O-Trap;1739660 wrote:1. Did someone remove the Political forum and not tell me?

2. This thread has been everything I hoped it would be. At this point, I'm just commenting so I'm subscribed to it.

chuckled

1. Did someone remove the Political forum and not tell me?

No.... But no one goes there... Except "politards".

HitsRus;1739675 wrote:No.... But no one goes there... Except "politards".

In other words, several of the people on this thread!

LoL!

I agree with Phil


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

Is that a video, of a youtube video, of a video?

lhslep134;1739648 wrote:You choosing to ignore the evolution of law doesn't render it nonexistent.

But please, continue to enlighten us with your illogical analogies.

Next, can you please analogize the view you see from a stationary position to that from a moving vehicle?

I'm not talking about 'law'; I am talking about the meaning of a word. The meaning of marriage, in this context, is not changeable. Sorry you are not grasping it.

Good luck.

QuakerOats;1739752 wrote:I'm not talking about 'law'; I am talking about the meaning of a word. The meaning of marriage, in this context, is not changeable. Sorry you are not grasping it.

Good luck.

Yeah. Because no meaning of any word has ever changed through history and I've just been imagining all the "arc" notations in dictionaries signifying that a particular word had an archaic definition that isn't widely (if at all) used.

You seem to be having trouble navigating the gulf between "WHAT I WANT" and reality. Good luck.

And you seem to have difficulty grasping a rather simple concept.

Good luck.

QuakerOats;1739752 wrote:I'm not talking about 'law'; I am talking about the meaning of a word. The meaning of marriage, in this context, is not changeable. Sorry you are not grasping it.

Good luck.

The meaning of the word has changed. Welcome to reality.

QuakerOats;1739762 wrote:And you seem to have difficulty grasping a rather simple concept.

Good luck.

No, I've gathered that you live in a delusional dream world for some time.

Good luck.

QuakerOats;1739752 wrote:I'm not talking about 'law'; I am talking about the meaning of a word. The meaning of marriage, in this context, is not changeable. Sorry you are not grasping it.

Good luck.

Of all the ridiculously stupid arguments one can make to mask their bigotry, that the definitions of words aren't changeable is near the peak of that mountain. Of course they are. Happens all the time.

What we legally define as a "marriage" is simply a contract between two people. That doesn't change if we call it a "civil union," or "matrimony," or any other word. The legal side of it is contractual, and it can be entered into and carried out by people who do not love each other (ie. a necessary element of the traditional, non-governed relationship "marriage").

If someone builds some new widget ... a new fruit dicer or something ... and they decide to call it "Kumquat," does that threaten the fruit called the same thing? Are the two being equated because we use the same word to describe them?

There are different views on what a marriage, in an emotional/spiritual/philosophical sense, can be, but it isn't absolutely necessary for them to inform the notion of a state-permitted legal union that has been given the same name.

queencitybuckeye;1739781 wrote:Of all the ridiculously stupid arguments one can make to mask their bigotry, that the definitions of words aren't changeable is near the peak of that mountain. Of course they are. Happens all the time.

A - there is no bigotry on my part (although you seemingly hope there is)
B - certain words can take on new meaning(s)
C - 'marriage' is not one of those such words referenced in B above.


God bless.

QuakerOats;1739924 wrote:A - there is no bigotry on my part (although you seemingly hope there is)
B - certain words can take on new meaning(s)
C - 'marriage' is not one of those such words referenced in B above.


God bless.

My computer's dictionary seems to disagree since the words "a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex" is listed directly under the "man/woman" aspect when looking up the definition of the word. I suppose you can say, "IN MY HOUSE, THIS IS HOW IT IS!", but that doesn't mean that the world outside your house is going to follow suit.

QuakerOats;1739924 wrote: C - 'marriage' is not one of those such words referenced in B above.

Only according to you and the other people too blind or ignorant to think otherwise.

Answer this one simple question: why do you think the term marriage is precluded from a shift in definition but other legal rights and terms are not?

Your irrational answer will bring many laughs to the majority of people on this thread who seem to be in touch with reality and the concept of a word's meaning changing over time.

