The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Mercnbeth -> The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/29/2008 11:38:15 AM)

I am of the opinion that there is a desire in the US to eliminate democratic rule and move toward some form of dictatorship. It may not be a one man dictatorship; although should the occasion present itself I don't doubt that is possible. Recent events support that conclusion.

Eight years ago a 14 word initiative appeared on the ballot as Proposition 22. The text of Prop 22:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman
is valid or recognized in California.”

The initiative passed by a 23 point margin; 61.4% to 38.6%. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition. (Source: http://www.marriagewatch.org/media/prop22.htm )

On May 16, 2008 four of the seven California State Supreme Court justices overruled the democratic vote and dictated that the CA State ban on same sex marriages be overturned. Four dictated the law over the 4,618,673 votes democratically counted representing a 22.8% plurality in the democratically voting citizens of CA.

Today, the governor of New York, dictated that gay couples married elsewhere "should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union". (Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/29/america/29marriage.php?page=1 )

One man, one not elected to the office, dictating policy without consideration of direct vote or going to the NY State Legislators.

The same sex marriage concept is one that I support emotionally, but for economic and Constitution reasons I'd argue against. There is no current inequality. A gay person can marry exactly the same gender as a so called straight person. The ability to marry the same sex is a 'more equal' status. Sexuality is a personal preference, gender is biological. The repercussion concerning the economic issues are far reaching. But that's not what this thread is concerning.

Instead, if possible try and take the specific issue out of the equation. Instead pick an issue not so close to home for those of us in the 'alternative lifestyle community'. Pick one that instead is in direct opposition. Now put these dictatorial decisions in that context.

Are you applauding the 'good intent' or concerned for the each at which we, as a people in a democratic county, are so willing to accept dictated rule? There have been many wondering about the value of a vote.

As much as hanging chads impacted the Presidency and the last 8 years of this county; here's a case where the votes of 4,618,673 people representing a considerable majority were invalidated by 4.

Any problem?



Alumbrado -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/29/2008 12:43:46 PM)

I find that reciprocity, as in recognizing marriages from another state so that your own residents won't be considered unmarried when visiting there, to be perfectly in accordance with economic and Constitutional tenets.

And the interim governor not being directly elected embraces the Constitution as well... planning ahead for people not being able to finish their term, and allowing each state to set the method of selecting replacements is what it is... So is allowing the head of each state's executive branch to have a say in executing policy..... certainly nothing unconstitutional about either of those, per the 10th amendment.   Nothing in there about majority rule.

And you can argue that 'separate but equal' doesn't require any remedy all day long, that horse left the barn long ago.



Mercnbeth -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/29/2008 1:09:39 PM)

quote:

I find that reciprocity, as in recognizing marriages from another state so that your own residents won't be considered unmarried when visiting there, to be perfectly in accordance with economic and Constitutional tenets.
Do you accept and support that unilaterally or only in specific instances which you approve? For instance, what of NY States gun and medicinal marijuana laws? Attorney's use precedent every time they present a case. Can the governor's decision, or your point of reciprocity, be used as a defense if a CA citizen is arrested for having pot in their possession?

quote:

And you can argue that 'separate but equal' doesn't require any remedy all day long, that horse left the barn long ago.
I don't think I raised that position, but if I did I need you to provide that line of reasoning. My position, regarding the specific reference of same sex marriage comes from the perspective that 'equal' does not have mean the 'same'. All people are not the 'same' but they are all 'equal'. There are differences at the genetic level that can't be eliminated by legislation.

But that response actually hijacks my own thread.

The fact that the existing governor of NY was appointed was a tangent point that I made in support of the belief that the decision is yet another step removed from the a democratic vote. I don't argue that it was proper Constitutionally, neither was the CA Supreme Court decision for that matter.

However the impact of one man, in the case of NY, or 4 people on the CA Supreme Court superseding the vote of the people is clear. By another name - that would be defined dictatorial. The idea of 'right' or 'fair' is a different debate. Accepting a dictator or dictatorial rule is the subject I hope to discuss; but it doesn't look good.



Alumbrado -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/29/2008 1:25:09 PM)

You are arguing against one dictator a thousand miles away, and in favor of a thousand dictators one mile away... to hijack Mather Byles zinger against majority rule.

And BTW, I agree with your overall premise... any of these processes are prone to abuse in the name of good intentions.

I disagree that there is any cogent reason to not have gay marriage treated exactly like any other.



