It depends on the meanings of "can" and "disagree", at least.

There are laws with which I disagree, but consider ethically valid nevertheless. In such cases, I [i]can[/i] vote guilty (though I might choose not to for other reasons) with a clear conscience.

There are (a [u]very few[/u]) other laws which I might consider ethically invalid, not just simply disagreeable. In such cases, I might refuse to vote guilty regardless of evidence.

So I could have chosen either the first, second, or third poll choice depending on interpretation of the poll's wording.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman]I am appalled by the states that have passed
laws that forbid gays to marry. This goes against the principles under which
the U.S. was founded: equal rights for all.[/QUOTE]I find the gay-marriage issue a little less clear-cut than that. On the one hand, I agree that consenting adults should have the right to engage in pretty much any behavior they wish if it doesn't endanger or infringe on the constutional rights of others. On the other hand, most societies have granted marriage (even if they define it in differing ways) a special status, because a stable family structure (which is the hoped-for result of the institution of marriage) is vital to a society's long-term survival. Even more directly, a society has a compelling interest in nurturing a family structure (whatever it happens to be) that leads to procreation. The society that doesn't have enough children surviving to adulthood is doomed - basic biology rears its ugly head. Now historically, different societies have defined marriage in a wide variety of ways - one-man-one-woman, polygamous, polygynous, whatever - but all of these are fundamentally procreative. It's only been very recently in human history that there have been enough people and a sufficiently lowered infant mortality rate that we as a species have had the luxury of relaxing (on a large scale) the procreative imperative enshrined by most traditional marital institutions. But we're dealing with entrenched institutions and (in many cases) religious beliefs, so it should not be surprising that many people don't want to change the definition of marriage willy-nilly. The liberal-legal-scholar types may say, "but gay marriage was never prohibited before in State XYZ," and in the sense of there being no specific laws prohibiting it, they may be right. But I doubt it was even an issue until recently - the idea of gays marrying would have seemed ludicrous as little as a century ago, and the need for a specific law banning it even more so. (Heck, that's what the various states had their anti-sodomy statutes for. ;) Most states don't have specific laws preventing a farmer from marrying his favorite cow, either - I use that analogy not to belittle the idea of gay marriage, but rather to show how ludicrous the idea probably was to most of western society until quite recently.

Also, while marriage between gays may be the hot-button legal issue currently, most western societies have in fact historically disallowed analogous nontraditional kinds of marriages. If you are (say) a Mormon or a Muslim man, your religion allows you take more than one wife (though not without restrictions - for instance IIRC a Muslim must be able to support all his wives, and is allowed no more than four, though the keeping of a harem appears to be a separate issue. ;) But that practice has long been banned in the U.S., even though it could well be argued that such a ban amounts to religious discrimination. In that sense, there are groups that would seem to have an even stronger claim that their nontraditional marriage structures should enjoy legal sanction, because they are part of their religion, those religions are recognized by the U.S. as such, and there is strong historical precedent for their alternative marriage structures working just fine in other parts of the world, not infringing on anyone else's constitutional rights (note that there is no "right to not be offended" in the constitution), and being procreative, to boot. My point is, if you let one alternative type of marriage in, it won't stop there. If you have no problem with gay marriage, ask yourself: how do you feel about polygamy? Or child marriage? (Also the historical norm in many parts of the world.) Like I said, it's not such a simple issue. While I personally have no problem with gays getting married, I do also believe that it opens a real legal can of worms.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman]Is this for the U.S.?

If so, is this for state law or federal law?

The supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution. The purpose of this document is to grant very specific powers to the federal government. If one reads, for example, the Federalist papers, it is clear that our founders, in their great wisdom [no sarcasm here!] intended that anything not explicitly allowed by the Constitution is prohibited. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the right to restrict usage of drugs. Indeed, we tried the "great experiment" and it failed. I ask: If an amendment was required to ban alcohol, why isn't a similar amendment needed to ban other drugs? I say that it should be required.[/QUOTE]
That's a pretty misleading argument. First off, the Constitution is intended strictly as a *framework* document, one that summarizes the essential basic principles of the U.S. legal system - specific details are left to the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_law]U.S. Legal Code[/url] (federal law), and the various state laws. Your example or prohibition (and the later repeal thereof) is one of the curious exceptions, in which the constitution was amended in a very specific way. Now the state and federal government need no special sanction to make laws regulating the use of mind-altering substances, since unregulated use thereof clearly poses a danger to society (e.g. driving drunk), i.e. infringes or threatens to infringe on the constitutional rights of others. It's the standard and well-established "compelling interest" test of constitutionality. The real question is simply to what *extent* the state and federal governments can and should regulate the use of alcohol and drugs. The idea that certain drugs should legal for administration by a physician but not otherwise is well-established and quite reasonable, as is the threshold principle: certain drugs taken in small quantities (e.g. alcohol) don't pose a substantial danger to oneself or others. That is not to say that the law is riddled with inconsistencies and biases - for instance does smoking a joint make a person more dangerous to those around him than drinking a dozen beers? Doubtful. Is it more of a health hazard than smoking a pack of cigarettes? Also dubious. But the idea that the federal and state governments don't have a compelling interest in these matters (i.e. lack the right to make such laws, period), that's a non-starter, and I'm sure the founding fathers would have agreed. Specifically, from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution]Article 1 of the constitution[/url] (which establishes the legislative branch of the federal government and enumerates its powers), Section 8:

[i]"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and [color=red]provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States[/color]; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"[/i]

Wikipedia writes:

[i]Many powers of Congress have been interpreted broadly. Most notably, the General Welfare, Interstate Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses have been deemed to grant expansive powers to Congress.

Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has not often defined "general welfare", leaving the political question to Congress. In United States v. Butler (1936), the Court for the first time construed the clause. The dispute centered on a tax collected from processors of agricultural products such as meat; the funds raised by the tax were not paid into the general funds of the treasury, but were rather specially earmarked for farmers. The Court struck down the tax, ruling that the general welfare clause related only to "matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare". Nonetheless, Congress continues to make expansive use of the General Welfare Clause. For instance, the social security program is authorized under the General Welfare Clause.[/i]

[QUOTE=Prime95]I had Jury Duty today. A criminal case - possession of 20 grams or less of Cannibis.

If you personally disagree with this law, could you vote to convict?


If there is interest I'll post the actual results later.[/QUOTE]

The one criminal jury I was on, it was over 550 grams of cocaine, where the cop asked the person "Whos coke is this?" and the person answered "Mine", defense didn't dispute it, and the person plead innocent. Idiot. One juror thought he was a kid that just needed a break, after we were served lunch, the other 11 of us convinced him. Judge was surprised it took 5 hours. We convicted on possession without intent to deliver, which the judge thought was the right decision since there was another much older defendant involved. Not that it mattered for the kid, he was in jail on another charge, they wouldn't say what.

Half a kilo makes the decision easy. 20 grams of pot, wow, thats like what, half a pack of cigarettes? The court costs alone (no counting cops, lawyers, blah blah) was probably more than the pot was worth. That's just insane man...

[QUOTE=ewmayer]special status, because a stable family structure (which is the hoped-for result of the institution of marriage) is vital to a society's long-term survival. [/QUOTE]

The "biology"/"family" argument is unadulterated horseshit.

If the argument has any merit then *ALL* marriage that does not result
in children must be banned.

People marry for many reasons. There has NEVER been a requirement
in the U.S. that marriage must result in children.

Banning gay marriage is bigotry. There is no other interpretation possible.

[QUOTE=ewmayer] Now the state and federal government need no special sanction to make laws regulating the use of mind-altering substances, since unregulated use thereof clearly poses a danger to society (e.g. driving drunk), i.e. infringes or threatens to infringe on the constitutional rights of others. [/QUOTE]

Yes and No. I agree with your argument about posing a danger to others.
But we allow alcohol. And alcohol causes many fatalities on our highway.
And society bears many economic costs associated with treating alcoholism.