So you do agree that there was a shift in definition?

[the concept of a word's meaning changing over time.

You and others have used the explanation that words evolve. I am under the impression that evolution takes some time. 5 black-robed elitists who are unaccountable to the people,changed a law that the people's representatives wrote and its definition overnite. I'd call that a mutation, rather than an evolution.

I'm not afraid of being in the minority here. I have the strength of my convictions and my education and experience to fall back on. I do understand the "evolution of law" that you referenced since Marbury....that doesn't mean I have to take judicial activism up the ass without complaint. Move to Canada? I don't think so...I have our posterity to think about. How do you see this "judicial activism" evolving over the next 30-50 years?
https://kirbycenter.hillsdale.edu/document.doc?id=29

HitsRus;1740117 wrote:So you do agree that there was a shift in definition?


You and others have used the explanation that words evolve. I am under the impression that evolution takes some time. 5 black-robed elitists who are unaccountable to the people,changed a law that the people's representatives wrote and its definition overnite. I'd call that a mutation, rather than an evolution.

I'm not afraid of being in the minority here. I have the strength of my convictions and my education and experience to fall back on. I do understand the "evolution of law" that you referenced since Marbury....that doesn't mean I have to take judicial activism up the ass without complaint. Move to Canada? I don't think so...I have our posterity to think about. How do you see this "judicial activism" evolving over the next 30-50 years?
https://kirbycenter.hillsdale.edu/document.doc?id=29

What would be your response to the notion that the SCOTUS decision reflects an evolution already having taken place under most of the population's definition?

I'm not necessarily taking that position. I'm just curious.

In my prior example, the "Kumquat" name was given instantaneously, so I might agree that it's not an evolution. Merely the borrowing of a term already in existence to apply to something else.

HitsRus;1740117 wrote:
I'm not afraid of being in the minority here. I have the strength of my convictions and my education and experience to fall back on. I do understand the "evolution of law" that you referenced since Marbury....that doesn't mean I have to take judicial activism up the ass without complaint.

1) Having strength in your convictions doesn't preclude you from being absolutely wrong. That's the case here

2) Clearly you have no appreciation for evolution of the law, even though you claim you do, or else you wouldn't be so attacking of the evolution that's taken place here. As O-Trap said, the definition of who may marry has already evolved rapidly across the people, now the Court has taken that evolution and placed their stamp of approval on it.

3) You still haven't accounted for the argument that marriage is a contract creating a bundle of rights and all the Supreme Court did was change who is eligible to enter into the contract, not the subject matter of the contract itself

4) You mention your education and experience. What in your experience or education makes you think your argument can stand up to someone who has actually learned and practiced the law? Because it doesn't. Judicial activism occurs every year in a vast variety of fields. If you practiced or studied law, you'd know that and have a better appreciation for the argument presented in #3 that you can't defeat. What is the response when judicial activism takes place? The state legislature usually is quick to pass a law specifying either support for the judicial activism or specifically reversing it. That's the entire concept of checks and balances.

5) You do have to take judicial activism up the ass without complaining unless you have a legitimate beef, as Americans have found out since 1803. There's no legitimacy in complaining about the Court expanding who may enter into a marriage contract, only bigotry. Again, if you don't support the justified judicial activism, I encourage you to move to Canada.

And Hits that article is a bunch of garbage. Not a single mention of checks and balances. How can you cite to a "woe is me" paper that doesn't even discuss the interrelation between the courts and representative government? All the paper tries to say is "the judges are going crazy and out of control" without giving proper discussion to the control mechanism in place: legislature.

That most accurate way to describe that piece is a hit piece on the entire judicial system, and it's absolutely laughable. Not shocking in the least you would cite to such an absurd viewpoint to defend your absurd argument.

HitsRus;1740117 wrote:So you do agree that there was a shift in definition?


You and others have used the explanation that words evolve. I am under the impression that evolution takes some time. 5 black-robed elitists who are unaccountable to the people,changed a law that the people's representatives wrote and its definition overnite. I'd call that a mutation, rather than an evolution.

