Menu
By:
Filters
What's new

The Problem with DOMA and Prop 8 has NOTHING to do with gay marriage

The fact that people are surprised the government isn't doing what it is supposed to be doing actually surprises me. I guess there still are a lot of sheeple out there.

The government is a sick, dying organism that frankly needs a complete cleansing and a rebuilding from scratch. Its just a question of when and how really. Do we continue to sit here idly while the government slowly strips away the Constitution or do we wake up, rise against them and force change?

Also New York blows....glad I'm exempt from their new control laws.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
ThatOneGuy said:
If it wasn't they wouldn't get away with doing nothing. There would be calls for impeachment and even though that wouldn't work they would have a huge fight to get re-elected.

I think thats why they ducked out on this one. Even being seen in the courtrooms would be easy fodder for opponents to use come election day next time.
Click to expand...

And that kind of political cowardice is at the heart of the problem with our leaders. They care more about the politically expedient thing than the right thing.
 
Zakis said:
The fact that people are surprised the government isn't doing what it is supposed to be doing actually surprises me. I guess there still are a lot of sheeple out there.

The government is a sick, dying organism that frankly needs a complete cleansing and a rebuilding from scratch. Its just a question of when and how really. Do we continue to sit here idly while the government slowly strips away the Constitution or do we wake up, rise against them and force change?

Also New York blows....glad I'm exempt from their new control laws.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


Let's get a bunch of arms together and bury them under the farm for when something drastic finally happens and we all meet up to live out our lives. You know, government collapse, zombies, etc..
 
Belial said:
Let's get a bunch of arms together and bury them under the farm for when something drastic finally happens and we all meet up to live out our lives. You know, government collapse, zombies, etc..
Click to expand...


Fuck that I need internet.
 
whats worse, no internet or govt internet like chinas got[DOUBLEPOST=1372299314,1372299145][/DOUBLEPOST]
Belial said:
Let's get a bunch of arms together and bury them under the farm for when something drastic finally happens and we all meet up to live out our lives. You know, government collapse, zombies, etc..
Click to expand...

I'm anti-weapon stockpiling, but pro-burying stuff in the ground. So I'm torn.
 
Keleynal said:
whats worse, no internet or govt internet like chinas got[DOUBLEPOST=1372299314,1372299145][/DOUBLEPOST]

I'm anti-weapon stockpiling, but pro-burying stuff in the ground. So I'm torn.
Click to expand...

So are you anti-gun?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
I don't know what the rules are like in America, but in Australia, you cannot represent on a court case if there is prejudice or conflict of interest. Judges can recuse themselves, lawyers can refuse to try a case, and jurors can sidestep their duty if they feel their opinion will be swayed.

Lets use myself as an example: Earlier in the year I received a jury summons. I attended, and I became part of the process immediately prior to jury selection. At this point, the judge tells us the nature of the case, which is that a girl's uncle is being accused of sexually assaulting her. The judge now gives those of us who feel we have cause, to excuse ourselves from consideration as jurors. I tell the judge I suffered sexual molestation as a child (true), and feel that I would be biased towards a conviction. So the judge excuses me, and thanks me for my service.

But lets get back to the matter at hand. The DoJ obviously felt they could not, in good conscience, defend a law they despised. So they took the only option they could - to not present a case. To my mind, this is simply democracy at work. The people disagreed with a piece of legislature, and sought legal means to change that law. The process seems to be working as intended.
 
The part of the process that pertains to appealing a law worked just fine in this case, it was the DoJ acting on orders from the executive branch that failed.

Getting out of jury duty isn't so easy here. You may not get selected because of something like that in your past, but it's harder to get outright excused.

This was like if a public defender refused to represent someone because they didn't like that kind of person. While it may have been "prudent" of them to recognize their bias, the dereliction of duty is inexcusable.
 
Keleynal said:
This was like if a public defender refused to represent someone because they didn't like that kind of person. While it may have been "prudent" of them to recognize their bias, the dereliction of duty is inexcusable.
Click to expand...

This is the bigger issue. People should be allowed to remove themselves. And that is what seems to have happened here.
 
In the not too distant past there was a law on the books where I lived. By "not too distant" I mean in the last 15 years...:

If 3 or more Native Americans were in a group, they were considered a "war party" and could be treated as such (attacked, killed, etc.)

Around 2000 or 2001 (I forget), someone challenged the law and the government chose not to fight it. They chose not to fight it because it was an antiquated law that had no bearing on the current social climate of the state (or country, or whatever). At one point the people who lived around here felt it was an important law, nonetheless the law was repealed because it has no meaning now.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the government not defending a law doesn't mean they are failing to do their jobs. It means they realize the law doesn't mean the same thing as it used to. In the case of the law you are using as an example, we have far fewer bigots now-a-days and most people realize that homosexuality isn't actually a choice a person can make. So making it illegal is essentially tantamount to making it illegal to be Asian.

