Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tyranny Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:55:28 -0500 Out of curiosity, where did they get married? And is this marriage recognized by the State or the Federal Government? They were married in a Unitarian Universalist Church. No, this marriage was not recognized by the State of Federal Government. See, now there's the whole problem. With the exception of IIRC two States (Florida and California?) homosexuals still can't enter into a marriage that is recognized by the State and Federal Government. I don't know what you call it, but I call it discrimination based on sexual preference. At the time, however, I was responding to Debbi's characterization of my views that I am opposed to homosexual couples being able to make a public commitment to each other. In response, I am noting that no such law prevents these public commitments and that I do not support a law which would prevent such public commitments. Yet you do seem to be opposed to homosexuals enter into a regular (read: government-recognized) marriage with all the same rights as heterosexual married couples. IMO, there is exactly as much reason to disallow gay marriage as there is reason to disallow interracial marriage: no reasons whatsoever. But hey, interracial marriages are by now allowed in the US, so I trust that someday the US Government will finally see the light and give equal rights to *everyone*. Oh, and while you're at it, would you mind answering that other question I asked you in that same message? I'd like to hear your views on this. (Maybe you already shared those views earlier, but I only subscribed to this list a few days ago.) Sure I received your off-list post. I am not going to respond to it off-list, as this is an on-list discussion. I am also not going to respond to it on-list, as someone else will probably already have said what I would tell you. Suffice it to say that I don't agree with your views, and believe that your tolerance towards and acceptance of homosexuals leaves room for improvement. JD _ MSN Search, for accurate results! http://search.msn.nl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 10:08 PM 3/19/2004 +0100 John Doe wrote: Again, there is nothing in current law in the United States that prevents homosexual couples from publicly committing themselves to each other. Apparently there is, otherwise the whole discussion about gay marriage wouldn't have happened. One of my closest female friends married her girlfriend in a Unitarian Church a couple years ago. The ceremony was a public commitment and was definitely not illegal. Good for them! Out of curiosity, where did they get married? And is this marriage recognized by the State or the Federal Government? They were married in a Unitarian Universalist Church. No, this marriage was not recognized by the State of Federal Government. At the time, however, I was responding to Debbi's characterization of my views that I am opposed to homosexual couples being able to make a public commitment to each other. In response, I am noting that no such law prevents these public commitments and that I do not support a law which would prevent such public commitments. In addition, I would like to note that this is consistent with my viewpoints of my own situation, in which I consider appearing before a judge to be a legal annoyance compared to the importance of my (hopefully) future Church wedding someday. AFAIK, most States still don't allow/recognize gay marriage. Oh, and while you're at it, would you mind answering that other question I asked you in that same message? I'd like to hear your views on this. (Maybe you already shared those views earlier, but I only subscribed to this list a few days ago.) Sure The question, however, is whether our civilization will be undermined by: 1) incentivising homosexual unions 2) placing the homosexual union on an equal status with heterosexual marriage as a building block of society, and 3) permitting homosexual couples to adopt or to artificially create children. In your opinion, would civilization be undermined by any of the above three? I have yet to see any evidence that would support a YES as an answer to any of those three points. I presume that the above is the question you have in mind. I'll send you a copy of my post Federal Marriage Amendment which lays out my views on the subject off-list, since I presume that you are fairly unique in your situation of having just subscribed. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
John D. Giorgis spouting Pope Brand(tm) right-wing extremism: Deborah, the campaign against partial-birth abortion has lasted, I think, nearly a decade. Because we live in a republic, political change requires the changing of the hearts and minds of ordinary Americans. For better or for worse, those hearts and minds are not going to be changed while relying upon the medical jargon of academia. Rather it was necessary to communicate to the American people exactly what dilation and extraction means - partially birthing a child, and then killing it. JDG, the campaign against women's rights has lasted, I think, nearly a century. Because we live in a democratic republic, political change requires implementing a legislative/judicial slippery slope to change the jurisprudence and opinions of ordinary Judges and Legislators. For better or for worse, those Judges and Legislator are not going to be changed while relying upon science facts and evidence. Rather it was necessary to use Newspeak to Propagandize the American people to elect Legislators and Get Judges appointed who don't know what science facts and evidence mean - that all people are created (through evolution) equal. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tyranny Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:47:21 -0500 At 04:28 PM 3/18/2004 +0100 John Doe wrote: Again, there is nothing in current law in the United States that prevents homosexual couples from publicly committing themselves to each other. Apparently there is, otherwise the whole discussion about gay marriage wouldn't have happened. One of my closest female friends married her girlfriend in a Unitarian Church a couple years ago. The ceremony was a public commitment and was definitely not illegal. Good for them! Out of curiosity, where did they get married? And is this marriage recognized by the State or the Federal Government? AFAIK, most States still don't allow/recognize gay marriage. Oh, and while you're at it, would you mind answering that other question I asked you in that same message? I'd like to hear your views on this. (Maybe you already shared those views earlier, but I only subscribed to this list a few days ago.) JD _ Play online games with your friends with MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John Doe [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh, and while you're at it, would you mind answering that other question I asked you in that same message? I'd like to hear your views on this. (Maybe you already shared those views earlier, but I only subscribed to this list a few days ago.) Best to read the archives starting in january for that discussion: http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tyranny Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:40:54 -0500 Again, there is nothing in current law in the United States that prevents homosexual couples from publicly committing themselves to each other. Apparently there is, otherwise the whole discussion about gay marriage wouldn't have happened. The question, however, is whether our civilization will be undermined by: 1) incentivising homosexual unions 2) placing the homosexual union on an equal status with heterosexual marriage as a building block of society, and 3) permitting homosexual couples to adopt or to artificially create children. In your opinion, would civilization be undermined by any of the above three? I have yet to see any evidence that would support a YES as an answer to any of those three points. JD _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
Folks, The question, however, is whether our civilization will be undermined by: ... 3) permitting homosexual couples to adopt or to artificially create children. Thus the need for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual couples from playing The Sims. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 04:28 PM 3/18/2004 +0100 John Doe wrote: Again, there is nothing in current law in the United States that prevents homosexual couples from publicly committing themselves to each other. Apparently there is, otherwise the whole discussion about gay marriage wouldn't have happened. One of my closest female friends married her girlfriend in a Unitarian Church a couple years ago. The ceremony was a public commitment and was definitely not illegal. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 04:41 PM 3/1/2004 -0800 Deborah Harrell wrote: This is also the same court that just a few years ago struck down Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion in Stenberg vs. Carhart. sniplet Suffice to say, I have very real worries that Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and O'Connor will find homosexual marriage right next to the right for partial birth abortion when a mother's mental health is in danger in the penumbra of the Constitution. Not trying to be provocative, but did you read the responses WRT the whole partial birth abortion act that I and others posted? How it isn't a medical term at all, and except in the very rare instance of a late-discovered case of anencephaly (a terrible and fatal defect in which the fetus is missing most of the brain, and sometimes part of the skull as well) isn't used? That it isn't taught anymore in the US? Deborah, the campaign against partial-birth abortion has lasted, I think, nearly a decade. Because we live in a republic, political change requires the changing of the hearts and minds of ordinary Americans. For better or for worse, those hearts and minds are not going to be changed while relying upon the medical jargon of academia. Rather it was necessary to communicate to the American people exactly what dilation and extraction means - partially birthing a child, and then killing it. Now, while you may argue that the procedure is already very rare, the truth of the matter is that these abortions were still legal for any reason. If the pro-choice side had proposed a bill early on that would have prohibited these abortions from being performed in all cases except anencephaly, such a bill would probably have passed handily. As it is, the pro-choice side fought to keep these abortions legal tooth and nail. And the result was that the partial-birth abortion issue has single-handedly changed more hearts and minds of Americans about abortion *in general* than any other thing that the pro-life side has ever done. For this reason alone, the campaign against partial-birth abortions was well worth it, because it exposed all abortion for what it really is, the taking of a human life, in the hearts and minds of many average Americans. Again I find it illogical that you juxtapose 'homosexual marriage' with abortion; one is a medical procedure, the other a social/legal contract between two adults. They are not in any way related. Deborah, they are absolutely related. In both cases, we have justices finding a right in the penumbra of the Constitution that the people who wrote, debated, signed, and agreed-to that Consttution never imagined nor envisioned.They are both examples of law being made not by the people through their democratically elected representatives, but through the craven fiat of unelected justices who have grossly overstepped the bounds of the office entrusted to them. The _Economist_ article that Erik posted re: gay marriage had several telling points, particularly about equality (in the paragraph beginning The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple...). I just don't see how allowing two adults who wish to publically commit themselves to each other is a threat to our civilisation, truly I don't. Again, there is nothing in current law in the United States that prevents homosexual couples from publicly committing themselves to each other. Moreover, any proposed Federal Marriage Amendment with any hope of passage will not preclude homosexual couples from publicly committing themselves to each other. The question, however, is whether our civilization will be undermined by: 1) incentivising homosexual unions 2) placing the homosexual union on an equal status with heterosexual marriage as a building block of society, and 3) permitting homosexual couples to adopt or to artificially create children. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
William T. Goodall wrote: I can see no reason to contact someone off-list about a post unless they are someone one has 1) an existing off-list relationship with (personally, by email, chat or whatever) 2) or a strong feeling of liking and or respect from just the list *AND* One feels they are making a big fool of themselves because they got out of the wrong side of bed that day or other silly gripe. *THEN* It might be OK to suggest off-list they calm down or whatever, as a friend. Otherwise, if you can't say it in public, shut up. Isn't it more polite, when one sees someone making a fool of themself, to quietly go up to them and tell them they are making a fool of themself? At least, that was the way I was taught. If you see that someone you know has their fly unzipped, do you loudly proclaim, Hey Dude, your fly is open! or do you go up and whisper it in their ear? Reggie Bautista ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:01:42AM -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote: If you see that someone you know has their fly unzipped, do you loudly proclaim, Hey Dude, your fly is open! or do you go up and whisper it in their ear? Not a good comparison. I've never known anyone to WANT to walk around with their fly unzipped. In contrast, quite frequently there are people who want to post something that might result in someone else deciding to feel offended. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tyranny Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:01:42 -0600 William T. Goodall wrote: I can see no reason to contact someone off-list about a post unless they are someone one has 1) an existing off-list relationship with (personally, by email, chat or whatever) 2) or a strong feeling of liking and or respect from just the list *AND* One feels they are making a big fool of themselves because they got out of the wrong side of bed that day or other silly gripe. *THEN* It might be OK to suggest off-list they calm down or whatever, as a friend. Otherwise, if you can't say it in public, shut up. Isn't it more polite, when one sees someone making a fool of themself, to quietly go up to them and tell them they are making a fool of themself? At least, that was the way I was taught. If you see that someone you know has their fly unzipped, do you loudly proclaim, Hey Dude, your fly is open! or do you go up and whisper it in their ear? Ah, if only that were the case for all offlist correspondance. Unfortunately certain people think private attacks are acceptable if they merely take offense to something you say. The most prominent offender is no longer here but there are others. Great, now I'm wondering if I'm going to get mail in my inbox now from people who took offense at the above statement. :) Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Store more e-mails with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage 4 plans to choose from! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
List Etiquette Re: Tyranny
At 12:46 PM 3/12/2004 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote: Ah, if only that were the case for all offlist correspondance. Unfortunately certain people think private attacks are acceptable if they merely take offense to something you say. The most prominent offender is no longer here but there are others. And presumably you can distinguish the two, and welcome the former and killfile the latter - rather than insisting that all correspondance be onlist? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
- Original Message - From: Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 11:01 AM Subject: Re: Tyranny Isn't it more polite, when one sees someone making a fool of themself, to quietly go up to them and tell them they are making a fool of themself? At least, that was the way I was taught. If you see that someone you know has their fly unzipped, do you loudly proclaim, Hey Dude, your fly is open! or do you go up and whisper it in their ear? No. You yell HEY DUDE, YOUR FLY'S OPEN!!!. Then you whisper in his ear Only kidding dude. xponent Cows Out Of The Barn Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: List Etiquette Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: List Etiquette Re: Tyranny Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:30:03 -0500 At 12:46 PM 3/12/2004 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote: Ah, if only that were the case for all offlist correspondance. Unfortunately certain people think private attacks are acceptable if they merely take offense to something you say. The most prominent offender is no longer here but there are others. And presumably you can distinguish the two, and welcome the former and killfile the latter - rather than insisting that all correspondance be onlist? John, perhaps it would be more helpful for you to take an inner look at why this is such an issue for you. Just a thought. I believe I was quite clear. If someone requires me to defend or clarify something I have said onlist, such a request should be made onlist. I will not do so offlist any longer. I have a right to ask people to respect my wishes and to ignore or killfile those who don't. After my experience last year with offlist harassment, spam attacks and threats I feel quite fortunate that I had the paranoid foresight to keep my real life and online identities separate. You, Julia, Nick, Eileen and Jeffrey all dealt with the same garbage. No matter how much one corresponds with someone online, it does not reveal their true nature in real life. I suggest you let this go. You're not going to change my mind. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Fast. Reliable. Get MSN 9 Dial-up - 3 months for the price of 1! (Limited-time Offer) http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
