Judge who overturned Prop 8

[dobro]

“As I said I would do, I presented a reasoned argument for traditional marriage.”

False. You presented right wing talking points and misleading and irrelevant analogies. And I’m guessing you still haven’t read that decision by the judge.

“Even you dobro, made a couple of discernible counterpoints, in between the invective.”

It’s pretty easy to counter an argument that has no basis in fact.And I don’t think I’m tossing much invective around. I do admit I don’t put smiley faces all over my posts.

“…Therefore, I take your baldfaced assertion that everyone who dares to debate this issue with you is one of the above classes to be false.”

So really what this amounts to is you playing games with stuff you say you don’t even really believe in, just to try to disprove what I said by falsely representing your beliefs to make a silly argument, which, when unraveled, doesn’t disprove anything I said since your argument is insincere and still a bunch of malarkey.

“But in exchange for the time and effort of doing that, I’m going to ask you, dobro, to admit that you were wrong in your assertion. And while you’re at it, I would appreciate a general change of attitude on your part. Or failing that, at least an agreement to keep a civil tongue.”

I stand by my statements. And as far as my attitude, I don’t stop by here to gain your approval,pal. I re-read everything I’ve written in this thread and I don’t see anything uncivil. I say things I believe in an unvarnished way and do call out things I think are BS but haven’t made any personal or demeaning comments.

BTW, back to the original thread, marriage as a constitutional right has been addressed 14 times by the Supreme Court and is, in fact, a fundamental right under the law. there were interviews on TV today with the lawyers who won the case and they’re very informative, if you actually care about the issue. Google Ted Olsen and David Boies and I’m sure you can easily find the clips.

Share This

[JoB]

very civil reply …

Share This

[datamuse]

Tradition is important to society, sure. But I don’t see where in your argument you demonstrate that a) upholding tradition is necessary to society and b) it therefore ought to be upheld at the cost of denying what is, from the law’s perspective, a legal partnership to an entire subset of that society’s citizens.

While you’re thinking that one over (where “you” in this case is anybody who cares to take a crack at the foregoing), perhaps you can also find me an example of a group successfully obtaining a civil right by sitting back and waiting until the rest of their society thought it was a good idea.

The predominant argument that I’ve seen against same-sex marriage has been that it weakens marriage as an institution. I’m still waiting for a credible argument that demonstrates how.

Share This

[dhg]

I have not yet heard a cogent argument for disallowing gay marriage. To argue that it’s tradition to deny certain people the right to treat themselves as a couple (the right to inherit, the right to visit in the hospital) and therefore to change it now means we’ll inherit the whirlwind sounds a little….. nutty.

Share This

[DP]

dobro: I envy you. How convenient it must be to win arguments merely by saying:

Here’s what I think (i.e., here’s the truth) and if you disagree with me, you’re ignorant.

Should anyone have the audacity to question the-truth-according-to-dobro, you need only say:

See? What did I tell you? —You’re ignorant!

With that kind of rhetorical power at your command, I expect you were highly sought-after by your high school debating team, weren’t you? (Not to mention philosophers, statesmen, scientists . . . )

dobro, I’m obviously not talking about putting smiley faces around everything. I’m talking about creating an environment in which people feel free to exchange ideas and express contrary opinions without being insulted for their trouble. That’s what a forum is for, after all, is it not?

But what self-respecting person is going to want to venture a contrary opinion in a discussion in which one party has already made the claim that anyone who disagrees with him is necessarily a “Christianist nut,” etc. —and nobody has called him out on it?

It’s not just rude to say things like that to people, dobro. It’s intimidating.

Of course you’re not the first person who ever pulled that kind of nonsense in this forum. (I’ve done it myself, in fact.) And you’re certainly not the first person to do it on the Internet.

But the point is this: What kind of a blog would we rather have here? —A blog where the discussion goes like so:

Poster 1: Gay marriage should be legal already. It’s obvious that everyone who disagrees with me on this is a religious bigot.

Poster 2: Yeah, religious people can kiss my ass.

Poster 3: Right-on, dude! They can go to hell.

. . . or would we rather have a blog where the discussion goes more like this:

Poster 1: Gay marriage should be legal. It’s a question of human rights.

Poster 2: From a Christian perspective, I don’t agree. But let’s define what you mean by human rights . . .

Poster 3: What do the courts say about this?

In other words, do we want a real diversity of opinion here? Or do we want an echo chamber?

Or would we prefer an echo chamber?

You know, there are already plenty of Liberal blogs out there. Just like there are plenty of Conservative ones. But how many blogs are there where Liberals and Conservatives (and everybody in between) can meet up and air their differences civilly, and maybe even resolve a few of them in the process?

I’d like the WS Blog to be that kind of a blog. But it all depends on what kind of climate we create here.