Mercnbeth -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/29/2008 2:23:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

You are arguing against one dictator a thousand miles away, and in favor of a thousand dictators one mile away... to hijack Mather Byles zinger against majority rule.
No - I used your reciprocity argument to another application.

quote:

And BTW, I agree with your overall premise... any of these processes are prone to abuse in the name of good intentions.
A world turned upside down. Not that we are in agreement, but that under the banner 'good intent' one of the basic tenets of our Constitution is compromised. 

quote:

I disagree that there is any cogent reason to not have gay marriage treated exactly like any other.
Ummmm "cogent reason"... My heart has it, love and happiness within a relationship should be encouraged and never be denied. If  the institution of marriage helps define it - it is a beautiful thing that I support and encourage. My pragmatic reasoning has a problem coming to the same position. 

Between you and me, I'm much more likely to rally, lobby, and financially support the heart side of the ledger.



Archer -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/29/2008 2:39:30 PM)

OK have an argument I found elsewhere on this idea that the right to marry the opposite gender makes them equal.

Gay marriage bans are not discrimination based on sexual orientation but rather discrimination based on gender.
When you break it down to Individual Rights
John can marry Lucy
Jane cannot marry Lucy
Therefore Jane does not have the same right as Jack, the right to marry Lucy because of Jane's gender.







xxblushesxx -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/29/2008 2:39:33 PM)

Many years ago marriages by people of other races were not allowed in the U.S.
BUT, marriages that are legal in the place you get married are legal in the U.S., except as disallowed by state or federal constitution. (and sometimes statute or case law)
So, this black lady named Lena Horne went to Europe and married her white lover.
They did keep it a secret for a few years, but, the states were forced to recognize the union because it was legal where they were married.
I think that people who want to be married to people of the same sex will be forced to do something similar in order for it to be recognized.
Of course, here in Kentucky, over 70% of voters voted to change our state constitution rather than having "that kind of stuff" around here...[8|]



Zensee -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/29/2008 4:27:32 PM)

That's hardly a slide into dictatorship. Sometimes the many need so be smacked upside the head by the few and told to friggin' smarten up. Wouldn't be the first time.

Now allowing people to steal elections and get into wars for profit while oppressing political opponents - that's a threat to democracy.



Z.



farglebargle -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/29/2008 4:32:29 PM)

Why bother having a dictatorship when you can have one bunch of evil assholes fooling everyone by pretending they're TWO different 'teams' in opposition to each other?

For the record. I'm against all weapons restriction legislation. Just think of it this way: Freedom and Liberty are my default options.




TheHeretic -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/29/2008 7:07:24 PM)

        I see two very different issues in what you posted, Merc.  The legally installed New York Governor seems to have made an executive decision on how his state will handle an issue they are presented with.  His decision seems to reflect proper deference to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution (hardly a dictatorial position). 

     Now, having activist judges throw out the loudly stated will of the people gets a bit closer to the mark, but can we really describe it as dictatorial?  Chances are, there will be a proposed amendment to the CA Constitution on the ballot in November that will shove the decision right back down the court's collective throat.  And if that is stricken down from higher still, then the citizenry will have the option of a nationwide movement to amend the U.S. Constitution.


      Marriage isn't only about rights, there are responsibilities as well.  Are gays not worthy of legal protection at the end of a 'life' partnership?  How many states have common-law marriage statutes declaring, "if you been shackin' up with the bitch for more than x, she's entitled to y of your shit?"

     Then you have the question of who is making medical decisions, and that is toughie.   



SimplyMichael -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/29/2008 7:18:09 PM)

Merc,

I don't know why you see that decisions as dictatorial.  We the people can pass any law we want as long as it doesn't violate the state constitution (leaving the feds out for simplicity) but it did and so the court threw it out.  We the people set our state constitution as the framework and boundaries for all our laws, WE set those boundaries, not the court.  We can also change them by amending our constitution, but the bar for changing that is set higher than a simple majority vote. 



meatcleaver -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/30/2008 12:06:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth


On May 16, 2008 four of the seven California State Supreme Court justices overruled the democratic vote and dictated that the CA State ban on same sex marriages be overturned. Four dictated the law over the 4,618,673 votes democratically counted representing a 22.8% plurality in the democratically voting citizens of CA.

