The Reflector

Originally posted by

John

"The attention attributed to the subject will only exaggerate gays' roles in society and possibly (for lack of a better word) 'recruit' more people to their orientation."
Is he saying that by not allowing gay people to marry then that will lead more people to turn gay?
I don't think we are doing anything opposing gay marriage. I believe though that gays should have other right such as visitation in the hospital and medical benefits for partners.

You mean, you support civil unions for gay couples then? Because that's exactly what gay couples want, too. Don't let semantics confuse you. Marriage is a ceremonial church activity, a civil union takes place at city hall and is strictly a legal agreement.

And Laz, the line of yours that John quoted is absolutely preposterous. Seriously, dude.

[QUOTE]Mr. Lazarus Austin said:"In that episode, an anthropomorphic hologram that served as the ship's doctor was fighting over legal rights to a holographic novel he had written. Since he was not recognized as a person by Starfleet's government, someone had stolen his novel, preventing him from making some wanted adjustments in it. In the ensuing trial, he and his shipmates fought for his recognition as a "person." This trial, and this episode, is awesome in that it symbolizes the fight against discrimination and empowers the civil rights movement."[/QUOTE]

No one is arguing that people who choose to engage in homosexual behavior are not persons and do not have certain unalienable rights. The disagreement is over whether homosexual behavior ought to be a right, a virtue that ought to be practiced freely.

[QUOTE]Mr. Lazarus Austin said:
"First, it illustrates how discrimination is not discriminatory. People are inherently discriminatory. We demonstrate it, for example, by only socializing with people of our own color or by joining fraternities or sororities. That discrimination, however, has been taken to extremes in the past. First it was about race, then gender; now it is sexual preference." [/QUOTE]

You are speaking for yourself, so do not include me in your racially and sexually bigoted paragraph. I socialize with people of all races, creeds, color, sex, abilities, etc. No, I do not see how it illustrates how discrimination is not discriminatory. Why do you believe people are inherently discriminatory?

Furthermore, race and gender are something you are born with innately and sexual preference (behavior) is a choice. Are you saying that you were innately born with a natural behavior to use your sexual organs for purposes for which they were not designed? Do you not discriminate between the proper relationship of a key and a lock? Is discriminating between the proper function and use of a key and a lock bigotry? I absolutely discriminate between using keys to unlock keys, locks to lock locks, and the proper function and use of a key to open and lock locks! If I did NOT discriminate between the proper relationship of a key and a lock then I would never be able to either lock my car or home or unlock my car or home. Notice that my discrimination between the relationship of a key and a lock has nothing to do with hatred toward locks or keys. I love both locks and keys and I greatly appreciate the proper relationship between them.

Homosexuality is deviant behavior that denies reality of the proper differences between men and women. Homosexual behavior is detrimental to society and sodomy laws need to be reinstated as soon as possible. I only feel deep pity towards you and anyone who cannot distinguish between the proper relationship between a man and a woman. You are one messed up individual who does not how your body is supposed to function and how you are designed to relate with women.

Originally posted by

Ryan

The people of California voted against Prop. 8 end of story. It is anti-American for a judge to overturn the people's vote.

The "people's vote" isn't so sacred as you would think in our "democracy." We're not a majority rule country, the rights of every citizen are protected. It is absolutely American for a court to overturn ANY law it finds to be unconstitutional; it would be Anti-American for them not to. It matters not how that law came to be, via pubic vote or via legislation, the Judicial branch can, should, and will uphold and protect the Constitution. There is plenty of precedence.

For example, if the people of the State of Mississippi were to pass a referendum banning free speech, or infringing on the right to bear arms, or oppressing the right to privacy (Roe v. Wade, anyone?) the court would be REQUIRED to overturn the law on Constitutional grounds.

Originally posted by

Ryan

The people of California voted against Prop. 8 end of story. It is anti-American for a judge to overturn the people's vote. The gays can holler and scream all they want but this is how our country works.

To comment on your Religious Right issues, yes they have been opposed to change because their opposition is rooted in the belief in God and that his word is the ultimate truth.

It is also constitutional for congress or the people to overturn court decisions.

Law-Dog:

The only way for it to be constitutional for anyone to overturn a court decision is to amend the Constitution.

Originally posted by

Ryan

The people of California voted against Prop. 8 end of story. It is anti-American for a judge to overturn the people's vote. The gays can holler and scream all they want but this is how our country works.

To comment on your Religious Right issues, yes they have been opposed to change because their opposition is rooted in the belief in God and that his word is the ultimate truth.

The congress can remove jurisdiction from the courts. It requires a large majority. (This may apply to Federal only, I am not intimately familiar with California constitutional law.)

You are correct an amendment would work, which is what happened in California. California still has civil unions. They just voted to not call them marriage.

Originally posted by

Dick Rambone

In our Republic of the USA, there is really only one true example of Real Democracy in Action: a Referendum on a ballot. A Referendum is literally a question posed to the people, and that includes all the citizens eligible to vote in that state. Therefore, a Referendum is Real Democracy in Action. It becomes Law when the people choose to vote it into law by majority rule. Or it fails to become Law, etc, when enough people vote against it.
My point is, Proposition 8 in California was a fair decision, decided by the people of that State. If you don't like it, there are 49 other States in this Republic available to move to. That is how the USA works, and it is good. If we wanted to segregate ourselves enough, we could simply move as whole social groups to certain states and vote up referendums to make each state as we see fit.

And the reality is, regardless of what any referendum results in, the courts, when asked, must rule on the Constitutionality of that law. Here in Mississippi the people would almost certainly vote by a large majority to include Christian teachings in public schools. If such a referendum was introduced and passed, the courts would then be obligated by the Constitution to overturn that law as it infringes on the first amendment.

I don't know any other way to say it; we are not a simple 'majority rule' society. The people can vote until they are blue in the face, but they can not infringe on the rights of even one citizen in what they're voting on. The Constitution protects the rights of all citizens, be them in the minority or the majority.