Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

[mixu]

[thread hijack alert] :wink:

[cosmo]

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

To say that it legalized it during all 9 months, while technically correct at the time the decision was handed down, is not accurate from a real world standpoint and is misleading -- many states have gone ahead and put limitations upon abortion, including outlawing it outright during the third trimester (with caveats), as specifically authorized by the Court in Roe v Wade. The poll question is an accurate reflection of the law as it stands right now, meshing the Roe decision and the various statutes that have been promulgated in its wake.

The poll is misleading for the fact that they intentionally mislead you to believe that the procedure, as it stands now, is up to 3 months. Of course you can say that the procedure varies from state to state, but there are states that take part in partial birth abortion. The poll hides all of the facts, and throws in the '3 months' assertion to minimize what happens in reality.

I defy you to find many people on the street that can actually explain to you in any detail whatsoever what Roe v. Wade says. In fact, if you ask most people, they will probably tell you that Roe v Wade authorizes abortion, and are not aware that it gives states safe harbors for restrictions upon the practice that they can legally enact.

Roe v Wade, is a perfect example of the twisting of words when it comes to the 14th amendment, and the act 'abortion', itself, extends out of the boundries of what the 14th amendment 'meant' when it was actually passed, versus the judges 'intent' when they passed Roe v Wade over 30 years ago. It's all poppy-cock if you ask me.

Regardless, do you really think that most people would pay attention to or even grasp that type of hair-splitting legal minutiae in a poll question? If you were to phrase the question as you did above, I'm sure you would get a different response; if you were to change the question from the AP poll to indicate that it reflected not just the Roe decision, but also other statutes since that decision, I'm not sure that people would change their answer. The heart of the poll question is whether people think the government ought to tell someone they cannot have an abortion within the first three months -- the source of that right is probably irrelevant.

So, are you disregarding your claim then, that 60 percent of Americans want abortion? Because I guarantee you if everyone knew what happened during the procedure, the numbers would completely reverse in direction. Especially in regards to partial birth abortion.

[cosmo]

Toasty, I refer you to these books:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300092725/qid=1103131051/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-2073454-2895905?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0844741620/ref=pd_sim_b_3/104-2073454-2895905?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

[toasty]

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

Roe v Wade, is a perfect example of the twisting of words when it comes to the 14th amendment, and the act 'abortion', itself, extends out of the boundries of what the 14th amendment 'meant' when it was actually passed, versus the judges 'intent' when they passed Roe v Wade over 30 years ago. It's all poppy-cock if you ask me.

I'm not following you here. Could you explain what you mean?

So, are you disregarding your claim then, that 60 percent of Americans want abortion? Because I guarantee you if everyone knew what happened during the procedure, the numbers would completely reverse in direction. Especially in regards to partial birth abortion.

I'm not real sure what you mean here, either, because your comment doesn't really seem responsive to mine. Oh well. First, 60% of Americans wanting Roe v Wade to stand is not equivalent to 60% of Americans wanting abortion. It is possible to respect someone's right to do something without being an advocate for the act itself. I don't want anyone to get the impression that I think abortions are great and that everyone ought to abort a child or two because it's such a hoot. I find the fact that some people use abortion as a form of birth control to be deplorable, and I don't see the procedure being a part of any stage of my life plan. I do not think, however, that it is the government's right to make that decision for me or anyone else.

Regarding the books, I make my living as a litigator and spend every moment of my work day (that isn't spent on [ms]) either in court, preparing for court or doing something that is geared toward a court-related proceeding. I don't read John Grisham, nor do I watch legal movies or TV because, well, that's what I do. Suffice it to say that reading these aren't at the top of my list, any more than you would enjoy sitting down and reading someone else purporting to speak on your work experience. Thanks anyway, though -- no disrespect intended.

I would note, though, that one of the authors of the first book wrote a couple of books that were critical of congress as well. Seems like someone disenchanted with government in general.

