Historic Same Sex Marriage Trial About to Start

[MotF Bane]

I think you are wrong there, i think any sane man or woman should be against legislation that is restrictive towards personal freedoms that affect no one else and i don't think party affiliation has anything to do with it.

Then again, i'm a liberal democrat, not the strange version you got in the US, the version we have in the UK which is more of a mix of your liberals, conservatives and mostly libertians.

Legislating morality is more likely to be restrictive of personal freedoms, so I think we ultimately come up to the same place, just from different directions.

I'm not really familiar with your party system, but would a liberal democrat be something similar to classic liberalism, circa American and French Revolutions?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Legislating morality is more likely to be restrictive of personal freedoms, so I think we ultimately come up to the same place, just from different directions.

I'm not really familiar with your party system, but would a liberal democrat be something similar to classic liberalism, circa American and French Revolutions?

Aye, we do agree on that.

Well it's UK whigs liberalism, not the US variant, it's hard to explain because it's a mix of classic liberalism and current liberalism with libeartian undertones.

I don't know if that makes any sense, there is probbably a wiki or something on the matter that can explain it better than i can.

I used to be Labour but we really don't need any more PM's who are thirsty for the ball sweat if American Presidents. I considered Tory and while i do like some of it i found myself agreeing mostly with the liberal democrats so...

One thing is for fucking sure, Labour is a gonner in this next election.

 

[Craig234]

No they are not, we are fucking born with a sense of empathy and THAT is where morals come from, not the "well i'd rape and kill if i knew i could get away with it" law system made by men.

Of course, the empathy that one has will vary with everyone and in your case, let's just say that it's good that at least you believe in following the law.

I agree, empathy is central to morality. And that empathetic morality is essential to voting.

Sometimes it doesn't work. A lot of people vote for gay bigotry lacking empathy and morality.

As far as following the law - I view the law as carrying some moral weight as a ysstem for the community to express its moral views, to disencent bad behavior.

But sometimes it's wrong, sometimes it's right to not follow the law/

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I agree, empathy is central to morality. And that empathetic morality is essential to voting.

Sometimes it doesn't work. A lot of people vote for gay bigotry lacking empathy and morality.

As far as following the law - I view the law as carrying some moral weight as a ysstem for the community to express its moral views, to disencent bad behavior.

But sometimes it's wrong, sometimes it's right to not follow the law/

Sometimes it doesn't work and that is the time when we arrest and put them before a court of law, as if that would help, the ones who are sociopaths will never be fixed, it would have been more honest to put an 8 gauge fowler under their chin and blow their head clean off.

I don't do forgiveness.

The law is the law and you'll follow it or be punished, there are ways to change the laws without breaking them, OR by breaking them with enough support, being a retard will just land your sorry arse in jail.

 

[Craig234]

Sometimes it doesn't work and that is the time when we arrest and put them before a court of law, as if that would help, the ones who are sociopaths will never be fixed, it would have been more honest to put an 8 gauge fowler under their chin and blow their head clean off.

I don't do forgiveness.

I was referring to empathetic morality sometimes not being seen in voters, like when they vote against minorities ot of bigotry, or war for the wrong reasons, and so on.

There's no protection for that but the constitution, and barely that.

The law is the law and you'll follow it or be punished, there are ways to change the laws without breaking them, OR by breaking them with enough support, being a retard will just land your sorry arse in jail.

That's not always the case. A black who killed in self defense early on for example, might find neither an easy way to change the law nor popular support. An anti-war protestor can have the same dilemma.

Yes, we now have some conscientious objector laws, but not everyone does all the time.

I'm not sure how 'empathetic' you are as a military officer to conscientious objector, though. Some are and some aren't.

Typically, such moral resistance does involve jail. Not much way around it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I was referring to empathetic morality sometimes not being seen in voters, like when they vote against minorities ot of bigotry, or war for the wrong reasons, and so on.