Of course, going off of many of your previous posts and the "Jesus Freak" tag you have put on your name here, tells me you most likely do not agree with my statements and are using the "the government didn't do their job" argument to mask disdain for gay people being able to get married. (admin edit, explained below)
 
Keleynal said:
This was like if a public defender refused to represent someone because they didn't like that kind of person. While it may have been "prudent" of them to recognize their bias, the dereliction of duty is inexcusable.
Click to expand...


Also, I'd like to touch base on this statement. Public defenders are allowed to excuse themselves from defending their client. A person who I used to consider a friend, decided to go off his rocker and murder a pregnant woman, about a year and a half ago. He was assigned a public defender, who later excused himself because of the brutality of the crime. The court simply gave him another defender and moved on.

The public defender who chose to excuse himself is still employed. I saw a news story about him covering another case just last week.
 
Fish said:
Of course, going off of many of your previous posts and the "Jesus Freak" tag you have put on your name here, tells me you most likely do not agree with my statements and are using the "the government didn't do their job" argument to mask disdain for gay people being able to get married.
Click to expand...


Knowing Kel the "Jesus Freak" is a joke because he knows what his stance is and is OK with the label. I also know from his past posts, Kel is the opposite of someone who has "disdain for gay people". So please, if you wish to make a well organized argument like the first part of that post, please do not ruin it for those involved with an uninformed jab at the end. That is not what the Rants Section is for.
 
Fish said:
Also, I'd like to touch base on this statement. Public defenders are allowed to excuse themselves from defending their client. A person who I used to consider a friend, decided to go off his rocker and murder a pregnant woman, about a year and a half ago. He was assigned a public defender, who later excused himself because of the brutality of the crime. The court simply gave him another defender and moved on.

The public defender who chose to excuse himself is still employed. I saw a news story about him covering another case just last week.
Click to expand...


I would say in this case that I have seen people lose their jobs at major firms in the past for this. Which I do NOT agree with, but it is our fucked up legal system in action. But then again that fucked up legal system stops witches from being burned at the stake for having red hair and purple noses.
 
Fish said:
Also, I'd like to touch base on this statement. Public defenders are allowed to excuse themselves from defending their client. A person who I used to consider a friend, decided to go off his rocker and murder a pregnant woman, about a year and a half ago. He was assigned a public defender, who later excused himself because of the brutality of the crime. The court simply gave him another defender and moved on.

The public defender who chose to excuse himself is still employed. I saw a news story about him covering another case just last week.
Click to expand...

So the public defender metaphor was a bad example, and I'm more than willing to admit that I'm no lawyer myself, nor have I studied the American gov't in detail. So I guess it could be that they can just pick and choose what laws to defend and which ones not to defend. I don't like that, though. I would prefer our courts to decide cases based on the law, not on public sentiment and personal feelings. Those things are perfectly valid when signing petitions or holding rallies or arguing on the floor of Congress. But in a court of law? I think objectivity is essential.

Also, I'm not masking anything. If you want to know my views on homosexuality, look back a couple pages in rants and you'll see some pretty extensive discussion. Take some time to get to know what I'm about before you assume too much. And yes, I wear the Jesus Freak label proudly.
 
Keleynal said:
Also, I'm not masking anything. If you want to know my views on homosexuality, look back a couple pages in rants and you'll see some pretty extensive discussion. Take some time to get to know what I'm about before you assume too much. And yes, I wear the Jesus Freak label proudly.
Click to expand...


And with that, let's move on with the topic at hand.
 
Kel's a cool and thoughtful guy. We disagree on a lot, but he's not dogmatic or duplicitous.

Yes, it is the Supreme Court's job to declare something unconstitutional. Which is what just happened. If they had upheld DOMA, the executive would then have to start defending it again. Checks and balances.
 
Red Omen said:
Yes, it is the Supreme Court's job to declare something unconstitutional. Which is what just happened. If they had upheld DOMA, the executive would then have to start defending it again. Checks and balances.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the DOMA issue was the part that was keeping the federal gov't from giving benefits to same sex couples that were legally married in states that allow it. I'm 100% in favor of that decision. If we allow marriage, we also all allow everything that entials- including benefits, survivorship, ect.
 
Keleynal said:
Yeah, the DOMA issue was the part that was keeping the federal gov't from giving benefits to same sex couples that were legally married in states that allow it. I'm 100% in favor of that decision. If we allow marriage, we also all allow everything that entials- including benefits, survivorship, ect.
Click to expand...


Come again here? 100% for benefits or against?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom