|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
30th August 2007, 07:10 PM | #2 |
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,840
|
Good for him. I hope more judges rule the same way.
|
30th August 2007, 07:30 PM | #3 |
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,352
|
Here's my prediction. Come back in four years to see how I did:
|
__________________
I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader |
|
30th August 2007, 07:52 PM | #4 |
Queer Propagandist
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,545
|
Of course the judge will be harshly villified.
A losing district attorney commented, after the judge ruled, that this matter should not be decided by a judge. Usually in a state where a court has ruled in a fashion that favors equal rights for gay people, the folks opposed to equality say that it is not a matter for the courts to decide. In many states legislatures have passed laws preventing gay marriage, there was no conservative response that this is not a matter for the legislature. Here in California, when the legislature passed a bill that would allow gay marriage, our Party of Jesus Governator said it was not a matter that should be decided by the legislature. He vetoed the bill. Apparently it should be decided by the Governator. |
30th August 2007, 08:45 PM | #5 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,575
|
This judge will get a bit of fan mail from me, that's for sure.
This guy is my hero. I'm straight, but it bothers me to the core that someone who is not is denied rights that are given me for no good reason. Washington, a very liberal state, has one of the lamest civil union laws ever. When you go to the page to download the form, it says it "registers your civil union but does not grant any legal rights". A complete joke. My husband has suggested we divorce and get a civil union instead. Then I told him the only reason I married him was in case of emergency............ |
30th August 2007, 08:47 PM | #6 |
Salted Sith Cynic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,527
|
|
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis |
|
31st August 2007, 03:07 AM | #7 |
Poisoned Waffles
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
|
Do opponents of gay marriage realize they're fighting a losing battle? Once the Baby Boomer generation starts dying out, the more liberal but less numerous younger generations will be enacting all sorts of wacky things. Kids these days aren't afraid of the gays at all, because they grew up with Spongebob and Tinky Winky and Steve from Blue's Clues. (I know, I know, Steve's not. But it would be awesome if he were. Dreamy. I'd totally gaymarry him.)
|
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
31st August 2007, 06:03 AM | #8 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
|
|
31st August 2007, 06:47 AM | #9 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
Oh absolutely! Why do you think they are in such a rush to get this stuff passed NOW, without hesitation. It can't be because there is this massive rush of gay marriages happening everywhere. I said this long ago. They are doing it now because they know in 20 years no one will care.
In fact, when I write to my representatives and whatnot, this is the argument I make. Why rush? Why not give it time and let's see how much of a problem gay marriage is. Right now it obviously is not a real issue. Until it looks to actually be causing a problem in society, let's hold off on making any serious changes. If Massachussetts falls to pieces because of their legalization of gay marriage, then we can act. But if they don't, then why bother? |
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy |
|
31st August 2007, 07:00 AM | #10 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,174
|
|
31st August 2007, 07:29 AM | #11 |
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,812
|
This is rich given the conservative principle is that big cultural shifts should only happen via deliberative, legislative process. That doesn't mean he should feel he should have not vetoed it, but it does mean he should take the decision of his own state legislature seriously.
And if it shouldn't be in the hands of the legislature, in whose hands should it be? |
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? |
|
31st August 2007, 10:12 AM | #12 |
Queer Propagandist
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,545
|
Party of Jesus Presidential Candidate and Magic Underwear aficionado Mitt Romney has not disappointed by attacking the Judge using standard Party of Jesus ad hominem technique:
Quote:
It's all about the imaginary evil condemned by the Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy. Looks like Mitt has the hatemonger vote locked up already. |
31st August 2007, 10:18 AM | #13 |
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,840
|
|
31st August 2007, 02:01 PM | #14 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 184
|
I think I speak for everyone when I say, I for one welcome our new activist insect overlords.
(ETA: 1 marriage and 1 ruling stayed pending appeal) |
31st August 2007, 02:04 PM | #15 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 184
|
Ha ha.