The Fool wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] You know, when I witness the joy that the San Fransisco initiative has brought to those that have hertofore been unable to make their love for each other official (however temporal it's legitimacy),it makes me wonder how on earth good-hearted people can be against this kind of thing. Simple. Religion = Hate. When I first read this post, I thought that William Goodall had posted it... Maybe he has a convert! ;-) -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
On 9 Mar 2004, at 3:33 pm, Matt Grimaldi wrote: The Fool wrote: Simple. Religion = Hate. When I first read this post, I thought that William Goodall had posted it... That could have been written by anyone whose mind was unclouded by the obnoxious poison of religion. Maybe he has a convert! ;-) That would be nice :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Aerospace is plumbing with the volume turned up. - John Carmack ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Stranger in a Strange Land :-) Re: Tyranny
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote- Fine then. Like Tom said, I am just going to have to accept that Brin-L is what it is. I will accept the fact that in the minds of plenty of the Left-Wingers around here it is impossible to be right-wing and have respectability and credibility. That's just how it is then, and I am just going to deal with it. Can I jump in here. I am just a scum-sucking no-account lurker, but I think this list would be a lot poorer without JDG's input. Both in terms of energy and the level of debate. I dont often leap up in agreement with his posts, but I appreciate the thought and time he puts into explain his position, and explain it well. I single him out only cos of his post above, many others, from all ends of the spectrum do the same. I would encourage all of us to follow their example. Dee who could use a button pushing moratorium overall, but heck I have been quiet and not as active a member as I could be I have been busy taping all my buttons, knobs, dials and other controls into the No 11 position. It seems the best way. And you know what, its kinda peaceful with all the noise. Set the Controls Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stranger in a Strange Land :-) Re: Tyranny
John wrote- Fine then. Like Tom said, I am just going to have to accept that Brin-L is what it is. I will accept the fact that in the minds of plenty of the Left-Wingers around here it is impossible to be right-wing and have respectability and credibility. That's just how it is then, and I am just going to deal with it. I realize that certain things are hot buttons for all of us, recognizing your own hot buttons is helpful. I am glad you want to accept differences, and sorry others occasionally jab at you. I think you need to trust that people do respect your right to have your positions without ongoing validation. My mom used to say... give people the response they least expect, which may be a variant on don't let others control your reactions/push your buttons. That being said, this must be the 23rd email that people pick on you (ok, I haven't really counted), and it would take a dense brain not to know how you feel. I am not sure how much more change you are going to effect with the same style emails. Dee who could use a button pushing moratorium overall, but heck I have been quiet and not as active a member as I could be ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 12:33:22AM -0500, Bryon Daly wrote: addressed vehemently if desired/necessary, but rather that I'm generally against rude or insulting posts intended to get a person to shut up or unsubscribe to the list. I haven't seen any posts that stated that intention. Have you? by him, I think that wasn't really his point). I suppose you see the latter as tit-for-tat, goose/gander, etc. Expressing an opinion that another's attempt to restrict rights through legal means is very wrong, is hardly tit for tat. Expressing an opinion is NOT equivalent to discussing or planning how to coerce people to one's will. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 12:33:22AM -0500, Bryon Daly wrote: addressed vehemently if desired/necessary, but rather that I'm generally against rude or insulting posts intended to get a person to shut up or unsubscribe to the list. I haven't seen any posts that stated that intention. Have you? No. You snipped most of the following line, in which I stated why I had originally brought this up, but now felt it wasn't that applicable: (The latter is what I thought Tom was possibly advocating, though reading subsequent posts by him, I think that wasn't really his point). by him, I think that wasn't really his point). I suppose you see the latter as tit-for-tat, goose/gander, etc. Expressing an opinion that another's attempt to restrict rights through legal means is very wrong, is hardly tit for tat. Expressing an opinion is NOT equivalent to discussing or planning how to coerce people to one's will. I agree. That wasn't what I meant; the tit for tat comment wasn't meant as a criticism at all, but I doubt it's worth belaboring the explanation, unless you really care. -bryon _ Get fast, reliable access with MSN 9 Dial-up. Click here for Special Offer! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Nothing personal (Was: Re: Tyranny)
Perhaps it is a biased standard, but I see it a bit differently. First let me clarify that I'm not arguing that JDG's (or anyone else's) arguments should not be criticized or addressed vehemently if desired/necessary, but rather that I'm generally against rude or insulting posts intended to get a person to shut up or unsubscribe to the list. (The latter is what I thought Tom was possibly advocating, though reading subsequent posts by him, I think that wasn't really his point). It wasn't my point at all! My point in fact was the complete opposite: that no one should take even the roughest debate on this list as anything other than vigorous debate; at least in my case. No matter how much I may dispute someone else's arguments, that's all I'm doing. I don't even know anyone on this list personally, so I'm certainly not attacking them. And I don't take it personally when anyone takes a whack at what I say here. I commend some thicker skin to everyone else - and a bit of forebearance. This is supposed to be for fun - even as we go back and forth, let's keep that in mind. -- Tom Beck my LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomfodw/ I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last. - Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipped most I will repeat again. I would not have signed the Bush vs. Gore majority opinion had I been on the US Supreme Court. I do not consider the Bush vs. Gore ruling to be one that inspires confidence for me. Reasonable. And agreed. :) This is also the same court that just a few years ago struck down Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion in Stenberg vs. Carhart. sniplet Suffice to say, I have very real worries that Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and O'Connor will find homosexual marriage right next to the right for partial birth abortion when a mother's mental health is in danger in the penumbra of the Constitution. Not trying to be provocative, but did you read the responses WRT the whole partial birth abortion act that I and others posted? How it isn't a medical term at all, and except in the very rare instance of a late-discovered case of anencephaly (a terrible and fatal defect in which the fetus is missing most of the brain, and sometimes part of the skull as well) isn't used? That it isn't taught anymore in the US? Again I find it illogical that you juxtapose 'homosexual marriage' with abortion; one is a medical procedure, the other a social/legal contract between two adults. They are not in any way related. The _Economist_ article that Erik posted re: gay marriage had several telling points, particularly about equality (in the paragraph beginning The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple...). I just don't see how allowing two adults who wish to publically commit themselves to each other is a threat to our civilisation, truly I don't. Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 06:31 PM 2/29/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 02:40 AM 2/29/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote: * Disclaimer: Within reason. I admit that there are probably certain extreme views on certain topics that would cause me to want to make their supporters feel *very* unwelcome here. Can I take a guess as to what these might be? Perhaps supporters of, say, the KKK, the Nazis' Final Solution, Al Qaeda, Wahabbisim.and supporters of continued martyrdom operations against Israeli Civilians? Yes, probably, depending upon what exactly was being said by them. It'd be nice to be able to advocate totally free speech of any kind on the list, but I fear that would ultimately reduce the list to chaos. The ACLU might give me an F, I suppose, but I think any discussion *on this list* on those topics with those types of supporters would serve little purpose but to lower the S/N ratio of the list to zero. Who am I to decide where to draw that line between acceptable/unacceptable discussion? Nobody. But I'm generally content to leave the line-setting to the list owners and to group opinion. John, do you disagree with that list, or find it hypocritical of me to be drawing the line at a point of topics that I find personally most offensive? Not at all I think that I would be uncomfortable seeing the above opions espoused here. It did occur to me to wonder, however, if there is really such a material difference between the above opinions and the following opinion: One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. Isn't calling for the exclusion of people with religious beliefs from respectability in a free society just as offensive? Isn't making HOMOPHOBIC remarks in response to famous quotation that you (JDG) don't understand even more offensive? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 12:38:47AM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: What I am seeing or think I'm seeing is that whatever side of an issue the Whitehouse falls on, you are right in there Rah Rah Rah. That's unfair and untrue, Rob. Don't misunderestimate JDG. He would certainly not support the whitehouse against the church! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 02:40:57AM -0500, Bryon Daly wrote: It seems that you are almost arguing that the demonization of liberals by some conservatives somehow justifies treating conservatives on this list poorly or making them feel unwelcome. I disagree with this and would prefer the people of the list to feel open to expressing their points of view, regardless of their popularity.* I don't think Rob was arguing that. Regardless, the irony in applying your defense to JDG's specific case here is that JDG is proposing to force a viewpoint on the entire country that will make millions of people feel unwelcome. I did read your footnote, but it seems to me you are applying a biased standard here -- you are much more tolerant of some people making others feel unwelcome than you are of other groups feeling unwelcome. So, JDG can ramble on about how the rights of gay people should be restricted, but if someone dares to write something that makes JDG feel unwelcome to express that view here, well shame on them! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
Judging by comments from John and Gautam recently, they do feel excluded sometimes, and surrounded at others. Being the social animals we are it is difficult to carry on when pressured like this. I'm not making comparisons to other situations where even more intestinal fortitude would be required. Don't read too much into my comments. I'm not making them out to be superheroes. But I do think an appreciation of what it's like for the other guy is a bit more than moderately useful. True enough. Except, this is a purely voluntary list, and it's pretty sociable anyway. No matter how vehement the debate gets, and even if it gets a bit personal, there's still nothing at stake here. I don't know either John or Gautam personally - as far as I'm aware, I've never met either - but if I did, I'm sure I'd like them personally even though I disagree almost totally with their politics. If we can't really mix it up and take the gloves off when we start kicking our ideas back and forth - if we can't do that HERE, where CAN we do it? So what if sometimes someone feels a bit bruised or thinks they're the only defenders of Truth against a horde of the iniquitous? I feel that way pretty much all the time, in fact, as a liberal, Democratic Jew. Life sucks, the universe doesn't give a sh*t about you or your tender feelings, and this is all supposed to be just in fun anyway. Tom Beck I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last. - Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 02:40 AM 2/29/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote: * Disclaimer: Within reason. I admit that there are probably certain extreme views on certain topics that would cause me to want to make their supporters feel *very* unwelcome here. Can I take a guess as to what these might be? Perhaps supporters of, say, the KKK, the Nazis' Final Solution, Al Qaeda, Wahabbisim.and supporters of continued martyrdom operations against Israeli Civilians? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 11:34 PM 2/28/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: You still haven't specified which incentives we are discussing here. What specifics, in your opinion, should differentiate marriage and civil union? I haven't had the time to go through all 1,049 marital benefits provided by The Fool, but I did mention that two key ones would be: 1) Reservation of the name marriage for heterosexual unions 2) Marriages having a preference, ceteris paribis, for unconnected adoptions of children. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] As an aside, I think that the demonization of the opposing party isn't something restricted to just conservatives. I've known many liberals for whom conservative and republican re the c-word and r-word; people who, if you told them you were conservative/republican, would immediately associate you with KKK member and Nazi. It's a two-way street. What with Shrubs Appointments of PicKKKering and Pryor, they aint far off. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Stranger in a Strange Land :-) Re: Tyranny
At 12:38 AM 2/29/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: My preference is that people recognize the irony of my predicament when I am being criticized on Brin-L *simultaneously* for being insufficiently original in thought and also for being too original in thought. This paragraph is the key to a misunderstanding. None of my comments (re: running with the pack, dittophasia) were directed towards your arguments, the arguments you were making or any originality or lack thereof. So, if your remarks were not directed towards my arguments, should I presume then that they were directed towards me personally? ;-) It was the fact that you came out against Gay Marriage (at all) that my comments were directed towards. (re: gay best friend) What I am seeing or think I'm seeing is that whatever side of an issue the Whitehouse falls on, you are right in there Rah Rah Rah. See, and this is the kind of dishonesty I have to put up with around here that positively infuriates me. What you are basically saying is that I am a hack. I was on this List for at least four years of the Clinton Administration.I don't recall many people being accused of: whatever side of an issue the Whitehouse falls on, you are right in there Rah Rah Rah. I certainly don't recall any of the liberals on Brin-L *ever* being challenged to make a 15-point List of disagreements that they have with their Party, It's Leaders, and others generally associated with their opinions. Nevertheless, I understand that Brin-L is substantially biased to the Left-Wing, so I decided to play-along and I *made* such a List.I forget everything exactly that I said about it, but I think that I said something to the effect that President Bush sold-out on carbon emissions trading. But at any rate, I listed plenty of disagreements. And yet, even after going through all of that, which was just a little humiliating and degrading to me, I *still* get pure bulls*** like this from you about how I am a hack and how I am just running with the pack, like I am a mindless sheep or something. And to think that you claim to be one of the more reasonable left-wingers on this List. Fine then. Like Tom said, I am just going to have to accept that Brin-L is what it is. I will accept the fact that in the minds of plenty of the Left-Wingers around here it is impossible to be right-wing and have respectability and credibility. That's just how it is then, and I am just going to deal with it. I suspect that the *real* reasons lie with your religious beliefs which like mine, are Catholic, yet unlike mine are very conservative. I don't begrudge you that, in fact I respect it, but we are somewhat protected from each others beliefs as a secondary effect of the Constitution. Are we not? And if the root of my beliefs was in conservative Catholicism, shouldn't I have been opposed to the US Supreme Court's decision rendering Texas' anti-sodomy laws Unconstitutional?Shouldn't I also oppose civil unions? And yet, I do not. Despite the fact that Scalia wrote a blistering dissent of th Texas decision, and that there are plenty of conservatives who are opposing the Musgrave Amendment on the grounds that it permits civil unios. But I forgot, I am just running with the pack on this one. Rah Rah Scalia, right? Just continue my friend. And if we don't agree, we will at least understand better. I wish that I could beleive you on that.Yet, from my very days on this List, I have been talking abortion, and I have always said that my goal is not necessarily to convince everyone here of the pro-life position, but to at least have most of the people here better *understand* pro-lifers, and why we take the positions we do. And yet, after all of these years, you still dragged out that hideous ridiculous nonsense about e-e-e-e-very sperm is sacred (which was written by Monty Python as a direct mockery of pro-lifers BTW) and acted as if it somehow had an iota of intellectual relevance in it. I can't tell you absolutely incredibly disappointing it was for me to see that you hadn't really begun to understand anything at all. Sigh. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: List Criticims Re: Tyranny