There's no protection for that but the constitution, and barely that.



That's not always the case. A black who killed in self defense early on for example, might find neither an easy way to change the law nor popular support. An anti-war protestor can have the same dilemma.

Yes, we now have some conscientious objector laws, but not everyone does all the time.

I'm not sure how 'empathetic' you are as a military officer to conscientious objector, though. Some are and some aren't.

Typically, such moral resistance does involve jail. Not much way around it.

Don't be daft, killing because of self defence is a neccessity, not a moral standpoint.

I am empatheic to the people who get in our way and cause no unneccessary harm, in fact, i'd say that our presence saves lives since instead of late predators we are responsible for targeted strike, on time and on target.

Of course, war is never pretty nor is it always just, it is what it is and to the best of my ability i'll do what i do as well as i possibly can, that includes proper planning, something other teams (ahem) are not always good at.

Someone has to do it and i do it well, pretty fucking well if i do say so myself.

 

[Craig234]

Don't be daft, killing because of self defence is a neccessity, not a moral standpoint.

What brought that up? I mentioned laws against theft, rape, murder as having moral bases. And people are free to get that morality where they like, religion or empathy or television.

I am empatheic to the people who get in our way and cause no unneccessary harm, in fact, i'd say that our presence saves lives since instead of late predators we are responsible for targeted strike, on time and on target.

Of course, war is never pretty nor is it always just, it is what it is and to the best of my ability i'll do what i do as well as i possibly can, that includes proper planning, something other teams (ahem) are not always good at.

Someone has to do it and i do it well, pretty fucking well if i do say so myself.

Good, but we seem to have strayed from the claim that morality has no basis for voting on laws that I disagreed with.

I hear some good things from you about your attitude that I don't always hear from 'other', ahem, soldiers.

 

[Robor]

Incorrect. The poster was passing his baseless opinion as a fact, stating that the vote was "wrong", and the court needs to "fix" it. I did not misunderstand anything, that's what the ignoramus post said.

Secondly, explain to me how "Here we go again" means "Loving v. Viriginia." And this time, try to avoid partisan bias and religions references.

When voters are basing their decisions on religious preachings how can you avoid them?

 

[Craig234]

Wow.

I posted speculation with concerns that the four right-wing extremists on the Supreme Court are a worry for gay right.

I am digsuted with them right now. I did not expect *televising the trial* would be politicized.

Our great Supreme Court just ruled on the trial judge's ruling to broadcast the trial, which the gay-equality advocates want and the anti-gay advocates do not, in a *5-4* ruling, against cameras.

Every one of the right-wing radicals ruled how the anti-gay people wanted, and every one of the mainstream judges ruled how the gay equality advocates wanted.

I said in the last post I don't trust Kennedy; as usual he was the tie breaker and sided with the right-wing extremists. So the trial will not be televised.

It's despicable that so many issues are decided by ideologues, and not the law - but for even the legality of televising the hearing to gt a 5-4 ruling shows how broken these right-wingers have made the court.

I said before they were confirmed they will cause decades of harm to the country. They are.

 

[ProgressiveAthe]

Wow.

I posted speculation with concerns that the four right-wing extremists on the Supreme Court are a worry for gay right.

I am digsuted with them right now. I did not expect *televising the trial* would be politicized.

Our great Supreme Court just ruled on the trial judge's ruling to broadcast the trial, which the gay-equality advocates want and the anti-gay advocates do not, in a *5-4* ruling, against cameras.

Every one of the right-wing radicals ruled how the anti-gay people wanted, and every one of the mainstream judges ruled how the gay equality advocates wanted.

I said in the last post I don't trust Kennedy; as usual he was the tie breaker and sided with the right-wing extremists. So the trial will not be televised.

It's despicable that so many issues are decided by ideologues, and not the law - but for even the legality of televising the hearing to gt a 5-4 ruling shows how broken these right-wingers have made the court.

I said before they were confirmed they will cause decades of harm to the country. They are.

Kennedy worries me, he is a devote Catholic and we know where the church stands on gay marriage. Also what worries me is many of the justices in the SCOTUS are catholic and fear the catholic church might try to influence them with threats and such. I wouldn't put it pass the church to threaten to excommunicate Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Sotomayor. I know Sotomayor is a progressie but a threat of excommunication could change her vote. I wouldn't put it pass the catholic church to make this threat.

 

[BoberFett]

Wow.

Wow indeed.

I am digsuted with them right now. I did not expect *televising the trial* would be politicized.

Asking to televise a trial is already politicizing it.

Every one of the right-wing radicals ruled how the anti-gay people wanted, and every one of the mainstream judges ruled how the gay equality advocates wanted.

Anybody who disagrees with Craig is a right wing radical.

Damn, you are such a fucking piece of shit. The only things progressive about you is your progressive march to uselessness.

 

[Turin39789]

Why is it unconstitutional to televise the trial?

 

[Craig234]

Kennedy worries me, he is a devote Catholic and we know where the church stands on gay marriage. Also what worries me is many of the justices in the SCOTUS are catholic and fear the catholic church might try to influence them with threats and such. I wouldn't put it pass the church to threaten to excommunicate Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Sotomayor. I know Sotomayor is a progressie but a threat of excommunication could change her vote. I wouldn't put it pass the catholic church to make this threat.

I don't think the current church would do this, and I don't think any of the judges, even the right-wing radicals, would allow themnselves to be blackmailed by that. They take great pride in that principle.

It's their corrupt radical views that are the problem, not blackmail.

So for example, when they ruled for partisan reasons for Bush in 2000, it was about their ideology, not the Bush campaign threatening them behind closed doors.

Although Scalia was so close to the administration that they made his son, a corporate lawyer who had always been on the other side of labor, a senior official representing, wait for it, labor.

But even there it likely was not any agreement, just people who are aligned.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

I wouldn't put it pass the catholic church to make this threat.

Let's hope the Catholics have the cojones to make the threat and to follow through if necessary.

We don't need Catholics in office that oppose their faith with their votes.

 

[Craig234]

Let's hope the Catholics have the cojones to make the threat and to follow through if necessary.

We don't need Catholics in office that oppose their faith with their votes.

Not all Catholics are for discrimination. The Church is wrong on this.

But the Catholic Church threatening excommunication to force rulings? Good idea.

You injure your head or something?

Do you need it explained to you why that's bad?

 

[MotF Bane]

Let's hope the Catholics have the cojones to make the threat and to follow through if necessary.

We don't need Catholics in office that oppose their faith with their votes.

Our justices must follow our laws, not the laws of a church.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Not all Catholics are for discrimination. The Church is wrong on this.

Really? Perhaps you could get Church officials to issue a proclamation saying thath gay sex is approved. Will it happen?

Our justices must follow our laws, not the laws of a church.

Activism on the Court is the Liberal/Democrat/Heathen way. Have you missed that?

Tell the Judges on your side to quit following the code of Liberalism.

 

[Craig234]

Really? Perhaps you could get Church officials to issue a proclamation saying thath gay sex is approved. Will it happen?

Nothing to do with my post.

Activism on the Court is the Liberal/Democrat/Heathen way. Have you missed that?

Tell the Judges on your side to quit following the code of Liberalism.

Yes, the radiucal right on the court are too liberal. My award of craziest poster to you hasn't changed.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Nothing to do with my post.

It goes to the heart of the issue.

Yes, the radiucal right on the court are too liberal. My award of craziest poster to you hasn't changed.

I'm honored!

 

[MotF Bane]

Activism on the Court is the Liberal/Democrat/Heathen way. Have you missed that?

Tell the Judges on your side to quit following the code of Liberalism.

I have no side, and there are no apparent liberals on the Court.