[cosmo]

I'm not real sure what you mean here, either, because your comment doesn't really seem responsive to mine. Oh well. First, 60% of Americans wanting Roe v Wade to stand is not equivalent to 60% of Americans wanting abortion. It is possible to respect someone's right to do something without being an advocate for the act itself. I don't want anyone to get the impression that I think abortions are great and that everyone ought to abort a child or two because it's such a hoot. I find the fact that some people use abortion as a form of birth control to be deplorable, and I don't see the procedure being a part of any stage of my life plan. I do not think, however, that it is the government's right to make that decision for me or anyone else.

Let's skip the semantics for a second, and recognize that when someone says they don't want the government to intrude within the decisions of an individual, in the end, it's not the mothers body. There is another individual inside the mothers body. When you approach an individual who's pregnant, you don't ask them how their body is. You ask them, how is the 'baby'? It's feminist humanism if you want to get into specifics.

In regards to the amendment comment, I was stating and backing up my earlier claim that activist judges and lawyers take things completely out of context in order to give certain individuals more rights. The 14th amendment was 'intended' to grant citizenship to recently freed slaves(at the time) to deal with post-civil war matters. It has nothing to do with abortion. Again, if you want to get specific about rights and individualism, there is another individual inside the body. As a matter of fact, there were 36 laws that restricted abortion, yet no questions were raised about those laws.

Seeking cosmic justice as it is tied to judicial activism is the new tyranny we face today. That's my point.

Regarding the books, I make my living as a litigator and spend every moment of my work day (that isn't spent on [ms]) either in court, preparing for court or doing something that is geared toward a court-related proceeding. I don't read John Grisham, nor do I watch legal movies or TV because, well, that's what I do. Suffice it to say that reading these aren't at the top of my list, any more than you would enjoy sitting down and reading someone else purporting to speak on your work experience. Thanks anyway, though -- no disrespect intended.

I would note, though, that one of the authors of the first book wrote a couple of books that were critical of congress as well. Seems like someone disenchanted with government in general.

Fair enough. The author though, had a reason to publish the book about Congress stretching their powers into other territories, where they should'nt be stretching them. The book is relevant in todays political atmosphere, and holds high credibility as well.

[toasty]

Let's skip the semantics for a second

Although I am not a fan of hypertechnical semantic arguments, I don't think this falls into that category. If we skip the semantics, as you say, there is no assurance that we are talking about the same thing, because we obviously have different interpretations of what terms mean in this context. I'd prefer to not talk in vague terms under those circumstances.

The 14th amendment was 'intended' to grant citizenship to recently freed slaves(at the time) to deal with post-civil war matters. It has nothing to do with abortion.

The 14th Amendment is silent on damn near everything it has subsequently been intepreted to cover. Whether you realize it or not, the body of law encompassing the 14th Amendment is positively massive and extends far beyond matters of civil rights that you consider controversial. My suspicion is that whether an application of the 14th Amendment constitutes "judicial activism/tyranny" or a correct and thoughtful application of the law depends upon whether it meets with your worldview. For example, there's a large body of 14th Amendment law regarding taxation that you, as a conservative, would obviously embrace despite the fact that there is no mention of taxation anywhere in the text of the amendment.

If that's the case, then so be it. You obviously disagree with the right to an abortion, gay marriage, and probably some other things we haven't discussed. My point is that you ought to just say so as opposed to blaming the legal system. When you say that you disagree with a decision and explain why, even if the reason is that it is inconsistent with your moral code, you sound like a thoughtful and rational individual. When you make claims about judicial tyranny that are very clearly based upon the fact that you disagree with the result, you just sound overly egocentric.

Roe v Wade is not the product of a handful of radical judges that decided to buck the system -- the initial decision, and the fact that it has withstood repeated challenges over the years, is a sign o' the times and the people that live in them. You may think that if people knew more about the procedure, they would think differently and you may be right, but the fact of the matter is that a majority of the country wants Roe upheld. I frankly think the 59% number from the AP poll seemed a little high, but the fact that it was over 50% conforms to everything I've understood about public opinion on the topic over the last few decades.

[cosmo]

The 14th Amendment is silent on damn near everything it has subsequently been intepreted to cover. Whether you realize it or not, the body of law encompassing the 14th Amendment is positively massive and extends far beyond matters of civil rights that you consider controversial. My suspicion is that whether an application of the 14th Amendment constitutes "judicial activism/tyranny" or a correct and thoughtful application of the law depends upon whether it meets with your worldview. For example, there's a large body of 14th Amendment law regarding taxation that you, as a conservative, would obviously embrace despite the fact that there is no mention of taxation anywhere in the text of the amendment.