John D. Giorgis wrote: ... I suspect that when technicalities help your side, you do in fact cheer. He's saying he _suspects_ you _may_ have a double standard. He is not attacking you, however. I've seen enough examples on the list this month of people attacking each other to be able to say that with confidence. This is a problem with line-by-line responding. I did not accuse him of attacking me indeed, I said that to describe him as attacking me is probably a bit too harsh. I did, however, say that he was questioning my intellectual credentials, which the above clearly does. JDG Hey, I wrote the original, let me respond... I didn't actually mean it as a criticism of your intellectual credentials. The way I look at things, cheering is not an intellectual activity. It's perfectly possible to cheer or applaud something, even while deploring the unfair way it came about. From how you argue, I thought it was safe to assume that your emotions were also engaged in the issues. (Which is O.K.!) ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 02:40 AM 2/29/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote: * Disclaimer: Within reason. I admit that there are probably certain extreme views on certain topics that would cause me to want to make their supporters feel *very* unwelcome here. Can I take a guess as to what these might be? Perhaps supporters of, say, the KKK, the Nazis' Final Solution, Al Qaeda, Wahabbisim.and supporters of continued martyrdom operations against Israeli Civilians? Yes, probably, depending upon what exactly was being said by them. It'd be nice to be able to advocate totally free speech of any kind on the list, but I fear that would ultimately reduce the list to chaos. The ACLU might give me an F, I suppose, but I think any discussion *on this list* on those topics with those types of supporters would serve little purpose but to lower the S/N ratio of the list to zero. Who am I to decide where to draw that line between acceptable/unacceptable discussion? Nobody. But I'm generally content to leave the line-setting to the list owners and to group opinion. John, do you disagree with that list, or find it hypocritical of me to be drawing the line at a point of topics that I find personally most offensive? -Bryon _ Get fast, reliable access with MSN 9 Dial-up. Click here for Special Offer! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
John wrote: I haven't had the time to go through all 1,049 marital benefits provided by The Fool, but I did mention that two key ones would be: 1) Reservation of the name marriage for heterosexual unions 2) Marriages having a preference, ceteris paribis, for unconnected adoptions of children. Wow, if that's really all you can think of off the top of your head, it's precious little for the associated hoopla. 1) marriage is just a word and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to keep a person from calling a civil union a marriage if they want to. Think about it. If you point to a couple, gay or straight, are you likely to ask Are they civily unionized? Really, all things considered, ammending the constitution to reserve a word for a certian segment of the population seems a bit silly. and 2) traditional marriages would probably retain preference even if SSMs were allowed (whether or not that is justifiable) mostly because of the factors you mentioned in your FMA post. What really bothers me on this issue (and also on the under God discussions) is that yours is the politics of exclusion in a country that by it's very definition (in the DoI) is supposed to be inclusive. The U.S. doesn't have a perfect record WRT inclusion, but it's record is one of progress towards that ideal, and really it's one of the cornerstones of the country's greatness. The marriage amendment would be a huge step backwards, IMO. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
Yes, probably, depending upon what exactly was being said by them. It'd be nice to be able to advocate totally free speech of any kind on the list, but I fear that would ultimately reduce the list to chaos. The ACLU might give me an F, I suppose, but I think any discussion *on this list* on those topics with those types of supporters would serve little purpose but to lower the S/N ratio of the list to zero. The ACLU wouldn't care about a purely private opinion. They want to protect everyone's right to free speech from government interference. This is a voluntary list, so as long as no one is advocating violence, they don't care what you think or say. -- Tom Beck my LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomfodw/ I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last. - Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stranger in a Strange Land :-) Re: Tyranny
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 11:40 AM Subject: Stranger in a Strange Land :-) Re: Tyranny At 12:38 AM 2/29/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: My preference is that people recognize the irony of my predicament when I am being criticized on Brin-L *simultaneously* for being insufficiently original in thought and also for being too original in thought. This paragraph is the key to a misunderstanding. None of my comments (re: running with the pack, dittophasia) were directed towards your arguments, the arguments you were making or any originality or lack thereof. So, if your remarks were not directed towards my arguments, should I presume then that they were directed towards me personally? ;-) Not in the way I think you mean here.G I think there are three areas towards which a criticism might be directed in a forum such as this. What one says. What one does. What one is. I'm certainly not critisizing what you are or who you are. It was the fact that you came out against Gay Marriage (at all) that my comments were directed towards. (re: gay best friend) What I am seeing or think I'm seeing is that whatever side of an issue the Whitehouse falls on, you are right in there Rah Rah Rah. See, and this is the kind of dishonesty I have to put up with around here that positively infuriates me. What you are basically saying is that I am a hack. No, and to be honest I resent the idea that you think my opinion of you is so low. I was on this List for at least four years of the Clinton Administration.I don't recall many people being accused of: whatever side of an issue the Whitehouse falls on, you are right in there Rah Rah Rah. I certainly don't recall any of the liberals on Brin-L *ever* being challenged to make a 15-point List of disagreements that they have with their Party, It's Leaders, and others generally associated with their opinions. No, but on the other hand you also saw voluntary criticism of that administration. Nevertheless, I understand that Brin-L is substantially biased to the Left-Wing, so I decided to play-along and I *made* such a List.I forget everything exactly that I said about it, but I think that I said something to the effect that President Bush sold-out on carbon emissions trading. But at any rate, I listed plenty of disagreements. Thats fair, and I *do* remember that. I prefaced my latest statement thusly for a reason: What I am seeing or think I'm seeing is I'm not always sure where you are coming from with certainty. The only way to find out is to go to the source. And yet, even after going through all of that, which was just a little humiliating and degrading to me, I think you deserve some validation on that account. That doesn't make you right or wrong in any particular circumstance, but I can and do sympathise with how it effects you. I *still* get pure bulls*** like this from you about how I am a hack and how I am just running with the pack, like I am a mindless sheep or something. There are times when I think you are wrong, but I never think you are mindless. And to think that you claim to be one of the more reasonable left-wingers on this List. I said that? Fine then. Like Tom said, I am just going to have to accept that Brin-L is what it is. I will accept the fact that in the minds of plenty of the Left-Wingers around here it is impossible to be right-wing and have respectability and credibility. That's just how it is then, and I am just going to deal with it. Well.Brin-L *is* what it is, but that doesn't mean you have to take any crap off anyone. Pretty much like right now, you seem to be thinking you are not taking any crap off of me. G I suspect that the *real* reasons lie with your religious beliefs which like mine, are Catholic, yet unlike mine are very conservative. I don't begrudge you that, in fact I respect it, but we are somewhat protected from each others beliefs as a secondary effect of the Constitution. Are we not? And if the root of my beliefs was in conservative Catholicism, shouldn't I have been opposed to the US Supreme Court's decision rendering Texas' anti-sodomy laws Unconstitutional?Shouldn't I also oppose civil unions? And yet, I do not. Despite the fact that Scalia wrote a blistering dissent of th Texas decision, and that there are plenty of conservatives who are opposing the Musgrave Amendment on the grounds that it permits civil unios. Actually its not Scalia that I think you admire. And I don't expect that you follow any old horse just because it has conservative branded on it. But I forgot, I am just running with the pack on this one. Rah Rah Scalia, right? Just continue my friend. And if we don't agree, we will at least understand better. I wish that I could beleive you on that.Yet, from my
Re: Tyranny
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 02:40:57AM -0500, Bryon Daly wrote: It seems that you are almost arguing that the demonization of liberals by some conservatives somehow justifies treating conservatives on this list poorly or making them feel unwelcome. I disagree with this and would prefer the people of the list to feel open to expressing their points of view, regardless of their popularity.* I don't think Rob was arguing that. Regardless, the irony in applying I was actually addressing Tom's reply to Rob. your defense to JDG's specific case here is that JDG is proposing to force a viewpoint on the entire country that will make millions of people feel unwelcome. I did read your footnote, but it seems to me you are applying a biased standard here -- you are much more tolerant of some people making others feel unwelcome than you are of other groups feeling unwelcome. So, JDG can ramble on about how the rights of gay people should be restricted, but if someone dares to write something that makes JDG feel unwelcome to express that view here, well shame on them! When writing what I did, I had a broader view in mind of conservatives here in general (or anyone else with unpopular views here) rather than with JDG specifically in mind. Perhaps it is a biased standard, but I see it a bit differently. First let me clarify that I'm not arguing that JDG's (or anyone else's) arguments should not be criticized or addressed vehemently if desired/necessary, but rather that I'm generally against rude or insulting posts intended to get a person to shut up or unsubscribe to the list. (The latter is what I thought Tom was possibly advocating, though reading subsequent posts by him, I think that wasn't really his point). I suppose you see the latter as tit-for-tat, goose/gander, etc. My own take is that in a good debate, if I listen to and better understand the opposition's arguments, it will help me to better address/counter them, as well as test the mettle of my own arguments. This all hearkens back to your discussion with Julia over confrontation style, I suppose. -bryon _ Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
List Criticims Re: Tyranny
At 04:47 PM 2/26/2004 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote: Actually, speaking purely for myself, I find I'm MUCH more defensive when challenged offlist. I _always_ ask why said conversation couldn't take place onlist. I think that you are in the minority in preferring to be criticized in public, rather than private. From experience, people who challenge others offlist are either trying to intimidate them or want to attack them in a manner that would be inappropriate onlist. Presumably, you are able to tell the difference between such people, and those who are legitimately engaging in constructive criticism discretely. I suspect that when technicalities help your side, you do in fact cheer. He's saying he _suspects_ you _may_ have a double standard. He is not attacking you, however. I've seen enough examples on the list this month of people attacking each other to be able to say that with confidence. This is a problem with line-by-line responding. I did not accuse him of attacking me indeed, I said that to describe him as attacking me is probably a bit too harsh. I did, however, say that he was questioning my intellectual credentials, which the above clearly does. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 09:24 AM 2/25/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:17 PM 2/24/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you give the appearance of being a run with the pack kind of guy. I don't mean to be insulting, but you seem to be on a dittohead heading lately. I am flabbergasted. I am the only Brin-L'er sticking my neck out and taking a position that I *know* will be very unpopular here. And *I* am running with the pack?Hello I put great effort into my defense of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and I doubt that you will find anything much like my post on that subject from any other right-wing source. I agree with you here. Not one right wing source I have heard from is making as big a deal about the judges striking down the impropper order as you are, probably because it *is* an impropper order and they know it. In other words, when I present novel arguments and opinions, their lack of repetition in other sources is prima facie evidence that my arguments and opinions are not credible. On the other hand, if I present novel arguments and opinions that are present in other sources, then I am merely running with the pack. Thank you Michael and Robert for making right-wingers feel really welcome here as credible participants of Brin-L. I actually do hope that the order, once properly worded, does go to court, and is passed by the same judge that struck it down for being impropperly worded. Then that would demonstrate that George Bush's sudden endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment to be an unneccessary knee-jerk reaction based in fear. Unfortunately, there is no hope of the atrocious ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Court being struck down. Which is why we need a FMA. Especially since this phenomenon has also sprung up in New Mexico and now New Paltz, and who knows where else in the two years or so at *minimum* it would take to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Personally, I think that it is instructive that it has been how many days now that this semicolon delay has lasted, and San Francisco is *still* handing out faux marriage certificates. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 09:24 AM 2/25/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:17 PM 2/24/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you give the appearance of being a run with the pack kind of guy. I don't mean to be insulting, but you seem to be on a dittohead heading lately. I am flabbergasted. I am the only Brin-L'er sticking my neck out and taking a position that I *know* will be very unpopular here. And *I* am running with the pack?Hello I put great effort into my defense of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and I doubt that you will find anything much like my post on that subject from any other right-wing source. I agree with you here. Not one right wing source I have heard from is making as big a deal about the judges striking down the impropper order as you are, probably because it *is* an impropper order and they know it. In other words, when I present novel arguments and opinions, their lack of repetition in other sources is prima facie evidence that my arguments and opinions are not credible. On the other hand, if I present novel arguments and opinions that are present in other sources, then I am merely running with the pack. Thank you Michael and Robert for making right-wingers feel really welcome here as credible participants of Brin-L. Yes, yes, try to vilify those arguing with you to detract attention from the merits of the arguments. Keep up the good work. I actually do hope that the order, once properly worded, does go to court, and is passed by the same judge that struck it down for being impropperly worded. Then that would demonstrate that George Bush's sudden endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment to be an unneccessary knee-jerk reaction based in fear. Unfortunately, there is no hope of the atrocious ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Court being struck down. Which is why we need a FMA. Especially since this phenomenon has also sprung up in New Mexico and now New Paltz, and who knows where else in the two years or so at *minimum* it would take to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally, the Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their state constitution that can counter the courts ruling. Some Republicans have said leave it to the states. Let Massachusetts decide whether it wants to ban same sex marriages or not. Personally, I think that it is instructive that it has been how many days now that this semicolon delay has lasted, and San Francisco is *still* handing out faux marriage certificates. Yes, it's indicative of the fact that those opposed to the same sex marriages want to be heard from a higher state court on the matter without first having gone through the lower courts. That court has a very busy schedule and almost never hears a case before it has been through the lower courts. Now who's asking for special treatment? Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 08:09 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally, the Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their state constitution that can counter the courts ruling. Some Republicans have said leave it to the states. Let Massachusetts decide whether it wants to ban same sex marriages or not. Except in very rare cases, the US Supreme Court does not have authority over the interpretation of a State constitution. In this case, the MA Supreme Court's ruling required implementation of their radical decision immediately. The only recourse the people have of MA have to this decision, is to spend a minimum of two years in order to amend their Constitution to simply say what they believe it had said all along... going back to the day it ratified it. For example, even a simple amendment No provision of this Constitution shall be construed as requiring the enactment of marriages or civil unions between any couple or group cannot be enacted for two years. In the meantime, they have no choice but to hand out gay marriages. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 08:09 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally, the Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their state constitution that can counter the courts ruling. Some Republicans have said leave it to the states. Let Massachusetts decide whether it wants to ban same sex marriages or not. Except in very rare cases, the US Supreme Court does not have authority over the interpretation of a State constitution. In this case, the MA Supreme Court's ruling required implementation of their radical decision immediately. The only recourse the people have of MA have to this decision, is to spend a minimum of two years in order to amend their Constitution to simply say what they believe it had said all along... going back to the day it ratified it. For example, even a simple amendment No provision of this Constitution shall be construed as requiring the enactment of marriages or civil unions between any couple or group cannot be enacted for two years. In the meantime, they have no choice but to hand out gay marriages. Yes, and the national amendment process can take up to seven years after it's already been passed in both the House and the Senate. Let's see, leave it to the states: 2 years. Deal with it on a national level: 7 years. Methinks you have your proirities backwards. If other states are affraid of judicial activism, they can amend their own constitutions a lot faster than you can amend the US Constitution. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 08:49 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: Yes, and the national amendment process can take up to seven years after it's already been passed in both the House and the Senate. Let's see, leave it to the states: 2 years. Deal with it on a national level: 7 years. Methinks you have your proirities backwards. If other states are affraid of judicial activism, they can amend their own constitutions a lot faster than you can amend the US Constitution. A US Constitutional Amendment can, from time to time, move more quickly than that. In addition, if federal judges are anything like those in Massachusetts, they will likely in short order find the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, thus necessitating a Federal Marriage Amendment. JDG - The clock is running ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 08:49 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: Yes, and the national amendment process can take up to seven years after it's already been passed in both the House and the Senate. Let's see, leave it to the states: 2 years. Deal with it on a national level: 7 years. Methinks you have your proirities backwards. If other states are affraid of judicial activism, they can amend their own constitutions a lot faster than you can amend the US Constitution. A US Constitutional Amendment can, from time to time, move more quickly than that. Examples, please. Show me that a US Amendment can pass faster than 2 years. In addition, if federal judges are anything like those in Massachusetts, they will likely in short order find the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, thus necessitating a Federal Marriage Amendment. Now this is just paranoia. You are already assuming a bad outcome if it goes to the Supreme Court. The same Supreme Court that found in favor of George W. Bush's position on the ballots in Florida. Surely, you can expect a fair ruling from them, not activism. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 09:46 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: A US Constitutional Amendment can, from time to time, move more quickly than that. Examples, please. Show me that a US Amendment can pass faster than 2 years. Kevin Tarr posted the relevant excerpts from the US Constitution. That process can theoretically be completed within a year. In addition, if federal judges are anything like those in Massachusetts, they will likely in short order find the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, thus necessitating a Federal Marriage Amendment. Now this is just paranoia. You are already assuming a bad outcome if it goes to the Supreme Court. You mean, the same Supreme Court that decided Roe vs. Wade and Casey vs. Pennsylvania? Sorry Michael, but if the Supreme Court rules against us, as Massachusetts has learned, it is already too late. I have no problem with amending the Constitution to handle situations - much like the present one - which the framers never envisioned. And I honestly don't think that you seriously that the FMA is redundant. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 09:46 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: A US Constitutional Amendment can, from time to time, move more quickly than that. Examples, please. Show me that a US Amendment can pass faster than 2 years. Kevin Tarr posted the relevant excerpts from the US Constitution. That process can theoretically be completed within a year. Ok, theoretically, if everyone cooperated, that might be possible. But, from what I understand, how long it takes depends entirely on the states. They have up to seven years to cast their vote on the issue, and that is not something that George W. Bush can rush. A single state holding out can drag out the process to 7 years. Besides, the FMA has little chance of passing even in the House and Senate. Moreover, the republicans in the senate have already made it clear that the FMA is not something they will rush through. You would be lucky if it even passed both the Senate and the House within 2 years, if it passes at all. In addition, if federal judges are anything like those in Massachusetts, they will likely in short order find the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, thus necessitating a Federal Marriage Amendment. Now this is just paranoia. You are already assuming a bad outcome if it goes to the Supreme Court. You mean, the same Supreme Court that decided Roe vs. Wade and Casey vs. Pennsylvania? No, it is not the same supreme court that issued Roe v. Wade. As for Casey v. Pennsylvania, I am simply unfamiliar with it. There are many judges on the court now that were not there for Roe v. Wade. That is why I chose the example of the ballots in Florida. It's the same judges then that would rule if the case were to go to the Supreme Court now. If they issued what I would dare say that you considered a fair ruling in the Florida Ballots case, why would they suddenly lend themselves to liberal judicial activism now? Sorry Michael, but if the Supreme Court rules against us, as Massachusetts has learned, it is already too late. How is it too late in Massachusetts? There is still the possiblity of a state amendment. I dare say, that has a far better chance of passing than a federal amendment. I have no problem with amending the Constitution to handle situations - much like the present one - which the framers never envisioned. And I honestly don't think that you seriously that the FMA is redundant. I don't think it's redundant. I never said it was. I think it's like using a bazooka to kill flies. If same sex marriages bother you that much, then use the right tool to address it. Marriage is a state issue, and as such, shouldn't the situation be handled on the state level? Really, John, why does same sex marriage bother you so much? If homosexuals marry each other, that won't affect you or your life in the slightest. What about gay marriage is so disturbing to you that you can only think of forbidding it rather than having a live and let live attitude about it? Don't give me that cornerstone of society and radical redefinition BS you have been dishing out, what really bothers you about it so much? This is asking for a personal opinion, not neccessarily something based in sound argument. If you want to discuss that off list so you won't get flamed on-list for your personal opinions, I will gladly discuss it off-list and keep everything you say off-list private. I just think there is more too this reaction of yours than simple disagreement with gay marriage if you want to make gay marriage banned in the whole USA and by means of the most powerful tool available. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and now New Paltz Huh? - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 09:49 AM 2/28/04, Michael Harney wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 08:09 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally, the Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their state constitution that can counter the courts ruling. Some Republicans have said leave it to the states. Let Massachusetts decide whether it wants to ban same sex marriages or not. Except in very rare cases, the US Supreme Court does not have authority over the interpretation of a State constitution. In this case, the MA Supreme Court's ruling required implementation of their radical decision immediately. The only recourse the people have of MA have to this decision, is to spend a minimum of two years in order to amend their Constitution to simply say what they believe it had said all along... going back to the day it ratified it. For example, even a simple amendment No provision of this Constitution shall be construed as requiring the enactment of marriages or civil unions between any couple or group cannot be enacted for two years. In the meantime, they have no choice but to hand out gay marriages. Yes, and the national amendment process can take up to seven years after it's already been passed in both the House and the Senate. Let's see, leave it to the states: 2 years. Deal with it on a national level: 7 years. Methinks you have your proirities backwards. If other states are affraid of judicial activism, they can amend their own constitutions a lot faster than you can amend the US Constitution. I think the argument is that without a national amendment in place, any State law or amendment to the constitution of an individual State is likely to be immediately overturned by the Federal courts, so any effort expended to pass a State law or amendment first is likely to be wasted. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Tyranny
At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and now New Paltz Huh? That made two of us . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:06PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and now New Paltz Huh? That made two of us . . . It is a city in New York that has been in the news. The mayor has recently presided over weddings of same sex couples. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 04:59 PM 2/28/04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:06PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and now New Paltz Huh? That made two of us . . . It is a city in New York that has been in the news. The mayor has recently presided over weddings of same sex couples. I guess I missed it. I had heard about SF, NM, and the comments from the mayor of Chicago, but not New Paltz. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 04:59 PM 2/28/04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:06PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and now New Paltz Huh? That made two of us . . . It is a city in New York that has been in the news. The mayor has recently presided over weddings of same sex couples. I guess I missed it. I had heard about SF, NM, and the comments from the mayor of Chicago, but not New Paltz. And Iowa City IA. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 8:25 AM Subject: Re: Tyranny At 09:24 AM 2/25/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] I agree with you here. Not one right wing source I have heard from is making as big a deal about the judges striking down the impropper order as you are, probably because it *is* an impropper order and they know it. In other words, when I present novel arguments and opinions, their lack of repetition in other sources is prima facie evidence that my arguments and opinions are not credible. On the other hand, if I present novel arguments and opinions that are present in other sources, then I am merely running with the pack. Thank you Michael and Robert for making right-wingers feel really welcome here as credible participants of Brin-L. What is your preference John? That I give an honest account of what I see or think I see. Tell you when I disagree with you and why. Discuss in an open manner. or Pretend I agree with you when I don't. or Ignore you and pretend you are not here. I know that some of the things I said might be unpleasant for someone on the receiving end, but they were not things said with the intent of being cruel, they were my personal estimation of the tone, intent, and source of your current rhetoric. Indeed, you could have turned the same questions toward me and I would have had to give some sort of answer. But what you have done is ignore the question. What I really expected was for you to tell why you believe the way you do, and why your opinions are different than Joe Homophobe Bigot on the street. (Not that I think there is any legitimate comparison between you and Joe Homophobe Bigot). I really hope i have *not* made you feel unwelcome and if you do feel that way, I hope you will give some thought to what I am saying. I realise that you have to be pretty gutsy to be a conservative on Brin-L and I hope everyone here appreciates that fact. We should be thankful that *our* conservatives do not fit any of the stereotypes of the kind that are common to ...Say USENET. I actually do hope that the order, once properly worded, does go to court, and is passed by the same judge that struck it down for being impropperly worded. Then that would demonstrate that George Bush's sudden endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment to be an unneccessary knee-jerk reaction based in fear. Unfortunately, there is no hope of the atrocious ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Court being struck down. Which is why we need a FMA. Especially since this phenomenon has also sprung up in New Mexico and now New Paltz, and who knows where else in the two years or so at *minimum* it would take to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Personally, I think that it is instructive that it has been how many days now that this semicolon delay has lasted, and San Francisco is *still* handing out faux marriage certificates. Well: news http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040228/D810BC3G0.html Calif. Court Refuses to Stop Gay Weddings In yet another setback to conservatives opposed to same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court declined a request to immediately stop San Francisco from marrying gay couples and to nullify the weddings already performed. /news xponent It Continues Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
