North American polygamists are in Utah, Texas and in a remote corner of British Columbia (almost exactly next to the borders of Alberta/Washington state).

They are predominantly a sect of Mormons, or members of the Church of Latter Day Saints. They take the biblical injunction "be fruitful" to new and many argue, sordid lows. I mean, 6.5 billion human beings on the planet? I think we've been quite fruitful enough thank you....a nice solid plateau might be a good idea.

In many cases, men from these communities can produce over 100 children and have dozens of wives.

Controversy over the community of bountiful has exploded over accounts of 14-15 year old girls marrying 57-60 year old men.

The groups vigorously defend their practices as being protected by the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, so the current BC government is happy to do little about them.

[Peter Konefal]

I was watching a documentary about the polygamists in texas, and how unbelievably secretive they are.

Contrast this with the documentary footage which reveals the native texans who are unsure about their new neighbours (a gated community in which no polygamists are allowed to talk to or have contact with "outsiders"), and one quickly appreciates how charming, social and 'normal' the Texans are by comparison.

As to the charm of the texans, I submit this lovely ballad as irrefutable proof:

ALL MY EXES LIVE IN TEXAS

All my exes live in Texas
Because Texas is the place
Where Warren chose to be
All my exes live in Texas
In a brand new log cabin
Out at the YFZ

There’s Mary Jane from Hurricane
She was given to my brother Shem
And sweet Camille from Orderville
She also lives with him

All my exes live in Texas
And Texas is the place
I’ll never get to be
All my exes live in Texas
Since the day that Uncle Warren
Took them all away from me

There was Tara from over in Santa Clara
She really turned my head
And the day that Uncle Roy married us
Was the best day I’d ever had
But now she’s gone, as are they all
And I left here all alone
While they spend their time with that brother of mine
In his brand new Texas home

All my exes live in Texas
And Texas is the place
I’ll never get to see
All my exes live in Texas
In a brand new log cabin
Out at the YFZ

from http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11081631&postID=111300367389666396

Learn more about BC's polygamist sect at:

http://www.thetyee.ca/News/2004/11/18/LeavingBountiful/

[Kevin B.]

Blogsy said:
"Congratulations on your engagement, Kevin! I am honestly glad that you were able to find your true love."

Thank you for your kind words, Blogsy. I've waited a long time to find her; she's everything I ever hoped for and more than I expected to get. Fortunately, that feeling is mutual.

Blogsy said:
"the desire to invalidate an entire group of people for no legitimate reason other than their group status is bigotry."

I have not said anything about invalidating an entire group of people. People who consider themselves homosexual are equally free to engage in marriage to a member of the opposite sex, just as anyone else is.
What they are arguing for is to change the nature of the institution to be defined as it has not previously been defined (i.e. invalidate it.)
I object to changing the nature of an institution for which I am a candidate. Just as the value of being an olympic qualifier would be devalued by allowing persons who do not meet the qualifications for that institution just because they want to be included, so also with marriage. Not that qualification for marriage is accomplishment-based, and heaven knows the institution has already been badly abused by those who take it too lightly... BUT there is, at least, still a minimum qualification for the institution that without that qualification renders the institution meaningless, without distinction. To declare a couch potato, a nocternal computer programmer or a 86 year old grandma as unqualified to compete in the olympics does not devalue them as a person or invalidate their abilities or accomplishments in other areas. But changing the standards of an institution which define that institution so that no one will feel bad is highly objectional. Suing the Boy Scouts, for example, which is by it's nature and purpose defined as an organization for boys, because some girls feel excluded from it, is ludicrous. That institution was set up with a specific nature and for a specific purpose, and so was marriage.

Blogsy said:
"People who are secure in their beliefs don't need to have the state de-legitmize other beleif systems."

Thank you! I couldn't agree with you more. If people who chose to engage in same-sex behavior were truly secure in their belief system, they wouldn't have to appeal to the state to de-legitimize the belief that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.

Blogsy said:
Where is your proof that homosexuality is a "chosen behavior?"

