tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post1851761840142752879..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Another Battle WonUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57020017225284975212010-08-18T08:19:06.471-05:002010-08-18T08:19:06.471-05:00I've always wondered if Prop8 and even gay mar...I've always wondered if Prop8 and even gay marriage bans were held up, could we get around it by challenging it on religious freedom issues? There are definitely churches that have no problems with it and can argue that sanctifying gay marriages IS part of their religion. Could that be used as a backdoor (te he te he) way of getting around it?Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-47554403319060666122010-08-14T12:40:49.720-05:002010-08-14T12:40:49.720-05:00I would recommend a perusal of the decision and a ...I would recommend a perusal of the decision and a reading of the key parts. It's pretty long...138 pages, but it makes for good reading. The proponents of Prop 8 in this case made every tired argument in the book and they got shot down by the other side like ducks in a row. <br /><br />My personal favorite from the latter half of the decision, in which the Judge is wrapping up all his conclusions is from Page 89:<br /><br /><i>Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of<br />those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to<br />Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize<br />marriage for same-sex couples.</i><br /><br />This was the part of this whole 2-year debacle that really really incenses me. The idea that so many people had and still have the <i>nerve</i> to say that letting a group of people have access to something infringes on their "right" to keep them from having it is so circular and abhorrent. And then when people try to somehow link it to religious freedom by suggesting that since their religion tells them gay marriage is wrong, then it's protected and should be the default position. *meeeeeep*Sparrowhawkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16520765821903563677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37416091547811937592010-08-11T19:17:45.248-05:002010-08-11T19:17:45.248-05:00There is not ONE secular argument against gay marr...There is not ONE secular argument against gay marriage that is not just an indictment against marriage in general. <br /><br />Your ocuntry has no choice but to be dragged kicking and screaming into reason.....it's but a matter of time. We're up here awaiting that day.magx01https://www.blogger.com/profile/14831638782847911405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40583002138376462002010-08-08T18:51:51.493-05:002010-08-08T18:51:51.493-05:00I am kinda with some of the other commenters in th...I am kinda with some of the other commenters in that I hope that this does get bumped all the way up to the supreme court so that this issue can finally be put to bed on a national level.Jeremiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06977623156609966553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-27038538196943013812010-08-07T21:08:28.324-05:002010-08-07T21:08:28.324-05:00To every one who brought up the fact that it is a ...To every one who brought up the fact that it is a republic, thank you, that was kind of my round about point. So often I hear people spouting about how this is a democracy and it drives me nuts. And I was one of those people, lol.<br /><br />However, the part of the constitution he cited leaves the ruling up to a semantic argument on equals protection vs equal treatment.<br />Technically homosexuals had the same rights as everyone. The "right" available to all was the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.<br />I agree that this is a limited regulation put in place in the first place and needed to be fixed.<br /><br />The problem here is the same as often always is, people trying to force their values on others through the law.Glenn Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02197873220313141835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6655072969345462772010-08-07T07:10:30.746-05:002010-08-07T07:10:30.746-05:00I'll never understand the "Tradition"...I'll never understand the "Tradition" argument.<br /><br />If it's tradition to do something Wrong, the mere fact it's a tradition isn't adequate reasoning to continue doing Wrong.<br /><br />Conversely...<br /><br />If it's tradition to do something Good, the mere fact it's a tradition isn't the reason you continue to do Good - it's because it's Good.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-47503343209958221022010-08-06T23:44:34.563-05:002010-08-06T23:44:34.563-05:00Interestingly I had just watched Milk.
I was prof...Interestingly I had just watched Milk.<br /><br />I was profoundly disturbed by how apparently the rhetoric has changed zero, despite the scope of anti-gay shrinking. I don't believe for a second anymore those people will stop at playing keep-a-way with marriage. <br /><br />Word verification: MysissymoInghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-82528522519734082062010-08-06T19:48:32.369-05:002010-08-06T19:48:32.369-05:00>People opposed to Prop 8 (incl me) maintain th...>People opposed to Prop 8 (incl me) maintain that sure, it was democratically enacted but was still wrong because it broke the rules - rules which are NOT set by State ballot initiatives.<<br /><br />Ok, this is really what I wanted to say was at the heart of all this, but George hit it on the head here for me before my feeble mind was able to put it into words.<br /><br />This, to me, is the TRUE importance of this ruling - it's the first time to my knowledge that discrimination against homosexuals (concerning the right to marry) was overturned by a federal judge reasoning upon _constitutional principle_. <br /><br />Prior to this, I don't think gay rights have ever had actual _legal_ recognition as _gay_ rights. Instead, they were merely incidentally tied to some other rights already granted the individual due to some other status (i.e. protections against discrimination based on race, creed, religion or sex alone, etc). <br /><br />But here for the first time, sexual orientation has been judged a first-class citizen regarding individual civil liberties under the _principles_ of the US constitution - a necessary prerequisite for those protections finally becoming the law of the land (and thus subject to the due deliberation and process of law granted to the civil liberties of the rest of us).<br /> <br />That's what's so vitally important about this to me (and how this bears on our form of govt. as well). <br /><br />A lot of the time I start thinking our system has gone Tango Uniform and get very depressed about it. But this is a very gratifying reminder to me that it still can and does work from time to time.....<br /><br />LSlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901508236729383702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53453579864219539882010-08-06T19:19:16.213-05:002010-08-06T19:19:16.213-05:00@George: Thanks for the chuckles. Yea, someone on ...@George: Thanks for the chuckles. Yea, someone on FB told me he was considered a dangerous "conservative." Too rich!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40812831214090448352010-08-06T19:18:05.241-05:002010-08-06T19:18:05.241-05:00Oops. Looks like LS had it covered! :-)Oops. Looks like LS had it covered! :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85901059119938299052010-08-06T19:17:04.736-05:002010-08-06T19:17:04.736-05:00>Either way, the democratic process failed to p...>Either way, the democratic process failed to present the will of the people.<br /><br />Which is why it's important to bear in mind we're not a "democracy," but a democratic republic. Our "democracy" is held in check by our Constitution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-25794587640863317422010-08-06T18:43:20.560-05:002010-08-06T18:43:20.560-05:00>Either way, the democratic process failed to p...>Either way, the democratic process failed to present the will of the people.<<br /><br />On the contrary, this is a _superb_ example of the success and proper functioning of our legal process.<br /><br />Remember: our system of govt. is NOT a Democracy - it's a _republic_, which is a very different thing.<br /><br />Specifically, in a republic the rule of _law_ is primary, not _majority_ rule. Laws therefore have to be based on principle rather than simple consensus - this event with the Prop 8 FAIL is actually an excellent example of how our legal system can and does protect minority interests even against a majority opinion.<br /><br />I refer you to The Federalist Papers as probably the best extant explanation of the reasoning behind our republican form of governance. Madison, Hamilton and Joy go into considerable detail about how it works and how it differs from a Democracy in the way it protects minority interests.<br /><br />LSlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901508236729383702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-42370084193780696392010-08-06T18:21:08.276-05:002010-08-06T18:21:08.276-05:00gdw,
What Martin said.
The USA is not, and has n...gdw,<br /><br />What Martin said.<br /><br />The USA is not, and has never been, a pure majoritarian democracy. It's a constitutional republic in which democratic elections determine who gets to exercise power in the name of the people.<br /><br />Once elected, though, there are limits to what the power-exercisors can do at any given time. Some things are NOT up for a vote unless very special measures are taken (ie, amending the Constitution).<br /><br />Think of it like the rules for a baseball game. If one coach decides his team should get five strikes instead of three - well, no. It doesn't matter if every single person in the stands agrees with him. Three strikes and you're out.<br /><br />You want five strikes? Ok, call one of those giant MLB conferences and change the rules.<br /><br />People opposed to Prop 8 (incl me) maintain that sure, it was democratically enacted but was still wrong because it broke the rules - rules which are NOT set by State ballot initiatives.<br /><br />Looking at how laughably bad the defenders' court arguments were, I suspect they knew this all along. <br /><br />It should now be dawning on them that their stunt is not going to work; they will have to change the rules the right way - through amending States' and the US Constitution.George From NYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158111795024631345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-14837325188210406042010-08-06T18:06:00.863-05:002010-08-06T18:06:00.863-05:00Great news.
