Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by kladner

(Psst, Chappy..... The rules are, that if Someone points out an obvious result of racism, ZF can call him racist, and not be engaging in ad hominim attacks. ZF can engage in "a bit of hyperbole" where others are wildly and erroneously exaggerating. This is what I meant above when I said, "Your rules are different." This sort of behavior is often referred to as "projection". That which you do, you vehemently accuse others of. It has been raised to a fine art on the Right.)

1. I am not "on the Right". Any faults you find in me are my own. No need to project them onto another class of people, or from them to me.

2. I suppose, with respect to the racism stuff, you are referring to Page 16 of the 2012 US election thread. A more charitable interpretation of my comments was not that I dismissed chalsall's arguments that there is racism in America. In fact, I agree with him that there is, (although I think I disagree on the particulars, etc...). I wasn't attempting to address that point.

Rather, I was expressing my view that race-baiting and racism (even when fighting racism in others) is inappropriate. Call that ad hominem if you will, or call it a mild rebuke.

3. I must not remember where I upbraided others for "wildly and erroneously exaggerating". It is entirely possible that I've been hypocritical in that regard. (In my defense, I did use a smiley face to convey my tongue-in-cheek statement.)

[chappy]

ad hominem is when you attack the person in such a way that has no relevance to the discussion at hand.

For example, if I say that Scalia is a bad Justice because he is Catholic, that is ad hominem. If I say that Scalia often claims to be a strict textualist but when cases come before the court that don't line up with his personal viewpoint he is quick to avoid his traditional ideas of Originalism that is not ad hominem. No matter how irreverently I say it.

I've less and less respect for the man as time goes on. His renderings of the law in things like Citizen's United are the exact opposite of textualist and originalist readings. In fact it is against State's rights, and since Scalia was one of the Justices who pushed for redirecting the case to a broader Constitutional Question it is contrary to the principle of judicial restraint that courts shouldn't create new laws nor should they apply current laws to new situations, both guiding principles whenever Scalia isn't faced with something he hasn't already staked out a political position on.

As I understand it, the framers of the constitution did not envision the Supreme Court as the final arbiter on legality. It wasn't on their radar. It was only a later invention of said court (still quite early in the history of this nation), that has now become a fixture of our politics.

Marbury v. Madison makes the exact opposite claim. Not to creating judicial review (as some would have it) but stating that Judicial Review came into being as soon as Congress granted Appellate powers to the Courts. Further, the founding fathers were around when Judicial Review took place and didn't bring up Constitutional objections to it. The Federalist papers discuss the Courts as the final arbiters of law. Finally Congress can and has in the past curtailed the Courts powers through various means, but they have never removed the Appellate powers that give the Court Judicial review (see section 2 article 3 of the Constitution.)

Finally as John Marshall pointed out what is the point of having a Court system if the laws they are to oversee are voided by the Constitution? If there is no Supreme Court to determine which laws are, in fact, Constitutional then why have Courts at all?

[Zeta-Flux]

Irrelevant things first:

Originally Posted by chappy

Marbury v. Madison makes the exact opposite claim.

It is exactly that case which I was talking about. See this wikipedia article for arguments both for the idea that judicial review was meant to be a part of the political structure and arguments against.

Now, less irrelevant things last:

Originally Posted by chappy

ad hominem is when you attack the person in such a way that has no relevance to the discussion at hand.

True. I agree completely.

For example, if I say that Scalia is a bad Justice because he is Catholic, that is ad hominem. If I say that Scalia often claims to be a strict textualist but when cases come before the court that don't line up with his personal viewpoint he is quick to avoid his traditional ideas of Originalism that is not ad hominem. No matter how irreverently I say it.

Again true. If your position is only that Scalia is not a strict textualist, your (questionable) claims that Scalia lets his personal viewpoint overpower his decisions are indeed on topic.

But if you use that as a reason to dismiss any other argument, including the words in Scalia's own rulings, it turns into an ad hominem. For then you do not address the actual text of his rulings -- his actual arguments -- but rather appeal to a (perceived) personal flaw in his character in order to persuade others to ignore them. It wouldn't matter one iota if Scalia was the least textualist judge of all time, and he let his personal viewpoints dictate all of his rulings, when the topic is the validity of a textualist viewpoint against judicial activism. And especially not when the topic is Ed Whelan's arguments for Prop. 8 and DOMA.

