Several days ago, a judge in California ruled that the bill preventing partial-birth abortion was ‘unconstitutional’ because it took away a woman’s ‘right to choose.’
Aside from the ridiculousness of this idea (It doesn’t take away a woman’s right to choose abortion, only the barbaric form of murder called partial-birth abortion. This seems akin to suing McDonalds for taking away your right to choose an ice cream topping they don’t carry.), it is another example of a single judge overturning a major bill or law, often voted in rightfully by the people of the state or the nation, simply by declaring it ‘unconstitutional.’
This, to me, raises 2 problems:
#1: These judges are essentially taking away the right of the people to vote by declaring “Decide what you will about the future of the state, or the country, but if I, or any other single individual in a judges position disagrees with it, we’ll overturn it in a heartbeat.”
#2: The Constitution is being abused and ignored, and essentially made to say whatever the judges want it to say at the current moment. Where does the Constitution say anything about the right to abortion, much less partial-birth abortion? Or tax cuts/licence tab reductions voted for by the majority of Washington state? The list goes on and on. It seems as if the judges are trying to interpret the letter of the law against the spirit of the law, and for the most part they’re just making things up whenever it suits them.

What do you think? Is the phrase “unconstitutional” being over-used and abused? In most cases, is it just being used as an excuse?

Where does the Constitution say anything about the right to abortion

The Ninth Amendment.

Or tax cuts/licence tab reductions voted for by the majority of Washington state?

The Tenth Amendment. That's a State matter, dealt with in the Washington state constitution.

The Ninth Amendment is incredibly vague.

Yes, but it neatly answers the question, "they didn't talk about it in the constitution, so the right doesn't exist".

I agree with that. But when do we reach the point where we hit the ceiling in terms of these rights? How far is too far? Who should decide?

I think Bronson Pinchot should.

Sorry, I don’t buy it. Just because not being mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t keep something from being a right, it doesn’t stand to reason that because it’s not covered in the Constitution it automatically IS a right, either.
By that logic, I have a right to marry my sister, have myself legally declared a cow, go around stalking anybody of Panamanian descent, or any manner of ludicrous behavior that I could claim as a ‘right’ (And yes, I know, some of the above are really covered under existing laws, and wouldn’t be feasible anyway.)
That's why there has to be a limit. Sooner or later, it will have to be decided whether things not mentioned in the Constitution are rights or not.

"I agree with that. But when do we reach the point where we hit the ceiling in terms of these rights? How far is too far? Who should decide?" -MikeC

That was the point of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. It WAS a decision. That decision was "Partial Birth Abortion is not a right." And a judge overruled it, saying that it was prtected from such rulings because it was a right.
Well, if all you have to do is propose a right for it to be protected by the 9th amendment, then Common Sense is dead and Anarchy is around the corner. We'll be unable to reject any 'rights' once somebody has proposed them.
And I don't buy the fact that there is a 'right' to Partial Birth Abortion. Even if you grant that there is a right to abortion, (which, I'll admit, most of the country does), that does not give you a right to Partial Birth abortion. I still think that's akin to suing McDonalds for not having Mint-Rhubarb shakes.
On a side note, not only is Partial Birth Abortion the killing of a baby that is viable outside the womb, there's really no practical benefit to the woman. You go through all the pains and exhaustions of labor and birth, only to see your baby partially removed, a pair of scissors stuck into it's head, it's skull ripped open, and it's brain sucked out with a vacuum. If that's what our judges are defending by twisting the Constitution these days, then our very society is doomed.

The probl;em Zarm, extends from the fact that just about very Partial birth ban I;ve sen has had loopholes built that ould allow the Extreme Right to do an end run around Roe v. Wade. I dislike the PBA method as much as the next guy, but this is too sensitive an issue to proceeed with anything less than border-line paranoid caution. At least, that's how I see it. If someone could write a PBA ban, that not only allows for instances when the mother's life is at risk, but also is so loophole free that not even the most ingenious and creative amongst the Ultra Conservative Right could find a way to abuse it, I'm sure that even people like Diana DeGette would go for it.

I agree, Brian. And I think a reasonably bipartisan consensus can be reached on it.

Most of the democrats and pro choice republicans said they would support a ban on PBA if it included the words "except where the life of the mother is at risk" and those who author the bill refuse to make one with that clause because PBA still being legal is worth more as a publicity tool for their cause than doing the right thing is.

Mike: If only people in Congress could be as enlighetened as us.

Fitzie: Why doesn't that surprise me? It's the same reason the Democrats won't do anything about Social Security.

Because then they would loose thier title of "povery pimps" and they worked to long and hard and made to many suffer to give that up.

Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution anywhere that I can see, yet to ban a particularly brutal and barbaric form of abortion is "unconstitutional".

However, the Constitution flat out says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." yet gun control laws are never struck down as "unconstitutional".

Are we living in bizarro world or something? If it's not mentioned in the Constitution, laws banning something are unconstitutional. Yet if it is mentioned in the Constitution, laws infringing on something are not unconstitutional? Huh? Up is down, left is right, cats are dogs, Star Wars is Star Trek!

Yeah, activist judges ••••.

Anonymous: The difference with guns, since you bring them up, is the problem that, unlike products that weren't designed for killing people, animals, and thin sheet of paper like teddy bears, guns are about the only product in the Ameircan marketplace where sfaety standrds are shot (pun intended) down. We don't think tiwce about deamnding that manufacturers of stalpe guns make them more safe, so why is it a high crime to ask hand gun manufatcuerers to do the same? And I'm sorry, but what POSSIBLE legitmate reason could exist for anyone who isn't a solider or a cop ownign an assault rifle? If you need a P-90 to kill a rabbit, maybe you should be aiming that gun at your genitals or your head and do the species a favor.

Maybe I want one for the reason the Founding Fathers intended -- to defend my own freedoms against the government.

You know, its amazing what the founding fathers intendend 200 years ago, in a society radically different from today, with a different government. I wonder what weed they were smoking to get visions of the future, so they could cover all eventualities.

Society has changed in the last 200 years. Most of the civilized nations realize that this means adaptation (and this isn't the same as throwing out ideals!).

What kind of "democracy" does your country have that you need guns to protect yourself against the government??? I know that in latin american and african countries, where every other year there is a new revolution, people want guns to defend themselves, but I don't consider that civilized or democratic.

A democratic state isn't guaranteed with guns - if you need them, you have already lost the guarantee of the citizens.

I really don't think you need an assault rifle, but I strongly believe in the right to bear arms. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Why? If your liberty is taken away by a law, what good is a gun? Or do you want to overthrow the govt. everytime you don't like a law?

Vigilance doesn't mean that you need guns: it can also mean everybody being an alert, interested, informed citizen who is aware of his rights and duties and particaptes in democracy to keep it alive. Otherwise you have an empty shell, uninterested, disinformed citizens which don't participate and don't know how many rights have been taken away with laws. A democracy works only with democratic citizens, not with guns. (which is also the reason that bringing about a revolution or liberation with force of guns works very seldom -the US is a notable exception, but in most of the latin american and african countries, one revolution follows the other because the population and the politicans aren't used to working democratic, the solve every problem with an overthrow by force.)

Noone I know in the European countries considers the right to arms essential for democracy, yet they are all democracies which work.

Four Points

1. The gun is not if my liberty is taken away by a law. Objecting to a law by brandishing a gun is not how civilized people work. It is for my own protection and in case things go to hell--such as a military coup.

2. The right to arms was considered fundamental by the Founding Fathers. I agree that this right has been abused, but it is basically a logical and important right. It does not matter if it is not needed in Europe; Europe has a far different heritage than the United States.

3. Vigilance does mean that everyone should be alert and active. I agree with this.

4. I am not urging violent overthrow of the government. I am urging responsible gun handling which is a right of a free citizenry.

1. for your own protection against whom? Against your govt. or against the bad guys? If the latter, it doesn't work (violence begets violence; and look at how many people are killed or injured in accidental shootings or during brawls that escalated too quickly).
If the former - see above arguments.

a military coup: if a real military coup occurs, do you think a few people with handguns will stand a chance against the military hardware of the army - tanks, choppers and the like? Its more important to have a democratic society where nobody sane thinks he could get away with a military coup because the population wouldn't accept it (a general strike would serve this point just as nicely without guns).

2. I already said that 200 years ago, society was very different. What the founding fathers considered logical and important doesn't have to be logical and important 200 years later. The founding fathers were trying out a new form of society in an enviroment when all the important countries, plus their immediate neighbors, weren't democratic, so the fear of external overthrow was real.
Today, all the important countries are democratic and civilized, and the fear of external overthrow doesn't exist.

Yes, Europe has a different heritage than the US - so what? If two people take different ways to reach an aim, it doesn't matter once the aim is arrived. Once a country is civilized and democratic, it should meet the base standard of civilization and update the outdated traditions. One can learn from another country what works and what doesn't during this process. (this doesn't mean that everything works everywhere, or that heritage should be ignored; just that heritage isn't an excuse to keep to otherwise outdated and dangerous concepts).

4. Again, why is responsible gun handling the right of a free citizenry? The right of free speech, of free movement, of secrecy for mail and telephone etc., these are basic human rights without which a democracy can't work. But why guns? They aren't mentioned in the Human Rights convention, and the European Constitituion doesn't mention them, either. So are all europeans unfree?

An example:
The US has speed limits on their highways, germany doesn't*. Does this mean that the right to drive 250 kmh is the right of a free citizen, and americans are unfree since they don't have it? Or does this mean that americans have a more relaxed attitude about their cars and know that the higher the speed, the higher the danger of fatal accidents is?

* (A new law with a speed limit of 130 kmh has been suggested recently, and I hope it goes through. I don't think my freedom is tied to the speed of my car, and its dangerous and also bad for the enviroment.)

(a general strike would serve this point just as nicely without guns.

Allow me to direct your attention to Tian'men Square, June 1989.

Not saying that Europeans are unfree. In fact, I think you may be misinterpreting what I want.

I think that citizens should be able to own guns. Not AK-47's, not assault rifles, not M-80's. But handguns, shotguns, etc. Before doing so, they should undergo a background check, perhaps take a class on gun safety. There should be gun permits. But completely depriving a citizen of the right to own a gun is, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

1. I should have the right to protect myself against bad guys, as you put it. If for instance I happen to be a responsible gun owner and there are criminals breaking into my house, or perhaps a rabid dog on my property, I would like to be able to defend myself and my children. I would also like to hunt animals, which requires a gun if it is not bow season, and I think I should be able to keep said gun in my own home. Accidental shootings can be avoided if guns are RESPONSIBLY handled by MATURE adults.

Your example--my rebuttal

No, Germany is a different country than the United States with its own perspective of looking at things. If it wished to change, then it would. I can look at the Netherlands and its legalized prostitution (and you can cite to me, as some have, how this is good). I don't think it would be good for the United States. The United States has its own tradition and its own heritage. I believe that the right to bear arms is part of that.

Now, I think that gun proponents go too far and I agree with various points of "Bowling for Columbine" regarding how the United States' media culture has led to gun violence, but that has nothing to do with the right to bear arms.

ScottN,

Tiennamen only showed that a small demonstration can be crushed with military force. Would Tiennamen have been different if the Chinese had the right to bear arms? No, a tank is still stronger than a handgun.

If not a small demonstration group, but the whole country went on a general strike because they disagree with the way the country is run or who's on top, the leaders wouldn't use tanks anymore - against the whole population its useless. (and you can't force the whole population to work under gun-point).

I'm not saying that a general strike is the answer for everything, but was merely citing it as an example for non-violent means of protesting a coup d'etat.

MikeC,

I guess we agree to disagree on this point, then.

I think we probably agree to disagree on more than this.

SMALL DEMONSTRATION? Estimates were close to a million people in Tian'men square!

That IS a small demonstration in China. (ducks)

MikeC,

I don't know about other points we haven't discussed yet . I do agree with your part that the gun control laws should be improved - I'd go along with your above suggestion anytime. (I just disagree on the basic question).

ScottN,

my mistake then, I misremembered. I thought it was "only" a few thousand people. (But percentagewise to the total population of over 1 (US) billion, it still would be a small demonstration).

Pardon me. OVER a million people there.

How many gun owners have any of you actually met? Do any of you have any neighbors who own any kind of gun? Do any of you have any relatives who own any kind of gun? Point being that most gun control supporters are CLUELESS about what kind of people gun owners are.

My family most certainly owns a gun. Almost EVERYONE I know owns a gun. But then again, I'm from the Midwest (y'know Michael Moore's from Flint? I'm not that far away).

My stepfather-in-law was an award winning trapshooter. He always kept his rifles and pistols in a safe.

While I don't personally own a gun, and probably wouldn't own one -- I doubt that I'd have the nerve to use it in a critical situation, and hence, its presence would be more of a danger to me than a would-be intruder -- I certainly don't think they should be banned.

Local law enforcement in my Midwest US community offers free trigger locks for gun owners, and additionally encourages all gun owners to keep their guns and ammo separate and locked up.
Now if only every gun owner would follow that advice...
(I believe law enforcement encourages owners to take a gun safety course as well, but I don't know if they sponsor or pay for such a course, and at this point I think such a course is voluntary rather than required. I may be mistaken.)

MikeBrill,

why does it matter if you know personally a few gun owners or not? You can't possibly know all gun owners, so the portion you know (if you know any) is not necessarily representative.

Besides, as with other laws that tell/control people what common sense tells them (e.g. use-your-seatbelt-in-your-car-or-you'll-be-fined law), there are two groups of people:

- those who are sensible, responsible and can think calmly about the pro and cons of doing things - they will already handle guns responsibly (buckle up etc.). So a law won't hurt them, or not hurt them much, since they'll understand.

- those who don't act responsible, don't think calmly, but fly of the handle when talked to. These will be targeted by the law because they ignore a nice friendly advice, they only listen if disobiedince is punished.

(and people in between, who are rational enough to understand the benefits of acting responsible, but are too lazy to actually do it unless a law is in effect.).

So where is the problem with sensible gun control laws, if you are a responsible, rational citizen? (And if you aren't, you shouldn't handle guns, since you will likely cause accidents by handling them irresponsible.)

Problem. The word "sensible." Meaning? Vague. Big problem. Confusion. Arguments. Solution? Unsure. Deduction? Situation. Grey. Not black. Not white.

So, constanze, those in your first group must be punished (by banning guns) because those in the second and third group are idiots?

No. The people in the first group aren't punished since they already follow the rules and handle guns sensible. To compare it with the buckle-up laws: Those people who were sensible enough to buckle up weren't affected by the law (they may have an additional handle to convince their passengers to buckle up, too). Those who were too lazy /stopid to buckle up have to pay a fine and thus changed their habits (which they didn't do based on rationale alone).

BTW, you seem to be saying that people should be allowed to own guns with proper rules and handling laws. This is slightly different from your eariler posts where you argued against gun ownership. Am I reading you wrong?

What I mean is: if people are allowed to have guns, there should be strict laws so only people who handle them responsible have them, and not every type of gun (not the dangerous assault rifles) should be allowed for private citizens. (Like your earlier suggestion about gun control laws:
I think that citizens should be able to own guns. Not AK-47's, not assault rifles, not M-80's. But handguns, shotguns, etc. Before doing so, they should undergo a background check, perhaps take a class on gun safety. There should be gun permits.... )

Beyond that, I seriously doubt the necessity for every citizen to own a gun anyway - this is where we "agree to disagree".

I think we're actually pretty close to agreeing. I don't think that every citizen NEEDS to own a gun, but they should be allowed to if they so wish to (assuming of course they pass the regulations and tests and whatnot).

Once again in Louisiana, a state constitutional ammenment on the deffinition of marriage was struck down by a judge as 'unconstitutional.'
What is happening here? IS this truly where we want to go? Where the will of the people doesn't mean a darn thing if a single judge dissagrees with them? Is there anyone that actually thinks it's a good thing for one man to be able to override the rest of America because he has a different interpretation of the Constitution?

You are ignoring Zarm's major point. Women did not get the right to vote because some judge said so; they got it through the people passing the 19th Amendment. If the majority didn't agree, then why didn't they vote it down through the normal process?

Yah, but proud Louisanian Britney Spears supports Bush..and Bush don't approve of them homo marriages.

Bill Maher joked on his show last week about that vote against same-sex marrige in Louisiana. He joked that they were overcompensating because of the fact New Orleans is just about the "gayest" city in America. Or is it that the rural folks are appalled by the corrupt cosmopolitan city folks? Sounds just like the Nazis and their expressed hatred for cosmopolitan life.

That's an absurd argument. Comparing rural people to the Nazis, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Are you even trying to understand the opposing viewpoint or do you like using inflammatory language?

You know, it's interesting that nobody here has the slightest clue *why* the Louisiana amendment was struck down. The judge voided it not because he felt that its effects would be unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution, but because in Louisiana, one is not allowed to pass constitutional amendments that do more than one thing. The one the voters approved on September 18 fails this test: It prohibits same-sex marriage in Louisiana, *and* it prohibits same-sex couples in Louisiana from entering into arrangements that provide the "legal incidents" of marriage. These are procedural, not substantive, grounds. When the state legislature is back in session next year, I will bet money that a version of the amendment that won't fail this test is going to get reintroduced.

Furthermore, Zarm, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the difference between a state constitution and the Federal Constitution, because they are not the same thing.

A specific point from Dude: The rest of America? Only 800,000 people bothered to vote on that issue at all, and at since only 400,000+ voted yes, it can hardly be considered the will of the people.

This is false. 619,904 people voted for the amendment, and 177,067 voted against it. This is 78% to 22% in favor. Hardly the bare majority you're trying to invoke.

It was struck down because it did not follow the rules for how an amendment works in Louisania. Same as the "under God" rulling out west. The court didn't rule that "under God" should stay or go, just that they didn't have jurisdiction because the guy who brought the suit was not the custodial parent of his daughter, and hence had no standing to bring the suit in the first place.

Rona F.: Or is it that the rural folks are appalled by the corrupt cosmopolitan city folks? Sounds just like the Nazis and their expressed hatred for cosmopolitan life.

MikeC: Comparing rural people to the Nazis, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Are you even trying to understand the opposing viewpoint or do you like using inflammatory language?
Luigi Novi: Agreed. Rona, there is no need to compare rural people to Nazis. Such comments are clearly inflammatory, offensive to those living in rural areas, and should be deleted.

Bill Maher joked on his show last week about that vote against same-sex marrige in Louisiana. He joked that they were overcompensating because of the fact New Orleans is just about the "gayest" city in America. Or is it that the rural folks are appalled by the corrupt cosmopolitan city folks? Sounds just like the Nazis and their expressed hatred for cosmopolitan life.

Rona, be assured, you know nothing of the political realities of Louisiana, and probably of the rest of the South. As a Baton Rouge native, I respectfully request that you back off. I may not like it much sometimes, but it is my home, and writing off areas of the country that I don't like does nothing to improve them. Your vitriol is unproductive and unnecessary. (Also, I would note that the amendment received more than 50% of the vote in every district in the state, including those in New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Shreveport, and Lafayette -- all cities with more than 100,000 residents. This is simply not an urban/rural issue.)

Good call on the reasoning behind the Amendment; I wasn't up on the exact reason why it was struck down, and if that's true, then I understand the reasoning.

Either way it is a very sad sad comment on america that hateful bigoted narrow minded people feel that it is necessary to discriminate against other people.

Again, can we at least TRY to understand the other viewpoints without throwing out words like "hateful" and "bigoted?"

I think we can. But in R's case, I think it was accurate, as Rona's comments were certainly both of those.

Maybe I misinterpreted R's comments; I thought he was talking about the people that voted for the amendment.

How was I being offesive? I was comparing the religious right (of the Jimmy Swaggart type) and their outspoken condemnation of gay people. The Nazis were very outspoken in their condemnation of gays, particularly those in cosmopolitan Berlin. I'm not as uninformed as you think. I've lived in Louisiana for a short time (when my father worked at a hospital there). In the swamp country, I saw some appalling poverty, and many of the people appeared to be very religious (especially compared to areas such as New York). So for many rural people in Louisiana, I think religion plays a larger part of their life than for their cosmopolitan counterparts (there is also fewer nonreligious institutions in rural Louisiana for the people to meet in, or even seek entertainment. And I'm sorry, but fundamentalist Christianity is very homophobic. It's been commented on by numerous people.

Can anyone explain why I'v gotten a Virus scan notification when posting at Legal Musings several times. Someone at Nitcentral is unethical.

RonaF: How was I being offesive? I was comparing the religious right (of the Jimmy Swaggart type) and their outspoken condemnation of gay people.
Luigi Novi: No, you compared rural folks to Nazis.

Here is what you said:
Or is it that the rural folks are appalled by the corrupt cosmopolitan city folks? Sounds just like the Nazis and their expressed hatred for cosmopolitan life.

RonaF: I've lived in Louisiana for a short time. In the swamp country, I saw some appalling poverty, and many of the people appeared to be very religious (especially compared to areas such as New York). So for many rural people in Louisiana, I think religion plays a larger part of their life than for their cosmopolitan counterparts.
Luigi Novi: Except that that's not what you said. You did not compare hatred of homosexuals on the part of the religious to Nazi hatred. You compared rural folk to Nazis, as if those who are rural are equated with those who are religious, and as if those who are religious are therefore fundamentally religious, and as if those people are all homophobic. You cannot make the intellectual shortcut that therefore, this someone for which ALL RURAL FOLK should be condemned. That is simply a bigoted statement, and it was quite offensive, Rona. I think you're capable of far better arguments.

I wouldn't call us homophobic, i'm pretty fundamentalist, I have gay friends. Do I think what they are doing is wrong, yes, but so is that lustful thought i had about that hot girl i saw walking down the street yesterday.

Do people have the right to be gay and exist? Yes, absolutly, i will not argue against that for a second, is it right to be Gay, no, not really.

Should we grant them the "right" to marry? No, by no means. They have the right, they have the exact same right that I do, if they want to try and get another right, go for it. I still stick to my pedofilia and incest arguments on this one. I dont see why we should deny these people to marry if we are allowing homosexuals to...

An no rona, i can't explain your virus notification, I know I dont get them. Although my friend tells me you get alot of them from looking at porn...