I realise that you have to be pretty gutsy to be a conservative on Brin-L and I hope everyone here appreciates that fact. We should be thankful that *our* conservatives do not fit any of the stereotypes of the kind that are common to ...Say USENET. I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. It doesn't take guts to be conservative in a discussion forum like this. I mean, so someone yells at you - so what? It's just talk on either side. No one's going to suffer anything other than maybe a bit of embarrassment. Guts is living as a gay person in a homophobic world, for example, or trying to be a liberal in a country where conservatives have turned it into the l-word and question our very loyalty to our country. Maybe it's uncomfortable to be the only conservative here, but so what? That's not our fault - anyone can join this list, and if conservatives don't, well, tough. I think you'd find that fandom as a whole tends to be pretty liberal - are we supposed to go out and recruit some right-wingers to balance things out? I thought conservatives didn't believe in affirmative action.l Tom Beck I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last. - Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:06PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and now New Paltz Huh? That made two of us . . . It is a city in New York that has been in the news. The mayor has recently presided over weddings of same sex couples. Yeah, I work in New Paltz. I was toying with stopping by to throw rice, just to show my support, but then other things got in the way. Calm down, John, the marriages might well not be valid. But they are a way to show support for gay marriage, which I believe is a valid thing for localities to do. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 04:50 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 Ronn!Blankenship wrote: If other states are affraid of judicial activism, they can amend their own constitutions a lot faster than you can amend the US Constitution. I think the argument is that without a national amendment in place, any State law or amendment to the constitution of an individual State is likely to be immediately overturned by the Federal courts, so any effort expended to pass a State law or amendment first is likely to be wasted. Correct. An activist Supreme Court, that at some point in the future that rules that the US Constitution requires the implementation of same-sex marriages would nullify all such amendments to the State Constitutions. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 11:13 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: You mean, the same Supreme Court that decided Roe vs. Wade and Casey vs. Pennsylvania? No, it is not the same supreme court that issued Roe v. Wade. As for Casey v. Pennsylvania, I am simply unfamiliar with it. There are many judges on the court now that were not there for Roe v. Wade. That is why I chose the example of the ballots in Florida. It's the same judges then that would rule if the case were to go to the Supreme Court now. If they issued what I would dare say that you considered a fair ruling in the Florida Ballots case, why would they suddenly lend themselves to liberal judicial activism now? I will repeat again. I would not have signed the Bush vs. Gore majority opinion had I been on the US Supreme Court. I do not consider the Bush vs. Gore ruling to be one that inspires confidence for me. Anyhow, Casey vs. Pennsylvania was heard before essentially our current Court, and basically upheld Roe vs. Wade. This is also the same court that just a few years ago struck down Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion in Stenberg vs. Carhart. This is also the same Court that very recently ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional, and did so in a way that many Court-watchers took as a signal that the Court was ready to strongly support homosexual marriages. Suffice to say, I have very real worries that Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and O'Connor will find homosexual marriage right next to the right for partial birth abortion when a mother's mental health is in danger in the penumbra of the Constitution. Sorry Michael, but if the Supreme Court rules against us, as Massachusetts has learned, it is already too late. How is it too late in Massachusetts? There is still the possiblity of a state amendment. I dare say, that has a far better chance of passing than a federal amendment. That amendment will only take effect after at least two years of homosexual marriages have been handed out. That is what I mean by too late. I don't think it's redundant. I never said it was. I think it's like using a bazooka to kill flies. Why are you comparing the institution of homosexual marriages to flies? Is this subject a small thing for you? Really, John, why does same sex marriage bother you so much? If homosexuals marry each other, that won't affect you or your life in the slightest. I disagree. These court decisions are effectively redefining the fundamental building block of *my* civilization, without any democratic input. In other words, it is not only changing the building blocks of my civilization, but it is also undermining my faith in our republican form of governance. What about gay marriage is so disturbing to you that you can only think of forbidding it rather than having a live and let live attitude about it? Au contraire, I very much have a live and let live attitude about this. I have no problem with the Unitarian Universalist Church marrying homosexual couples, and those couples living happily ever after. I do have a problem when my government starts incentivizing those unions by interposing them with traditional marriages as the basic buidling blocks of my civilization. And if my civilization *is* going to be altered in a fundamental way, then by golly I want to at least be able to participate in the governing process of that decision. FWIW, I would also support a Federal Marriage Amendment that reads: Neither the provisions of this Constitution, nor the provisions of any State Constitution, having been in effect on or before 1/1/2004 shall be construed as requiring any government to grant marriages or the benefits thereof to any couple or group. Congress shall have the power to pass appropriate legislation governing the interstate recognition of marriage and other civil unions; and to implement the provisions of this Amendment It isn't pretty, but the text of the above Amendment would effectively take this debate out of the hands of the activist judges, and place it in the hands of the Legislatures, where this debate firmly belongs. Nevertheless, I do also support the (soon-to-be-modified, IMHO) Musgrave Amendment for the reasons previously stated as well. Don't give me that cornerstone of society and radical redefinition BS you have been dishing out, what really bothers you about it so much? This is asking for a personal opinion, not neccessarily something based in sound argument. If you want to discuss that off list so you won't get flamed on-list for your personal opinions, I will gladly discuss it off-list and keep everything you say off-list private. I just think there is more too this reaction of yours than simple disagreement with gay marriage if you want to make gay marriage banned in the whole USA and by means of the most powerful tool available. I'm sorry to disappoint you on that, but my position is what it is. JDG ___
Re: Tyranny
At 08:11 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] In other words, when I present novel arguments and opinions, their lack of repetition in other sources is prima facie evidence that my arguments and opinions are not credible. On the other hand, if I present novel arguments and opinions that are present in other sources, then I am merely running with the pack. Thank you Michael and Robert for making right-wingers feel really welcome here as credible participants of Brin-L. What is your preference John? My preference is that people recognize the irony of my predicament when I am being criticized on Brin-L *simultaneously* for being insufficiently original in thought and also for being too original in thought. Likewise, my preference is that you recognize that my arguments on this subject are self-evidently original-enough for your charge of running with the pack to have been utterly laughable. And likewise for Michael to recognize that originality of thought should certainly be no sin, on this List of all places. But what you have done is ignore the question. What I really expected was for you to tell why you believe the way you do, and why your opinions are different than Joe Homophobe Bigot on the street. (Not that I think there is any legitimate comparison between you and Joe Homophobe Bigot). You again continue to amaze me. I have written what, 20? 30? posts on this subject in the last week or so? How can you *possibly* accuse me of not telling you why I believe the way I do To quote Julia, its Inconceivable! In fact, in responding to numerous requests, I laid out my positions on this subject area in *substantial detail*, in a post entitled Federal Marriage Amendment.Again, how can you POSSIBLY accuse me of not telling you why I believe that I do. I honestly don't know what else I can do for you. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
- Original Message - From: Tom Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 9:58 PM Subject: Re: Tyranny I realise that you have to be pretty gutsy to be a conservative on Brin-L and I hope everyone here appreciates that fact. We should be thankful that *our* conservatives do not fit any of the stereotypes of the kind that are common to ...Say USENET. I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. It doesn't take guts to be conservative in a discussion forum like this. I mean, so someone yells at you - so what? It's just talk on either side. No one's going to suffer anything other than maybe a bit of embarrassment. Guts is living as a gay person in a homophobic world, for example, or trying to be a liberal in a country where conservatives have turned it into the l-word and question our very loyalty to our country. Maybe it's uncomfortable to be the only conservative here, but so what? That's not our fault - anyone can join this list, and if conservatives don't, well, tough. I think you'd find that fandom as a whole tends to be pretty liberal - are we supposed to go out and recruit some right-wingers to balance things out? I thought conservatives didn't believe in affirmative action.l Judging by comments from John and Gautam recently, they do feel excluded sometimes, and surrounded at others. Being the social animals we are it is difficult to carry on when pressured like this. I'm not making comparisons to other situations where even more intestinal fortitude would be required. Don't read too much into my comments. I'm not making them out to be superheroes. But I do think an appreciation of what it's like for the other guy is a bit more than moderately useful. xponent I Don't Catch That Much Flack Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyhow, Casey vs. Pennsylvania was heard before essentially our current Court, and basically upheld Roe vs. Wade. This is also the same court that just a few years ago struck down Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion in Stenberg vs. Carhart. Wow... *that* might be cause to be worried. Upholding Roe v Wade isn't too surprising, but overturning a ban on partial-birth abortions... I agree with you there, that descision is a bit far out. This is also the same Court that very recently ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional, and did so in a way that many Court-watchers took as a signal that the Court was ready to strongly support homosexual marriages. The anti-sodomy laws were wrong on so many different levels... I would rather not discuss it. As for in a way that many Court-watchers took as a signal that the Court was ready to strongly support homosexual marriages. What do you base this on? Sorry Michael, but if the Supreme Court rules against us, as Massachusetts has learned, it is already too late. How is it too late in Massachusetts? There is still the possiblity of a state amendment. I dare say, that has a far better chance of passing than a federal amendment. That amendment will only take effect after at least two years of homosexual marriages have been handed out. That is what I mean by too late. The FMA will be Too Late as well. Six of one, a half dozen of the other. I don't think it's redundant. I never said it was. I think it's like using a bazooka to kill flies. Why are you comparing the institution of homosexual marriages to flies? Is this subject a small thing for you? It's only a small issue compared to the means that you want to deal with it. You talk about your definition of marriage being a cornerstone of your society, but you fail to understand that the Constitution is absolutley the cornerstone of our nation's society. You say that homosexuals seek to radically redifine marriage, but it is you that is asking to radically redifine the Constitution of our nation by amending it. Really, John, why does same sex marriage bother you so much? If homosexuals marry each other, that won't affect you or your life in the slightest. I disagree. These court decisions are effectively redefining the fundamental building block of *my* civilization, without any democratic input. In other words, it is not only changing the building blocks of my civilization, but it is also undermining my faith in our republican form of governance. So every issue should be a matter of majority rule? Should the majority be able to impose their views on the minority or should we try to protect the minority from a possibly tyranical majority? What about gay marriage is so disturbing to you that you can only think of forbidding it rather than having a live and let live attitude about it? Au contraire, I very much have a live and let live attitude about this. I have no problem with the Unitarian Universalist Church marrying homosexual couples, and those couples living happily ever after. Then would you support removing the word marriage from the government, and change government to only have civil unions, and allow anyone to form a civil union with anyone they wish, leaving the definition of marriage and who can marry who to the churches? I do have a problem when my government starts incentivizing those unions by interposing them with traditional marriages as the basic buidling blocks of my civilization. And if my civilization *is* going to be altered in a fundamental way, then by golly I want to at least be able to participate in the governing process of that decision. I still don't see how this somehow incentivizing homosexual marriages. Can you explain that? FWIW, I would also support a Federal Marriage Amendment that reads: Neither the provisions of this Constitution, nor the provisions of any State Constitution, having been in effect on or before 1/1/2004 shall be construed as requiring any government to grant marriages or the benefits thereof to any couple or group. Congress shall have the power to pass appropriate legislation governing the interstate recognition of marriage and other civil unions; and to implement the provisions of this Amendment It isn't pretty, but the text of the above Amendment would effectively take this debate out of the hands of the activist judges, and place it in the hands of the Legislatures, where this debate firmly belongs. That is a far more reasonable amendment, but would require re-wording, lest it accidentally invalidate all prior marriages. shall be construed as requiring any government to grant marriages or the benefits thereof to any couple or group... Last I checked, a man and a woman qualifies as a couple... I'm not entirely sure, but I think there are amendments pertaining to marriages on several state constitutions
Re: Tyranny
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 10:06 PM Subject: Re: Tyranny At 08:11 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] In other words, when I present novel arguments and opinions, their lack of repetition in other sources is prima facie evidence that my arguments and opinions are not credible. On the other hand, if I present novel arguments and opinions that are present in other sources, then I am merely running with the pack. Thank you Michael and Robert for making right-wingers feel really welcome here as credible participants of Brin-L. What is your preference John? My preference is that people recognize the irony of my predicament when I am being criticized on Brin-L *simultaneously* for being insufficiently original in thought and also for being too original in thought. This paragraph is the key to a misunderstanding. None of my comments (re: running with the pack, dittophasia) were directed towards your arguments, the arguments you were making or any originality or lack thereof. It was the fact that you came out against Gay Marriage (at all) that my comments were directed towards. (re: gay best friend) What I am seeing or think I'm seeing is that whatever side of an issue the Whitehouse falls on, you are right in there Rah Rah Rah. On this particular issue, I (for some unexplainable reason) expected that you would be a bit more neutral. That you have taken such an adamant and active stand really surprises me. Likewise, my preference is that you recognize that my arguments on this subject are self-evidently original-enough for your charge of running with the pack to have been utterly laughable. And likewise for Michael to recognize that originality of thought should certainly be no sin, on this List of all places. But what you have done is ignore the question. What I really expected was for you to tell why you believe the way you do, and why your opinions are different than Joe Homophobe Bigot on the street. (Not that I think there is any legitimate comparison between you and Joe Homophobe Bigot). You again continue to amaze me. I have written what, 20? 30? posts on this subject in the last week or so? How can you *possibly* accuse me of not telling you why I believe the way I do To quote Julia, its Inconceivable! That babies are born having expectations? Utter crap John. Sheesh, a baby is happy if the dog licks their face. That there is an unwritten contract for married couples to all by themselves have children in order to provide continuity for the nation. That is a rationalisation after the fact pretending to be somehow reasonable. C'mon John. Give a *real* reason. Tell us how Gay Marriage is a threat to the Unionor to society..or to our freedoms. I suspect that the *real* reasons lie with your religious beliefs which like mine, are Catholic, yet unlike mine are very conservative. I don't begrudge you that, in fact I respect it, but we are somewhat protected from each others beliefs as a secondary effect of the Constitution. Are we not? In fact, in responding to numerous requests, I laid out my positions on this subject area in *substantial detail*, in a post entitled Federal Marriage Amendment.Again, how can you POSSIBLY accuse me of not telling you why I believe that I do. I honestly don't know what else I can do for you. Just continue my friend. And if we don't agree, we will at least understand better. xponent The Pervasive Spread Of Equality Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