I did not say that homosexuality was a chosen behavior. I said that sexual preference is a chosen behavior, and it is-- unless one does not comprehend the definition of the term "preference". I understand that it's highly politically incorrect these says to make statements which infer personal responsibility and accountability for one's choices but I shall bravely forge ahead anyway. News flash... now brace yourself for this: People who engage in sexual activities, and people who enter into relationships... (are you ready for this?) choose their partners! *gasp!*

I know it's hard to accept but there is mounting evidence, controversial as it may be, that when a person embarks on the decision to experience sexual encounters with another human being, that person actually has concious choice in the selection of the individual who will participate with them. Scientists studying this newly emerging phenomenon have determined that often, individuals engage in a process they call "dating" to select their more ideal candidates with whom they may or may not engage in said sexual activity. Furthermore, they have determined that this so-called "dating" process is sometimes (but not always) used as a mechanism to determine compatibility for a long-term relationship. The timing of the occurance of said sexual activity is also apparently highly subject to the concious choice of the subjects being studied.
Details of this phenomenon are still sketchy at best, but some scientists have postulated that their studies indicate actual concious personal choice may be a key factor, rather than the current, more established theory on human sexuality which states that individuals are helplessly, genetically impelled to overtake and mindlessly hump whoever, whenever and whereever the urge strikes them, just as it does for the other members of the animal kingdom.

[Kevin B.]

Peter,

I've just addressed your questions regarding so-called homosexuality and heterosexuality above. The question is not about whether one person may or may not have certain urges or attractions toward one type or sex or persuasion of person. The question is how they choose to respond to those urges. That's why I call nonsense on these classifications: homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality.

Frankly, sexual experiences in any manner of combination or variety is freely open today to anyone who has the inclination and the opportunity to engage in them. Same-sex activities are equally available to myself, as they are to you. What has prevented us from engaging in them? Personal choice. (Assuming that you also haven't, no judgement intended or implied if you have.) Now the reasoning for that choice may vary between us, but the availability to make that choice remains.
I would assert that, as powerful as sexuality is, that if one chooses to indulge themselves in the expression of those urges-- regardless of whether they choose a same-sex or opposite-sex partner to do so-- they will become more and more subject to them. I don't think that's a controversial statement, nor one hard to back up. If you doubt it, watch a teenager movie or go into a yahoo chatroom for a while and see how frequently the topic comes up of how long it's been since one has had sex, and observe the sympathetic reactions of others to one who admits to being without sexual activity for months or years. This doesn't require long government-sponsored university psychology studies to determine. It's observable human nature.

I'm not unsympathetic to individuals who have confusing urges, or gender identity issues. This has been an increasingly confused world, one which has attempted vigorously to make gray and relative, that which is absolute. If it makes one feel better to classify the consequential powerful physiological and psychological response they may feel to whatever urge or curiousity they indulged in, as a specific term, that's their business. As is their choice to engage in said activities. More power to them! I don't care what they do in private. I feel no ill will to them for their choices. I do not justify any kind of violence, hatred or descrimination to any individual on the basis of their choice. They are still human beings whose value is no less or no greater than my own.

I do, however, recognize that there must be personal accountability and consequences for their choice. If one chooses to engage in same-sex activities and or develops and emotional relationship with a member of the same sex, it has nothing to do with me. The consequence of their choice to engage in same-sex long-term relationships is that invalidates them for a inherantly heterosexual institution. If, however, they want to take that activity and transpose it, legally require it to be imposed upon the definition of an institution for which I am a candidate or participant, which would change the nature of that institution by rewriting it's definition, then it has something to do with me.

Look, let's cut to bare bones here, despite whether it's politically correct; whether the pontificating professors of liberal academia agree with it: Same-sex sexual activities and long-term same-sex "matings" or relationships do not exist elsewhere in nature, except in human beings. Yes, yes, there's pseudo-sexual dominance behaviors and the like. These are not true intercoursal, biologically reproductive activities. Why does it not exist? Because if it ever did, the process of Natural Selection would remove it. Opposite sex reproduction is REQUIRED by nature for survival of the species, any species.