Ah, yes, the pedophilia and incest arguments. The slippery slope, as it were.

Once more, with feeling...

The difference between homosexual marraige and pedophilia is that a child cannot consent to be married, whereas two homsexual adults can.

The difference between homosexual marraige and incest is that there is certifiable scientific evidence that incestuous relationships are likely to result in offspring with genetic defects. I imagine there could be consent problems in that arena as well, though I can't say anything specific about that. Either way, while homosexual couples cannot reproduce in the same way that heterosexual couples can, they can still bear children, and there is no certifiable scientific evidence that suggests any harm can come to a child from such an upbringing.

Also, the "they have the same rights as me" argument is still flawed. For example, say you and one of your homosexual friends were to require spending time in a hospital. Though both of you could have friends visit you during normal visiting hours, at the end of those times, your friends' friends would have to leave, but your wife, being a family member, could stay beyond the designated times. However, your friend's partner, because they are not married, cannot stay, because he/she is not "family." This is not equal rights.

Derrick Vargo: I wouldn't call us homophobic, i'm pretty fundamentalist, I have gay friends. Do I think what they are doing is wrong, yes, but so is that lustful thought i had about that hot girl i saw walking down the street yesterday.

I'm sorry, I've been hearing arguments like this for years, and they still just don't sit quite right with me. I don't know, there's just something about it... what kind of friendship can you really have with a person who's always thinking in the back of his mind that your fundamental identity is wrong? And how can you truly call a person your friend if you're firmly convinced that, by their very existence, they aren't doing right?

But this is a philosophical question more than a legal one, so perhaps another time. Is the only requirement for loving someone that you not physically persecute them? Is tolerance merely the absence of organized pogroms? I think not, but I am daily forced to settle for less.

Should we grant them the "right" to marry? No, by no means. They have the right, they have the exact same right that I do, if they want to try and get another right, go for it. I still stick to my pedofilia and incest arguments on this one. I dont see why we should deny these people to marry if we are allowing homosexuals to...

Short answer: Children can't consent to any kind of contract, which is all that a civil marriage is (and I will note that some states *do* allow underage children to marry with their parents' consent). Incest causes demonstrable harm to the gene pool. Homosexuality has neither of these problems. I do not know how much more plain it could be made.

Dan: I have no sympathy for gays at the hospital. They are responsible for getting AIDS, so they should stop asking society for special treatment.

You are right, of course, because the only ailment any gay person has ever suffered from has been AIDS. No gay person has ever been in a car accident, or suffered a sudden heart attack, or been injured in a drive-by shooting, or fallen off a ladder and broken a hip. (Yes, there are old gay people. If you'd grown up gay in those times, you wouldn't have come out until now either.) Please grow up a little bit before your next post.

I should be asleep right now, but I got a tiny flood of e-mails about this Dan character that had clicking Delete for about ten minutes.

Dan, either you learn how to debate like an adult or I ban you. Period. As for Brian Webber and Rona F., do me a BIG favor and just ignore him please? Thank you, and good night.

Matt: Perhaps I dont think and or view that the fundamental identity is gay. I dont view that as anymore that i think my fundamental identity is straight. Are we that depraved of creatures that we are nothing more fundamentally than our sexual desires, no, i cannot accept that. I beleive that a person is more than just who they choose to have sex with, that is why i can get along with people that are gay even though i dont agree with what they do. During the summer when i worked on the road comission i had to get along with people who got smashed every night and had alot of premarital sex (which are on the same level of wrong in my book). I got along with them just fine.

Here is why i can act like I do. Everyone is a sinner, we've all commited things that I would view as wrong, it's not my place to judge or even condem people, it's my job to love them. As a christian it's my job in life to show Christs love, I think alot of christians miss that. In my view of Christianity thats what we do. Can i love the person? You Bet! Can I hate some of the sins they commit? Sure can. The only time i have a problem with anyone who is homosexual is when they come on to me...(sounds like a stereotype, but it has happened to me before, and i view it in the same way as if a girl that i didn't like tried to hit on me...)

... I beleive that a person is more than just who they choose to have sex with... - Derrick Vargo

I may be wrong, but I don't think homosexuality is just about who you want to bed down with. It's what gender you find yourself drawn to. Just as there can be romantic (in its purest sense) love between a man and a woman - wanting to spend your life with a person of the opposite sex, I would assume that homosexuals also have such desires. Again, being homosexual isn't automatically the same thing as wanting to boink someone of your own gender.

First, we kill all the lawyers.

Derrick Vargo: I wouldn't call us homophobic, i'm pretty fundamentalist, I have gay friends. Do I think what they are doing is wrong, yes, but so is that lustful thought i had about that hot girl i saw walking down the street yesterday.
Luigi Novi: Sinner! That’ll be thirty Hail Mary’s for you, Derrick.

()

Matthew Patterson: what kind of friendship can you really have with a person who's always thinking in the back of his mind that your fundamental identity is wrong?
Luigi Novi: I dunno, can’t you be friends with someone you think is wrong in one area or another?

Dan: I have no sympathy for gays at the hospital. They are responsible for getting AIDS, so they should stop asking society for special treatment.
Luigi Novi: Using this logic, then a heterosexual man with AIDS cannot be visited by his wife because he was responsible for getting AIDS. Straights who have it are pretty much just as responsible for their condition as gays who haven’t, after all.

I think you can be friends with people you think are engaged in wrong behavior.

Getting back to the point about gay marriage, this is a tough one. On one hand, I do have my moral belief, but I also feel that gay people are entitled to the same legal rights (such as medical benefits, etc.) as everyone else. Right now, I take the weaselly way out and say that each state could decide for itself, meaning that I would vote against any national amendment. Depending on my mood at the time, I may or may not vote for a state amendment.

The problem with the "same rights as I do" is that still doesn't make it right. The same argument could be made about interracial marrage if that was banned (as it used to be in a lot of places.) Hey black people have the same rights as I do to marry someone of the same race, so it's fair.

Derrick Vargo: Matt: Perhaps I dont think and or view that the fundamental identity is gay. I dont view that as anymore that i think my fundamental identity is straight. Are we that depraved of creatures that we are nothing more fundamentally than our sexual desires, no, i cannot accept that. I beleive that a person is more than just who they choose to have sex with, that is why i can get along with people that are gay even though i dont agree with what they do.

You misunderstand. I have, in fact, argued many a time that people cannot simply be categorized by their choice of bed partners. We are all much more than that. The fact remains, though, that one's sexual orientation really *is* this largely unchangeable trait that doesn't appear to have much to do with choice. One can always choose not to act on one's feelings, but one's feelings will always be there.

And, parenthetically, it's a little odd to me that you appear to subscribe to a pretty standard "fallen creature" view of humanity, but insist that we're really not *that* depraved.

Here is why i can act like I do. Everyone is a sinner, we've all commited things that I would view as wrong, it's not my place to judge or even condem people, it's my job to love them. As a christian it's my job in life to show Christs love, I think alot of christians miss that. In my view of Christianity thats what we do. Can i love the person? You Bet! Can I hate some of the sins they commit? Sure can.

Then again I ask you, what is love? How do you define love? Is it simply the absence of persecution? And what is condemnation? Saying, "You act wrongly, and because I believe this, I will work against you in the arena of civil rights" kind of sounds like a condemnation to me. How do your political views on the subject flow naturally from this love you say you show to all people? Because from where I sit, I really can't see the love.

"Good call on the reasoning behind the Amendment; I wasn't up on the exact reason why it was struck down, and if that's true, then I understand the reasoning." -MikeC

Agreed.


"And I'm sorry, but fundamentalist Christianity is very homophobic. It's been commented on by numerous people." -Rona

Not true. As a 'fundamentalist Christian,' I can say that I: #1: have absolutely no fear of gay people. (Sorry, but the term homophobic is really kind of silly... it implies an actual fear as opposed to the kind of discrimination it's trying to suggest.), and #2: Have no problem with gay people. I may not approve of what they do, but I keep that to myself.
It's just when the gay community tries to start getting laws changed that are contrary to our belief of what is right and wrong that we try to counter them. (Which, if you think about it, is what happens in any election... concerned citizens try to vote down laws that violate what they believe is right and wrong. It just so happens that these bills are passed by homosexuals, so we're labeled anti-gay.)


"I'm sorry, I've been hearing arguments like this for years, and they still just don't sit quite right with me. I don't know, there's just something about it... what kind of friendship can you really have with a person who's always thinking in the back of his mind that your fundamental identity is wrong? And how can you truly call a person your friend if you're firmly convinced that, by their very existence, they aren't doing right?" -Mpatterson

Because none of us are doing only what's right. Sure Christians may believe that homosexuality is a more obvious and preventable sin, but if Christians were to stop associating with/start hating any and all sinners, we couldn't be able to associate with anybody, including ourselves!
Although most people don't get it... there really is a difference between 'hating the sin' and 'hating the sinner.' (once again I type out a paragraph post and then scroll down to see that Derrick has put it better than I could already... :-) )
For example, statements like 'I have no sympathy for gays at the hospital. They are responsible for getting AIDS, so they should stop asking society for special treatment.' are reprehensible to me, and anybody that thinks this represents a genuine Christian viewpoint is being badly decieved. I don't believe that gay marriage is right. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have basics like visitation rights and equal (though not special or preferential) treatment with everybody else.


"The problem with the "same rights as I do" is that still doesn't make it right. The same argument could be made about interracial marrage if that was banned (as it used to be in a lot of places.) Hey black people have the same rights as I do to marry someone of the same race, so it's fair." -Brian Fitzgerald


Only if you oversimplify things and say that skin color and gender are completely the same. It isn't.
If you want to say that the gay rights movement is exactly the same as the African-American civil rights movement, and is completely justified by the fact that we got it wrong then, so we must be getting it wrong now... then the 'slippery slope' arguments are 100% valid.
If a movements legitimacy is determined soley by past examples, then we have no right to deny pedophilia, incest, bestiality, etc, because obviously we're saying the same things about them that we used to say about black people.
(In other words, the paralells and metapors are simillar... but if we use those as our reasoning, then this whole thing WILL snowball into a slippery slope argument. Let's keep two separate movements... well, separate.)


"Then again I ask you, what is love? How do you define love? Is it simply the absence of persecution? And what is condemnation? Saying, "You act wrongly, and because I believe this, I will work against you in the arena of civil rights" kind of sounds like a condemnation to me. How do your political views on the subject flow naturally from this love you say you show to all people? Because from where I sit, I really can't see the love." -Mpatterson

No, love is more than the absence of persecution. The conflict here comes from the one side which sees "A terrible persecution and denying of rights rooted in a deep hatred," while the other side sees "a reasonable opposition to a group claiming non-existant and made up 'rights' that aren't really rights at all."
So, the opposition doesn't stem out of hatred, and calling voting against gay marriage 'persecution' or 'condemnation' is absolutely absurd to me...
Let's put it this way... just because I love and accept someone doesn't mean that I'll automatically vote for them, or change my view of right and wrong to accomodate them.
I love my uncle. He's a great guy. He's also a conspiracy theorist and a supporter of communism. I wouldn't vote for him or many of the bills he could come up with, most likely, but I still love him.
Additionally, just like love isn't simply 'an absence of persecution,' a dissaproval or disagreement on civil rights views and their legitimacy doesn't equal an absence of that love, either.
Once again, there's a difference between "loving the sinner" and "loving the legislation that promotes the sin."

