27-04-2004 20:49									#31
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Armenian, Sloww, Armenian.

	27-04-2004 21:09									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This is great. Now whenever I debate a conservative about gay marriage, I can say, "Yeah, the French think like you do," and watch their heads explode.

	27-04-2004 21:11									#33
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I likey, Theben.

-Arrian

	27-04-2004 21:24									#34
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: In the US, inter-racial marriage was legalized nationally in 1967 with Loving v. Virginia. However, it was not until 1991 that Gallop recorded more Americans in favor of inter-racial marriage than against it. My question(s): should inter-racial couples have instead waited 24 more years, until general public approval was higher? Was justice "short-circuited" when the courts approved of inter-racial marriage before the majority of the general public did?

The answer is that because the court stepped in so forcefully that it radicalized the debate so that it took so damned long for people to accept it. If it wasn't taken over by the courts the consensus would have been reached much earlier because of dialogue and discussion which was missing when the court stepped in.

Besides being 'in favor' of interracial marriage is not exactly the same as saying 'legalize' interrational marriage. Someone could be against it but want it to be legalized.

	27-04-2004 21:25									#35
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui If it wasn't taken over by the courts the consensus would have been reached much earlier because of dialogue and discussion which was missing when the court stepped in.

That's a BAM if I ever saw one.

	27-04-2004 21:33									#36
	Put an end to popups!

No, its actually common sense. Look at the abortion debate, after Roe v. Wade, the debate became amazingly radicalized. Where beforehand it was no where near that bad.

	27-04-2004 21:35									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

So obviously Truman's integration of the Army by fiat instead of consensus and discussion must have created an atmosphere of polarization and radicalization within the Army that hadn't existed before.

Oh, wait...

	27-04-2004 21:38									#38
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Truman was the President, he used the process of being Commander in Chief. We are talking about the Supreme Court, which ALWAYS has had to deal with problems of legitmacy because it is not an elected body. Many, many, many times the SCOTUS has been almost marginalized by the public because of the view of unelected judges taking over democracy when they streach to rule a certain way. So in short, it's totally different.

The SCOTUS in Loving was ruling based on 'race' (in a somewhat roundabout way), which is explicitly mentioned in the 14th Amendment, so that works. However, in things where the SCOTUS has had to reach (ie, substantive due process cases) it seemingly serves to radicalize debate instead of promoting a healthy exchange of ideas.

Last edited by Imran Siddiqui on 27-04-2004 at 21:45

	27-04-2004 21:44									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui No, its actually common sense. Look at the abortion debate, after Roe v. Wade, the debate became amazingly radicalized. Where beforehand it was no where near that bad.

Obviously the reactionary forces were displeased by the ruling, and that's why the debate radicalized. The sentiment driving the moral shock of a conservative is much stronger (and vicious) than the sentiment of progress driving a liberal (well, usually).

	27-04-2004 21:47									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Obviously the reactionary forces were displeased by the ruling, and that's why the debate radicalized.

Well duh! Also the fact that it was done by unelected judges had something to do with it.

quote: The sentiment driving the moral shock of a conservative is much stronger (and vicious) than the sentiment of progress driving a liberal (well, usually).

Not so. There was similar outrage when the Court struck down New Deal legislation in the 1930s by the left... which almost led to the end of the independance of the court (at least at that time).

	27-04-2004 21:50									#41
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Well duh! Also the fact that it was done by unelected judges had something to do with it.

My point being that they had to be displeased someday.

quote: Not so. There was similar outrage when the Court struck down New Deal legislation in the 1930s by the left... which almost led to the end of the independance of the court (at least at that time).

Well, weren't workers turning communist in the 30s because of the crisis? Honestly I don't think we can compare old-school industrial marxism with post-60s liberalism.

	27-04-2004 21:51									#42
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov That's a BAM if I ever saw one.

How can facts qualify as a BAM? In the 5 years before Roe, 16 states including Reagan's California liberalized thier abortion laws.

	27-04-2004 21:54									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: weren't workers turning communist in the 30s because of the crisis?

I'm not talking about the few communists in the country . I'm talking about FDR and his backers (ie, the Democratic Party).

	27-04-2004 22:03									#44
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: weren't workers turning communist in the 30s because of the crisis? I'm not talking about the few communists in the country

A million people is not a few.

	27-04-2004 22:43									#45
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: In the US, inter-racial marriage was legalized nationally in 1967 with Loving v. Virginia. However, it was not until 1991 that Gallop recorded more Americans in favor of inter-racial marriage than against it. My question(s): should inter-racial couples have instead waited 24 more years, until general public approval was higher? Was justice "short-circuited" when the courts approved of inter-racial marriage before the majority of the general public did?

As Imran points out, you're assuming that public opinion would have held out for 24 more years in the face of a determined debate. I think it would have been much better for our democracy had the debate been put to the people and their elected legislators to make the decision. This seems obvious to me.

	27-04-2004 22:53									#46
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I'm not talking about the few communists in the country . I'm talking about FDR and his backers (ie, the Democratic Party).

What happened? The Supreme Court ruled that the New Deal was unconstitutional?

	27-04-2004 22:55									#47
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris What happened? The Supreme Court ruled that the New Deal was unconstitutional?

Parts, until Roosevelt started making noises about hving Congress change the Court, at which point the Court settled down and let Roosevelt save the country from us Bolsheviks.

	28-04-2004 06:51									#48
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by DanS As Imran points out, you're assuming that public opinion would have held out for 24 more years in the face of a determined debate. I think it would have been much better for our democracy had the debate been put to the people and their elected legislators to make the decision. This seems obvious to me.

And as I have pointed out before, you could argue with equal validity that it may have taken even longer for public opinion to change, but acceptance grew as inter-racial marriages became more common, as people were exposed to them in their own families, neighborhoods, and workplaces; and the republic failed to collapse as predicted.

It was not my intent to debate how long long it may have taken for support to grow in absence of Loving. I'm interested in the question of civil rights being allocated only by popular support.

So DanS, is it "better for our democracy" if the allocation of civil rights is determined by popular vote?

	28-04-2004 08:19									#49
	Remove this text

That presupposes that this issue is about civil rights at all.

I think it's a little harder to change the colour of your skin.

	28-04-2004 09:03									#50
	Tired of ads?

Its possibly just as hard to change your sexual orientation aswell.

	28-04-2004 09:11									#51
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Then why do I keep hearing about 'fluxuality?'

	28-04-2004 09:12									#52
	Inflate your Upload Space

Eh I ain't heard 'fluxuality' before. Explain please?

	28-04-2004 11:23									#53
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Parts, until Roosevelt started making noises about hving Congress change the Court, at which point the Court settled down and let Roosevelt save the country from us Bolsheviks.

	28-04-2004 11:34									#54
	Got spare money?

quote: A million people is not a few.

Yes it is . Even back then.

quote: So DanS, is it "better for our democracy" if the allocation of civil rights is determined by popular vote?

I was under the impression that democracy implied some sort of popular majority behind things.

	28-04-2004 11:41									#55
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Democracy = the rule of the mob.

	28-04-2004 15:51									#56
	Suffering from ads?

quote: When the Belgian Parliament voted in favor of gay marriage a few years ago (with 120 votes out of 150 or something), the majority of the population was against it.

Are you sure Spiff? Of cousre it may be true for the rural parts but I very doubt it to be the case in cities ( ok, city )
-

quote: Unclu C: to Belgium for no adoption rights.:q

What is supposed to mean? Give it some time will you, and AFAIK we one of the very few country's where gay CAN get married.
Not that I really understand why they want to anyway, being progressive and all.

	28-04-2004 19:25									#57
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by alva Not that I really understand why they want to anyway, being progressive and all.

Now that the hetero mariage is less and less attractive (all fiscal and social benefits can be obtained without being married, and in one instance, it is fiscally more advantageous not to be married), and less and less usefull (mariage was -with harems- one way to establish the filiation) with the ADN analysis, it is strange to hear the brightest minds of the planet, or at least of Apolyton, advocating for the homosexual mariage.

Additionnally, the heterosexual mariage had legally a sexual purpose (even in its religious version : mariage not consumed were cancelled by the Pope). The homosexual mariage requires to be legally described differently, and therefore it will not be the same civil act.

	28-04-2004 20:11									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT Now that the hetero mariage is less and less attractive (all fiscal and social benefits can be obtained without being married, and in one instance, it is fiscally more advantageous not to be married), and less and less usefull (mariage was -with harems- one way to establish the filiation) with the ADN analysis, it is strange to hear the brightest minds of the planet, or at least of Apolyton, advocating for the homosexual mariage.

I believe marriage is a ceremony that seals one's love for another, as well as it provide more rights than civil unions (at least in France). For my girlfriend, it isn't imaginable only to sign a putrid civil union in front of a bored clerk. She wants a real ceremony, with the mayor declaring we are married, and all the decorum... Many people want to experience the "most beautiful day in their life", and I don't see why homoes shoudl be deprived of it.

quote: Additionnally, the heterosexual mariage had legally a sexual purpose (even in its religious version : mariage not consumed were cancelled by the Pope). The homosexual mariage requires to be legally described differently, and therefore it will not be the same civil act.

Err, Davout, you know...
Homosexual marriages can be consumed

	28-04-2004 20:42									#59
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor For my girlfriend, it isn't imaginable only to sign a putrid civil union in front of a bored clerk. She wants a real ceremony, with the mayor declaring we are married, and all the decorum... Many people want to experience the "most beautiful day in their life", and I don't see why homoes shoudl be deprived of it.

You are right, the real content of the hetero or homosexual mariage is limited to one day decorum and fun.

	28-04-2004 20:45									#60
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT You are right, the real content of the hetero or homosexual mariage is limited to one day decorum and fun.

I think it is a significant appeal of marriage. The other one is that you seal your willingness to live your life with the one you love.

Apart from that, it is a rights issue, on parentality, on property sharing, and on heritage. I fail to see why the homos should be deprived of any of these aspects.