John wrote: Au contraire, I very much have a live and let live attitude about this. I have no problem with the Unitarian Universalist Church marrying homosexual couples, and those couples living happily ever after. I do have a problem when my government starts incentivizing those unions by interposing them with traditional marriages as the basic buidling blocks of my civilization. And if my civilization *is* going to be altered in a fundamental way, then by golly I want to at least be able to participate in the governing process of that decision. You still haven't specified which incentives we are discussing here. What specifics, in your opinion, should differentiate marriage and civil union? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: Tom Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Robert Seeberger I realise that you have to be pretty gutsy to be a conservative on Brin-L and I hope everyone here appreciates that fact. We should be thankful that *our* conservatives do not fit any of the stereotypes of the kind that are common to ...Say USENET. I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. It doesn't take guts to be conservative in a discussion forum like this. I mean, so someone yells at you - so what? It's just talk on either side. No one's going to suffer anything other than maybe a bit of embarrassment. Guts is living as a gay person in a homophobic world, for example, or trying to be a liberal in a country where conservatives have turned it into the l-word and question our very loyalty to our country. Maybe it's uncomfortable to be the only conservative here, but so what? That's not our fault - anyone can join this list, and if conservatives don't, well, tough. I think you'd find that fandom as a whole tends to be pretty liberal - are we supposed to go out and recruit some right-wingers to balance things out? I thought conservatives didn't believe in affirmative action.l I disagree. While it's not on the same levels as the guts it would take to be an openly gay couple kissing in public in, say, some redneck part of the deep south, that doesn't discount it completely. While we discuss a lot of politics here on Brin-l, that's only part of what we talk about. Through these assorted discussions on varied topics, we form friendships or at least have certain levels of mutual respect for each other here. Espousing an unpopular point of view can (and occasionally has in the past) jeopardize this friendship/respect between some people. If someone values their acceptance in the group, it could be much easier to keep quiet than to speak up. Most people don't come here purely to vent their political opinions, so political outspokenness is not at all required or expected here. Further, we've already seen some examples where heated disagreement on certain topics crossed over into potential real world consequences. Most people here are not posting anonymously. So yes, I think it does take some level of guts to speak up. It seems that you are almost arguing that the demonization of liberals by some conservatives somehow justifies treating conservatives on this list poorly or making them feel unwelcome. I disagree with this and would prefer the people of the list to feel open to expressing their points of view, regardless of their popularity.* As an aside, I think that the demonization of the opposing party isn't something restricted to just conservatives. I've known many liberals for whom conservative and republican re the c-word and r-word; people who, if you told them you were conservative/republican, would immediately associate you with KKK member and Nazi. It's a two-way street. Lastly, I don't think Robert was arguing for affirmative action to bring in conservatives; you snipped a bit of Robert's post above the quoted part that gives it some context: I really hope i have *not* made you feel unwelcome and if you do feel that way, I hope you will give some thought to what I am saying. -bryon * Disclaimer: Within reason. I admit that there are probably certain extreme views on certain topics that would cause me to want to make their supporters feel *very* unwelcome here. I do not think anyone currently on the list comes anywhere near that line. _ Stay informed on Election 2004 and the race to Super Tuesday. http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
David Hobby wrote: They are. One of the justifications for the brazilian coup d'etat in 1964 was that the then President had been the Vice President for two periods, and since reelection of the President was not allowed, he didn't have a legitimate claim to Presidency. Also, when he fled the armed forces, the Senate declared that the Presidency was vacant, because he was not there (!). You say when he fled the armed forces? Armed forces are not particularly subtle. Yes, but there was no _battle_. The armed forces could be just parading. There was no killing during the coup d'etat of 1964 [as there was no killing in the coup d'etat of 1889 that deposed the Monarchy - just one man was shot, but he was saved in time by a young caded and survived] Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Back to my original comment. When I said that the Constitution was meant to be interpreted, I mean that those who wrote it obviously intended it to be interpreted. If they had really wanted to pin the meanings down exactly, they could have done so, in every multi-page amendment. It is SUPPOSED to consist of reasonably short general statements. Is it not equay reasonable to assume that they beleived they were providing a document that pined down the meaning clearly enough for any average person (it being a democracy and all) to understand and interpret appropriatly? I am asking, if it is not also a possibility that they believed they had presented the full spirit of what they intended and did not believe, that grandious obsfiscatio and axactness of terms was neccisary. If not, then why would people of such an opinion as you have sugested, begin a declaration with We hold these truths to be self evident? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what civilization is he talking about? It must be Western civilization, because other civilizations, even today support, and make it legally possible to participate in other forms of marriage - same sex, Polygamy, etc. Nerd From Hell 1. What is wrong with Western civilization? We are members of it. It's a lot better than the alternatives. 2. What other culture allows same sex marriage? I'm genuinely curious, not making a rhetorical point. Western civilization is, so far as I can tell, almost uniquely tolerant of homosexuality (as with most other things). um, I disagree. Instead of writing a rebuttle and haveing it Defamilexed by Dan and BFIB Erick, I will provide a few starting places from which you can do your own research. Besides, simply becouse there is no better place is no reason we can not dream of making our own place better. http://pages.zoom.co.uk/lgs/gw.html http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/homomyth.htm http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/gayhist.htm http://www.danielpipes.org/article/742 http://enotalone.com/books/067401197X.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. And rich and poor alike are forbidden to sleep under bridges. So? (Note that I did not claim that the Equal Protection Clause supported gay marriage. What exactly then do you suppose they ment by equal protection How equal is it when the protection is only afforded to one group and not another? What about Life librity and the presuit of happiness? Are those only for christian heterosexuals? Isn't it unequal if a man's soul mate and life bonded partner (i.e wife) can be counted as a dependent for tax reasons, but a womans wife can not? I never said that, did I? (What gave me more reason to doubt your intellectual credentials was how you argued with me about terrorism a few months back. You kept using strawmen and ad hominem attacks. Argue like an intellectual, and don't worry about proving your credentials...) Strange, this last paragraph seems to it'self contain an ad hominem attack. Kettle? Black? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Tyranny
Chad Cooper wrote: 2. What other culture allows same sex marriage? I'm genuinely curious, not making a rhetorical point. As far as I can track down so far, there are no third world countries that support gay marriage except for Argentina. Asia has a long way to go... This is not a subject I know much about but the laws pertaining homosexuality in India still date back to the Victorian era. So homosexuality is illegal in India, at least according to the law books. This is not a subject which has received much media attention but there seems to be a thriving gay culture in the metropolitans. I have come across a few magazine articles and interviews too - apparently, the Indian parents are more accepting of lesbianism than male homosexuality. But even the latter is considered bearable if the son consents to marry and sire a son to carry on the family name. I reckon the issue would receive more media attention when the sons refuse to follow the course suggested by the parents...and perhaps then there might be new legislation too. But as things stand today, India has a long way to go before the concept of 'same-sex marriages' becomes a legal reality. The present Hindutva government happens to agree rather strongly with the view that homosexuality is unnatural and has stated as much in the Delhi High Court recently. Um, having said all that, I might as well add that same-sex marriages, especially among women, are apparently a tradition in some areas of UP and Bihar - at least that is what my sociology text-book claimed. :) There are a lot of references to the past, where it seemed as though it was more prevalent and was perhaps better tolerated by some cultures. Ah, yes. Homosexuality seems to not have been much of a taboo in the Indian society. The _Dharamsutras_, ancient treatises on religion, held homosexuality to be as normal as heterosexuality. The Vedas mention it in a very matter of fact manner - neither condemning it, nor praising it. The Puranic literature mentions same-sex unions [and progeny] between different gods, devtas and humans [Shiva and Vishnu's liason which resulted in Ayappa's birth, Bhagirath's birth from the eggs of his widowed mothers - the examples are many]. The _Kamasutra_ is extremely matter of fact about homosexual attraction and affairs and goes to great length to discuss how a person's sexual orientation can usually never be rigidly defined and is dependant upon a number of factors. Even that bigoted piece of babble which kicked off caste perversions and the sanctified the mistreatment of women, Manu's _Dharamshastra_, considers homosexuality to be a rather minor 'sin', easily expiated by bathing with one's clothes on. Not much seems to have changed after the advent of Islam. Although we have no records of female homosexual behaviour, male homosexuality seems to have been rather common and socially acceptable. Papers from the Mughal period, Sufi poetry, Urdu poetry...what strikes me is the fact that when they talk about love and passion, they seem to care not even a bit about whether it is between two men, or a man and a woman. All forms of love and passion are equally extolled, glorified and celebrated. Some twenty kms from my home lies the tomb of Jamali-Kamali...Jamali was a sufi poet in the 16thC A.D., Kamali his lover and disciple. When they died, they were buried together, accorded a rather pretty mausoleum to celebrate their lives and lovetoday, the official explanation of the GoI is that Kamali was Jamali's nom de plume and the second grave, right next to Jamali/Kamali's grave, is of some unknown, homeless man who just happened to die nearby and was buried with the famous poet. :) Akbar might have been homophobic - he tried to ban homosexuality but realised soon enough that people were just ignoring him. Homophobia began to emerge in Indian literature and laws only around the 19th century, with the introduction of western education and the induction of India into the British Empire. Muslims, especially, were strongly criticised and stigmatised for indulging in 'this unnatural vice'. One of the effects of this was the near-complete heterosexualisation of Urdu poetry by the beginning of the 20th century. My issue with the President is how he presents the point that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that civilization demands this. I argue that this is not the case world wide, and can only be said western cultures. This reminds me of a conversation between Bheeshma and Vidura in the _Mahabharata_. Bheeshma, the venerable grandsire of the Kuru dynasty, expressed grave misgivings about the rapidly growing popularity of heterosexual, life-long marriages. He was of the opinion that very few men or women are compatible enough to *really* want to spend their entire life within just one relationship, and that for the rest, this concept would just mean a dreary, stifling incarceration. Ritu
Re: Tyranny
On 26 Feb 2004, at 9:00 pm, iaamoac wrote: Then again, if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times - if you genuinely want to positively change someone's behavior, you contact them off-list. Otherwise you call them out in public, and end up far more likely just putting them on the defensive rather than making any positive change. Positive change meaning agree with JDG :) I can see no reason to contact someone off-list about a post unless they are someone one has 1) an existing off-list relationship with (personally, by email, chat or whatever) 2) or a strong feeling of liking and or respect from just the list *AND* One feels they are making a big fool of themselves because they got out of the wrong side of bed that day or other silly gripe. *THEN* It might be OK to suggest off-list they calm down or whatever, as a friend. Otherwise, if you can't say it in public, shut up. You are very much on probation with respect to your manners in my regard. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
Jan Coffey wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I never said that, did I? (What gave me more reason to doubt your intellectual credentials was how you argued with me about terrorism a few months back. You kept using strawmen and ad hominem attacks. Argue like an intellectual, and don't worry about proving your credentials...) Strange, this last paragraph seems to it'self contain an ad hominem attack. Kettle? Black? Huh? Looked to me more like a criticism of his method of argument, and advice on how to look better in the future. Information on how David perceives John. Very useful if John wants to be perceived by David differently. I'm not seeing how David's paragraph above constitutes or contains an ad hominem attack. Julia Then again, I'm having a bad week and am short on sleep -- maybe you could spell it out for me? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I never said that, did I? (What gave me more reason to doubt your intellectual credentials was how you argued with me about terrorism a few months back. You kept using strawmen and ad hominem attacks. Argue like an intellectual, and don't worry about proving your credentials...) Strange, this last paragraph seems to it'self contain an ad hominem attack. Kettle? Black? Huh? Looked to me more like a criticism of his method of argument, and advice on how to look better in the future. Information on how David perceives John. Very useful if John wants to be perceived by David differently. I'm not seeing how David's paragraph above constitutes or contains an ad hominem attack. ad hominem is when you use something about a person to defend against an arguement they have made. The logic of the statments in question appeared to me to be: You used an ad hominem attack and strawmen (notice that no evidence for this was presented) Use of ad hominem etc. is grounds for questioning a persons intelectual credentials I can clearly dismiss what you had said becouse I was questioning your intelectual credentials This is not as extream as examples you will find in definitions for ad hominem, but it is the same none the less. If you need a simmilar example on a differnt subject line consider this one: You can not bench press your own body weight Not being able to bench press ones own body weight is grounds for questioning thier athletic ability You will not be allowed to play on our side becouse we question your athletic ability ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tyranny Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:00:32 - --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I never said that, did I? (What gave me more reason to doubt your intellectual credentials was how you argued with me about terrorism a few months back. You kept using strawmen and ad hominem attacks. Argue like an intellectual, and don't worry about proving yourcredentials...) Strange, this last paragraph seems to it'self contain an adhominem attack. Kettle? Black? Huh? Looked to me more like a criticism of his method of argument, advice on how to look better in the future. Information on howDavid perceives John. Very useful if John wants to be perceived by David differently. I'm not seeing how David's paragraph above constitutes or contains an ad hominem attack. Julia Then again, I'm having a bad week and am short on sleep -- maybe you could spell it out for me? Well, I think that I am closer to Jan's reading of the situation than yours, Julia. Namely that I treated David's post as being closer to an attack than to being useful. big snip Then again, if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times - if you genuinely want to positively change someone's behavior, you contact them off-list. Otherwise you call them out in public, and end up far more likely just putting them on the defensive rather than making any positive change. Actually, speaking purely for myself, I find I'm MUCH more defensive when challenged offlist. I _always_ ask why said conversation couldn't take place onlist. From experience, people who challenge others offlist are either trying to intimidate them or want to attack them in a manner that would be inappropriate onlist. It's sad, but I've learned to no longer give the benefit of the doubt. Likewise, David didn't exactly win any sympathy points from me when he dismissed my claims of having my intellectual bona fides constantly questioned on this List (in ways that the Left-Wingers of this List do not) just one post after he previously wrote: Hrm. I'm one of the people here who questions the left-wingers. I also question the right-wingers. I'm sure I'm not alone in trying to take a middle of the road stance. I think you're wrong if you think that conservatives are the only ones who ever have to defend their political positions here. Have you noticed people failing to reply to your posts? To Gautams? To Bob Chassell's? I certainly haven't. To be honest, this sounds like Limbaugh-style rhetoric. 'The Liberals Can't Answer The Tough Questions!' Bull. Sure they can and do. Y'all just don't like the answers they give you. :) I suspect that when technicalities help your side, you do in fact cheer. He's saying he _suspects_ you _may_ have a double standard. He is not attacking you, however. I've seen enough examples on the list this month of people attacking each other to be able to say that with confidence. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Watch high-quality video with fast playback at MSN Video. Free! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200365ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny/argument