Zarm:

Because none of us are doing only what's right. Sure Christians may believe that homosexuality is a more obvious and preventable sin, but if Christians were to stop associating with/start hating any and all sinners, we couldn't be able to associate with anybody, including ourselves!

This is fair enough. Though I suppose that I should note, in the interest of full disclosure, that I *am* a Christian, although I'd be willing to bet that it's not your kind of Christian.

So, the opposition doesn't stem out of hatred, and calling voting against gay marriage 'persecution' or 'condemnation' is absolutely absurd to me...

I want to be very clear here: I did not call voting against gay marriage "persecution." I was referring to actual physical or economic persecution. For example, someone getting fired because of her sexual orientation, or someone else being murdered because of his. (By the way, for those of us keeping score, this Tuesday is the sixth anniversary of Matthew Shepard's death. I wouldn't mention it except that I'm acting in a production of The Laramie Project, a play about the reaction to the crime, which is running this week.) Now, voting against protections against *these* things, I *would* define as persecution, because it aids and abets clearly definable harm. But the denial of marriage rights isn't quite so clear, and I'd like to reserve the stronger words for situations that really suit them.

On the other hand, Senator Rick Santorum's characterization of the Federal Marriage Amendment as the ultimate homeland security strikes me as being rather hateful, so I do have to wonder sometimes what's in the minds of the people who get to vote on these things. But that is an issue for another time.

As for "condemnation," though, I think that's a fair description. You judge that what we want is wrong or sinful, and you therefore wield power to prevent us from getting what we want. Seems like a condemnation to me. I'm not calling this evil or sinister, but it seems like the word fits.

It's just when the gay community tries to start getting laws changed that are contrary to our belief of what is right and wrong that we try to counter them.

...

Once again, there's a difference between "loving the sinner" and "loving the legislation that promotes the sin." (Note from Matt: I realize that these come from different parts of the post, but I wished to juxtapose these two statements. I apologize for any confusion.)

I then pose the following question: Why is it this issue that galvanizes Christian organizations to act? Why not something that ought to be viewed as equally wrong? Since we're discussing marriage at the moment, let's look at the example of no-fault divorce. You can get one in every state. (At last count, same-sex couples could marry in one state, get civil unions in one other, and register as "domestic partners" in, I believe, two more, as well as in scattered counties and cities.) Now, Matthew 5:31-32 states plainly, "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." And again in Mark 10:11-12: "He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.' " And again in Luke 16:18: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

One might, therefore, reasonably conclude that if remarriage after divorce is always adultery, and adultery is expressly forbidden by the seventh Commandment (Exodus 20:14, and elsewhere), divorce and remarriage cause people to sin. And one might further conclude, as seems to have been done in the case of gay marriage, that the law really ought not allow people the opportunity to commit this or any kind of sin. Just under a million divorces were finalized in the year 2000 (and I would note that several states don't keep track of these things).

But that's background. Here's my question: Why isn't there a widespread lobby to end divorce in this country? Why aren't there groups in every state putting amendments on the ballot to forbid divorce except in the case of adultery? Why doesn't the president make speeches about this? Surely not all of those million divorces were due to adultery. Surely multitudes of people are walking around this country today, having sinned because the law permits it. Surely the extreme ease of dissolving a marriage harms the institution. So why do Christians legislate against one sin and not the other? And I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, but I'm trying to understand that, if the law is to be used to discourage sinful behaviour, why the law is not being used so as to get more bang for one's buck.

(My statistics on divorce come from Americans for Divorce Reform. This is an organization that seeks to reduce the divorce rate in this country, but my reading of their statistics page leaves me feeling that they're pretty unbiased in their presentation of the facts. If I turn out to have been misled, I apologize, and I'll find something better.)

"As for "condemnation," though, I think that's a fair description. You judge that what we want is wrong or sinful, and you therefore wield power to prevent us from getting what we want. Seems like a condemnation to me. I'm not calling this evil or sinister, but it seems like the word fits." -Mpatterson

Once again, a condemnation of the idea of gay marriage, not a condemnation of Gays themselves. As I said before, I don't want to condemn my uncle, in fact I like him allot. But I would condemn any attempts to get his views legalized the same way I would condemn or vote against any law that I thought was wrong.


As for your questions of divorce, I'd say that: #1, we can't legislate everywhere at once :-), and #2, Gay marriage is a much more immediate topic, a much more current topic, and would have a far greater cultural impact on the US. (Not to mention, I imagine that not as many people are famailliar with the details of Biblical doctrine on divorce... we may consider the Bible God's word, but we're not exactly all Biblical scholars... )

Zarm: As for your questions of divorce, I'd say that: #1, we can't legislate everywhere at once :-), and #2, Gay marriage is a much more immediate topic, a much more current topic, and would have a far greater cultural impact on the US.

#1 is true. #2, however, seems to me to be without merit. Gay marriage is big at the moment, true, but "more current?" The divorce problem is worse now than ever; how can two things happening at the same time be more or less current than each other? And "greater cultural impact?" Again, I refer you to those statistics; divorce is something that affects millions of people every year, and more with each passing year. I don't buy that the issue of gay marriage is somehow more immediately relevant to the average person's life.

(Not to mention, I imagine that not as many people are famailliar with the details of Biblical doctrine on divorce... we may consider the Bible God's word, but we're not exactly all Biblical scholars... )

One does not have to be a scholar to have heard of this stuff. I knew it when I was five. It's not like I'm quoting Amos or 2 Esdras. Matthew 5 is arguably the most famous chapter in all the Gospels, as it comprises the Sermon on the Mount. And this is a fairly plain doctrine, too: When you get married, stay married. It's not like trying to divine what Paul thought about women.

Plus, this is a circular argument anyway; if people are more familiar with the few places where homosexuality is mentioned (which tend to be buried in books that one would not otherwise read as thoroughly, though if you really have made a thorough study of Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Corinthians, my hat is off to you), it's because they've been led to believe that it's a more pressing problem. Chicken and egg.

It's not like I'm quoting Amos or 2 Esdras.

A quick explanation for non-Catholics: 1 Esdras = Ezra; 2 Esdras = Nehemiah. The Catholic tranlations often use the Greek version of Hebrew names, and Nehemiah is considered to be a continuation of Ezra.

Actually, my reference Bible lists both Ezra and Nehemiah as 2 Esdras, and 1 Esdras is listed under "Books in the Greek and Slavonic Bibles; not in the Roman Catholic Canon." 1 Esdras, confusingly, parallels seemingly random parts of 1 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, and also has material with no parallel. And I've just gone so off-topic that I may actually come back around if I go any further.

I heard recently that a higher-up in Pat Robertsons' CBC (Christian Broadcasting Company (or is it Corporation?) has been outed.

Funny how the most vociferous anti-Gay people turn out to be gay themselves. In light of this, I'd like to start something her at Nitcentral.

I call it "Countdown to Santorum." Need I say more?

I abjure this practice, as it is at heart mean-spirited and counterproductive. One's sexual orientation is absolutely a private matter. And you're really not being funny here.

As for my take on the divorce question. I do see divorce as very wrong, I see it as a threat to the structure of the american family. I see it as detrimental to the kids. I see it as biblically wrong. However, there are mounting reasons why this has not been an issue.

#1. Sad but true, Divorce is a wide-spread practice among christians these days. It mirrors the same percentage as non-christian divorces. Having been through divorce it makes it harder to stand up against it. If more than half the members of the church were gay, it would be hard to come up with support from them banning gay marrage.

#2. Divorce is already legal, Gay marrage isn't. It's alot easier to fight something that isn't established than something that already is. We have a chance to stop Gay marrage before it starts, where as divorce is a firmly entrentched status quo of society brought on by the feminist movement.

Now in my opinion, what is the greater threat to society? Divorce, hands down. It's horrible for the family, the kids, and it leaves an easy way out. There is no perseverance. Till death do us part means nothing. It makes a mockery out of marrage, making it meaning less. My grandpa was married freakin' 7 times. How much does a marrage mean at that point? Nothing. It left my mom and grandmother in horrible conditions. My mother got harrased and beat by her step-brother. My grandmother went through 5 husbands herself looking for Mr. Right. It was not a good situation. Divorce is/was only supposed to be an option for the unfaithful, and only then was it allowed for a woman to have a divorce. I blame many of societies problems on the breakdown of the family cause be divorce.

But, i feel that i cannot stop divorce, I can stop Gay marrage, which i feel will also be a detriment to the family, no as much, but i have a sneaking feeling that more kids brought up in gay households will be gay themselves (leaning me to a nuture vs nature debate) but anyway, the night is late and I have classes in the morning...

Derrick Vargo: But, i feel that i cannot stop divorce, I can stop Gay marrage, which i feel will also be a detriment to the family, no as much, but i have a sneaking feeling that more kids brought up in gay households will be gay themselves (leaning me to a nuture vs nature debate) but anyway, the night is late and I have classes in the morning...

You will excuse me, then, if I express that this statement strikes fear in my heart. To know the greater evil, and to choose not to fight it? Boy, I don't know.

Which is the easier fight? Divorce, as Derrick says, is firmly entrenched in our society. The path of least resistence dictates that fighting gay marriage is the easier route. Of course, it doesn't answer the question of why Christians didn't fight the divorce laws as they were forming, the way they are fighting against gay marriages. Nor why there aren't any efforts to begin a grassroots movement to change the attitudes and laws regarding divorce. It's far easier for them to fight homosexuals than their fellow breeders. I mean, as Derrick notes, many Christians have been in divorces. Don't wanna offend them by letting them know they are just as much a sinner (and as evil in the eyes of the Lord) as homosexuals are supposed to be. That's a good way to run people out of the Church. So we'll keep divorce (which Derrick says has greatly harmed society [I agree]) and stop the formation of any other legal long-term commitments between two people. I mean, if we breeders can't remain monogamous and stay married...

But, i feel that i cannot stop divorce, I can stop Gay marrage, which i feel will also be a detriment to the family, no as much, but i have a sneaking feeling that more kids brought up in gay households will be gay themselves (leaning me to a nuture vs nature debate) but anyway, the night is late and I have classes in the morning...

With regard to this issue, this has now replaced "Will you raise your children Gay?" as the DUMBEST ••••••• COMMENT I HAVE EVER HEARD IN MY LIFE! >:-(

Divorce has harmed society? When you ahve people filing voer dumb •••• like him leaving the toilet seat up or her spending too much money on lottery tickets sure, but would you relaly wanan pll a Dr. laura and force men and women to stay in BAD relationships? ANyone who thinks that having two people who hate each other stay togehter" for the children" is an idiot. I can't imagine the sheer HELL my life would've been had my parents NOT split up!

We have a chance to stop Gay marrage before it starts. Derrick

Which brings us back to a question I asked you almost a year ago. Can you give us a clear reason -- one that doesn't reduce to the simple fact that your religion teaches that it is wrong? Can you give an example of a provably disruptive social consequence of gay marriage?

...but i have a sneaking feeling that more kids brought up in gay households will be gay themselves.