@Tracie-It is off topic, but maybe no...Great news.<br /><br />@Tracie-It is off topic, but maybe not really, anyway your last Atheist Eve strip was great.Guillaumehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376749604845793465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30774674913835763632010-08-06T17:52:27.070-05:002010-08-06T17:52:27.070-05:00@gdw: Be sure and read carefully what Martin said ...@gdw: Be sure and read carefully what Martin said in response to you. What you're talking about is exactly the reason we have a written constitution. If civil rights issues like this were left up the people to decide based on a straight vote...well, a lot of the South would probably still be segregated today.Sparrowhawkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16520765821903563677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-26393136528611276782010-08-06T17:15:59.933-05:002010-08-06T17:15:59.933-05:00gdw: The only way this ruling would prove that &qu...gdw: The only way this ruling would prove that "democracy doesn't work" is if you're one of those folks who defines democracy as nothing more than two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what's for dinner. In the US we have a constitution that essentially serves as the document which says, "It ain't gonna be the sheep." The thing about pure democracy one has to be careful with is that the "tyranny of the majority" cannot be allowed to trample the rights of minorities. The "will of the people" does not seem like such a noble concept when it results in clear and unabashed discrimination.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50817770559088333102010-08-06T16:10:11.991-05:002010-08-06T16:10:11.991-05:00The thing that I love about this decision is that ...The thing that I love about this decision is that it reveals the complete lack of any evidence on the part of the haters. The absurdity of it is that they could only get two "expert" witnesses, and they were both demonstrated to be buffoons who could not come up with a single fact. All arguments against same sex marriage were revealed as smoke and mirrors. They have had their chance and, with all their money and "morals", this was the best they could do. Personally, I can see no way this can be overturned; they have nothing!minushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08753445398306415857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68988321867389201322010-08-06T16:04:30.116-05:002010-08-06T16:04:30.116-05:00As happy as I am that gay marriage is "legal,...As happy as I am that gay marriage is "legal," though maybe just temporarily, this whole thing proves one thing. Democracy simply does not work.<br /><br />Think about it, one of two things happened, the people voted on it, and it passed, and then the gov stepped in and said "nope, can't have that, even though it was decided 'democratically'" OR the people voted, but the vote turn out did not represent the actual will of the people, so the gov stepped in to "fix" it.<br /><br />Either way, the democratic process failed to present the will of the people.<br /><br />Either having a say doesn't work because the gov can step in and over rule your say, or having your say doesn't work because the true will of the people fails to be represented in voting.<br /><br />Also, in case anyone did not know, it was a conservative judge who made the ruling, and he was nominated by by Reagan. Also, certain high up liberals previously apposed him in the past claiming his was to anti-gay. Quite ironic.Glenn Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02197873220313141835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-25621893034462167072010-08-06T15:42:01.825-05:002010-08-06T15:42:01.825-05:00The fact that Judge Walker happens to be gay means...The fact that Judge Walker happens to be gay means nothing, nada, ZERO.<br /><br />This "he's biased" rationale is pure bigotry. White judges preside over cases involving the NAACP all the time. Male judges preside over cases involving NOW. <br /><br />A judge's decision should be evaluated based on the soundness of its legal reasoning. There are plenty of hetero judges who would have decided the case the same way.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08846174642301377160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61869830958122342432010-08-06T14:10:40.507-05:002010-08-06T14:10:40.507-05:00@ernobius
Right wingers aren't going to switch...@ernobius<br />Right wingers aren't going to switch enemies just because they lost. I remember hearing, nearly every day, from teachers, in high school how terrible it was that "you aren't allowed to pray in school", and how terrible those activist judges are for making up the law as they go. This was fifteen years ago, and I'm pretty sure that they haven't given up on that fight.<br /><br />The fact that they lost just gave them more ammo in their rants about being an oppressed majority. <br /><br />I'm just wondering how long before people start saying things like "because of the prop 8 ruling, if a gay man asks you out, you have to say yes. If you don't he can sue you for discrimination."Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299046445235601258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70114406127176324542010-08-06T13:44:38.854-05:002010-08-06T13:44:38.854-05:00TracieH (aka Wonder Twin Jayna),