If that's the case, then so be it. You obviously disagree with the right to an abortion, gay marriage, and probably some other things we haven't discussed. My point is that you ought to just say so as opposed to blaming the legal system. When you say that you disagree with a decision and explain why, even if the reason is that it is inconsistent with your moral code, you sound like a thoughtful and rational individual. When you make claims about judicial tyranny that are very clearly based upon the fact that you disagree with the result, you just sound overly egocentric.

Roe v Wade is not the product of a handful of radical judges that decided to buck the system -- the initial decision, and the fact that it has withstood repeated challenges over the years, is a sign o' the times and the people that live in them. You may think that if people knew more about the procedure, they would think differently and you may be right, but the fact of the matter is that a majority of the country wants

A sign of the times? Having judges(yes, radical judges) create policy outside of the legislative body?

Hogwash. I wonder if tax legislation was written by judges, or through the legislature. There IS a difference. My claims on judicial tyrrany aren't based solely on the fact that I disagree with the outcome, it's that I'm opposed to judges going outside of their boundries as a body in order to write new law. If judges where to strike down new law regarding the proposal to raise taxes as unconstitutional, I would be pissed as well. Especially if it passed overwhelmingly through the legislature. Of course, my view has something to do with it, but judges have made radical decisions throughout the country that affect how parents can or cannot treat their children. It's out of control, period.

Roe upheld. I frankly think the 59% number from the AP poll seemed a little high, but the fact that it was over 50% conforms to everything I've understood about public opinion on the topic over the last few decades.

Yea, the decision of 1,000 people in the result of one poll confirms what the rest of the 299,999,000. I wonder what the whole country would think if the facts about this topic were out in the open. Politicians are using words and phrases in order to soften up the reality of it all.



The horse is dead.

[toasty]

My claims on judicial tyrrany aren't based solely on the fact that I disagree with the outcome, it's that I'm opposed to judges going outside of their boundries as a body in order to write new law.

What then when the legislature goes outside of their boundries as a body to write new law which is unconstitutional? Checks and balances, checks and balances...

I frankly think the 59% number from the AP poll seemed a little high, but the fact that it was over 50% conforms to everything I've understood about public opinion on the topic over the last few decades.

Yea, the decision of 1,000 people in the result of one poll confirms what the rest of the 299,999,000.

I said "conforms to" as in "is consistent with" -- not "confirms" as in "affirms," "validates," or "demonstrates the correctness of." If you're gonna harp on my word choice, you really need to make sure you're harping on the right word.

[elove]

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

This means the US will become more red as Gay refugees seek asylum from redneck persecution.

So much for balance in politics

[cosmo]

What then when the legislature goes outside of their boundries as a body to write new law which is unconstitutional? Checks and balances, checks and balances...

Well, isn't that a given? The court can strike it down, of course. But again, the court can't write new law to add new rights to individuals. How many times am I going to have to say this?

I said "conforms to" as in "is consistent with" -- not "confirms" as in "affirms," "validates," or "demonstrates the correctness of." If you're gonna harp on my word choice, you really need to make sure you're harping on the right word.

Yea, so? I decided to use 'confirm' in italics in order to express sarcasm, because one poll does NOT prove/confirm anything.

[cosmo]

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

This means the US will become more red as Gay refugees seek asylum from redneck persecution.

So much for balance in politics

I love the use of the broad brush to paint the opposing side as 'redneck'.

[brakada]

^^^^ Or all muslims as extremists...

[cosmo]

^^^^ Or all muslims as extremists...

I didn't call all muslims extremists. Did elove?

[brakada]

^^^^ Or all muslims as extremists...

I didn't call all muslims extremists. Did elove?

No, I think none of you called them that way, but the broad brush is being (ab)used by both "sides" far too much. :wink:

[silversnake]

i believe gays should be allowed to marry if they want too... you can't tell me anything about the sanctatiy (sp?) of marriage when you can see who wants to marry a miget on fox...