There have been more than enough gay households raising children to test that theory, and guess what -- it does not hold up. But even if it did, where is the harm to society?

Gay marriage is a tough issue for me. I was talking to one of my friends on Friday, who is a very devout Christian that is even considering getting into ministry. He opposes the same-sex amendments because that he feels that it is legislating morality. I see his point--there is no way that the anti gay marriage amendments will change minds, hearts, or attitudes. It simply prevents homosexuals from getting married, which leads to a deprivation of secular rights. I understand the arguments on both sides and aside from moral reasons, I don't know if there is a provably disruptive social consequence. To play devil's advocate, I would argue that there were probably disruptive social consequences that would decrease with the advent of gay marriage (such as most likely the spread of sexually transmitted diseases among the gay community). However, I also strongly believe that the people in each particular state should have the right to define marriage in their own state. Thus, I agree with the Vice-President (but not the President) in that a national amendment is unnecessary and wrong, while each state should have the right to decide on its own.

i have a sneaking feeling that more kids brought up in gay households will be gay themselves

I remember seeing a lesbian mother on TV who someone said would probably make her son gay because she was and she said "why would I want to raise my son to want to be with a man, I don't want to be with one."

I'm not sure if your quote was meant to reassure people who had fears about gay parents, but it didn't--what if the mother had a daughter?

Derrick Vargo: #2. Divorce is already legal, Gay marrage isn't. It's alot easier to fight something that isn't established than something that already is.
Luigi Novi: The pro-life movement disproves this as a reason for not having the same movement against divorce as gay marriage.

Derrick Vargo: We have a chance to stop Gay marrage before it starts, where as divorce is a firmly entrentched status quo of society brought on by the feminist movement.
Luigi Novi: Divorce is a human right. Not a feminist one. Where do you get the idea that its existence in society is feminist in origin? You think women want the right to divorce more than men? Where did you get this idea?

Derrick Vargo: Now in my opinion, what is the greater threat to society? Divorce, hands down. But, i feel that i cannot stop divorce, I can stop Gay marrage, which i feel will also be a detriment to the family, no as much…
Luigi Novi: Divorce is the greater threat, but you prefer to try and stop gay marriage simply because it’s not legal yet? Ooookay.

Derrick Vargo: …but i have a sneaking feeling that more kids brought up in gay households will be gay themselves
Luigi Novi: Your “sneaking feeling” is based on nothing. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is determined by parenthood, and the evidence we can observe makes it clear that it is not the case.

We have a chance to stop Gay marrage before it starts, where as divorce is a firmly entrentched status quo of society brought on by the feminist movement. Derrick

Divorce is a human right. Not a feminist one. Where do you get the idea that its existence in society is feminist in origin? You think women want the right to divorce more than men? Where did you get this idea? Luigi

Thanks Luigi, I missed this on my first reading of Derrick's post.

Historically divorce has always been of more benefit to the man than to the woman, even in the few societies that included considerations for the welfare of a woman who was dumped by her husband. In the West, about the only choices available to a divorcee were a cloistered abbey ("Get thee to a nunnery") or prostitution.

The only connection between feminism and divorce is that the increased economic opportunities for women has meant that a divorce is no longer devistating for them. That some individual women have become as active in seeking dissolution of their marriage as some individual men is an unavoidable consequence of this increased freedom.

The increased freedom for women is a good thing. That they use that freedom for selfish and sinful purposes, just as men have done all along, is the price for that freedom. A higher divorce rate is a side-effect, not a goal, of the advance of freedom.

Dang... not again... I had a page long manitfesto, obliterated by a dropped internet connection. I'll try to reconstruct it later, but here are the basic points I remember:

Yes, divorce does deserve more attention. That's a failing. But it is easier to stop something before it's ingrained into the culture. (Abortion is an exception, but percieved murder is an excellent motivator to go counter-culture.)

Divorce is a both-genders issue, and also the product of an impatuient, follow-your-heart, do-whatever-feels-good-to-you society, so that selfish people get into bad relationships and marry anyway, and many marriages that could be saved aren't because the spouses are too focused on their own pleasure to take the time to work their problems out. Once again, this is an issue that deserves more focus. I believe that the gay marriage issues across the country have brought Gay marriage to the forefront of people's attention, but it's certainly not the only important issue.


Also, MikeC, more on-topic... states deciding might be a good idea... but what's the point if a judge is going to overrule whatever the people decide? It seems to me that allot of states ARE trying to decide, but the judges are saying "Oops... wrong decision. Try polling the will of the people again... come back when you have an answer we like."

Zarm, just a tip. Whenever I have a long post (which isn't very often these days), I usually write it in Word and then copy and paste it here in order to avoid just the sort of internet trouble that ruined your post.

These judges are essentially taking away the right of the people to vote by declaring “Decide what you will about the future of the state, or the country, but if I, or any other single individual in a judges position disagrees with it, we’ll overturn it in a heartbeat.”

......

What is happening here? IS this truly where we want to go? Where the will of the people doesn't mean a darn thing if a single judge dissagrees with them? Is there anyone that actually thinks it's a good thing for one man to be able to override the rest of America because he has a different interpretation of the Constitution?

.........

Also, MikeC, more on-topic... states deciding might be a good idea... but what's the point if a judge is going to overrule whatever the people decide? It seems to me that allot of states ARE trying to decide, but the judges are saying "Oops... wrong decision. Try polling the will of the people again... come back when you have an answer we like." Zarm Rkeeg

Do you really believe that there are men and women who spend years learning the law, building up reputations as fair-minded lawyers and trial judges just to trick politicians into appointing them into appellate and supreme judiciary positions for the express purpose of thwarting "the will of the people"?

When the United States was founded, two levels of "the will of the people" were established, basic principles and actual laws. Both can be changed. Laws can be changed by the rules by which the Senate and the House. (In part, those rules are spelled out in the "basic principles" document, the Constitution.) Basic principles can be changed by amending the Constitution. It is much harder to amend the Constitution than to change a law. There are good reasons for this. [Most state constitutions also follow this idea.]

When people are caught up in an emotional issue, or mesmerized by a charismatic leader a certain mob mentality takes over. People agree to all kinds of things in a charged group that they would not dream of agreeing to individually. The history of the middle of this last century presents several clear examples.

Making it so hard to change the Constitution helps to preserve it from the mob mentality. There are always a few who have the strength to resist the mob mentality and it is their call to rationality that in time helps to defuse the situation before bad decisions are codified in the "basic principles."

In the meantime, harmful laws can be passed, and empowering the Judiciary -- men and women of proven stability and fair-mindedness, with training in the law -- to invalidate any laws that violate the "basic principles" prevents those bad laws from causing too much irreparable damage.

Sometimes, in examining these "basic principles" they discover that they cover more than the public in general, and even the original authors realized. They don't start out looking for these extraordinary applications and often do not like it themselves when they find them. [Some of the judges in the Massachusetts gay marriage case would have preferred not to have had the equality principle pointed out to them the way it was.] But their very fairness and respect for the Rule of Law causes them to make unpopular rulings.

Sometimes the statement of the basic principle needs to be refined (the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments); sometimes the "basic principle is just wrong or unworkable and needs to be totally done away with (the 21st amendment). But the change must be done by "the will of the people," and by the rules of amending the constitution, not by the judge. It is not his job to change the law, but to apply the "basic principles" as they are written (not as he would like them to be).

I'm not sure if your quote was meant to reassure people who had fears about gay parents, but it didn't--what if the mother had a daughter?

I think it was meant to be funny Mike. Gotta love that irony.

P.S. The Countdown to Santorum is still going. I don't care if it's "immature," he brougut it on himself. Besides, all I'm doing is mocking him which isn't illegal (yet). I refer you the SCOTUS case Falwell v. Flynt.

I think the feminist movement brought along the no-fault divorce if i'm not mistaken...which was what i was going for.

Anywho, the issue of pro-life brings different emotions to the table than divorce, which is why there are groups out there trying to stop that. For some reason people get rilled up at the thought of killing the unborn....i don't know.

I'll be honest...Gay marrage isn't that important of an issue, i dont find it that important, and there are many issues other than it we should be tackling.

As far as the issue of divorce, the christian community is trying to attend to it person to person, telling them they should not get a divorce. Sadly this technique failed, and the divorce rate sky-rocketed. So now we come to another issue that christians feel strongly about, and we say, "Dang, that didn't work last time, lets try something different..." Sounds like a good idea to me.

As for the gay parents/children thing. Kids raised in a household where homosexual relationships are normal will definatly be more inclined to have a homosexual relationship of their own. Proving that it is not genetics by upbringing that makes one gay...

as for the studies, they have not been going long enough to come to conclusive proof...So lil Johnny is not hitting on the boys in his 1st grade class...but he's not hitting on the girls either..

I think the feminist movement brought along the no-fault divorce if i'm not mistaken...which was what i was going for.

Um, no. For centuries in most of the world, divorce was always simple. Sometimes as simple as the man saying "I divorce you," three times. Rarely more complicated than the husband returning the dowry to his father-in-law.

Having to prove grounds was a relatively recent development, totally pro-woman and part of attitudes that we would recognize as feminist or feminist-leaning in as much as those concepts would apply to people in the Middle Ages.

As I said, the rise in the divorce rate, the return of no-fault, and women as well as men seeking the divorce are side-effects of the increased freedom which is the real goal of feminism.

As for the gay parents/children thing. Kids raised in a household where homosexual relationships are normal will definatly be more inclined to have a homosexual relationship of their own.

While it is true that a child raised in a GLBT household will more likely be more accepting of the "normalcy" of GLBT than one raised in a fundamentalist household, that does not translate into them "choosing to become gay" themselves.

Consider all the gays raised in religious households, knowing just how sinful the practice is, knowing that they could go to prison (until recently), or killed by a mob if anyone knew how they felt. If "choosing to be gay" were a matter of nurture, or of external influences, or of free choice, why would any of them have been gay?

as for the studies, they have not been going long enough... So lil Johnny is not hitting on the boys in his 1st grade class...but he's not hitting on the girls either..

<tongue-in-cheek>Gee, the thought of all those poor children raised in GLBT households that are now in their late teens and early twenties: not only are they psychologically/hormonally underdeveloped (still not "hitting" on girls), but they're mentally disadvantaged as well (still functioning on a first-grade level). It is just heartbreaking.

At least I'm glad that you hold out hope that they can yet "blossom" and become more-or-less normal functioning members of society (even though most of them will turn out gay). That you don't hold up their slowness as proof that it is harmful to a child to be raised in a GLBT household.</tongue-in-cheek>

Brian, it may not be illegal, but I agree with Matthew that it is in poor taste and counter productive.

Tom, could you rephrase your tounge-in-cheek comment...it made no sense to me. I personally was just saying that there hasn't been enough studies done due to lack of time invested in the studies. It might have short term results, but not long term (which is what really matters anyway). I was in no way suggesting any sort of physical/hormonal differance.

Derrick, I think that TomM probably meant that little Johnny with his two mothers isn't hitting on anyone in his first grade class, but neither is little Jimmy with his mom and dad, or little Susie with her single father, or little Anthony being raised by his grandparents. Because, you know, it's first grade.

yeah, I was trying to make that point as well. I dont think that studies have gone far enough to where kids actually start to like the opposite gender. Which is why i was making fun of the study to begin with. You can't look at a kid that young and say that he doesn't have a gay sexual preferance, because he has almost no sexaul preferance..