iaamoac wrote: ... --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I never said that, did I? (What gave me more reason to doubt your intellectual credentials was how you argued with me about terrorism a few months back. You kept using strawmen and ad hominem attacks. Argue like an intellectual, and don't worry about proving your credentials...) Strange, this last paragraph seems to it'self contain an adhominem attack. Kettle? Black? Huh? Looked to me more like a criticism of his method of argument, advice on how to look better in the future. Information on howDavid perceives John. Very useful if John wants to be perceived by David differently. I'm not seeing how David's paragraph above constitutes or contains an ad hominem attack. Julia ... Well, I think that I am closer to Jan's reading of the situation than yours, Julia. Namely that I treated David's post as being closer to an attack than to being useful. There were several smilies in the post, and I intended it as advice. Let me paraphrase: Don't worry about proving your credentials, just stick to high standards of argument and the rest will take care of itself. ... Anyhow, when I read David's post this morning, I honestly had (and indeed, still have) absolutely no clue whatsoever as to what discussion he is referring to. Again, he obviously considered a certain discussion to be profound and important - and I've already forgotten it. Thus, in terms of being useful, since David provided no context to his charges of me stooping to ad hominem's and strawmen, I can't see that it will actually be much use to me. Sorry, I thought you might remember, since I pointed it out then, too. Here's a brief quote: Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:28:08 -0400 From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... John D. Giorgis wrote: At 01:08 AM 7/25/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote: The next two lines are Gautam's Why do you think that Osama bin Laden objects to the same things about American foreign policy that you do? This one is mine That's not a fair tactic in an argument. And this is John's Actually, I think that it is the most salient thing that Gautam has had to say in this argument. It is a form of ad hominem attack. And we do not object to the same things. He seems to object to most of our constitution, while I do not. BUT he probably also objects to large amounts of US meddling in the Middle East, from installing the Shah of Iran on. On these issues, I do agree with him. Now would you two stop mischaracterizing my position and attacking strawmen? ... ---David Good enough? ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I never said that, did I? (What gave me more reason to doubt your intellectual credentials was how you argued with me about terrorism a few months back. You kept using strawmen and ad hominem attacks. Argue like an intellectual, and don't worry about proving yourcredentials...) Strange, this last paragraph seems to it'self contain an adhominem attack. Kettle? Black? Huh? Looked to me more like a criticism of his method of argument, advice on how to look better in the future. Information on howDavid perceives John. Very useful if John wants to be perceived by David differently. I'm not seeing how David's paragraph above constitutes or contains an ad hominem attack. Julia Then again, I'm having a bad week and am short on sleep -- maybe you could spell it out for me? Well, I think that I am closer to Jan's reading of the situation than yours, Julia. Namely that I treated David's post as being closer to an attack than to being useful. In particular, I think that it is so important in List Discussions to put yourself in the shoes of other people before questioning their motives and tactics. (Michael Harney - please also take note of this.) Thus, a post that you may find to be profound and important may not necessarily regarded as such by other readers. Granted there's exceptions to this, like after several people asked me to post a defence of the Federal Marriage Amendment, I think that it is reasonable of me to expect that other readers of Brin-L consider that an important and profound post, even if people take their sweet time in responding to it. (Just kidding, Doug - I get busy too ;-) But as a general rule, I think that there are widely differing opinions on what constitutes an important argument among those on opposite sides of that issue on Brin-L. Anyhow, when I read David's post this morning, I honestly had (and indeed, still have) absolutely no clue whatsoever as to what discussion he is referring to. Again, he obviously considered a certain discussion to be profound and important - and I've already forgotten it. Thus, in terms of being useful, since David provided no context to his charges of me stooping to ad hominem's and strawmen, I can't see that it will actually be much use to me. Then again, if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times - if you genuinely want to positively change someone's behavior, you contact them off-list. Otherwise you call them out in public, and end up far more likely just putting them on the defensive rather than making any positive change. Likewise, David didn't exactly win any sympathy points from me when he dismissed my claims of having my intellectual bona fides constantly questioned on this List (in ways that the Left-Wingers of this List do not) just one post after he previously wrote: I suspect that when technicalities help your side, you do in fact cheer. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 10:17 PM 2/24/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you give the appearance of being a run with the pack kind of guy. I don't mean to be insulting, but you seem to be on a dittohead heading lately. I am flabbergasted. I am the only Brin-L'er sticking my neck out and taking a position that I *know* will be very unpopular here. And *I* am running with the pack?Hello I put great effort into my defense of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and I doubt that you will find anything much like my post on that subject from any other right-wing source. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 10:56 PM 2/24/2004 -0500 David Hobby wrote: John D. Giorgis wrote: For whatever it is worth, I would just like to point out that one of the oldest tools of tyrants on the books is to rely upon technicalities to frustrate and thwart their democratic opposition. Tyrants are often not that subtle. I would hazard that using technicalities is one of the oldest tools of politicians, instead. It is precisely because of this kind of reliance upon red-tape and technicalities to frustrate minorities, opposition viewpoints, and any other undesirables that a due process clause was added to our Bill of Rights. Are you talking about this part of the 14th Amendment? nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; Exactly WHO is being deprived of anything by San Francisco performing gay marriages? I don't see how this applies. That is a pretty novel interpretation of due process.So, would you have no problem with Republican justices frustrating and delaying the lawsuit against Cheney's Energy Task Force on the basis of technecalities? Thus, the City of San Francisco is still handing out faux marriage certificates in direct contravention of the Laws of the State of California - as was passed by *popular*referendum* all because a judge found a misplaced semicolon in a hastily prepared legal document to be grounds for a multiday delay in judicial proceedings. I suspect that when technicalities help your side, you do in fact cheer. Like when I said that I would not have signed the Bush v. Gore opinion had I been on the US Supreme Court? The marriage certificates shouldn't be legally valid, but issuing them seems a fair way to dramatize the issue. It's getting you steamed up, so it's having an effect. : ) I state again, this kind of action is cycnical, craven, crass, and is unbecoming of a constitutional republic. Where were you when Texas was gerrymandered? This stuff does happen all the time, AND this one is harmless. Actually, I have stated before that I strongly support handing redistricting to non-partisan commissions. Indeed, in the current case before the USSC regarding pro-Republican redistricting in GA and PA, I've often wondered if the USSC might be able to find legitimate equal protection grounds to hand that redistricting over to a non-partisan commission. (My current conclusion is probably not, but I have not yet seen the formal arguments.) If anyone is wondering why conservatives are now rallying behind an amendment to the federal constitution, it is because the courts can clearly not be relied upon to uphold the rule of law. Oh. I thought it was to change the law, just in case it was decided that the next clause: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. meant that gays had a right to marry too. And indeed, every homosexual in the US has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. But seriously, what gives here?Why is it that *I* have to constantly prove my bona fide intellectual credentials around here?Look back through the List Archives, how many times are the Left-Wingers on this List badgered into demonstrating that they have occasionally disagreed with Leftists and supported Republicans? When has anyone else been pestered into providing a 15-point list of disagreements they have had with those who normally share their beliefs? To me it seems like yet another double-standard. But I'm just running with the pack on this one. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I snipped the atribution of the statement below by accident - I think it was Jon, though Who believes that the Constitution is MEANT to be interpreted. Exactly. Doug Well, I mean look, it's not intuitively obvious that the Equal Protection Clause is meant to include gay marriage. It might be fair to interpret that way, but it's at least possible to argue plausibly that it doesn't. Even more than that, sure, the Constitution is meant to be interpreted. But the more latitude you give judges to interpret the Constitution into whatever they want it to be, the more power you give into the hands of an unelected elite with little or no democratic legitimacy. Remember, _not all change is progress_. If you give judges the power to give you new rights, _you give them the power to take them away_. The Constitution was not meant as an all-encompassing document that protects _all_ your rights, it was meant as a document that protects the _minimum_ of your rights, with far broader ones under legislative and executive protection. The more power you give judges, the more power they will have when those judges disagree with you - and then what are you going to do about it? Better that they have the bare minimum, with disagreements engaged in the legislature, where people can decide on things and accept the legitimacy of the decisions, not have them made for them by the arbitrary and unrestricted power of an appointed elite that has little or no contact with the American population. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
On 25 Feb 2004, at 12:48 pm, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I snipped the atribution of the statement below by accident - I think it was Jon, though Who believes that the Constitution is MEANT to be interpreted. Exactly. Doug Well, I mean look, it's not intuitively obvious that the Equal Protection Clause is meant to include gay marriage. Not to your intuition. It is to others. What use or relevance has intuition to an important subject? Intuition is just a way of saying 'my gut feeling which I cannot rationally justify'. It might be fair to interpret that way, but it's at least possible to argue plausibly that it doesn't. Perhaps you could find one of these plausible arguments then so we can see it, because I haven't seen one yet... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:17 PM 2/24/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you give the appearance of being a run with the pack kind of guy. I don't mean to be insulting, but you seem to be on a dittohead heading lately. I am flabbergasted. I am the only Brin-L'er sticking my neck out and taking a position that I *know* will be very unpopular here. And *I* am running with the pack?Hello I put great effort into my defense of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and I doubt that you will find anything much like my post on that subject from any other right-wing source. I agree with you here. Not one right wing source I have heard from is making as big a deal about the judges striking down the impropper order as you are, probably because it *is* an impropper order and they know it. By pointing it out as a footnote, they make it look like activism, but if they make too big an arguement about it people will learn the truth, that the order was impropperly worded and could not be enforced as written, then realize that there is no activism going on here, only adherance to the law. I agree with you, you are deffinately on the fringes, not in the pack. I actually do hope that the order, once properly worded, does go to court, and is passed by the same judge that struck it down for being impropperly worded. Then that would demonstrate that George Bush's sudden endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment to be an unneccessary knee-jerk reaction based in fear. Showing fear over such a mundane issue is not very becoming of the president. Michael Harney - Who is waiting for a reply to my questions, and marvels at how John avoids replying to certain posts or portions of posts that hold the strongest points against his arguements. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Tyranny
From: Robert Seeberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For me, this is the most frivolous waste of time and tax money I can recall. Have you forgotten the Flag Burning Amendment debate from a few years ago already? This is exactly the same thing. A self-serving political litmus test/trap created by conservatives for the upcoming election cycle. Although this one is definitely more ingenious than the last. Look at the wonderful tap-dance the Democratic candidates have to do over this. They are damned if they come out in favor of SSM* and damned if they don't. - jmh * Took me a minute to figure out this acronym the first time I saw it on a list message! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Tyranny
Are you talking about this part of the 14th Amendment? nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; Exactly WHO is being deprived of anything by San Francisco performing gay marriages? I don't see how this applies. I agree. It is the role of the court here to act as the third part of the checks and balances built into Government. The judges are not reacting to GWB's outright insult he has cast at the judges who are in position on this issue. As far as I can see, everything is working like it should. Here he states that Activist Judges are bad for America, yet he applauds those Activists that oppose him, yet have no real power for change. So really, in his mind, activism is OK only if it does not work - another way to say , Let them eat Cake. After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. - GWB 2/24/2004 But what civilization is he talking about? It must be Western civilization, because other civilizations, even today support, and make it legally possible to participate in other forms of marriage - same sex, Polygamy, etc. Nerd From Hell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Tyranny
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what civilization is he talking about? It must be Western civilization, because other civilizations, even today support, and make it legally possible to participate in other forms of marriage - same sex, Polygamy, etc. Nerd From Hell 1. What is wrong with Western civilization? We are members of it. It's a lot better than the alternatives. 2. What other culture allows same sex marriage? I'm genuinely curious, not making a rhetorical point. Western civilization is, so far as I can tell, almost uniquely tolerant of homosexuality (as with most other things). = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
