Obama declares June 2009 LGBT pride month

[Sinner]

It would have a WAY bigger effect if Bushy said it.


Cheney saying that he hearts lesbos is ossum.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by PJSOLDIER

Jesus effing Christ. Its not about whether I feel bad, its about whats right and wrong. When I feel that I am wronged I feel bad. Its all black and white with you.

Look, dude, I gotta go with what you write. I cannot read your mind, especially when you seem to keep changing what you meant to say.

It is not all black and white with me... my problem here is the attempt to abuse the fuck out of the law by obliterating the meaning of equal protection in order to benefit (an admittedly) sympathetic class. Just because we may agree that the law shouldn't prevent something doesn't mean we disregard the law (ignore 200 years of equal protection jurisprudence) to effect that change. We live in a state where the rule of law needs to be solid and reliable. Gutting it to effect a change we both would like to see harms society much more than the delay required to convince people to voluntarily change it.

Trying to force a change through a warped and ruined equal protection weakens the rule of law and increases the power of judges who are less bound by law and more directed by whim. That's great when the judges agree with you... sucks ass when they ignore the law to your detriment. Fact is, minorities in the long run are more likely to be harmed by judges unbound and unrestricted by law....

Originally Posted by PJSOLDIER

No. The GLBT month and the impact it could possibly have on society. I could care less if it were GW up there saying it. I'd be way more surprised but it would have the same effect. This has nothing to do with Obama, it has to do with the president, no matter who hold the office, of the USA giving the gays props. Why anyone would see thiss as a bad thing is beyond me. Unless, of course you just dont like who's saying it.

I knew what you meant. And no, I don't think it'll be helpful and explained why in previous posts. You think it will be helpful. That's the difference of opinion I noted we had.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

Trying to force a change through a warped and ruined equal protection weakens the rule of law and increases the power of judges who are less bound by law and more directed by whim. That's great when the judges agree with you...

didn't "activist" judges change the interracial laws?

same w/ fair housing acts?


it may not be the "best/right" way for it to happen, but if it's the right thing to happen, does it really matter in the long run how it happens?

considering that it's not like this is the one and only situation of judges making laws...

[-m-]

I think the main problem with activists judges is that they often rule so that the law changes but don't rule specifically enough to where it is difficult to interpret in court, which makes attorney's jobs harder. At least that's what my friend in law school told me during one of our exhausting discussions.

[PJSOLDIER]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

Look, dude, I gotta go with what you write. I cannot read your mind, especially when you seem to keep changing what you meant to say.

I'm not changing what I meant to say, I'm changing the way I'm saying it better represent my point. I apologize if I can be confusing, but you seem like a fairly intuitive guy and i figured you could get it.

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

It is not all black and white with me... my problem here is the attempt to abuse the fuck out of the law by obliterating the meaning of equal protection in order to benefit (an admittedly) sympathetic class. Just because we may agree that the law shouldn't prevent something doesn't mean we disregard the law (ignore 200 years of equal protection jurisprudence) to effect that change. We live in a state where the rule of law needs to be solid and reliable. Gutting it to effect a change we both would like to see harms society much more than the delay required to convince people to voluntarily change it.

I'm saying there isn't equal protection. Maybe over the last 200 years it was considered equal, but it never really was. The difference is that times have changed. We are in a time where society is accepting enough that the gay community can be vocal with a decent chance of making a change. I realize that this gesture Obama made isnt gonna change it, but I believe it help chip away at the resistance. No prez has done something so blatent for the gay and that alone is progress. Maybe Im just being pie in the sky positive about it, but hey whats wrong with that. Us gays will take all the good press we can get, cause it doesnt happen often.

I never said I wanted to gut the current law. Maybe I got a little bitchy about it, but I do agree it has to be done voluntarily. Thats the way things should work and the way things were meant to be changed when this country was founded. By the people. Even if sometimes I do feel that we are somewhat powerless. Thats why i think this gesture will do some good. The publics minds have to be swayed. This little thing isnt going to do it alone, but its a stepping stone to bigger things. I know in my heart it all will change in time. Just look at the last 20 years. I just hope I see it in my lifetime.

Forgive me if I go off into a rant here and there, I'm not trying to be confusing, but this is a issue that hits home and I feel very passionate about, you know? I dont even wanna get married, I just feel that the gays should have the option like everyone else.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by NoKegger4U

didn't "activist" judges change the interracial laws?

same w/ fair housing acts?

Black and Gay are not the same thing. Further, Loving overturned a law prohibitting something. We've never really considered same sex marriage - it's sui generis Micah.

Marriage is considered a fundamental right and as such different rules apply. As the definition, with regard to same sex couples, has never been contemplated its premature to jump past that point and on to the next.

Lasty, I don't recall the procedural history, I know it started before teh 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 but that may have come into play by the time Loving cleared SCOTUS... not sure. But, it would be an example of what I mean in my cart before the horse argument... Congress passed a law... that's where the change needs to come from. Not the bench.

Originally Posted by NoKegger4U

it may not be the "best/right" way for it to happen, but if it's the right thing to happen, does it really matter in the long run how it happens?

Yes, imo, it matters a very great deal for reasons I gave above. If you're willing to be subject to the whim of popular opinion rather than the rule of law then keep advocating for judges to disregard precedent and estasblished law. Problem is, homosexuals have a long history of being the victims of public whim and very little history of being the beneficiary thereof.

Originally Posted by NoKegger4U

considering that it's not like this is the one and only situation of judges making laws...