—And everyone who disagrees with me on this can kiss my . . . life-sized statue of Elvis Presley.

—DP

 

P.S. As regards other comments addressed to me:

—Yes, my position on traditional marriage was sincere. Tradition shouldn’t rule the day, but it should be a consideration.

—No, I haven’t read the Prop 8 decision yet, but I will if I can get this thing with Señor dobro straightened out.

Share This

[dobro]

So now you’re putting words in my mouth and creating your strawmen to knock down (look that one up in your logic handbook).

Petty and childish are the words that come to mind. The kind of forum I’d like to see is one where people discuss the subject, don’t hijack the threads,and don’t play debating games.

I’ve said what I have to say about this subject and this is as straightened out as this “thing” is going to get. See you in another thread down the road.

BTW, you really should read that decision. You might learn something about well-reasoned argument.

Share This

[JoB]

DP..

A reasoned argument contains opinions backed by facts… which Dobro provided.

It is always easier to converse with others when you actually listen to their arguments instead of playing the personality card in reply…

this forum may be a tough place to learn that lesson but if you are embarking on a political venture… soliciting write in votes for the Senate seat… it is a lesson better learned early than late.

Share This

[dhg]

dp: have you seen the Fox news interview where Chris Wallace asks Ted Olson wheter this is judicial activism? It is very interesting response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJwSprkiInE

Share This

[JoB]

dhg..

thank you for posting this

i really like the phrase judicial responsibility…

and am tickled to find it getting airtime

even on fox

though Ted Olson did have to be pretty aggressive to be allowed to make the point.

this is why simply speaking out is the most radical act ..

saying something repeatedly doesn’t make it so..

as FOX would like us all to believe…

when enough of us step forward and strongly expose the lack of facts backing an assertion and relabel it accurately as Ted Olson did here..

it does make a difference.

Share This

[Ken]

I missed commenting extensively on this thread due to … circumstances, and now I see the rude pundit has said it for me.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2010/08/path-to-more-equal-equality-prop-8.html

As always, not safe for voice reader software or children or even childlike authoritarian fearmongers.

enjoy

Safe excerpt from the ruling:

On page 6, Walker writes, “A state’s interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature. The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose.”

Share This

[JoB]

Ken..

i am not sure you can link to the rude pundit on a family forum :(

he is .. well.. crude… as well as rude.

however.. i think his closing line bears repeating..

“Now, they have a cause to rally the faithful to, a reason to fight on, and, most importantly, a way to keep getting cash money from the flock of oh-so-many sheep, whether they win or lose.”

that’s a sobering thought.

Share This

[JoB]

Perhaps i should mention that we have a judge seeking election for the Washington Supreme Court in this election who has expressed opinions on the issue of gay marriage …

“Jim Johnson is a deeply conservative, anti-gay justice who legislates from the bench.

In 2006, Johnson authored a virulently homophobic opinion in defense of Washington’s Defense of Marriage Act.1 He compared gay marriage to polygamy, said same-sex relationships are unstable and are inferior to heterosexual relationships, and repeatedly used quotes when referring to “gays” and “marriage”.2″

copied from a Fuse email … a source for progressive voters.

It is so easy to focus on the highly visible political candidates and neglect the politics of the judges we elect.. but in my opinion.. their politics can be critical.. after all..the Supreme Court decision that stopped the vote recount in Florida and gave us George W Bush as president was a political decision… not a legal decision.

if Sandra Day O’Conner hadn’t admitted as much.. the wording of the decision itself… stating that this decision should NOT set precedent confirms the shaky legal standing of that ruling..

that one ruling illustrates the need for judges who rule on the basis of law and not on the basis of their political opinions.

the system of checks and balances built into our democracy requires a judicial system that rules on the basis of law.. not politics… to function fairly.

Share This

[Ken]

And the seattle times is coming out of the wingnut closet over people telling the truth about Johnson. I will get my Doonsbury elsewhere now. I already refuse even free copies of the ST. It has even caused me to question the few Dems they have endorsed. I looked up each one again before voting.

I suspect we will soon see candidates begging the times NOT to endorse them as long as the blevins own the paper and make editorial decisions.

Share This

[JoB]

I am all for bigots outing themselves..

it seems that where Target made it’s foray into political financing might be more important than i thought…

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/08/targets_gay_pro.php

Share This

[JoB]

looks like he lifted the stay..

you can get married starting the 18th :)

Share This

[JoB]

i was wrong..

he did lift the stay

but gays still might not be able to marry in california.

the ninth circuit could rule that the stay holds while on appeal

if they don’t, the supreme court could be asked to uphold the stay. at this time that would be justice kennedy’s call.

if he doesn’t, the entire court could be polled on the stay…

AARGH!

Share This

[Author]

Posts