I'm not afraid of being in the minority here. I have the strength of my convictions and my education and experience to fall back on. I do understand the "evolution of law" that you referenced since Marbury....that doesn't mean I have to take judicial activism up the ass without complaint. Move to Canada? I don't think so...I have our posterity to think about. How do you see this "judicial activism" evolving over the next 30-50 years?
https://kirbycenter.hillsdale.edu/document.doc?id=29

1. By just doing a quick Google search, it seems that roughly 60% of Americans support gay marriage. Which means it looks more like the "black robed elitists" are acting more along the will of the public than anything else.

2. Politics on the OC always cracks me up because the bar ALWAYS gets moved to exactly where it suits a given argument. 90+ percent of the time, the "people's representatives" are mocked and bashed incessantly here; but just have another branch of government do anything a person doesn't personally agree with and suddenly they become a sacred cow where it's blasphemy to bypass them. While, admittedly it's not much of a choice, I'd rather have "black robed elitists" making certain "social issue" decisions instead of entrenched career politicians who live and die off mindlessly adhering to the party line.

Heretic;1740148 wrote: but just have another branch of government do anything a person doesn't personally agree with and suddenly they become a sacred cow where it's blasphemy to bypass them.

Can't give enough reps for this. You only hear about judicial activism when it goes against the Ole Boys Club and their antiquated viewpoints

lhslep134;1740144 wrote:And Hits that article is a bunch of garbage. Not a single mention of checks and balances. How can you cite to a "woe is me" paper that doesn't even discuss the interrelation between the courts and representative government? All the paper tries to say is "the judges are going crazy and out of control" without giving proper discussion to the control mechanism in place: legislature.

That most accurate way to describe that piece is a hit piece on the entire judicial system, and it's absolutely laughable. Not shocking in the least you would cite to such an absurd viewpoint to defend your absurd argument.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the check on the SCOTUS is for Congress to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman; which would nullify the decision.

Or in other words, no chance.

sleeper;1740155 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the check on the SCOTUS is for Congress to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman; which would nullify the decision.

Or in other words, no chance.

Actually no. Marriage is a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment; so like Loving v. Virginia that forced states to recognize interracial marriage Obergefell v Hodges forces states to recognize same-sex marriage.

Because the 14th Amendment serves "protected groups" i.e. minorities, LGBT, etc, Congress would have to remove LGBT from "protected group" status in order to remove their 14th Amendment protection, an even greater task than an amendment defining marriage as between man and woman.

You got to the right conclusion: no chance.

What would be your response to the notion that the SCOTUS decision reflects an evolution already having taken place under most of the population's definition?

That's fine. It is the process that I abhor. The SCOTUS rightfully struck down DOMA in 2013, and should have returned it to the people's representatives to write a constitutionally correct law about domestic relationships, or none at all and let the government get completely out of the "marraige " business.

As to your kumquat, I understand your point, but it doesn't change the fact that what was termed a kumquat specifically, has been changed. There has to be some specificity in what terms mean such that what was written in 1950 means the same in 2015.
My argument is not anti gay or bigoted, it is about specificity in terms. I am in no way restricting the rights by asking that we call a "kumquat a kumquat"
All this meandering about "contracts" is circumferential. A contract is a contract, but it pertains to something. If it is a "land contract" you can change the rules and terms and parties in that contract but you can't change "land" and still have a "land contract". Except of course, by changing the very definition of land. Now you have a "land contract" but its meaning is not the same. Marriage has always been specifically man and woman, not any two people. So by changing the definition, what was written prior, no longer reflects the exact intent of the authors. So when we write laws, and then change the definitions of what was written, we no longer are true to author's intention. There is nothing wrong with evolving law. But a law written by the people should amended by the people not by the simple majority of 9 jurists unaccountable to the people.

I should not be told to "move to Canada" for sticking up for the traditional constitutional mechanisms nor should I be called a bigot for demanding that we hold true to specificity of terminology.
If congress, after thoughtful debate, wishes to change the legal definition of marriage I am 100% okay with that. More likely though, after all of the people's representatives have spoken, is that we would get a law about domestic partnerships, all equal with rights and privleges under the law to include not only marriages, but also same sex unions.