Quote:
|
Last edited by Invidious; 31st August 2007 at 02:05 PM. Reason: Damn paste added a hyperlink; I HATE hyperlinks! |
|
1st September 2007, 03:39 PM | #16 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,084
|
The whole thing is a moot point - there are no gays in Iowa. Have you ever been to the state fair? Nothing but one tubby after another, all eating fried <insert food item here> on a stick. And everyone knows that gays are thin.
|
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer |
|
1st September 2007, 03:51 PM | #17 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,843
|
Anybody know where one can send the judge an e-mail congratulating him on his courage?
|
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry And all you touch, and all you see Is all your life will ever be." |
|
1st September 2007, 04:21 PM | #18 |
If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger, There'd Be a Whole Lot of Dead Copycats
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,326
|
Yay Iowa judge.
hey Washington state Democratic Supermajority in the legislature: LET ME GET MARRIED IDIOTS! hey Washington state supreme court: read this ruling and LEARN SOMETHING IDIOTS! Seriously, Iowa? Before Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Connecticut, Minnesota, Vermont and all the supposedly liberal states but Massachusetts? Get with it liberals, help a gay man out here. |
1st September 2007, 04:41 PM | #19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
|
The movie State Fair, set at the Iowa State Fair, is the gayest movie ever made. |
1st September 2007, 05:01 PM | #20 |
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,352
|
|
__________________
I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader |
|
1st September 2007, 05:32 PM | #21 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 397
|
I really have never figured out why anyone would be against gay marriage, if it doesn't hurt them in any way?
|
__________________
"A Wise Man can see more from the bottom of a well than a fool can see from the top of a mountain" "Sure there have been injuries and deaths in boxing - but none of them serious." - Alan Minter, Boxer |
|
1st September 2007, 06:50 PM | #22 |
Queer Propagandist
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,545
|
I think that the people in Iowa are desperately afraid there will be thousands of deaths as a result of the destruction of the Sanctity of Marriage. Take Massachusetts as an example. In only 2.5 years of gay marriage there have already been zero deaths, property values have gone down by 0%, and up to zero fundamentalist Christians have been forced to flee the state as a result of marital sanctity gay panic syndrome.
Seriously though, there are some people that are so stupid that when Fundamentalist Christian leaders predict non-specific dire consequences they believe it. We call these people the majority. |
1st September 2007, 07:03 PM | #23 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 569
|
Yeah this is one subject where I simply cannot comprehend the thought process of the people who disagree with me. I'm pro-choice but I understand the pro-lifer position. Some take to extremes, but I get where they're coming from, I really do. But there is just nothing that makes sense about the obsessive drive to stop gay marriage. I honestly don't understand what's supposed to be so pressing and perilous. What do they honestly think the worst-case scenario is here?
|
__________________
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. We must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind-Jedi Master Yoda. |
|
1st September 2007, 07:10 PM | #24 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,575
|
|
1st September 2007, 07:21 PM | #25 |
Queer Propagandist
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,545
|
For the men who oppose gay marriage, maybe they are afraid that if the law would permit them to leave their wives and marry another man they would not be able to resist the all-powerful lure of gay sex. And of course once they try it...
That's why the good folks at Homosexual Agenda Headquarters have a squad of US Senators going around giving out free samples, it's our annual recruitment drive! There are only so many priests, after all. |
1st September 2007, 07:33 PM | #26 |
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,352
|
I am shocked and dismayed at the complete lack of support for my assertion that Gigi is the gayest movie ever.
Followed closely by Barbarella. |
__________________
I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader |
|
1st September 2007, 08:48 PM | #27 |
Creativity Murderer
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In 2.5 million spinning tons of metal, above Epsilion Eridani III
Posts: 7,958
|
Gigli. *shudder*
Anyway, with a small view, comes intolerance, I suppose... not that I'd know.. |
__________________
Don't mind me. |
|
1st September 2007, 10:21 PM | #28 |
Misanthrope of the Mountains
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,133
|
I think a large part of it comes from a fear of the unknown and the consequences of that unknown.
