Merlyn_LeRoy

I'll take the opinion of actual judges over yours; people argued against the Loving decision saying the races were also treated equally, since whites could only marry whites and the same for blacks.

No, I'm not a lawyer. Kahuna, you made a remark that was not merely wrong, it was obvious you didn't even have the slightest aquaintance with what you were commenting on. If your original statement had been along the lines of what you said later, where the Iowa SC said it was an equal protection issue and that you disagree with that, then at least you would have demonstrated that you knew something of the Iowa opinion. But you didn't. You commented on something you obviously hadn't read. Now you're at least familiar with the court's reasoning, and you can intelligently comment on how you disagree with how the court cited equal protection. But it appears you'd rather complain about my debating style and how I pointed out that you were commenting on something you hadn't bothered to read. If that's your debating style, I don't think much of it. PS: you seemed to have started with the incorrect premise "same-sex marriage opinions like the Iowa supreme court opinion are not based on equal protection", which is wrong. What is a premise of mine that's wrong?(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

No Kahuna, you're the one who was spouting easily-unverified garbage. Here's what I wrote: I'm only pointing out that you simply made up crap instead of taking 30 seconds to read what you were supposedly commenting on. Your comment was "In the case of race, there is an Equal Protection issue based upon witholding rights from a class of people based upon their race. In the gay marriage cases, there is no Equal Protection issue." 30 seconds reading the opinion would have informed you that it WAS an equal protection issue. But you can't even make up your own cutting remarks, you have to crib off mine.

I didn't say it would only take 30 seconds to read the entire opinion; it would only take 30 seconds of reading to see that the opinion cited equal protection.

Who's angry? I think you're projecting. I'm only pointing out that you simply made up crap instead of taking 30 seconds to read what you were supposedly commenting on. It's as if you said "well, at least it wasn't a unanimous opinion" when it WAS a unanimous opinion; it's worse than a worthless observation, it's wrong, and a few seconds of informing yourself was apparently too much effort on your part.

Kahuna writes: So, if I want to marry my sister it's an Equal Protection issue, because I can't marry the person I love? You can try and argue that if you like; I don't think any has yet. BTW, Merlyn I said I didn't know anything about the Iowa Constitution, so if read the opinion it wouldn't make much difference. So why'd you state "In the gay marriage cases, there is no Equal Protection issue"? That's flatly WRONG. Not a matter of opinion, WRONG. The court opinion stated it was an equal protection issue. You might disagree with their opinion or reasoning, but stating that the opinion didn't even HAVE an equal protection issue is wrong. Yet you had no trouble just making crap up and stating it as if it was a fact. Why are you posting in this forum? Typing practice? Seriously. If you want to argue, don't just make up crap and spit it out as if it was true. SR540Beaver writes: Since before written history, MARRIAGE is the joining of a man and a woman. THAT is what a marriage is. Why are you ignoring polygamy? That's as old as marriage, too. If you want to have a contract or a civil union between same sex couple that is recognized by the state for legal purposes, be my guest.......just don't call it marriage. Why do you CARE what people call it? What's the bizarre hangup over WORDS? The US legal system uses the term "marriage" for a civil contract, and has for its entire existence. If you want a special word for marriages you like, make up your own word.

You don't seem to have read the court opinion; it was largely based on the Iowa constitution's equal protection clause (which I excerpted earlier in this thread). PS: By the way, arguments against interracial marriage tried to use the same rationale; since white people could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks, the law already WAS equal, and so "NO person could marry a person of a different race." The courts didn't buy it then, and they aren't buying it now.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Mixed-race marriages were forced on an unwilling public by the courts, too. When the Loving decision was announced, about 2/3rds of the population thought interracial marriage should be illegal. This isn't anything new at all.

I disagree, vol_scouter; if people are going to write "All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens" into their state constitution, don't be surprised if the courts say that it really MEANS that, and strikes down laws which violate that clause.

It doesn't seem to make a lot of difference; the SC could have made decisions on those three questions that would have helped one side or the other, but by not answering them, it doesn't change much. As far as I can tell, the 9th circuit will have to make a decision on the appeal without having these questions answered, and either side could appeal that decision to the California supreme court (and possibly the US supreme court after that).

Don't know if this belongs here, because it has nothing to do with Obama or the bailout, just the BSA; presumably, the 9th circuit court has to rule on the appeal without these questions answered by the California SC... http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/conf040309.htm ... The California Supreme Court has declined to involve itself in a dispute over whether the state Constitution allows public land to be leased to organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. The justices, at their weekly conference Wednesday in San Francisco, voted unanimously to decline the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals request that it decide a certified question. ... The questions that the CA SC declined to answer: We certify to the California Supreme Court the following questions: 1. Do the leases interfere with the free exercise and enjoyment of religion by granting preference for a religious organization in violation of the No Preference Clause in arti- cle I, section 4 of the California Constitution? 2. Are the leases aid for purposes of the No Aid Clause of article XVI, section 5 of the California Constitution? 3. If the leases are aid, are they benefitting a creed or sectarian purpose in violation of the No Aid Clause?

