[Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage
Donovan Arnold
donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 20 17:45:18 PST 2008
Roger,
A judge must interpret law from the bench, as the law doesn't and cannot address each and every case that could possibly arise in a society.
Natural inalienable rights of humankind, should never be brought to a vote. If you believe that everyone is equal under the US Constitution, then you must also believe that Gays and Lesbians have the same legal rights as everyone else.
There is no way, no how, you can believe that Gays and Lesbians are equal to everyone else and and at the same time deny them access to a social and legal contract that everyone else has.
Gay Marriage is not a moral issue or social issue. It is a legal issue. The same as two people of different race marrying, two different religions, two people different in age, or cultural background. People can object to these morally, but what is the legal argument against it? There isn't a solid rational one, there is only a moral argument against it. Moral disagreement does not make something illegal. For it to be illegal, there should be a demonstration of real harm to individuals.
Best Regards,
Donovan
--- On Thu, 11/20/08, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
From: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage
To: "Joseph Campbell" <josephc at wsu.edu>, "Kai Eiselein, Editor" <editor at lataheagle.com>, kjajmix1 at msn.com, vision2020 at moscow.com, "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
Date: Thursday, November 20, 2008, 5:18 PM
You both have a point. One should be protected from the tyranny of the majority.
In this case though, I think that the California Constitution states that it can
be amended by an initiative. It is clearly constitutional according to the state
constitution. Therefore the question becomes does the US. Constitution trump a
state constitution. It of course does.
A judge should decide the case on the basis of a strict reading of the US
Constitution, not on the basis of writing law from the bench.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Joseph Campbell josephc at wsu.edu
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:37:51 -0800
To: "Kai Eiselein, Editor" editor at lataheagle.com, kjajmix1 at msn.com,
vision2020 at moscow.com, Tom Hansen thansen at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage
> That is not the issue. The issue is who decides whether gay marriage is
OK?
> The general CA public, by popular vote? Or the California Supreme Court? I
> think that the latter is a better judge. Why? Let¹s ask the same question
> about your right to free speech, or mine. I don¹t want the general CA
public
> to decide whether or not I have that right, and I¹m sure you would agree.
> What makes marriage different? I don¹t want them to tell me who I should
> marry either. Do you? Tell me that you don¹t see a problem with letting
the
> public decide who you can and cannot marry?
>
>
> On 11/20/08 12:23 PM, "Kai Eiselein, Editor"
<editor at lataheagle.com> wrote:
>
> > Let's then.
> > The issue is gay marriage, not free speech.
> >
> > From: Joseph Campbell <mailto:josephc at wsu.edu>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:20 PM
> > To: Kai Eiselein, Editor <mailto:editor at lataheagle.com> ;
kjajmix1 at msn.com ;
> > vision2020 at moscow.com ; Tom Hansen <mailto:thansen at moscow.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay
Marriage
> >
> > The question is who should decide matters of law: the people, by
popular vote,
> > or judges, who have knowledge of the Constitution and legal
precedent? I think
> > the latter. Personally, I feel that most of the things below that you
find
> > absurd are in fact absurd. More the reason not to leave the vote up
to the
> > general public.
> >
> > Notice you did not answer whether or not you think that your right to
free
> > speech hinges on their opinion. Do you? And if not that right, why
others?
> > Let¹s stick to one issue at a time, and deal with the others later.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > On 11/20/08 12:05 PM, "Kai Eiselein, Editor"
<editor at lataheagle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Do societies not have the right to decide what is acceptable and
what isn't?
> >> Why not make polygamy legal?
> >> Why not let brothers marry sisters or first cousins marry first
cousins?
> >> (Other than the inbreeding issue)
> >> Why not just make an amendment stating a marriage can be between
ANY
> >> consenting adults? That would be the best way, wouldn't it?
> >> I can just hear the champagne corks popping as divorce lawyers
celebrate the
> >> thought of multiple wives divorcing a husband.
> >>
> >> From: Joseph Campbell <mailto:josephc at wsu.edu>
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:57 AM
> >> To: Kai Eiselein, Editor <mailto:editor at lataheagle.com>
; kjajmix1 at msn.com
> >> ; vision2020 at moscow.com ; Tom Hansen
<mailto:thansen at moscow.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up
Gay Marriage
> >>
> >> According to Wikipedia, ³Due process (more fully due process of
law) is the
> >> principle that the government must respect all of the legal
rights that are
> >> owed to a person according to the law of the land, instead of
respecting
> >> merely some or most of those legal rights.²
> >>
> >> Do you think that rights are better served by allowing the
general public to
> >> decide who has the right to speak, to vote, to wed? If to wed,
then why not
> >> to speak? Why shouldn¹t the general public be allowed to
determine whether
> >> or not you have the right to speak?
> >>
> >> I¹m trying to bring the issue home to something you might
relate to
> >> personally. Something to engage your empathetic imagination.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/20/08 11:37 AM, "Kai Eiselein, Editor"
<editor at lataheagle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I'm going to play Devil's advocate for a moment, and
to be clear I don't
> >>> give a rip about gay marriage one way or another. Hey, if
if gay couples
> >>> want to keep divorce lawyers in business by forking over
thousands of
> >>> dollars in fees and spend months going to hearing after
hearing after
> >>> hearing, well, welcome to the hetero world. Toss in a child
or two and
> >>> becomes even more fun.
> >>> ...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the
> >>> privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any
> >>> State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due
> >>> process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal
> >>> protection of the laws."
> >>> Doesn't a referendum come under "due
process"?
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------
> >>> From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
> >>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:16 AM
> >>> To: <editor at lataheagle.com>; <kjajmix1 at msn.com>;
<vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take
Up Gay
> >>> Marriage
> >>>
> >>>>> >>From Article 6 of the US Constitution -
> >>>> >
> >>>> > "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States which shall be
> >>>> made
> >>>> > in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
which shall be made,
> >>>> under
> >>>> > the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the
> >>>> Land;
> >>>> > and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the
> >>>> > Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding."
> >>>> >
> >>>> > -------------------
> >>>> >
> >>>>> >>From the 14th Amendment to the US
Constitution -
> >>>> >
> >>>> > "All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to
> >>>> the
> >>>> > jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the
> >>>> State
> >>>> > wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall
> >>>> > abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States;
> >>>> nor
> >>>> > shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property,
> >>>> without
> >>>> > due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the
> >>>> > equal protection of the laws."
> >>>> >
> >>>> > -------------------------------------
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Now, which part of the US Constitution are you
struggling with, Kai?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Tom Hansen
> >>>> > Moscow,
> >>>> > Idaho
> >>>> >
> >>>> > ---------------------------------------------
> >>>> > This message was sent by First Step Internet.
> >>>> > http://www.fsr.com/
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>> Kai Eiselein
> >>> Editor, Latah Eagle
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> =======================================================
> >>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>> http://www.fsr.net
> >>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>> =======================================================
> >>
> >> Kai Eiselein
> >> Editor, Latah Eagle
> >>
> >
> > Kai Eiselein
> > Editor, Latah Eagle
> >
>
>
>
>
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081120/b518627a/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list