My Mom (who steadfastly believes I'm gay just because I can't get girlfriends) thinks that if gay marriage were legal that other things that are supposedly fundamental to society will disappear. For example she thinks that if a society can make gay marriage legal, then why not make theft legal, or murder legal? For her, and others like her, all abject morality, and laws derived from them, is not the product of a collaborative society but dictated by divine authority. For these people murder isn't wrong because it has ended a distinct human life, it's wrong because God commanded it was to be wrong. So for them because religious authority continues to state it's wrong, regardless of it's inherent irrationality, it is wrong. That it harms no one is irrelevant to them. Now what makes this even more confusing is that these same people will often rationalize themselves around God's Will in other areas. Rationalizing theft or understanding that outlawing coveting, a thought process, itself is rather silly and impossible. But for this one, they stand their ground. To account for that one must also understand that the secondary element of this is the halcyonic view of the past that they have. Gays just didn't get married in the good-old-days and so they shouldn't now. This is the same mindset that kept women "in the kitchen" and out of the workplace for far too long. Just my 2 cents on it. |
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
|
|
2nd September 2007, 06:27 AM | #29 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
|
|
2nd September 2007, 08:05 AM | #30 |
Poisoned Waffles
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
|
I've heard some voice concerns that legalized gay marriage will anger their god, and he'll vent his wrath on the whole country for allowing it to happen. He'll send things like 9-11s, hurricanes, and season after season of American Idol. Of course, we get all those things anyway, but that's just because we're still debating the issue.
|
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
2nd September 2007, 08:40 AM | #31 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,084
|
|
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer |
|
2nd September 2007, 08:47 AM | #32 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
|
|
2nd September 2007, 09:28 AM | #33 |
Queer Propagandist
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,545
|
Well, any time their anti-gay God wants to duke it out, man against fairy tale, I'm ready!
|
2nd September 2007, 05:48 PM | #34 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,984
|
There's trouble right there in River City. In Iowa, appeals go directly from the district court to the Supreme Court. They do not ordinarily go through the Court of Appeals.
Iowa has a Court of Appeals, but the Court of Appeals hears cases assigned to it by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court retains the right to "further review" of Court of Appeals decisions. A link to the basics. (By the way, if you thinks this is confusing, as a New York lawyer why his Court of Appeals is higher than his Supreme Court.) The issue in such a case is unlikely to be deflected to the Court of Appeals. Chances are the Supreme Court would hear the case itself. I just wanted to make that procedural point before addressing the issue in a little more detail. |
__________________
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice |
|
2nd September 2007, 06:00 PM | #35 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,984
|
Another minor point. Iowa has County Attorneys, not District Attorneys. Same thing, but different title. The current County Attorney in Polk County is John Sarcone. The attorney who argued--apparently to Judge Hanson--that the issue is not for the judge to decide was an Assistant County Attorney, according to the Des Moines Register.
|
__________________
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice |
|
2nd September 2007, 06:02 PM | #36 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
The main reason seems to be, if it was such a good thing, they would have set that up a long time ago. So because marriage as a tradition is old you must keep it as it is.
The arguments about families don't hold up because if you really thought that then you should want to make even more drastic changes to marriage than letting two individuals of the same sex marry. |
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd September 2007, 06:13 PM | #37 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,437
|
|
2nd September 2007, 06:15 PM | #38 |
Queer Propagandist
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,545
|
Thank you dear, I sort of thought somebody might seize that opportunity.
|
2nd September 2007, 08:03 PM | #39 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,984
|
Here is a link to the judge's decision. I recommend reading it. Whether you agree with the decision or not, you should read it in order to be well-informed. (I have previously taken others to task for expressing very strong opinions about documents that they have not bothered to read.)