I'm happy to leave it at that, and get back to the actual arguments for or against Prop. 8 and DOMA, rather than the off-topic hypocrisy of any and all judges and/or judicial commentators.

[chappy]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

I'm happy to leave it at that, and get back to the actual arguments for or against Prop. 8 and DOMA, rather than the off-topic hypocrisy of any and all judges and/or judicial commentators.

I'll agree to that, though I reserve the right to later start a separate topic called Why Chappy thinks Scalia is the 2nd worst Supreme Court Justice. Which Xyzzy can then modify to something clever, and then something more clever and then something slightly less clever--but bearing no resemblence to the original posting.

"Why Chappy thinks Scalia is the 2nd worst Supreme Court Justice"
"Why Chappy drinks Scandia as the seconds waste Swedish glacial ice"
"Wise and happy drinks Skyy, and second place is absolut injustice.
"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. "

[Xyzzy]

"Why Chappy thinks Scalia is the 2nd worst Supreme Court Justice"
"Why Chappy drinks Scandia as the seconds waste Swedish glacial ice"
"Wise and happy drinks Skyy, and second place is absolut injustice.
"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. "

Hmm… We might need put you on the payroll!

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

Hmm… We might need put you on the payroll!

Hmmm.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

As I understand it, the framers of the constitution did not envision the Supreme Court as the final arbiter on legality.

As you see it, who or what _is_ the final arbiter on legality -- or who/what do you think the framers thought _was_ the final arbiter on legality?

[science_man_88]

I'm guessing most have seen this:

Gay marriage: What happens if...?

The Supreme Court's decision last week to weigh in on the gay marriage debate presents the justices with several options. And we got lots of questions about it this week.
Daniel Van Winkle asked via Twitter: "If the court rules in favor of gay marriage, what does that mean for states that have amended constitutions banning it?"
And Larry Lozan wrote us via Facebook to ask: "Assuming DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] is struck down can a married couple legally wed in one state be entitled to all federal benefits and rights afforded to any couple regardless of the state they legally reside in?"

the rest is a video probably with more questions.

[Dubslow]

http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blo...rers-mr-scalia

[Zeta-Flux]

As I understand it, Scalia did not equate homosexuality with murder. Or, to quote Matthew Franck:

His point was that if the operative premise of the Court’s reasoning is that the moral conviction of the community is an insufficient ground for legislation, there is no constitutional basis for a great many laws we all agree are valid, and that have no other basis than the community’s moral conviction. He was not sounding the alarm that the Court is about to permit murder, or that it can reasonably be expected to obey this logic in future. Nor was he “equating” any species of conduct with another, on some scale of good and evil. He was–absolutely rightly–criticizing the logical incoherence of the majority opinion in each of these cases (both written by Justice Anthony Kennedy). The logical criticism “who says A must say B” is not a statement of any expectation that the person addressed will in fact say B because he has said A, nor that he should. It is a criticism intended to sharpen up the other’s thinking, and get him to see the inadequacy of the reasoning he has employed. If B is an absurdity, but one that is logically compelled by saying A, ought one to think of something to say other than A?

I tried to say something similar, in this thread, regarding polygamy. I believe that some of the arguments used to justify gay marriage similarly justify most forms of polyamory. It seems some people didn't understand my point, and thought I was equating homosexuality and polyamory.

Just recently I thought that some of the arguments used to justify gay marriage seemed to justify other behaviors as well. I didn't equate gay marriage with those other behaviors, but rather thought that the arguments needed to be "sharpened up" (or at least expanded a little) so as to exclude those other behaviors.

But in both cases, it appears the other posters thought I was equating the two.

It isn't surprising to me that the same thing was done to Scalia. It is an easy mistake to make.

[Brian-E]

We see reasoned arguments on both sides of the debate about opening marriage to same sex couples.

We also see some incredibly silly things said by people who are in positions which you might hope require some reasonable level of competence. This one, by a radio talk show host (who has also come out with some other breath-taking nonsense on the subject recently) really takes the biscuit for me.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/12/20...o-marry-a-man/

Linda Harvey, a host of the Ohio based Christian radio station WRFD has warned that the passing of same-sex marriage laws might cause Jesus Christ to marry another man.