"Well your honor... its not like we haven't disregarded the law previously to effect a result we prefer so I'm asking you to do it agin in the present case." lol

Originally Posted by PJSOLDIER

I'm saying there isn't equal protection. Maybe over the last 200 years it was considered equal, but it never really was.

And I'm trying to explain to you that your understanding of equal protection is inaccurate. All people are equally prohibitted (in most jurisdictions) from marrying some one of the same sex... just like everyone is prohibitted from marrying his sister even if they really want to get married. And no, I'm not saying gay is incestuous I'm merely trying to illustrate the point. The law is the law without regard to one's sexual orientation. Another example, theft doesn't mean one thing if you are gay and another if you are straight.

Originally Posted by PJSOLDIER

I never said I wanted to gut the current law.

That's the net effect of saying that the law means different things depending on who is standing in front of the judge....

I understand you feel passionately about this. I do too. I want to see the change but I value the rule of law too. We can effect the change we both would like to see without wrecking the law.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

Black and Gay are not the same thing. Further, Loving overturned a law prohibitting something. We've never really considered same sex marriage - it's sui generis Micah.

Marriage is considered a fundamental right and as such different rules apply. As the definition, with regard to same sex couples, has never been contemplated its premature to jump past that point and on to the next.

Lasty, I don't recall the procedural history, I know it started before teh 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 but that may have come into play by the time Loving cleared SCOTUS... not sure. But, it would be an example of what I mean in my cart before the horse argument... Congress passed a law... that's where the change needs to come from. Not the bench.



Yes, imo, it matters a very great deal for reasons I gave above. If you're qilling to be subject to the whim of popular opinion rather than the rule of law then keep advocating for judges to disregard precedent and estasblished law. Problem is, homosexuals have a long history of being the victims of public whim and very little history of being the beneficiary thereof.



"Well your honor... its not like we haven't disregarded the law previously to effect a result we prefer so I'm asking you to do it agin in the present case." lol

so was it "ok" in the Loving situation?


and for this discussion, I don't see how black and gay aren't the same thing...

I understand that there was a speffic law not allowing interracial marriage, but how is it different than saying "2 consenting adults of opposite sex and same racial background can marry"...

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by -m-

I think the main problem with activists judges is that they often rule so that the law changes but don't rule specifically enough to where it is difficult to interpret in court, which makes attorney's jobs harder. At least that's what my friend told me during one of our exhausting discussions.

the issue is that it's not a judges job to make laws.

[-m-]

Originally Posted by NoKegger4U

the issue is that it's not a judges job to make laws.

Yeah, pretty much. But, I don't agree with that opinion. I think if a law needs to be changed it needs to be changed and if a judge can be the person to make that happen the quickest then so be it.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by NoKegger4U

It would have a WAY bigger effect if Bushy said it..

Agreed... Only Nixon could go to China

Originally Posted by NoKegger4U

so was it "ok" in the Loving situation?

I think we're both on the "its not ok" page. I didn't say it was ok. I said it was not analogous....

Originally Posted by NoKegger4U

and for this discussion, I don't see how black and gay aren't the same thing...

Gay isn't a protected class. Black is. You can argue it should be. But you cannot assert that it is. Nor can a court simply declare it so. It has to be done by legislation.

Originally Posted by NoKegger4U

I understand that there was a speffic law not allowing interracial marriage, but how is it different than saying "2 consenting adults of opposite sex and same racial background can marry"...

Because such a law was never deemed necessary because it was self-apparent. Much like at the time that the law at issue in Loving was passed it was self-apparent that marriage was between a man and a woman. I'm agreeing that times have changed and that we need to move on. Where I'm disagreeing is the method, procedure and process. The change made by judicial fiat is (other than an abuse of authority and a weakening of the rule of law) as strong as the current bench membership. If a coalition of unsympathetic judges meets up then they can overturn the law just as fast. Do you want the issue to turn on the latest judicial appointee?

Originally Posted by -m-

Yeah, pretty much. But, I don't agree with that opinion. I think if a law needs to be changed it needs to be changed and if a judge can be the person to make that happen the quickest then so be it.

That would be advocacy of ignoring checks and balances and in favor of judical overstepping though...

[Sinner]

ok, i get it now.

blackies were protected, but ppl were still not allowing them to marry or buy houses in white hoods and so on....

da homos are not protected, so it's not the same.


geeze, you gots to write a book about everything except the bottom line to make a simple point, Xian!

[PETA]

Originally Posted by NoKegger4U

ok, i get it now.

blackies were protected, but ppl were still not allowing them to marry or buy houses in white hoods and so on....

da homos are not protected, so it's not the same.


geeze, you gots to write a book about everything except the bottom line to make a simple point, Xian!

shakes head... that isn't what I said you gay homosexual ladyboy lover .... and most of those were one sentence responses above mr yank xian's chain.

simplest...

first, you guys are not recognized as a protected class (right or wrong its true).

second... we've never had to work out this issue

third... it should be worked out through the people not judicial fiat


how's that for bullet pointing it for you?

[Sinner]

there yah go, breeder!

[PETA]

Originally Posted by NoKegger4U

there yah go, breeder!

fu homo

[Sinner]

hey xian, come to the rave next week! it's right after you get off work and is just at the top of the downtown marriot.

free food, free parking, and i'm be playin' some jams.

you could swing by for an hour and skip the rush hour traffic.



a bunch of the dallas peeps that influence all this shit at a national level will be there.