Then I do not understand what you're trying to accomplish by making said point, since you were the first person to mention that children of gay parents were more likely to turn out gay. One would have thought you'd cite some data that show this trend. Simply saying "you can't prove he's not" does nothing for you.

Actually what I was saying is that GLBT households have been raising children for far more than just five or six years. That there are "children" in their twenties who were raised in GLBT households. And that they show no more proclivity toward being GLBT than those raised in other households.

That your claim that it is too early to tell because none of them is sexually mature is just wrong.

In my tongue-in-cheek comment I was accepting your assumption that there was not enough time to examine long-term effects because "little Johnny" was only in 1st grade and was sexually immature, and wondering how that could be true of a twenty-year-old. I guess the humor and the point needed to have been more fully developed.

So are you saying that 20 yr olds raised in Gay/Lesbian House Holds have a greater tendancy to be gay or lesbian when they grow up?

Vargo: NO, he's saying that ISN'T the case. And so did Luigi (but you appear to have ignored his post). And so do I, speaking as the uncle of a girl raised by a same-sex female couple who definately likes boys. Frankly, I find it hard not to want to punch anyone who suggests based on nothing more than their bigotry that Mallory was in anyway worse off without her dimbulb of a father (this goes both to same-sex parents and divorce).

There are psychological studies linking criminal tendancies and developement of psychological issues to lack of a parent/parent figure of BOTH genders, though a lack of a father figure seems to be the most damaging.

Anyhow, that's not bigotry, it's fact as reported by the scientific community.

Two things:

One, use your real name if you're so sure of your argument (or at least the name/username/nickanme we might know you as).

Two, can we have a link to this report if it's available on-line, and a name if we have to actually go to a library?

I notice that "Actually..."'s study mentions "parental figures" (or role models?) The specific role model can be someone in the extended family (an uncle or a grandfather) or a family friend, a respected teacher, etc.

Usually these studies are used as ammunition not against GLBT households, but against an inner-city "welfare mom culture." The claim is that the men in this culture are not around longer than it takes to impregnate the women. That the children grow up in single-mother homes with no male role models at all (since all their neighbors are also part of this culture), etc.

What little truth is encapsulated in these charges is so wrapped up in prejudices and smugness, that the proponents of these charges do not see that there are lots of "real" families living in these neighborhoods as well. That parents of all types are struggling to provide everything their children need, to tend to their developmental needs as well as their physical needs.

To apply that attitude, and attempt to apply these studies to a GLBT household stretches credibility beyond the breaking point.

Most of the studies that I have seen that conclude that children are better off being raised in "traditional" families* (one father and one mother) are careful to add two provisos: the first is that the conclusion is true "all other things being equal." (In other words, if one of the parents is a drunk, or a wife-beater, or is never home, etc. then this conclusion does not apply) and "Even a less than ideal family situation has considerably more benefits than institutional and foster care.

Together, these provisos just show that 1) it is not the case that you can claim family A is better for its children than family B based on the number and sex of the parental figures and 2) you cannot claim that family B is bad for its children based on the number and sex of the parental figures. Without these conclusions, though the studies are worthless to people like "Actually..." so they just ignore them.

*As I understand history, a truly traditional family does not exist. To the extent that a common family pattern does exist, it probably consists of two parents (or one -- women often died in childbirth, men in war, or either to disease, etc.), supported by a large extended family. There were several role models of both genders to guide the children, as same-age and slightly older peers to affect the nature of the development.

Okay, I gotta ask: What's GLBT?

Gay Lesbian Bisexual

Okay, I gotta ask: What's GLBT?

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual,

or Transexual.

Ooops!

While transsexual is tchnically not incorrect, the preferred term is transgendered. Sorry.

A while back, Derrick mentioned the topic of pornography. As a matter of sociological curiousity, I'd like to ask what kind of porn conservatives like? (We already know what Clinton likes).

I can't speak for all conservatives, but I'm not a porn fan.

Where did that even come from, and when did I meantion porn?

In your October 7th, 8:54pm post.

I need to know. Bush claims to be so pious. Kitty Kelly reveals the truth about him in her book. In Alabamba, he was so permiscuous that he was nicknamed the "c*ntman" because he screwed everything in sight. I think this is relevant in the face of Republicans always smearing Democrats for their sex life, especially when I think about all the grief and heartache they caused for Clinton. Also makes his pathetic story (during the debate) about meeting Laura to be less 'charming'.

Advance Disclaimer: I did not vote for Bush in 2000, I do not intend to vote for him in 2004.

In Alabamba, he was so permiscuous that he was nicknamed the "c*ntman" because he screwed everything in sight. I think this is relevant in the face of Republicans always smearing Democrats for their sex life, especially when I think about all the grief and heartache they caused for Clinton.

My understanding is that occurred when he was a substance abuser. Bush has admitted his past substance abuse, and has cleaned up as act (AFAICT).

Clinton, on the other hand, had an affair (depending on your definition of the word 'is'), while in the White House. The two situations aren't quite comparable.

Uh-huh... so Bill Clinton was an irresponsible bungler who lost the nuclear codes and missed the chance to kill Bin-Laden because of a golf game, as well as being rabidly anti-military?

John Kerry isn't qualified to run a lemonade stand and is a pathological liar?

There really IS a strong Liberal bias in the news?


Just checking... since obviously every political attack book that proves it's case is true?



As for Rona's porn question, (which I was about to call an out-of-nowhere extreme cheap shot... but I went back and read the original post,) while it's obviously untrue to say that the right doesn't ever view porn (which would obviously be more than a bit naive), the far Right that everyone tends to complain about so much tends to be largely anti-porn.


As for Kitty Kelly's book, (not only is it unsuported by it's 'main witness,' http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1211022/posts, http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2004/09/kitty_kellys_kr.html, and I would read it with a grain of salt- and perhaps the whole shaker,) Bush has indeed said that his life was a mess early on. He has also said that since becoming a Christian around his 40th birthday, that his life has changed dramatically. (As ScottN said) I believe that's true. I also believe that folks like Clinton can change... but the charges against him were valid because they occurred 'modern-day,' and while he was in the White House.
As for Kerry and other candidates, their pasts are, to me, largely invalid and unimportant. Only when they base their campaign and reputation on past events that they stand behind and state that they still agree with do their past actions become reasonable for scrutiny... and even then, only as a sign of what the ideals "They still agree with" were. But political attacks from either side based on events decades past are really rather petty in my view. (Not that I'm saying I've been above all that, mind you... but that doesn't excuse it.)


Now then, as for the whole family issue...

First off, I would contend that "(an uncle or a grandfather) or a family friend, a respected teacher, etc. " still wouldn't completely fill the void left by the absence of one or more parents. They would be far better than a lack of role models, to be sure, but not a substitute for both parents.

"Most of the studies that I have seen that conclude that children are better off being raised in "traditional" families* (one father and one mother) are careful to add two provisos: the first is that the conclusion is true "all other things being equal." (In other words, if one of the parents is a drunk, or a wife-beater, or is never home, etc. then this conclusion does not apply) and "Even a less than ideal family situation has considerably more benefits than institutional and foster care." -Tomm

This is a disingenuous point, and is merely a distraction, not a valid point. We've all heard the "What if there's an abusive parent?" argument. But you're arguing based on the exception, not the rule. I could probably make the case that Axe Murders are more decent people than the rest of society by using extreme examples from both. But the ideal that a proposition isn't true because there are deviations from the norm in some cases is a flawed standpoint at best.
The facts do show that a standard 'standard family,' A.K.A. parents of both genders, is better psychologically for children than a standard family setting without a parent of one or the other gender.

Some links about family structure (though there are far more studies than I could post here, these are the first few I found- I'll try looking for some studies more specifically related to GLBT families, but right now my Internet Filter is blocking out Google search results for the searches that I'm doing.):

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/crimeandterrorism/realroot.shtml
http://www.mafamily.org/WhyMarriageMatters.htm
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=906&wit_id=2540
http://www.foreverfamilies.net/xml/articles/benefitsofmarriage.aspx
http://www.nff.org/Patrick%20Fagan.htm

First off, I would contend that "(an uncle or a grandfather) or a family friend, a respected teacher, etc. " still wouldn't completely fill the void left by the absence of one or more parents. They would be far better than a lack of role models, to be sure, but not a substitute for both parents.

I do not disagree with this statement. But the studies that find that, in general a lack of one or the other "parental figure" seems to lead to a significantly greater social maladjustment do focus on families where even these role models have little or no influence on the child's life.

This is a disingenuous point, and is merely a distraction, not a valid point. We've all heard the "What if there's an abusive parent?" argument. But you're arguing based on the exception, not the rule.

No, I am not. I am saying that the studies themselves claim their validity is of limited value because there are so many unaccounted for differences between individual families. Granted, the specific examples I used are "strong," but that was necessary in order to make it obvious that there are some qualifiers that completely invalidate drawing stong conclusions about individual, specific families based on mild trends.

I could probably make the case that Axe Murders are more decent people than the rest of society by using extreme examples from both.

Please tell me that you do not mean to compare gays with axe murderers! (I will assume that you did not mean to, but instead were comparing wife-beaters to axe-murderers, and "only" meant that you thought I was saying that all husbands are wife-beaters In other words that the insult was directed only at me and not a millions of innocent people who only want to live their lives in peace.)


Personally, if I were trying to place a child in an adoptive home, there are hundreds of criteria I would want to find in that home, all of which I'd be looking for from the point of view of the best welare of the child. One of those criteria would be adult role models of both sexes, preferably within the family unit (a mother and a father)*.

But I would be aware that a family that matches my "perfect" profile exactly probably does not exist. The main breadwinner (usually the father) may be forced by his job the work late and/or weekends or to travel. The primary caregiver (usually the mother) may have to take a part-time job to help make ends meet. One parent might have a past problem (such as drinking) that occassionally still has repercussions, etc. I would have to evaluate each of the real families as they are to determine which is the closest to the ideal, which would serve the best interest of the welfare of the child.

If I have more children to place, I have to evaluate more and more less than perfect families. If one family has two loving female "parental figures" and access to male role models, and another has a single male parental figure, and a third has a male and a female, but the male has a major drinking problem, do I allow my prejudices to overide the children's needs and consider institutionalizing the children because there are no more qualified two-parent opposite sex families, or do I place them with the other two families.

*Yes, I am prejudiced in favor of a two-parent mother-and father home almost as much as Zarm or "Actually..." But I recognize that prejudice and would never let it blind me to the best welfare of the child.

I'll look over some of Zarm's links before I respond further.

Can I ask for clarification on something? Zarm, it sounds like your Internet filter... blocks homosexuality? What exactly is it objecting to when you're trying to come up with links?

OK I've looked at some of Zarm's links. And I don't wholly disagree with them. What I disagree with is drawing conclusions that the evidence does not support.

Let me give a couple of less emotionally charged examples of the sort of thing I mean.