 

[Number1]

It's probably been said before but here is my view.
We have gay marriage up here in Canada and nobody got hurt. I was initially against it but after reflection I concluded it had no effect on my life and it really is none of my business.

Simply put the US case, you can't have a majority vote on a minority's right. Otherwise you would still have slavery down there. And all those religious groups forking out millions against gay marriage really goes against the separation of church and states doctrine.


The court need to decide on this issue and I am willing to bet it will pass. There is simply no good reason to deny it.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

We have gay marriage up here in Canada and nobody got hurt.

Are people allowed to openly criticize gay sex in Canada?

 

[woolfe9999]

Wow.

I posted speculation with concerns that the four right-wing extremists on the Supreme Court are a worry for gay right.

I am digsuted with them right now. I did not expect *televising the trial* would be politicized.

Our great Supreme Court just ruled on the trial judge's ruling to broadcast the trial, which the gay-equality advocates want and the anti-gay advocates do not, in a *5-4* ruling, against cameras.

Every one of the right-wing radicals ruled how the anti-gay people wanted, and every one of the mainstream judges ruled how the gay equality advocates wanted.

I said in the last post I don't trust Kennedy; as usual he was the tie breaker and sided with the right-wing extremists. So the trial will not be televised.

It's despicable that so many issues are decided by ideologues, and not the law - but for even the legality of televising the hearing to gt a 5-4 ruling shows how broken these right-wingers have made the court.

I said before they were confirmed they will cause decades of harm to the country. They are.

I have read the SCOTUS opinion on this. The issue is more limited than you think. Youtube and CourtTV broadcasts were already prohibited by the trial court because this runs afoul of longstanding court rules which apply to every case. The issue decided by the SCOTUS was, should they be allowed to broadcast it by closed circuit to five other courtrooms throughout the US, where they would seat additional reporters. These reporters would be prohibited from taking photos or video. The idea was only to effectively increase the number of reporters allowed to view the trial beyond the physical confines of Judge Walker's courtroom.

The legal issue was pretty narrow. The First District Court has a local rule that bans any and all broadcasting of court proceedings. They tried to amend that rule on the fly to create a pilot program to permit closed circuit broadcasting in this case. The majority opinion says that they did not comply with the proper procedure for amending their local court rule. The dissent says they did.

For the record, I agree with the reasoning of the dissent here. However, there wasn't that much at stake. There wouldn't have been any Youtube broadcasts. The court would have to totally reverse its longstanding rule for that to take place, which would apply to all trials, not just this one.

N.D. Cal local rule 77-3 (effective 1995):

"Unless allowed by a Judge or a Magistrate Judge with respect to his or her own chambers or assigned courtroom for ceremonial purposes, the taking of photographs, public broadcasting or televising, or recording for those purposes in the courtroom or its environs, in connection with any judicial proceeding, is prohibited. Electronic transmittal of courtroom proceedings and presentation of evidence within the confines of the courthouse is permitted, if authorized by the Judge or Magistrate Judge. The term “environs,” as used in this rule, means all floors on which chambers, courtrooms or on which Offices of the Clerk are located, with the exception of any space specifically designated as a Press Room. Nothing in this rule is intended to restrict the use of electronic means to receive or present evidence during Court proceedings."

- wolf

 

[K1052]

We don't need Catholics in office that oppose their faith with their votes.

Since we don't live in a religious state their spiritual beliefs shouldn't hold sway over their legal decisions.

If you really desire the hand of a non-secular state in your life the Middle East has a bunch of nice ones to choose from.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Since we don't live in a religious state their spiritual beliefs shouldn't hold sway over their legal decisions.

If you really desire the hand of a non-secular state in your life the Middle East has a bunch of nice ones to choose from.

I believe that Liberalism and Democrats are a religion. They have no problem openly admitting that they want to rule as activists from the bench.

Remember, Sotomayor slipped and indicated she would be an "activist Judge".

No matter, I believe this one will go our way strictly based on Law.