Text 9374, 83 rader
Skriven 2006-10-13 23:29:02 av Josh Hill
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================
From: Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com>

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:52:38 -0700, "Vorlonagent"
<nojtspam@otfresno.com> wrote:

>
>"Angelika Tobisch" <kamyra@arcor.de> wrote in message 
>news:452e546a$0$21737$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...

>> Thing is, if you (or whoever) can't give a very good reason for treating
>> a group of people differently than the rest, then that's what defines
>> discrimination. Which is why "You want me to accept gays and gays
>> marrying, give me a reason." completely misses the point. Whoever
>> insists on a difference being made is the one who has to give reasons.
>
>Fair point.
>
>The problem you run into is that of home-field advantage.  Hereosexual 
>marriage has existed for a very long time.  You are asking the world to 
>accept something new.  We aren't starting from zero and weighing sameness 
>and difference in a vacuum.  Social custom has a degree of intertia to it 
>and that's simply the way things work.  Thus gays are put in the position of 
>having to make a case for marriage.  It's not fair, strictly speaking, that 
>they have to, but they have to anyway.  It is simply the cards gays have 
>been dealt.
>
>The task is not insurmountable by any means.  It requires awareness from and 
>engagement with the rest of the population.  Aggressive tactics have gotten 
>gays the awareness that they seek, but also impede engagement by alienating 
>gays from non-gays.
>
>> Unfortunately (in this case) going through legislature means you need a
>> majority supporting you. Justice, however, is not or at least shouldn't
>> be about majorities, but about what's right. Call me simplistic, but not
>> allowing gays to marry is discrimination and discrimination is wrong.
>
>I agree.  That was never the issue.
>
>The issue is: "Is the end (ending discrimmination against gays) justified by 
>any means?"
>
>Delenn makes the point that how and why you do something is as important as 
>what you're doing, so the "B5-based" answer appears to be no, the ends do 
>not justify the means.  There are right and wrong ways of going about 
>things.  We can then discuss whether a given means is an appropriate route 
>to a given end.  I don't think appropriating judicial authority to create 
>social policy is an appropriate means, but you may disagree.
>
>Building a majority in the legislature will no doubt take time, but the work 
>making friends among political allies, common people and (especially) 
>political enemies will also pay dividends down the road that an exercise of 
>naked power will not.
>
>> Now, it may not always be wise to go through the judiciary, but it is
>> definitely not abuse.
>
>I disagree because it is asking the judiciary to act like a 
>shadow-legislature, trumping the real legislature and undermining the 
>Separation of Powers by which this country (and most states) function.

Hold on to your hat, because, while I personally support gay marriage,
I agree with you that this is a matter for the voters and the
legislature. Forcing gay marriage down the public's throats through a
legally questionable recourse to the equal protection clause would, I
think, be strategically counterproductive, and would weaken the
courts, as Roe did, and before it, the USSC's attack on the New Deal.

Better, I think, to address the more pressing partnership issue (which
even President Bush has said he favors), and let things take their
natural course. The polls show younger people in favor of gay
marriage, so as we fogies croak, it will happen as a matter of course.

-- 
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.

- The Gospel of Judas


--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
 * Origin: *READ ONLY* rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (3:640/1010)