Human beings have free concious will which gives them the potential to choose to sidestep behavior which follows nature's sexual framework; a great number of complex spiritual, psychological and environmental factors and experiences gives a person an inclination to make that choice, and the highly pleasurable physiological response provides gratification for doing so and motivation to continue.

That's all well and fine, but it has nothing to do with marriage, which by nature and definition is an institution created for a man and a woman. I recognize that some people seek to change that definition. Same-sex couples, as far as I am concerned, are free to engage in any activity or social contract they choose with whomever they choose, but it's not marriage. I guess one can attempt to call it a marriage.

You can dress a pig in a baby outfit, give it a bottle, put ribbons on it's head, you can pretend it's a baby, treat it like a baby and call it a baby, you can even get scores of scientists and university professors to conduct studies with the intent of proclaiming it to be a baby, but it is and will always be a pig.

If it makes me a bigot to point out the snout and curly tail, then I guess I'm a bigot. You got me. Congratulations on your brilliant sense of discernment.

However, none of this addresses the question of the democratic process being subverted by activist judges accomodating those who would dress a thing in the clothes of something it is not in defiance of the established process for creating law. This is what's most distressing to me. Assuming same-sex marriage is such a desirable, kind, socially beneficial thing to do, then it should come from the majority voice of the American people to affect it. It SHOULD NOT come from a litigious, highly financed, highly vocal minority through the means of judicial decisions with no public oversight or accountability. That is highly concerning to me, infinitely moreso than what people may be doing in their bedroom.

I have not seen one of you address that fact. You're still all just clammoring that it's not fair, politically correct or intellectually sophisticated to point out that the pig is being dressed in baby clothes.

[Kevin B.]

Blogsy,

I know you didn't mean to sound this way, but your characterization of polygamists as "scores and scores of young, beastial men" might lead one to conclude that you've made a sweeping, stereotypical generalization against a specific group of people across long periods of history and across multiple faiths who engaged in the practice, and one might further conclude that you are in complete ignorance of the religious significance to the practice. *I* think you're much to intelligent to intentionally make such a statement, but I thought I wouldn't want others to think such things of you, that's the only reason I bring it up.
I know that both you and I understand that if there are any "scores and scores of young, beastial men" out there, they would be called "college students" and don't have to wait for state approval to indulge themselves... just spring break.

[Kevin B.]

Peter,

Similar note as the above with Blogsy, but I understand the situation you mentioned is a bit complex, so some confusion on the topic is understandable:
Regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (nicknamed "Mormon").
First, for those who understand the nature of the actual faith itself, there is no such thing as a "sect" of Mormons. Either one is a member in full standing with the church, or one is not a member of the church. There are no gray areas. Certainly, there are, as with any organizations, disinfranchised former members, some of whom may borrow elements of it and start their own independant organization, but that has no bearing on the church itself or the authority held by it's leaders. Just as if you Peter, being a former member of the Catholic Church, were to proclaim yourself Pope tomorrow, you would have no legitimacy for that claim. Nor would people refer to you and any followers you might muster accurately refer to you as a "Catholic sect".
As for polygamy and the LDS church, you've have to go back a century plus a decade or two to find practicing polygamists. I think it's safe to say none of them are living. For those illegaly espousing the practice of polygamy today, while some may attribute it to the century distant principle in the history of the LDS church, the majority of the members of those groups have never been members of the actual LDS church.

And yes, I'm not surprised that such groups are secretive. Persons engaging in illegal activities generally tend to be that way.

[Kevin B.]

Hah! I just now realized the irony of Peter proclaiming himself pope of the Catholic church. You know, since Catholicism claims Peter as the first... ok, so it wasn't really funny, just slightly amusing. But it's nearly 2 AM. Everything's funnier then.

Ok, so real quick before I go to bed, I realized that I missed one point.