Today, the governor of New York, dictated that gay couples married elsewhere "should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union". (Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/29/america/29marriage.php?page=1 )

One man, one not elected to the office, dictating policy without consideration of direct vote or going to the NY State Legislators.



Isn't it the job of judges to interpret the existing law and that existing law has to comply with people's constitutional rights? If the judges ruled that the democratic vote on a particular issue denied someone's costitutional rights, then surely the judges were correct in their judgement. If that is the case and people still want to ban same sex marriages then surely they have to change the constitution? The problem with that if the constitution is changed and used to discriminate against certain people, you can bet it will be changed again at some point in the future to deiscriminate against some other group of people. Therefore by overuling a popular vote, the judges could be protecting the freedom of everyone from the vindictiveness of cheap populist politics.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/30/2008 12:22:15 AM)

Sexuality is a choice? And you know this how?



cloudboy -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/30/2008 9:48:11 AM)

If the JUDICIARY finds that a law or referendum violates the US Constitution or a state constitution, it can strike the law. This is otherwise known as the "rule of law" -- and as counterintuitive as it may seem to you, its a counter-majoritarian principle aimed at protecting "individual liberties" against legislative fiat.

Generally, "individual liberties" cannot be constrained without some kind of "compelling reason" and/or "rational basis."

As for dictatorship in the USA; that would necessitate the merging of the three branches of government into one, and your facts don't suggest this kind of threat.

To me the road to dictatorship is paved by megalomania, not good intents.



Mercnbeth -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/30/2008 10:15:51 AM)

quote:

Generally, "individual liberties" cannot be constrained without some kind of "compelling reason" and "rational basis."


Really?

What's the "compelling" or "rational" basis for baning nudity on TV? 'Obscene words'? Public nudity? Where's the 'equality' regarding the discretion of 'obscenity' based upon gender, a male at the beach topless - okay; female - arrested? Care to provide the "rational basis" of those laws?

The point was selectivity in dictatorial decisions. The problem with accepting it in this case is that when it come to a situation not so favorable, and having a negative personal or community impact there will be an outcry.
quote:

If the JUDICIARY finds that a law or referendum violates the US Constitution or a state constitution, it can strike the law. This is otherwise known as the "rule of law" -- and as counterintuitive as it may seem to you, its a counter-majoritarian principle aimed at protecting "individual liberties" against legislative fiat.

The court did not 'strike the law' it established law. Having a basic understanding of the difference between the division of powers between the branches of government I see nowhere in the Constitution of the US or CA where that is the responsibility of the Judicial Branch. Establishing laws is the purpose of electing representatives, ergo it is called the 'Legislative' branch of the government. Based upon the stories, both in CA, and NY, the decisions cited in my original post did not include or have any representative support, let alone public support.

In this instance this was nothing more or less than judicial activism. The court did not have to hear the case in the first place. The CA State referendum represented the will of the people.

Again - take the issue out of the mix and would you be as much an advocate of dictatorial decisions? Should a future court decide to take up a case defining obscenity and 4 members decide a berka and head covering was required for all woman in the State of California - will you stand behind your position?



xxblushesxx -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/30/2008 10:22:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

       I see two very different issues in what you posted, Merc.  The legally installed New York Governor seems to have made an executive decision on how his state will handle an issue they are presented with.  His decision seems to reflect proper deference to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution (hardly a dictatorial position). 

    Now, having activist judges throw out the loudly stated will of the people gets a bit closer to the mark, but can we really describe it as dictatorial?  Chances are, there will be a proposed amendment to the CA Constitution on the ballot in November that will shove the decision right back down the court's collective throat.  And if that is stricken down from higher still, then the citizenry will have the option of a nationwide movement to amend the U.S. Constitution.


     Marriage isn't only about rights, there are responsibilities as well.  Are gays not worthy of legal protection at the end of a 'life' partnership?  How many states have common-law marriage statutes declaring, "if you been shackin' up with the bitch for more than x, she's entitled to y of your shit?"

    Then you have the question of who is making medical decisions, and that is toughie.   


In many states (such as TX) you don't have to 'shack up' for any certain length of time. You just have to live together as husband and wife. IE; she uses his last name, he calls her his wife, they sign contracts as if they were husband and wife.

Now when they come to this state, they don't have to 'get married' again. They are already considered married. They *do* have to 'divorce' if they wish to marry another.

I think that all states should recognize marriages that are legal in other states.