1)I am considering investing money. I'm looking at two mutual funds. [Note I know nothing of the actual strengths of various mutual funds or investment strategies. The discussions and figures are for illustration purposes only.] My friend tells me that mutual funds that invest primarily in new companies wind up losing money 12% of the time, and since Mutual Fund A invests primarily in new companies, I should go with Mutual Fund B. I check up on his statement and find out that it is right. But I also find out that mutual funds that primarily invest in electronic communications lose money 35% of the time. Mutual Fund A investst in new companies (as my friend said), but none of them are electronic communications, while Mutual Fund B ivests in established companies, but they are electonic communications companies. Yes, there is a 12% chance I'll lose money with A, but there's a 35% chance that I'll lose money if I go with B instead.

2)I have found a whole table of different factors that influence whether, and to what extent a mutual fund is likely to lose money. Fund A has factors a, b, c, and dabbles in companies with d and e. Fund B has Factors b, d, f, and g and dabbles in companies with factors c and h. I determine that c is one of the strongest individual negative factors. Does that mean that Fund B, which only dabbles in c is safer than Fund A whivh invests more heavily? or should I consider the fact that f which while not as strong a factor as c, is not that much less negative and Fund A does not invest in it at all?

The whole thing about Bush's sorted past is quite relevant especially since conservatives strongly claimed that Bush would restore morality and respect to the President's office after Clinton's "immorality".

Do you have any evidence of Bush being immoral and abusing his office while President?

Look, there are many reasons not to vote for Bush. Sexual immorality is not one of them. Unless you're hung up on the past.

No pun intended?

Luigi -- I'm missing the pun that you refer to. Maybe my mind isn't dirty enough to see it?

http://www.525reasons.com

525 reasons not to vote for Bush, and while I haven't read the whole thing (hell, I still haven't finished Man-Kzin Wars Volume VII!), so far, no mention of his sordid (not sorted Rona) "sexual history," which frankly I don't want to hear about. I don't want to hear about any Bush, of either gender, of any sexual orientation having sex, EVER*! That's why the Kelly book is off my list.

* I feel the same way about the Cheneys.

Well, Tom, nobody's perfect. But I'll try not and hold that against you.

Here is Mike's quote, with the pun portions reddened:

"Sexual immorality is not one of them. Unless you're hung up on the past."

If it makes you feel any better Brian I dont want to hear anything about that about the Kerry's either.

At least when mentioning Cheney's lesbian daughter, Kerry said it was "awesome" that Mary is a lesbian. That's quite different than a typical mean-spirited Republican remark about a Democrat's sexuality (such as Trent Lott 'accidently' calling Democratic Congressman Barney Frank "Barney Fag").

Why is calling Frank a fag mean spirited? That's what they call themselves.
Looks like another liberal double standard. Gays suffer most from their own self inflicted diseases, and not by harmless comments made by Republicans.

Sen. Kerry's remarks make no sense politically for him. Why bring attention to Dick's Lesbian daughter? It's honestly not going to hurt the Bush Campaign, and it really isn't going to help Kerry with the gay/lesbian community. IT might actually even give bush some support from them, so why bring it up and give it some publicity? Worst case senario it looks like a slam on gays by even bringing it up. All in all, a bad play on Sen. Kerry's part...

This would ring true to me if:

a. Mary Cheney wasn't openly gay.
b. John Edwards said pretty much the identical thing a few days before to which Dick Cheney thanked him profusely.

Was it a little tacky of Kerry? Yeah, probably. But I don't think he was trying to be mean-spirited, and he did have some political point--this is an issue on which the Vice-President, Mr. Conservative, has said "leave it to the states," which is basically Kerry's stance.

John Edwards HADN'T said, I should have typed.

John Edwards HADN'T said, I should have typed.

Why was it even a little tacky for Kerry to mention her? Mary Cheney is, as you said, openly gay. She worked on gay and lesbian outreach for Coors for several years. She has made *money* off her sexual orientation. Why is this any different from mentioning, for example, Jenna Bush's status as a former University of Texas student?

We don't come out of the closet so that people can *not* know who we are.

I just felt it was a little tacky because he didn't need to mention her. If he was doing it for political effect, it was cunning if tacky. If he was doing it to be "nice guy," it was a little clunky. I didn't mean tacky in an offensive sense; I just felt

KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

Do you see my point? Kerry could have mentioned other famous homosexuals, such as Ellen DeGeneres, Barney Frank, etc. Again, I don't think he was being offensive, but he had a clear intent in naming Mary Cheney.

I... just don't see how that can be called "tacky." Why would it be different if he'd mentioned Barney Frank or Rosie O'Donnell? They're all public figures; they're all publicly out. I thought that his intent with the Mary Cheney reference was to point out that President Bush has advanced policies regarding gay people that put him at odds even with members of his own administration. And *that* is something that certainly ought to come out in a debate context.

Why are we even discussing this? Bush has lied about jobs, education, and whether or not he's concerned about Bin Laden. Not to belittle gay rights, but the way I see it, what's the point of allowing gays to have civil rights in the world, if there isn't much of a world left to enjoy those rights in? Does that make any sense or did I just come off as homophobic? I do that sometimes. I usually can count on my bi sister to help me out with that but she lost her interbnet and her phone. To use a Dogma refernce, I'm like the Metatron without God.

To each his own, Matthew. That's what I thought Kerry's intent was too; I think he should have been a bit more explicit (perhaps by mentioning DICK rather than Mary Cheney to hammer the point home?). I think Kerry has a valid point here; I just think he could have been clearer.

Maybe "tacky" was the wrong word; I just couldn't think of a better one.

"I could probably make the case that Axe Murders are more decent people than the rest of society by using extreme examples from both.

Please tell me that you do not mean to compare gays with axe murderers! (I will assume that you did not mean to, but instead were comparing wife-beaters to axe-murderers, and "only" meant that you thought I was saying that all husbands are wife-beaters In other words that the insult was directed only at me and not a millions of innocent people who only want to live their lives in peace.)" -Tomm

Of course I didn't mean that. (SIGH...) It was a totally unrelated statement... I'm saying that you can prove all kinds of ridiculous things using the "Best of this/worst of that" analogy. I'm sure that you could find a average everyday citizen somewhere in the world that is more morally repugnant than the nicest of the axe murderers.
That doesn't mean that axe murderers are morally higher than average citizens, but if I only use those two, the best/worst, I could probably argue that case.

In other words, I was using, to put it in your words, a "strong example" of the concept... but the axe murderers weren't intended to relate to any of the other subjects being disscussed. (For an example, see your 'investment scenario' disclaimer. Same thing- being used for illustrative points only. I just forgot to put a disclaimer.)


"Can I ask for clarification on something? Zarm, it sounds like your Internet filter... blocks homosexuality? What exactly is it objecting to when you're trying to come up with links?" -Sparrow 47


It blocks the Google searches for things like "single parent homosexuality" and the like. It's just one of those annoying flukes... some combination of those words appears on one porn site or some such, and the filter blocks the whole 'search results' page with that as one of the matches.
Very annoying for doing research... the @#@$! thing won't even let me ACCESS Google image search...

Ugh. I can see how that would be annoying. Good luck with that.

Freedom, Privacy, & Employment
Last Friday, John Stossel did a story in his “Gimme a Break” segment on 20/20 on an employer who fired employees for smoking outside of work, on their personal time, at home. You can read a transcript of the original story here. Stossel argues that the Constitution only protects people from the government, and not private employers from doing such things.

In his weekly email, to which I’m subscribed, Stossel published letters from viewers, some who agreed with him, most of whom did not. What follows is my response to him.

Hi, John.

Thanks again for signing my copy of your book last year. I continue to watch your show, and find myself often agreeing with you, but I’m afraid you’re simply wrong on the topic of “owning your job.” The refrain that people don’t own their jobs was a valid point that you made dead-on (last year, I think) when you focused on people like that basketball coach who threw chairs across the court during a game, because in those cases, you were focusing on people who were rightfully terminated because of their behavior on the job. Here, however, you’re talking about someone who smokes in the privacy of their own off-job hours. I don’t know why you seem to have such a low regard for this principle, but what someone does in the privacy of their own lives on their own time is a question of PRIVACY, and privacy most certainly does NOT pertain “just to government.” The reason privacy has been encoded as a basic fundamental right is because we, as the (mostly) enlightened society we are and have been, have realized that unwanted intrusion into our private lives violates our rights, our liberty, and our ability to pursue our own happiness. It is silly, therefore, to argue that such an infringement only takes place if government does this, but not if “private businesses” do. What difference does it make to you if the person intruding into your personal life is a government official or private businessman? There’s also the problem that such requirements for employment may, constitutes a form of discrimination, even if the state in question doesn’t recognize it as such. So long as the behavior in question is conducted in the privacy of one’s home in their personal time, and does not affect their work performance, it is flat-out wrong for someone to try and order their employees how to live their private lives. (Incidentally, I have never smoked, and loathe people who allow their smoke to drift into my face in public, so please don’t assume that I’m somehow pro-smoker.) In your story, you related that “Weyers says he's not playing God; he's just helping people become healthy.” Excuse me, John, but it’s not Weyers’ job to do that, and not within his rights to force people to do so. Indeed, your arguments in support of Weyers are nothing short of peculiar.

You argued, “But Weyco is just one company. No one has to work here”, and “there are lots of employers that might hire the smokers who lost their jobs at Weyco,” and that you “looked through area classified ads, and saw lots of job listings.” Are you kidding me? John, are you saying that losing your job and finding a new one, especially now, in the current state of our economy, is easy? What are you talking about? Losing your job and having to find a new one can be a huge inconvenience and disruption to your life, your family, your income, and your career. Are you so insulated by having a high-paying job as a national news anchor and best-selling book, and by not having had to look for a new job in decades, that you are that out of touch with the trauma of having to look for work? Your yourself even mentioned the Cara Stiffler, who was fired from WEYCO, lost her health insurance for her children. Yet nowhere in your rosy-state-of- the job-market- response did you address this point. Firing an employee is something that should never be done capriciously, and Weyers’ whims are certainly the most capricious that I’ve ever heard of from an employer.

You ask, “But are we going to amend discrimination laws to include smokers?” Well, John, yes, we should. You say, “But Weyers built the company, doesn't he have rights?” Sure, John. He has the right to build a business and staff it with people who can do the job he needs them to do. Not build his own personal utopia by FORCING people to live like he does. You argue that “freedom doesn't mean you own your job.” Well, John, no one ever said it did, so your Straw Man is irrelevant. But freedom does mean not having to suffer the unwarranted intrusion into your private life by ANYONE, and regarding one’s job, that you should only be fired for a little thing called just cause. Not “just the government.” It is idiotic to argue that intrusion by the government is bad, but that intrusion by some self-righteous health manic with dictatorial delusion is somehow good.