In a message dated 2/24/2004 10:49:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not prepared to say that the city of San Francisco is right (although it is not a judge who STARTED this process - that was the mayor of the city, a mayor elected by the population), but I'm DEFINITELY prepared to say that the proposed amendment to the Constitution most certainly is WRONG Well since his actions are in clear violation of state law why aren't you prepared to say he is wrong. The fact that he was elected does not relieve him of the responsiblity to uphold the law. This is the sort of thing that will come back to bite too many people. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Tyranny
-Original Message- From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 3:22 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: RE: Tyranny --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what civilization is he talking about? It must be Western civilization, because other civilizations, even today support, and make it legally possible to participate in other forms of marriage - same sex, Polygamy, etc. Nerd From Hell 1. What is wrong with Western civilization? We are members of it. It's a lot better than the alternatives. Oh, there is nothing with Western Civilization. I happen to like it a lot. 2. What other culture allows same sex marriage? I'm genuinely curious, not making a rhetorical point. As far as I can track down so far, there are no third world countries that support gay marriage except for Argentina. Asia has a long way to go... There is a lot of misinformation about the subject, and it is even more difficult to track down when doing this at work. However, I did find some references to a few countries. However, overwhelmingly, nearly all cultures, religions and countries do NOT support gay marriages or gay relationships. There are a lot of references to the past, where it seemed as though it was more prevalent and was perhaps better tolerated by some cultures. Western civilization is, so far as I can tell, almost uniquely tolerant of homosexuality (as with most other things). http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/religion.htm has good data on the percentages of the world that seem to tolerate legal gay marriage. It does support your suggestion that Western civilization (really the U.S.)is more tolerant. I may be able track down some third world cultures that do support homosexual marriages. My point in my response is the support of alternative marriages like polygamy is prevalent in non-western civilizations, but illegal in the Western World. There is no one definition of Marriage. While one can say there are strong commonalities, the only one I can see, is that is is hetrosexual in nature (with the exception of allowable gay marriage in a few countries). This does not exclude polygamy, which is prevalent in non-western cultures, but now our own. My issue with the President is how he presents the point that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that civilization demands this. I argue that this is not the case world wide, and can only be said western cultures. He's either mean or ignorant on this point. Hey, if homo's can marry, why can't I have 2 wives! Its closer to Bush's definition than gay marriage! Nerd From Hell = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
- Original Message - From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 12:55 PM Subject: RE: Tyranny From: Robert Seeberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For me, this is the most frivolous waste of time and tax money I can recall. Have you forgotten the Flag Burning Amendment debate from a few years ago already? This is exactly the same thing. A self-serving political litmus test/trap created by conservatives for the upcoming election cycle. Although this one is definitely more ingenious than the last. Look at the wonderful tap-dance the Democratic candidates have to do over this. They are damned if they come out in favor of SSM* and damned if they don't. * You're right John, I did forget that. God bless those conservatives for saving us from burning flags and flaming..ah never mind. xponent I Will Speak Respectfully Of My Gay Bretheren I Will Speak Respectfully Of My Gay Bretheren I Will. Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 4:39 AM Subject: Re: Tyranny At 10:17 PM 2/24/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you give the appearance of being a run with the pack kind of guy. I don't mean to be insulting, but you seem to be on a dittohead heading lately. I am flabbergasted. My condolences to your Flabber. It must be ghastly! G I am the only Brin-L'er sticking my neck out and taking a position that I *know* will be very unpopular here. And *I* am running with the pack?Hello Running with the conservative pack, not the Brin-l pack. Its pretty obvious you have a dearth of support on the list, and yes, I admire you for standing up against so many pretty much simultaneously. But I do wholeheartedly disagree with your position, no matter how much I like you personally. I hope you can appreciate that I am telling you how it looks from where I stand, and not just piling on and slagging you. I put great effort into my defense of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and I doubt that you will find anything much like my post on that subject from any other right-wing source. Yeah.I can tell you put a lot into it. And no, I don't think you are cribbing from other sources. I just find it hard to credit that a thoughtful person like you, who has a gay best friend, who always seems to care about his country *and* his countrymen/countrywomen/countryfolk/whatever would lend his support to this amendment. For me, its anti-freedom, anti-equality, and anti-American. And its obvious. You have written quite a bit about legalistic type stuff, but what I would like to know is why you would think this is a *good* thing. Why is it *needed*? How will it strengthen our nation? To your credit, and a lot of credit should go your way on this, you have not repeated some of the things other rightwing sources have said that amounts to prejudice and in some extreme cases bigotry. Matter of fact, I tip my hat to all the conservatives on Brin-L and say to you that you have my respect and my thanks for being people I can *easily* respect. xponent On The Verge Of A Metadiscussion Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
Alberto Monteiro wrote: David Hobby wrote: Tyrants are often not that subtle. I would hazard that using technicalities is one of the oldest tools of politicians, instead. They are. One of the justifications for the brazilian coup d'etat in 1964 was that the then President had been the Vice President for two periods, and since reelection of the President was not allowed, he didn't have a legitimate claim to Presidency. Also, when he fled the armed forces, the Senate declared that the Presidency was vacant, because he was not there (!). Bad Old Days Maru Alberto Monteiro Alberto-- You say when he fled the armed forces? Armed forces are not particularly subtle. The justifications you mention would not be tools in the sense that John originally used the word. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I snipped the atribution of the statement below by accident - I think it was Jon, though Who believes that the Constitution is MEANT to be interpreted. It was mine, originally. Well, I mean look, it's not intuitively obvious that the Equal Protection Clause is meant to include gay marriage. It might be fair to interpret that way, but it's at least possible to argue plausibly that it doesn't. Agreed. I don't believe that the Supreme Court has yet interpreted it to include gay marriage. : ) But they might well do so in a couple decades. And either would be plausible. Even more than that, sure, the Constitution is meant to be interpreted. But the more latitude you give judges to interpret the Constitution into whatever they want it to be, the more power you give into the hands of an unelected elite with little or no democratic legitimacy. The judges are somewhat representative of the will of the People, because of how they are appointed and confirmed. I can't think of any SCOTUS decisions that are not supported by at least a sizeable minority of the population. The Court does gradually change its position to match the culture. The recent action that struck down the Texas sodomy law is a good example. My viewpoint is that the law should have been tossed out a long time ago, but that the Court was not prepared to do so until the climate was right. (Others may disagree with my interpretation. : ) ) And in many cases where the majority of people disagree with a decision, it is because people as a whole do not try to carefully think out consistent positions on how the Constitution should be interpreted. ... Remember, _not all change is progress_. If you give judges the power to give you new rights, _you give them the power to take them away_. The Constitution was not meant as an all-encompassing document that protects _all_ your rights, it was meant as a document that protects the _minimum_ of your rights, with far broader ones under legislative and executive protection. ... True, it would be good to enact some laws to protect the Right of Privacy, say, rather than to trust the SCOTUS to continue dredging it out of whatever murky basis they think it comes from. And please don't get me started on where they got the strange idea that corporations should have all the rights of people but none of the responsibilities. : ) Back to my original comment. When I said that the Constitution was meant to be interpreted, I mean that those who wrote it obviously intended it to be interpreted. If they had really wanted to pin the meanings down exactly, they could have done so, in every multi-page amendment. It is SUPPOSED to consist of reasonably short general statements. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
John D. Giorgis wrote: At 10:56 PM 2/24/2004 -0500 David Hobby wrote: ... Are you talking about this part of the 14th Amendment? nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; Exactly WHO is being deprived of anything by San Francisco performing gay marriages? I don't see how this applies. That is a pretty novel interpretation of due process.So, would you have no problem with Republican justices frustrating and delaying the lawsuit against Cheney's Energy Task Force on the basis of technecalities? I don't think it is. Of course I have a problem with judges acting in a partisan manner to defend the Executive Branch. The Judiciary is supposed to be independent. But even if they are frustrating the lawsuit, I doubt they are using the Due Process Clause to do it. Which was my point. I suspect that when technicalities help your side, you do in fact cheer. Like when I said that I would not have signed the Bush v. Gore opinion had I been on the US Supreme Court? Sorry, it was not meant as a personal attack. If anyone is wondering why conservatives are now rallying behind an amendment to the federal constitution, it is because the courts can clearly not be relied upon to uphold the rule of law. Oh. I thought it was to change the law, just in case it was decided that the next clause: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. meant that gays had a right to marry too. And indeed, every homosexual in the US has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. And rich and poor alike are forbidden to sleep under bridges. So? (Note that I did not claim that the Equal Protection Clause supported gay marriage. As I said in another post, the Constitution is meant to be interpreted.) But seriously, what gives here?Why is it that *I* have to constantly prove my bona fide intellectual credentials around here? I never said that, did I? (What gave me more reason to doubt your intellectual credentials was how you argued with me about terrorism a few months back. You kept using strawmen and ad hominem attacks. Argue like an intellectual, and don't worry about proving your credentials...) ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
If anyone is wondering why conservatives are now rallying behind an amendment to the federal constitution, it is because the courts can clearly not be relied upon to uphold the rule of law. Since when do two wrongs make a right? Since when does one iniquity (if it is one, since it was and is being done in a spirit of helping people out) justify a second iniquity (unquestionably one, since it is done solely out of a spirit of hurting those people)? I'm not prepared to say that the city of San Francisco is right (although it is not a judge who STARTED this process - that was the mayor of the city, a mayor elected by the population), but I'm DEFINITELY prepared to say that the proposed amendment to the Constitution most certainly is WRONG. There is nothing conservative about amending the Constitution to impose discrimination based on the narrow religious view of a minority of the people. (I realize that if the majority truly does not hold the view, the Amendment probably will fail to be ratified.) Tom Beck I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last. - Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
John D. Giorgis wrote: For whatever it is worth, I would just like to point out that one of the oldest tools of tyrants on the books is to rely upon technicalities to frustrate and thwart their democratic opposition. Tyrants are often not that subtle. I would hazard that using technicalities is one of the oldest tools of politicians, instead. It is precisely because of this kind of reliance upon red-tape and technicalities to frustrate minorities, opposition viewpoints, and any other undesirables that a due process clause was added to our Bill of Rights. Are you talking about this part of the 14th Amendment? nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; Exactly WHO is being deprived of anything by San Francisco performing gay marriages? I don't see how this applies. Thus, the City of San Francisco is still handing out faux marriage certificates in direct contravention of the Laws of the State of California - as was passed by *popular*referendum* all because a judge found a misplaced semicolon in a hastily prepared legal document to be grounds for a multiday delay in judicial proceedings. I suspect that when technicalities help your side, you do in fact cheer. The marriage certificates shouldn't be legally valid, but issuing them seems a fair way to dramatize the issue. It's getting you steamed up, so it's having an effect. : ) I state again, this kind of action is cycnical, craven, crass, and is unbecoming of a constitutional republic. Where were you when Texas was gerrymandered? This stuff does happen all the time, AND this one is harmless. If anyone is wondering why conservatives are now rallying behind an amendment to the federal constitution, it is because the courts can clearly not be relied upon to uphold the rule of law. Oh. I thought it was to change the law, just in case it was decided that the next clause: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. meant that gays had a right to marry too. ---David Who believes that the Constitution is MEANT to be interpreted. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 9:17 PM Subject: Tyranny Moreover, I am shocked that on this List, of all places, where I have endured countless abuse as someone who has voted for a police state and the gutting of our Constitutional rights that not only have I been the _only_ person to criticize the absurdity of this legal process, but in fact, several Brin-l'ers have praised this mockery of the rule of law. To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you give the appearance of being a run with the pack kind of guy. I don't mean to be insulting, but you seem to be on a dittohead heading lately. For me, this is the most frivolous waste of time and tax money I can recall. I don't really care all that much how others want to live their lives when it effects me not in the least. Every Gay and Lesbian in the world could get Married, and my wife and I would not be a bit less married for it. A couples commitment to each other is not predicated on the relations of other couples. Marriage is something you make together without help from others. This will not be forgotten. Is that some kind of threat, or is it somehow related to the paragraph I so inelegantly snipped? xponent The Government Can Stay The Hell Out Of My Bedroom Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
David wrote: Oh. I thought it was to change the law, just in case it was decided that the next clause: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. meant that gays had a right to marry too. Damn, beat me by four minutes and fourty-seven seconds... Who believes that the Constitution is MEANT to be interpreted. Exactly. You know, when I witness the joy that the San Fransisco initiative has brought to those that have hertofore been unable to make their love for each other official (however temporal it's legitimacy),it makes me wonder how on earth good-hearted people can be against this kind of thing. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
Doug Pensinger wrote: You know, when I witness the joy that the San Fransisco initiative has brought to those that have hertofore been unable to make their love for each other official (however temporal it's legitimacy),it makes me wonder how on earth good-hearted people can be against this kind of thing. I thought the same sort of thing about the medical marijuana issue, but plenty of people still found a way to oppose it. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] You know, when I witness the joy that the San Fransisco initiative has brought to those that have hertofore been unable to make their love for each other official (however temporal it's legitimacy),it makes me wonder how on earth good-hearted people can be against this kind of thing. Simple. Religion = Hate. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
I thought the same sort of thing about the medical marijuana issue, but plenty of people still found a way to oppose it. Especially John Ashcroft, who believes in states' rights except when the states want to do things he doesn't agree with. Tom Beck I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last. - Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