The law should be against "driving while impaired". Indeed, IMO our current
drunk driving laws are not nearly harsh enough. Stengthen the laws.
RAH had some nice suggestions for dealing with DUI: public floggings.
And vehicular homicide should NOT be treated more leniently than
other 2ND Degree murders (i.e. depraved indifference murders)

But there is no law against getting drunk in the privacy of one's home.
Nor should there be a law against smoking pot or preventing morons
from shooting up Heroin, inhaling nose candy, or whatever their perversion
might be. I am very contemptuous of people who find a need to pickle
their brains with such. But I also strongly believe that society has no right
to pass laws to protect people from their own stupidity. Laws should
exist to protect us from OTHER PEOPLE's stupidty. We allow alcohol,
but have laws to prevent DUI. Alcohol is just another drug. But our
current society, in its narrow-mindedness, somehow believes that
other drugs should be treated differently. Indeed, IMO we should eliminate
ALL "victimless crime" laws.

And for the record: I do not take such drugs.

I believe in *PERSONAL* responsibility. As long as my actions do not harm
others, the government has ZERO right to interfere with what I do. And I
demand consistency in our laws.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman]… we allow alcohol. … society bears many economic costs associated with treating alcoholism. … As long as my actions do not harm others, the government has ZERO right to interfere with what I do. And I demand consistency in our laws.[/QUOTE]

By your very argument, those who do not take personal responsibility *DO* harm others, namely "you and me", the society that has to pay the costs that result from their action.

Do you not consider that intentionally destroying your ability to be self-supporting is a "harm" to those who end up having to pay for your future existance? Or do you propose that we simply throw those individuals on the "trash heap of humanity" because they made a bad choice?

I argue that it is therefore properly in the interest of society to regulate the consumption of substances which have adverse effect on the body.

Unfortunately, everything is a tradeoff. Studies seem to indicate that there is some value in the moderate consumption of alcohol. It is also clear that excessive consumption has detrimental effects. Many of the negative aspects of "recreational drugs" are known. Positive ones, if there are any, are much harder to quantify.

I certainly don't think that our Legislatures have gotten it right. But I do think that it *IS* their business.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman]The "biology"/"family" argument is unadulterated horseshit.[/QUOTE]

No it isn't. You are confusing encouraging the general population with forcing an individual. The government is trying to create laws that encourage the formation of stable families without unconstitutionally forcing individuals to behave a specific way.

This is true of many laws. Business tax credits are passed to encourage specific investments - not force businesses to invest. Home mortgage deductions are given to encourage home ownership for families. The government can't force you to buy a home or only give the deduction to those families that it deems stable and deserving.

I agree that gay marriage should be allowed and that most legislators use religious and other arguments that should not play a role in the government's legitimate interest in the issue.

You'll make more progress on the gay marriage issue by pointing out that gay parents have a good track record in raising normal well-adjusted children. Give it time - it will probably take another 20 to 40 years before the tide will turn.

[QUOTE=Prime95]No it isn't. You are confusing encouraging the general population with forcing an individual. The government is trying to create laws that encourage the formation of stable families without unconstitutionally forcing individuals to behave a specific way.

This is true of many laws. Business tax credits are passed to encourage specific investments - not force businesses to invest. Home mortgage deductions are given to encourage home ownership for families. The government can't force you to buy a home or only give the deduction to those families that it deems stable and deserving.

I agree that gay marriage should be allowed and that most legislators use religious and other arguments that should not play a role in the government's legitimate interest in the issue.

You'll make more progress on the gay marriage issue by pointing out that gay parents have a good track record in raising normal well-adjusted children. Give it time - it will probably take another 20 to 40 years before the tide will turn.[/QUOTE]


Raising children is IRRELEVANT. There is no requirement under current
laws that married couples raise children. Many people get married who
either can not have or do not want children. Perhaps you should
forbid them to marry as well.

And if you insist that the purpose of providing tax breaks to married
people is to encourage them to have children, then the logic of this
argument says that the tax breaks should ONLY go to those married
couples who do have children.