Many of the arguments I read in your 4/15 weekly email were nothing more than the same type of Straw Man arguments, false analogies and other logical fallacies. One person, for example, asked, “Why is it that these people think they have MORE RIGHTS than the person who built the company”, when in fact, no one ever said they did. The employer has the exact same right to smoke in his free time and be protected from irrelevant inquiries into that habit from someone else as the employee does. So they both have the exact same rights. The same letter writer complains “of hearing people say they have A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to work somewhere,” when again, no one said they did. They do, however, have a Constitutional right to privacy and freedom from discrimination. The writer asks “if she is allowed to kick anyone out of her home if she wants to?,” asking, “ Isn't that the same thing?” Well, no, my friend, because a person owns a house, and has the right to invite whomever they want into it. The same does not hold true for employment, which is covered by discrimination laws. Discrimination doesn’t apply to who you invite to private dwellings, since employment is something that exists in the public arena, and should be based solely on the ABILITY of the employee to do his job. This applies to my job working as a recruiter for a market research company, which holds research and press screenings for films prior to their release. Because research screenings involve asking the people invited their opinion, which can affect the final cut of the film, and because the critics at press screenings like to gauge the audience reaction when watching the film, the studio has the right to invite whomever they want, which typically means an audience the reflects the type of people who will end up going to see the film when it’s released. Because of this, the studios will often request an audience of a particular age, will require an audience of balanced gender, and one that reflects the racial makeup of the general population. And they’re perfectly right to do so, since the studio is the one who rents out the auditorium. But the same cannot be done with public showings of the film when it’s released, since discrimination laws apply.

The next writer, Fred Suckle, asked you what you’d do if ABC told you to shave your head and mustache. You never answered his question, which I find interesting, because indeed, Disney, which owns ABC, requires (or required?) its parks employees to be clean shaven (despite the fact that Walt himself had a mustache).

What I found particularly interesting was S. Ubell, of Brandon, Manitoba, Canada, the owner of a small natural food store, who stated that when interviewing prospective employees, he asks them about “their personal goals related to healthy living, including smoking, dietary factors and exercise goals,” because he wants his “employees to represent the goals of [his] company and as the employer,” he wants to hire those that he feels “ best reflect a healthy image, just as it is, for example, a business owner's right to hire the front desk receptionist they feel would best reflect the friendly manner they desire.” Well, S., the important question to ask here is, since it’s a small food store, can I correctly assume that the none of the employees you hire act as professional spokespeople, models, or PR agents, and that none of their jobs involve going on TV to shill for your store? If this was the case, well then yes, you can ask that their personal habits reflect the lifestyle you want to project. But since it’s a small food store, I’m guessing that these are cashiers and stock people, and I don’t think it requires your personal habits to lift a case of overpriced bottled water or punch buttons on a cash register. Asking them about their smoking, diet or exercise habits, therefore, is irrelevant, and none of your business. I’m also guessing that these are not high-end, high-paying jobs, which makes such a requirement on your part a bit silly. I mean, where does it end? If you hired a guy handing out fliers for your store, would you also require him to not smoke and eat well? And what about the truck drivers and delivery men who deliver the products to your store? Might they not be seen by customers? Don’t they, therefore, have to reflect the lifestyle? What if one of them is physically strong enough to lift heavy boxes of merchandise, but has a beer belly? What then?

As another example, S. then adds a strong odor of tobacco would affect the interviewee’s chance of being hired. Apparently, he figures the reader will be convinced by this argument, and that this will vindicate his position, totally ignoring the fact that the reason such a thing would be a deciding factor is because such things bespeak to personal grooming habits, which certainly are relevant, and that in that context, someone with strong body odor would also be less likely to be hired, even they don’t smoke. But a smoker who doesn’t carry the odor on him should have no trouble getting hired. The point is not a smoking habit, but personal grooming habits.

I wonder just how S. draws the line. Over the past year, I’ve lost a considerable amount of weight, eat far more salads and vegetables, cut my carbs considerably, and exercise more often. But I’m still overweight, and certainly no one would think me the healthiest person by looking at me. But even though I only go to the gym sporadically, I can stay on the Stairmaster for over an hour (at resistance level 17 out of 20, and the highest elevation). Can S. or his other employees do that? For that matter, what about an interviewee who is well-toned and muscular, but who secretly does steroids? Can S. tell the difference? Or does he demand a urine sample? (Such test can be easily circumvented.) The “best person for the job,” S., is one with the ability to do the job, not one who is “just like you.”

Luigi-

You make some strong arguments philososphically. (I don't blindly agree with every point, but most of them are sound.) The problem is that the Constitution only protects our rights against government action, and that is all it can do. It takes actual laws and penalties to enforce our rights against private action.

Laws that have to be specific and that do force some citizens to give up some of their rights (or what they have always thought of as their rights) for the greater good.

The only such laws that we have now are the ones that protect "whistleblowers" and the ones that protect so-called "suspect classes" (groups that have traditionally been discriminated against by race, creed, color, national origin, gender, etc.) and it has been extremely difficult to get some areas to recognize "suspect classes" based on sexual orientation.

There are those who believe that if Jim Jones is using his money to start a business, and he is the one who will lose his shirt if it fails, then if he wants to start every day by sacrificing a virgin, and he expects all his employees to participate, then he has every right to hire only Satanists, and to fire any Christians or atheists that managed to get past the screening process.

Of course this is an extreme example, but many businesses require their employees who interact with the public (for example cocktail waitresses) to meet certain standards, and will fire them if they put on two pounds more than the guidelines, or refuse to wear the prescribed make-up (and instead wear the wrong color, or too much, or too little. They have even been known to insist that they get breast augmentation surgery.

Compared to these practices, a "No smokers" policy seems extremely tame. Note that I am not arguing that it is right. But if there is no chance of changing policies that are far more dangerous and worrisome, it'll be next to impossible to affect this one.

Let's say I'm a business owner. A smoker is someone who has a higher chance of getting sick and having to use health insurance/retiring quicker, and probably someone that going by the smokers I know, carries with them a smoker's smell that is rather disgusting and unattractive to customers/fellow employees. These things affect a company regardless if they are being done on company property/company time. How far should a company go? Well, I'm not sure. But I don't think it's as black and white as you make it seem.

Regarding the fellow that owns the food store, I don't think those are silly questions per se; would you say that a church should be allowed to ask about their employees' religious affiliations if the employees were just going to do secretarial work?

"The smokers you know" are not a random sample and therefore cannot be used to extrapolate what the general population of smokers is like.

Except, Tom, that we're not talking about cocktail waitresses. Your looks are indeed relevant in jobs such as spokesmodel, actor, stripper, etc. Not so if you're just lugging merchandise or hitting buttons on a cash register in a food store.

Your looks are indeed relevant in jobs such as spokesmodel, actor, stripper, etc.

So what you are saying is that an employer can't fire people for something they do "off the clock" (like smoking) that has effects that negatively impact their value to the employer (higher health insurance rates, more sick days) unless he feels it affects his (the employer's) image.

A cocktail waitress is a service provider, not a "spokesmodel." She can do the same job whether she weighs 102 or 105 pounds. And those three pounds have much less impact on the employers costs than smoking. And even though breast augmentation is not considered "major surgery," it can still be serious. And any surgery has risks. To fire someone, not because of any job-related problems, but because she is unwilling to spend money she can't spare to undergo a risky, unnecessary procedure, is unconscionable.

No, it's not a random sample. But it would count as a valid reason for a company looking to discourage smoking among employees.

If the only thing that is known about a given person is that he or she is a smoker, and the employer concludes that this individual must smell disgustingly (without meeting him or her) because all the smokers this employer knows smell that way, then the employer is irrationally discriminating, and that is certainly not a valid reason.

However, if there is a random sample of smokers taken, and it is repeatedly demonstrated that they smell horribly, then, and only then, does the employer have a valid reason on this particular point

However, if there is a random sample of smokers taken, and it is repeatedly demonstrated that they smell horribly, then, and only then, does the employer have a valid reason on this particular point. (Emphasis mine)

If every smoker that the employer knows smells "that way" and if tests show that only one or two cigarettes are enough to make a fresh jacket, (or other article of clothing) smell "that way," the employer would be justified in assuming that a random smoker will smell "that way" at least part of the day.

This is the essence of Science: observe; construct an hypothesis; make a prediction based on the hypothesis; test the prediction.

Hold on: I never said the employer shouldn't meet said employee. If the employer meets employee and finds said employee to be smelling like cigarette smoke, I find that a reasonable grounds for not hiring/dismissal. And I also agree with Tom: I believe it is also somewhat reasonable to extrapolate information regarding smoking.

TomM, you can leave off the first part of your clause and the statement is valid: hence my contention with an extrapolation based soley on "the smokers you know". Also, while your statement is valid, the employer can in no way conclude that the employee will smell "that way" during business hours. Only, as you mentioned, that they will smell "that way" at some time. That is, the employer can only conclude that it is possible that the employee will smell "that way".

MikeC, I didn't realize you meant meeting with the individual and noticing that they had "that smell", but rather assumed that the employer had non-work related smoker friends and on this basis was discouraging smoking. In any event, I'm not against extrapolating information; however, I am against unscientifically extrapolating (such as assuming the people you know are a basis for extrapolation)

I think the non-work related smoker friends could play a factor in the boss' decision to discourage smoking.

Example:

"Wow, my smoker friends smell bad. I don't want my employees smelling like that. I'm going to check to see if my smoker employees smell like that during business hours."

Wow. Email is NOT protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Actually, that's not quite what it says.

Have you heard about the laptop incident in the Lower Merion, Pennsylvania, school district? The district supplied Apple MacBook laptops to a large segment of the student body.

One morning 15 year old Blake Robbins was called into the Vice-Principle's office. He was suspended for "inappropriate behavior." The evidence was a photo that the school took of Robbins in his bedroom the night before without his knowledge, using the webcam in the laptop they supplied and supposedly "anti-theft" software they had installed before giving them out to the students.

The Robbins family is suing over this blatant abuse of Blake's privacy, and the FBI is investigating possible violations of federal wiretapping laws.

News story here.

Not to mention that the complaint reserves the option of kiddie pr0n charges if it turns out pix were taken of kids in various states of undress.

And when the school made its statement, it just dug itself deeper.

What does Poland's Patriotyczny Ruch Odrodzenia Narodowego (Patriotic Movement for National Rebirth) have to do with this?

I mean, sure, kids have the right to their own political beliefs, but putting aside that communism had its shot in Europe and lost, should the state really be deciding such a thing for them? Sheesh.

Seriously; what kind of George Orwell lunatic thought this sounded like a good idea to nail some kid for some "inappropriate behavior" (that they won't disclose) that they observed when he was alone in his bedroom through a (technically) hidden camera.

Oh and BTW what was he doing? Was he "pleasuring himself," smoking weed/drinking beer or having sex with a girl? Because of those recoding the middle one is the only thing I can thing wouldn't get you in trouble for recording child porn.

What I've heard is that the kid was eating Mike & Ikes, and some administrator thought it was drugs.

(reposted from PM by mod request)

Not really sure where to put this, but "The Economy" seems closest...

What's in your wallet? Apparently, a license to stalk, harrass, etc...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20140218,0,5011779,full.column

Technically, this is NOT a violation of the Constitution, since it's a private entity, but it is still creepy as hell.

Darn glad I don't have a Capitol One card.

Well, don't you have a constitutional right to shoot anyone who enters your property uninvited? This question is only half tongue in cheek btw. I have heard that particular statement made several times, and I'm quite curious to know if it's actually true.

Speaking of the Constitution, why is the 9th Amendment ignored ? Why does the Supreme Court Ignore the 9th Amendment ?

Please give examples of how SCOTUS ignores the 9th.