Archer -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/30/2008 12:21:20 PM)

The closest danger is not so much a dictatorship of one but mob rule. I see the court decission as countering the tyrany of democracy. We are a republic (and California is as well) because with good reason the founding fathers saw the dangers of a democracy becomming no better than a lynch mob. This case is much more a matter of the courts saying your referendum has been deamed to be directly in conflict with the body of existing law. To deny these citizens the rights you feel they don't deserve you'll have to do it the right way through proper channels.

Merc you still have not replied to my earlier argument that banning gay marriage is not discrimination based on sexuality but rather discrimination based on gender (seperate but equal is not equal is an established concept in law).
The fact that a man can marry a woman but a woman cannot makes it gender discrimination
The fact that a woman canmarry a man but a man cannot is also gender discrimination.
The sexual preferenece is really not the issue.



Mercnbeth -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/30/2008 2:06:43 PM)

quote:

Merc you still have not replied to my earlier argument that banning gay marriage is not discrimination based on sexuality but rather discrimination based on gender (separate but equal is not equal is an established concept in law).


My apologies Archer; the cause was that I didn't want to sidetrack the intended focus of the thread; especially one where I have so many friends and associates benefiting from the Court's ruling. I wish the case in point was a situation where the 'draft' was put to a vote, was defeated by the same 23 point plurality, and a 4-3 majority decision by a court nullified the vote. I suspect the comments would be different. Akin to accepting the surrendering to liberties; people rarely give a shit until it affects them personally.

However, I'm happy to respond on the issue at hand.

You make a very good point. The quick answer would be what I've already said. 'Equal' and 'same' are not synonymous. The same rights are given to all of one gender. Everyone is equal in their ability to marry a partner as long as that partner is not the same gender. The only problem with that is when the preference does not meet the existing gender requirement. No matter how you slice it, preference is the reason requiring a statute change.

Maybe more to your specific point, gender is something that the government can't legislate. It is biological. There is a distinguishing difference at the chromosome level which remains even in those cases where plastic surgery amends the physical appearance. Yet, that makes a case for your argument since subsequent to surgery there is the ability to change the birth certificate to represent a gender matching the physical appearance. The question then becomes is the union of a post op female who marries a male considered a same sex marriage? Is the couple afforded all the rights of a married couple at the Federal level? I don't know the answer to that, but it could be a point that one side of this argument can use. If it doesn't it may be an example of existing law unable to accommodate existing science.

However I think you addressed the question to the more 'traditional' definition of gender. Pragmatically there is (obviously in my opinion) no discrimination because all members of one gender, XX or XY, can currently marry any other person not having the same set of chromosomes. Isn't the only issue a matter of sexual preference? It doesn't matter if the source of that preference is nature or nurture. Fundamentally the issue is one of basic biology; omitting for the sake of expedience those rare cases where the biological features don't match the basic XX or XY coding.



farglebargle -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/30/2008 3:18:46 PM)

quote:

I see two very different issues in what you posted, Merc. The legally installed New York Governor seems to have made an executive decision on how his state will handle an issue they are presented with.



In NYS Contracts are goverened by NYS Uniform Commercial Code, the relevant parts of NYS UCC are:

Sec. 1 102 (1) says "liberally construed and applied"

Sec. 1 102 (5) (b) words of the masculine gender include the feminine and the neuter.

So it's pretty clear the the Legislature of New York wanted, when considering CONTRACTS for there to be no difference between male, female, and neutral.

Keep that in mind, it's the key. As far as contracts in New York go, there's no legal difference between Male, Female, and Other.

Is Marriage a Contract?


* New York State Consolidated Laws

o Domestic Relations

ARTICLE 3

Solemnization, Proof and Effect of Marriage

S 10. Marriage a civil contract. Marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, continues to be a civil contract, to which the consent of parties capable in law of making a contract is essential.


Q.E.D.: Under NYS Law, there is no reason *any* 2 individuals cannot be married.

And it is *explicitly* so, given the legal text of NYS Marriage Certificates:

quote:


which certificate shall be substantially in the following form and contain the following facts:

Record No............of Year........

THIS IS TO CERTIFY

that ................................................................. ,

first name, premarriage surname, new surname (if applicable)

residing at .......................................................... ,

who was born on ........................., at ........................ ,

date

and .................................................................. ,

first name, premarriage surname, new surname (if applicable)

residing at .......................................................... ,

who was born ........................, at ............................ ,

date

............................. , were married on.......................at

date

............. as shown by the duly registered license and certificate of

marriage of said persons on file in this office.