I never mentioned bestiality, so that's irrelevant to the discussion. I did mention polygamy and cousinloving, but I was not arguing that permitting "marriage" of same-sex couples opened the door for the other types of marriages. I was arguing that the arguments for same-sex "marriages" are at least as weak as the arguments for the other types, if not moreso, because at least the other types involve a male and female paring, which is at least in near proximity for qualifying for participation in an institution inherently defined by the union of a man and a woman.

Which means that if such an arrangement ("marriage" of same-sex couples) were to be made part of the law, there better darn well be strong majority of Americans who push for such a passing. The litigous back-door judicial legislation method to achieve such aims is a highly offensive and illegitimate alternative.

[Peter Konefal]

Of course.

Good points Kevin.

The issue of judge-made law is kind of a complex one. There are two systems of law that I am aware of; the Napoleonic, civil law kind of system, where laws are statutes made by a legislature or governing body of some kind (an emperor in the case of napoleon).

And, the common law system, where judges technically do make law by issuing a judgement in a case, which can then be taken to be a kind of 'precedent' which later rulings attempt to take into consideration in order to establish a sense of continuity, regularity and predictability in court rulings.

Both systems have merits and challenges.

US state courts with the exception of Louisiana, use a common law system, in which case, the judges by definition "make law," although actual precedent setting cases are usually rare, since most common law concerns torts, contracts, property etc.

I am not terribly familiar with the legal wrangling of the Terry Schiavo case, but did not the state in question have judicial authority in the case, and thus be impervious to federal interventions? US states and courts have considerable federal autonomy, provided they don't violate the US federal constitution or international treaty obligations etc, or any other supreme law of the land.

Do Supreme Courts not establish precedent in ruling between competing legal questions, often of a constitutional nature? This issue of "judge made law" appears to be far more complex than just disapproving of it in general, though I don't want to put words in your mouth kevin.

I do agree, and I think constitutional experts would agree, that on an issue of substantial importance to the nation the people should decide the issue, where that issue has not already been clarified and or given direction by the constitution.

I don't know enough about the T. Schiavo case to argue that "litigious back-door judicial legislation" was an issue, or that the checks and balances between the judiciary and the executive did not in fact, play out as intended by the founders.

Its a complex issue, and I would have to read more to be able to make any kind of informed opinion.

[Peter Konefal]

As to the question of religion, and definitions of 'sect' and so forth, I am not the right person to talk to.

Basically, Christianity is itself a sect of a particular offshoot of Judaism (both recognize the same "God," but not the Christ-god that gives Christianity its particularism from judaism).

This claim stretches the imagination and applicability of the term sect, but my point is, its largely arbitrary.

Christianity is a massive mess of illegitimacy, and by that I mean, conflict between rival interpretations and theological views.

Defining one branch as a sect and another as a a non-sect is to split hairs.

This is why, I have to laugh when Mr. Pope Benedict proclaims that "relativity" is the greatest curse of our age. Membership in the Catholic church is not absolutely implied by membership in the Christian church, it is relative to one's belief in Catholic theology. Moreover, membership in the Christian faith is entirely relative to one's belief in Christian doctrine. It is not an absolute, take for instance, me. Since I do not believe in Christian doctrine, I am not a Christian.

You're right and wrong on me being the pope someday however. Technically, any male catholic can be the pope. All I have to do is a Dederot-style renunciation of my lack of faith tomorrow, go for the obligatory penance, and presto! I am Catholic Peter-boy again, with an impressively Catholic name to boot!

So, who are you to say what I might do tomorrow??? You never know, all this religious jiving just might push me over the ecclesiastical edge....

[Peter Konefal]

ooops, its spelled "Diderot" not Dederot, and he was a french enlightenment philosopher, who said that although he renounced religion, he would repent on his death bed and go to heaven as a good repenting christian. This infuriated the priests of his day....

As to polygamy, you have to be kidding right? Did you not read my post. Go to google and type in

"Polygamy Utah"

or

"Polygamy bountiful BC"

or

"Polygamy Eldorado Texas"

....happy searching :)