So a gas tax = loss of freedom? There's been a federal tax on gasoline since 1932, so I guess we haven't had freedom for 77 years now. Like the punch line says, now you're just quibbling over the price.

SSScout writes: There have been many times I have been asked, at public displays and private confabs, "do you have to be Christian to be a Scout?"... That's part of the problem with discrimination; people often remember the discrimination, but not the details. Of course, with the BSA's "god" requirement, it's easy to assume it also means no polytheists like Hindus. I've also seen people in this forum recommend the American Heritage Girls without noting that they are Christian-only.

Eagledad writes: Trev, Judaism, Christianity, Islam are over 90% of the world. No, just over half (and Judaism is very small).

Regarding the legality of Lincoln suspending habeas corpus: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Looks legal to me.

TheScout writes: I've had some of each. Haven't been harmed. Sorry, you can't claim that. You can only say you haven't noticed any adverse health effects. You could have cancer right now and not know it. Of course, that just begs the question. Should the BSA kick out members who smoke and develop cancer?

TheScout writes: "Excluding someone because their beliefs make them incapable of being "the best kind of citizen" is almost the textbook definition of a pariah; someone shunned because of their lower social status." So? Do you think we should accept someone with immoral beliefs? What, like Jews you mean? BrentAllen writes: I'm thinking the BSA does treat others as we wish to be treated. Don't tell me, tell skeptic. He was the one complaining about the BSA being treated like a pariah because the BSA treats some people like pariahs.

Excluding someone because their beliefs make them incapable of being "the best kind of citizen" is almost the textbook definition of a pariah; someone shunned because of their lower social status.

Who do you care about more? Your family, or some strange family in some random country in say . . . Nigeria? My own, of course. But why Nigeria? Why not use Germany in your example? How about this: Who do you care about more? A family whose skin color is the same as yours, or some strange country where it isn't the same as yours? All that being said - I am more sympathetic to European Christian populations. They are more like us and myself. You seem to also DEFINE the USA as that, which makes all non-Eurpean/non-Christians as somehow foreigners in their own country.

TheScout, you don't seem to understand the golden rule. If the BSA treats some people like pariahs (and they do), it shouldn't even be surprising, much less objectionable, when people treat the BSA and/or its members as pariahs also. The golden rule doesn't say that people on "god's side" get to treat other people like pariahs with no backlash. It doesn't refer to whether one party is "right" or "wrong" at all. It just says treat other people the way you would like to be treated. Since the BSA treats some people like pariahs, they're reaping what they sow. That's about enough biblical references for this atheist for now.

TheScout, you seem to find it unthinkable for the US to fight against people of west European heritage (Germany, most citizens of the Old South, etc), but find it just fine if the US attacks countries of largely non-white populations, like Japan, Iraq, and so on. As far as you're concerned, if Germany declared war on the US in 1941 and even managed to drop a few bombs on US territory, that would not justify attacking Germany. But that's about what Japan did, and you have no problem there. The only consistency I can see is that you don't like white people getting killed, but are fine with non-whites getting killed. If you have some other basis, I'd like to know what it is.

skeptic, why can the BSA make some people pariahs by excluding them, but it's not OK for people to make the BSA or their members pariahs? Seems to follow the golden rule.

I don't think anyone has said that the US attacked Germany due to a threat of invasion; the US declared war on Germany because Germany declared war on us.

Of course you should kick him out immediately, just as you should kick out an 11-year-old Jew if you belonged to a no-Jews club. In fact, not kicking out the kid as soon as possible might give him the dangerous idea that he can be the 'best kind of citizen,' instead of the second-class citizen he clearly is. There are too many uppity atheists in the world already, creating chaos by buying advertisements on buses and having people with actual science degrees debating those who uphold the wisdom of sheepherders and fishermen of centuries ago, who, though wrong or ignorant of nearly everything about the universe, were clearly and absolutely right about metaphysics and were on intimate speaking terms with the creator of the universe. Which is why all religions agree on what god thinks. Please check sarcasm detector before replying.

That doesn't explain the smoke & mirrors with Powell and the fake anthrax, Rice and the vague nuclear threat, or how the Bush administration deliberately mislead people to think Iraq had something to do with 9/11. If you have good reasons to do something, you don't make up stories to justify doing it, you state what the good reasons are.