Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Rabble rabble rabble!

So... because there were former restrictions on marriage that were unacceptable, that apparently means that all restrictions on marriage are unacceptable. Sounds like it's straight out of the NAMBLA playbook.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

So... because there were former restrictions on marriage that were unacceptable, that apparently means that all restrictions on marriage are unacceptable. Sounds like it's straight out of the NAMBLA playbook.

Unfortunately that's the misguided an simplistic way many people approach the subject.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Unfortunately that's the misguided an simplistic way many people approach the subject.

Or it's a straw man with no bearing on the argument.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Or it's a straw man with no bearing on the argument.

Wrong fallacy - that's slippery slope. The insinuation that if you support any restrictions at all on marriage, you must support banning interracial marriage or something.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Wrong fallacy - that's slippery slope. The insinuation that if you support any restrictions at all on marriage, you must support banning interracial marriage or something.

Except it's quite obvious that it cuts both ways. E.g. the claim that allowing civil marriage irrespective of sex will lead to us living under sharia law. Or marrying farm animals.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Except it's quite obvious that it cuts both ways. E.g. the claim that allowing civil marriage irrespective of sex will lead to us living under sharia law. Or marrying farm animals.

Slippery slope arguments usually do.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Or it's a straw man with no bearing on the argument.

Except it's one of the arguments you hear over and over from proponents of more "modern" definitions of marriage. It's the logical equivalent of saying the Arizona Cardinals and the Wisconsin Badgers both wear red, so they are the same. Really there are better arguments to be made than it, but I've heard it and read it many many times. Thus, even if it is without basis, you're still forced to address it.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

So... because there were former restrictions on marriage that were unacceptable, that apparently means that all restrictions on marriage are unacceptable. Sounds like it's straight out of the NAMBLA playbook.

That doesn't work either.

Interracial marriage may still be unacceptable to some. Basically by making this argument to me you are indicating majority rules. Well, that's fine but that's not the US Constitution nor our form of government.

Either way gay marriage will some day be legal in the US cause eventually the majority will believe that is the correct decision. The numbers have been moving that way for quite a while and a majority of younger Americans already believe gay marriage should be legal.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

That doesn't work either.

Interracial marriage may still be unacceptable to some. Basically by making this argument to me you are indicating majority rules. Well, that's fine but that's not the US Constitution nor our form of government.

Either way gay marriage will some day be legal in the US cause eventually the majority will believe that is the correct decision. The numbers have been moving that way for quite a while and a majority of younger Americans already believe gay marriage should be legal.

I don't really care if that happens, I just wish the federal court system would let states decide for themselves and do it right. Not let judges decide what the law should be. Judges are there to tell what the law says, not change the law because they don't like what it says.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

I don't really care if that happens, I just wish the federal court system would let states decide for themselves and do it right. Not let judges decide what the law should be. Judges are there to tell what the law says, not change the law because they don't like what it says.

If only.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

I don't really care if that happens, I just wish the federal court system would let states decide for themselves and do it right. Not let judges decide what the law should be. Judges are there to tell what the law says, not change the law because they don't like what it says.

That's all fine and dandy in theory, but who decides what the law is when the legislature passes a poorly drafted law or one that lacks in specificity? While I definitely prefer the concise U.S. Constitution as opposed to the monstosity that is the E.U. Constitution, who else is going to decide what consitutes "due process" or what are "privileges and immunities" if not the courts?

Also, in the realm of law, the entire field of equity is grounded in judicial discretion (as one of my professors called it, equity is all about "fairsees").

Put another way, my guess is that most if not all activist judges are still only saying what the law says; they just think it says something other than what you thought it said.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Fine. But you're ignoring the point. He's never said they don't have a right to do so. Which is what many on the left seem to be suggesting.

He suggested that zoning and other laws could be used to prevent them from building.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Didn't a wing from one of the planes fall on this building?

Again, I say, so?

Didn't smoke and ash and crap from this fall all over New Jersey? Is that now hallowed ground too?

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

So, we're cool with this building even if the imam related to this say... apologizes for bin Laden, calls for the ending of Israel, and defends Whabbi Islam?

Now lets just enter Fantasyland.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

He suggested that zoning and other laws could be used to prevent them from building.

Except that they're in compliance with the zoning code.

Also, the zoning code could only oppose a house of worship of any faith - singling out a Muslim structure won't fly.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Except that they're in compliance with the zoning code.

Also, the zoning code could only oppose a house of worship of any faith - singling out a Muslim structure won't fly.

So why'd Krauthammer evenn bring them into discussion?

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

So why'd Krauthammer evenn bring them into discussion?

Because he doesn't know a **** thing about local land use law?

Not that it's really local - the fact that you can't craft a local law to allow a Catholic Church but not an Islamic Mosque shouldn't be too hard for Krauthammer to understand.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Also, the zoning code could only oppose a house of worship of any faith - singling out a Muslim structure won't fly.

His argument against building the mosque is due to his belief that GZ is hallowed ground and that a monument to a religion practiced by a group of people responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents at that site doesn't belong there any more than a Japanese cultural center belongs at Pearl Harbor or a Catholic convent belongs at Auschwitz. In short, it's about respect for the victims.

The mention of zoning law in his column was done to illustrate the fact that we don't have unrestricted rights to build what we want on our own land - that our ability to build is strongly regulated by local government. It's obvious to me that he wasn't mentioning it as a means of stopping the building of the mosque.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Again, I say, so?

When parts of the plane fall on a building I'd say it makes it ground zero

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

That's all fine and dandy in theory, but who decides what the law is when the legislature passes a poorly drafted law or one that lacks in specificity? While I definitely prefer the concise U.S. Constitution as opposed to the monstosity that is the E.U. Constitution, who else is going to decide what consitutes "due process" or what are "privileges and immunities" if not the courts?

Also, in the realm of law, the entire field of equity is grounded in judicial discretion (as one of my professors called it, equity is all about "fairsees").

Put another way, my guess is that most if not all activist judges are still only saying what the law says; they just think it says something other than what you thought it said.

Sure there are things that need interpretation, but maybe congress should have to state in their laws, what in the constitution gives them the power to make such a law (that way the courts can't choose some clause and find a way to make it fit). That would help show the original intent of the law.

I also would like to know what you think of something like Wickard v. Filburn that basically said a farmer couldn't grow crops for himself (which exceeded his quota) because it would have an effect on the market. How is that interstate commerce if the product never leaves the state?