(SEAL) ......................................

Town or City Clerk

Dated at.................., N. Y.



stella41b -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/30/2008 3:41:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Maybe more to your specific point, gender is something that the government can't legislate. It is biological. There is a distinguishing difference at the chromosome level which remains even in those cases where plastic surgery amends the physical appearance. Yet, that makes a case for your argument since subsequent to surgery there is the ability to change the birth certificate to represent a gender matching the physical appearance. The question then becomes is the union of a post op female who marries a male considered a same sex marriage? Is the couple afforded all the rights of a married couple at the Federal level? I don't know the answer to that, but it could be a point that one side of this argument can use. If it doesn't it may be an example of existing law unable to accommodate existing science.



The union of a post-op female after SRS gender reassignment surgery with a biological male cannot be seen as a same sex marriage.

As background there is the case of Goodwin vs. The United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 18 where the European Court of Human Rights found that the United Kingdom had breached the Convention rights of two transsexual people with regard to their right to marry under Article 8 (the right to respect in one's private life) and Article 12 (the right to marry). The United Kingdom had a positive obligation under international law to secure Convention rights for these two people. The Courtr ruled that the United Kingdom must rectify these breaches.

Similarly A Mrs Bellinger, a transsexual female sought legal recognition of her 1981 marriage to a man. On 10th April 2003 the House of Lords gave judgment in this case Bellinger vs. Bellinger and though they were sympathetic to her plight they ruled that the marriage was void. They declared that section 11 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 and found that new legislation was needed to enable transsexual people to marry in their acquired gender.

This gave rise to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 where a transsexual person who (a) has a history of gender dysphoria (b) has spent two years living in their acquired gender and (c) intends to live in their acquired gender until their death can become recognized legally as their acquired gender.

This however seems to be at variance with legislation in the United States and Canada which require the completion of SRS surgery for someone transsexual to be legally recognized in their acquired gender with regard to legal recognition. However under UK law you require a full Gender Recognition Certificate and/or evidence of your surgery for your birth certificate to be changed, which indicates that with regard to marriage post-op you may marry in your acquired gender.

There is however the issue of the human right to respect one's private life. From my own experience from Atlanta last December I was declared inadmissible to the United States whilst travelling on a passport in my acquired female gender under the Immigration and Nationality Act 2002 Section 212.a (7) (i) (I) - 'failure to provide a valid unexpired passport, visa or travel document necessary for entry to the United States'.

This would appear to provide the answer Merc was looking for and it also indeed indicates an example of existing law being unable to accommodate existing science. Merc is quite right to state that gender is encoded in one's genes, and we can see that the UK's Gender Recognition Act with it's stipulated requirement of 'a history of gender dysphoria' is an attempt where existing law is trying to accommodate existing science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

However I think you addressed the question to the more 'traditional' definition of gender. Pragmatically there is (obviously in my opinion) no discrimination because all members of one gender, XX or XY, can currently marry any other person not having the same set of chromosomes. Isn't the only issue a matter of sexual preference? It doesn't matter if the source of that preference is nature or nurture. Fundamentally the issue is one of basic biology; omitting for the sake of expedience those rare cases where the biological features don't match the basic XX or XY coding.


However with regard to what I have written above we can see the issue quite clearly. Archer is right in that current legislation pertaining to marriage and same sex marriages is discrimination on the basis of gender. But here we have the problem. Universally we can see that universally a transsexual person to get married in their acquired gender needs to have the appropriate genitalia. This may be because it strikes at the very core of the legal definition of marriage, which is a union between two people which if consummated can produce children.

It would appear that the basis of the legal definition of marriage rests not on your relationship but in what you get up to in the bedroom. Whichever way you go there is discrimination. The way it stands at the moment the law discriminates people on the basis of their gender, but it also discriminates against people on the basis of their right to be respected in their private lives, which I would assume under US law is protected per se via the Bill of Rights. However if you were to legalize same sex marriages and provide for a new definition of marriage as being two people who wish to live together in a close interpersonal relationship, irrespective of their gender and sexual orientation, it could be seen also to discriminate against other people on the grounds of their religious beliefs and as such also their constitional rights to be respected in their private lives. BUT in my opinion it could be argued that a marriage between two men or two women need not devalue the act of marriage between a heterosexual couple, because the act of marriage only pertains to the relationship between the two people involved.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125