The tax benefits apply to EVERYONE who gets married. Not just those
who raise families.

The ban on gay marriage exists because of long standing prejudice
against gays; particularly religious based prejudice.

[QUOTE=Wacky]By your very argument, those who do not take personal responsibility *DO* harm others, namely "you and me", the society that has to pay the costs that result from their action.[/QUOTE]

You could also argue that highly addictive drugs often leads to criminal acts in support of the habit. Therefore the "general welfare" clause may come into play.

This is why I personally decided that I could convict for possession of other drugs. While I may disagree that incarceration is the best treatment, I feel it is my duty as a citizen to let the legislative process decide. Since pot is not in the category of highly addictive life destroying drugs, only this passes my "when in doubt don't use jury nullification" rule.

I must also confess strong agreement with Bob's belief in *PERSONAL* responibility. If you destroy your life with drugs, society does not owe you anything. Society could leave you on "trash heap of humanity" and it would be OK with me - you *CHOSE* to go down that path. However, I do support both government and charitable drug rehab and counseling programs that society has chosen to offer simply out of kindness.

Rogue,

[QUOTE]Zeta-Flux, it depends upon whether or not the judge tells you what the case is about. If he says it is a drug case (without more detail), how can you honestly say that you will always vote not guilty?[/QUOTE]I didn't say I'd always vote not guilty. You might want to re-read my post. I said I would have no problem voting guilty (if the person was guilty).

Prime95,

[QUOTE]Interesting. If you felt a law was morally reprehensible (say, the old Jim Crow laws), wouldn't you get a better moral result by using jury nullification than by passing the buck to the next person?[/QUOTE]You might be right. I haven't really thought it through that much.

I think the point I was trying to make in my first post is that I believe that most 'dumb' laws should be respected, even if we personally disagree with the rationality behind them, unless we have a very good reason to do otherwise. I think the will of the majority shouldn't be trampled on too frequently, or we end up with confusion and anarchy.

ewmayer,

One slight correction. Mormons may not marry more than one wife at a time anymore. Even in countries where it is legal. Strangely enough, most other Christian churches that I know of allow polygamous converts in other countries.

R.D. Silverman,

I feel like I might be sticking my neck in the chopping block so to speak, but I thought I'd respond to this: "Raising children is IRRELEVANT. There is no requirement under current laws that married couples raise children. Many people get married who either can not have or do not want children. Perhaps you should forbid them to marry as well.

And if you insist that the purpose of providing tax breaks to married
people is to encourage them to have children, then the logic of this
argument says that the tax breaks should ONLY go to those married
couples who do have children.

The tax benefits apply to EVERYONE who gets married. Not just those who raise families."

You seem to be missing the following: While you are correct that there is no requirement under current law that married couples raise children, it is also true that married couples are more likely to raise children (either through accident or design) in a more stable environment. Thus, raising children is not irrelevant. The government, by giving tax breaks to married couples (and then MORE tax breaks when the children come), is (in a sense) gambling that this will *lead to* children being raised in a stable environment.

You also said: "The ban on gay marriage exists because of long standing prejudice against gays; particularly religious based prejudice."

While I agree that that is part of it, you are focusing on this aspect to the neglect of some other factors.

For example, as a way of analogy (but I am NOT, and I repeat NOT, equating gay marriage with what I'm going to talk about), consider incest. Why are there laws against it? Well, longstanding prejudice against it, particularly religious based prejudice, certainly is true (just like in gay marriage). But there are other factors. Our society looks down at such things, feeling that there is a slippery slope in the works. If we allow incest, will that lead to more abuse of children? Further, nowadays we know about genetic problems that come from such unions. By just focusing on "there is a ban on incest because of prejudice, particularly religious based prejudice" such a person would be ignoring the real argument, and also blatantly trying to offend those who do have religious based reasons for not liking incest. Not to say such a person can't do this (we all have our agency, after all). I'm merely saying that if productive dialogue is wanted, actually respecting the other person's views is needed.