Oh, it gets so m...TracieH (aka Wonder Twin Jayna),<br /><br />Oh, it gets so much better.<br /><br />Walker is a Republican-appointee, strongly opposed by Democrats because they feared he would be...<br /><br />Ready? <br /><br />... unfair and hostile to gay rights.<br /><br />That's so delicious it should come with a dietary warning.<br /><br />David Boaz has the goods here: http://tiny.cc/m4vzn<br /><br />A related point...<br /><br />DavidCT,<br /><br />I think we can relax - at least somewhat. <br /><br />From Judge Jones of Kitzmiller fame to this, a lot of heads on the Right have exploded from "their" judges catastrophically betraying them.<br /><br />This makes me happy, since these are the bozos ruining principled Conservatism and I won't miss them.<br /><br />But as a Conservo, I simply must point out that Walker, like Judge Jones, puts paid the notion that Republican-appointed judges and justices are some kind of malevolent hivemind of reactionary orthodoxy or jurisprudence.<br /><br />When this case hits the Supremes, I don't think we need to fear a circle-the-wagons, knee-jerk deference to "tradition."<br /><br />If that happens, though, I will man the barricades right next to you. I'll bring the beer. :)George From NYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158111795024631345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-18931745889354196022010-08-06T12:43:40.812-05:002010-08-06T12:43:40.812-05:00George writes:
>5) What I FEAR will happen is a...George writes:<br />>5) What I FEAR will happen is a big, final fight to pass an actual, no-kidding 28th Amendment banning SSM - or at least explicitly assigning the power of defining marriage to individual States.<br /><<br /><br />If this ends up at SCOTUS and ends up being upheld, I don't see how this could obtain. At that point, it's a federal matter, a protection granted by the US constitution. So by definition this will be out of the states' hands. If I'm thinking about this correctly?<br /><br />TH writes:<br /><br />>I don't know the facts about the judge, but someone said to me yesterday "The judge was gay."<br /><br />I said, "So?"<br /><br />He said, "That makes him bias."<<br /><br />Heh. this was actually the most gratifying part of this for me - the justice himself was gay. <br /><br />I tend to be Chomskyan in my views on this. Perpetrators of crimes and oppression have no rights; they have only responsibilities (to clean up their messes). The victims are the ones with the rights (to defend themselves by demanding justification for the oppression perpetrated by the invaders).<br /><br />So I think it's not only laudible that a potential victim of SSM discrimination had the decision-making power in this case, but the way it _should_ be. The _victims_ should be in the driver's seat concerning what happens to them, _not_ the perpetrators.<br /><br />LSlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901508236729383702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-44278191471877852402010-08-06T12:13:40.003-05:002010-08-06T12:13:40.003-05:00I don't think they "bungled the hearing&q...I don't think they "bungled the hearing", actually. This WAS their "A game". It's all they ever had. They are good at manipulating gullible voters through fear and misinformation, but they never had any facts on their side or any logical arguments, ever. The trial was exactly like every public debate on this issue I have ever attended.Ryan Grant Longhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07966556592104904797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64030404039043274062010-08-06T12:05:28.434-05:002010-08-06T12:05:28.434-05:00Happy Day!
I don't know the facts about the j...Happy Day!<br /><br />I don't know the facts about the judge, but someone said to me yesterday "The judge was gay."<br /><br />I said, "So?"<br /><br />He said, "That makes him bias."<br /><br />I said, "Would a woman judge be expected not to rule in women's rights cases? Should a minority judge not hear civil rights cases involving minorities?"<br /><br />But then the obvious dawned on me, and I added: "Would a heterosexual judge be biased in this case as well then?"<br /><br />WTF! I mean really. The stupidity astounds me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33194101012331980982010-08-06T11:59:03.544-05:002010-08-06T11:59:03.544-05:00I weathered the AIDS crisis as a late teen early t...I weathered the AIDS crisis as a late teen early twenty year old in North Louisiana. We (activists and very scared people) felt so incredibly alone and segregated from the other part (read as 'straight') of the U.S.<br /><br />That said, I am shocked and grateful almost to the point of tears at the support of so much of the population on this issue. Never in my life did I think I would see the dividing line on a predominately gay issue not be between gays and straights, but between rational and irrational. The country has come so incredibly far.<br /><br />I am so thankful to everyone who recognized this as a human rights issue and works toward keeping church and state separate for the betterment of not only individual lives but also for the betterment of our nation. Saying "thank you" doesn't feel quite right because I know everyone is acting on their core beliefs of freedom and individuality (which is how it should be)and not really just for the benefit of one group . So I would just like to say that once again, atheists have proven themselves far more moral than Christian dogma and I am more than proud to be included in your numbers.Ricky in Codman Squarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12732283531861448156noreply@blogger.com