The plaintiffs in the case are individuals who want to marry. The defendant is the former Polk County Recorder/Registrar who refused to allow the marriages to be recognized (and this is why the Assistant Polk County Attorney was arguing in the case). Judge Hanson begins with some basic stuff, subjects taught in the first year of law school. What is summary judgment? What is relevant evidence? Basic stuff. Things start to get interesting when Judge Hanson rules that the testimony of some so-called experts is inadmissible. Experts on ethics, religion and law were determined to be unqualified. The reasons given are interesting. In the case of one so-called expert, she didn't want to support her findings with "empirical research and methods of logical reasoning," preferring instead to rely upon "moral intuition." Judge Hanson found two other individuals likewise unqualified:
Quote:
It is strongly implied that these folks all want to tell the judge what the law ought to be (and not merely the impact of a law upon people). Although the Judge does not put it in this way, there is no person in the world who is qualified to sit in the witness chair and tell the judge what the law is or is not or ought to be. In his courtroom, only the judge is qualified to decide these things. (Police officers are very aware that a judge does not let a witness testify about law, and they know that they are not permitted to testify that a person was "operating a vehicle illegally" or intoxicated "above the legal limit.") Although the Judge ruled that some of the experts would not be considered, he also ruled that three remaining individuals were experts in medicine, child development and mental health. Their testimony, he said, would be considered. The Plaintiffs (the individuals who wanted to marry) had their own experts as well. One of them was Dan Johnston, whom I mention, but not by name, in this thread. Johnston was one of the men who argued the famous Tinker case to the U.S. Supreme Court, and I worked for him for a few months. Another witness was John Schmacker, who used to go to the same church I did (he was an excellent musician and was the church organist for many years). Judge Hanson ruled that Johnston's and Schmacker's testimony was anecdotal and inadmissible, for basically the same reason that some of the defendants' expert testimony was inadmissible. Those who would label Judge Hanson as "activist" or "legislating from the bench" would do well to read those sections of his opinion in which he discusses evidence. Legislatures are not bound by such rules of evidence, but Judge Hanson is. Moreover, Judge Hanson will not consider personal opinion, no matter how deeply held or how prestigious the person holding it, without some specialized study backing it up. There follows a rather illuminating discussion of some of the testimony proffered to the judge. Basically, the judge is posturing the matter to move it toward a ruling, but the discussion is interesting nevertheless. Beginning on page 16 is the list of facts that (according to the judge) is not subject to material dispute. One of those key facts is that homosexuals in a committed relationship are not treated the same way as heterosexuals in a committed relationship. In other words, that there is discrimination is not in dispute at all. The principal question is: Is this discrimination legitimate? Generally speaking, legitimate discrimination is constitutional (under the Iowa Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, although the two constitutions may disagree on the standards of legitimacy), while illegitimate discrimination is not. The statute in question provides: "Only a marriage between a male and female is valid." The Plaintiffs challenged the statute under the Iowa Constitution, NOT the U.S. Constitution. Many of the harms that result from this discrimination are set out in the judge's opinion. They are deemed not subject to dispute. Gay couples are stigmatized. Their children, not being able to benefit from a family marriage, are bastards. Things in daily life that married couples take for granted are denied to those in committed gay partnerships. The list of disparities is a long one. Beginning on page 27 is a list of facts about sexual orientation. According to Judge Hanson, none of them is in dispute:
Quote:
Beginning on page 37, Judge Hanson discusses the extensive and "unthinkable" changes that have occurred to the institution of marriage over the years. Wives used to be property. Certain racial and ethnic prohibitions used to be commonplace. Divorce used to be fault-driven. Judge Hanson properly points out that Iowa has been very progressive in the area of family law: the third state to do away with miscegenation laws, the second state to institute no-fault divorce. (Judge Hanson does not go into detail, but Iowa has a very impressive record on women's rights and opportunities for women in schools, government and social programs. This is a touchy subject, however, because more modern voters swatted down several equal rights amendments to the Iowa Constitution. Iowans adopted an ERA a few years ago, however.) At issue is the sex-role conformity that still is a part of Iowa law. The progressive history that leveled the playing field for women and for many other minorities has not been applied to gays. On the contrary, the state legislature has deliberately and repeatedly tried to keep homosexuals from having legal protection. Against this factual background, Judge Hanson turned to the law (page 43). And in my next post, so do I. |
__________________
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice |
|
2nd September 2007, 09:17 PM | #40 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 10,415
|
Arguments against homosexual marriage range from the well-meaning to the absurd to the outright hateful. If you'll permit me, I'd like to recap:
Quote:
Quote:
Doesn't bode well for us guys. What with women being able to make kids with each others through modern science, and proving fit to be better parents without us... looks like we're becoming obsolete.
Quote:
|
__________________
"He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs "If you are still hung up on that whole words-have-meaning thing, then 2020 is going to be a long year for you." --Ladewig |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|