|| Replies ||

User	joeyalphabet | 2007-06-02 |
Subject	untitled
Message	“Activist judges are a problem, as far as the governance of our country is concerned, whether or not you agree with their decisions.” Mae, I have to whole-heartedly disagree with you on this. If there hadn’t been ‘activist’ judges we would still have Jim Crow laws in America. If Congress does not address the problem (as they had not in this case) then the judiciary is the last resort for those being discriminated against. The Constitution is about protecting the minority from the majority. I don’t agree with white supremacists but I do believe they have the right of free speech. ‘Activist’ is conservative code for ‘liberal.’ You could call conservative judges just as ‘activist’ as liberal ones on certain issues.

User	XmaryjaneX | 2007-05-18 |
Subject	untitled
Message	yeah myx and you sure do got a pertty mouth :P

User	MyX | 2007-05-12 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Dairy, you are one funny motherhubbad!!! MyX

User	XmaryjaneX | 2007-05-12 |
Subject	untitled
Message	o.O

User	XmaryjaneX | 2007-05-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	you forgot ... "you have the right to shoot someone for calling you a fairy" and myx.... yeah the whole black dude playing with your man titties and twisting your nipple rings... can you like... watch lifetime or something?????

User	mae | 2007-05-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Within the 26 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, there are only four that could in any way be construed as dealing with minorities, though one is general in nature. The 13th amendment outlaws slavery - for anyone in the U.S., not just blacks, so it really does not protect JUST that minority; the 15th, 19th and 26th all deal with the right to vote - and only the right to vote. There is no protection granted to any minority for any other human behavior under the Constitution. It is concerned with the governance of the country, not with protecting minorities. Activist judges are a problem, as far as the governance of our country is concerned, whether or not you agree with their decisions. Their job under the aforesaid constitution is to INTERPRET laws ENACTED BY CONGRESS. It is not the job of federal judges to MAKE laws based on laws. By doing that, they have usurped the position of our legislative branch. Congress is presently trying to assert power over the Presidency in many areas, mainly in war powers. In my opinion, Congress should be trying to take back the power that the Judicial branch has taken from them. As far as gay marriage or any other form of marriage, any rights such as those have been reserved to the states under the U.S. Constitution. It is not a federal matter and the U.S. Constitution is not the ruling authority. Now, if a state took away a gay person’s right to vote, then it would be. mae

User	Blue Monk | 2007-05-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	In looking at the Constitution, I see "rights" for the citizens and for the States, but I see nothing about the "minority" unless you look into some of the protections offered under the Bill of Rights. The main body is pretty much a document centered around setting up the three branches of government, but make of it what you will, everyone else does. Judges only have purpose if they’re free to INTERPRET the law to the best of their ability, but it is not within their purvey to actually MAKE law. That is the job of the legislators, the representatives of the people. If judges are very wrong in the opinion of most citizens, perhaps their interpretations are suspect and perhaps the LAW may ultimately be changed so as to avoid future misinterpretations. God bless America, anyway.

User	NoMartyr | 2007-05-08 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"The Constitution is designed to maintain the status quo as much as possible within a democracy which is otherwise subject to a continuous wild flux of demands generated by those who seek power for themselves. Any protection of minority rights is but a by-product of this effort which for the most part falls upon the Judicial branch. " Not so. The constitution is set up to protect THE MINORITY.

User	joeyalphabet | 2007-05-08 |
Subject	untitled
Message	The judiciary has ALWAYS interpreted the Constitution, right back to Marbury v. Madison. If you’re arguing that ’activist’ judges are wrong, I definitely don’t agree with that.

User	Blue Monk | 2007-05-01 |
Subject	untitled
Message	The Constitution is designed to maintain the status quo as much as possible within a democracy which is otherwise subject to a continuous wild flux of demands generated by those who seek power for themselves. Any protection of minority rights is but a by-product of this effort which for the most part falls upon the Judicial branch.

User	joeyalphabet | 2007-05-01 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Didn’t mean to imply you agreed with that statement, BTW.

User	joeyalphabet | 2007-05-01 |
Subject	untitled
Message	“Harnessing the fundemental point of utilitarianism, shouldn’t it be outlawed simply because most of the country is Christian and it follows their ethics, thus it would probably make them happiest?” The problem with your argument, Inky my dear, is that in this country we have a Constitution. And the Constitution was designed to protect the minority, NOT the majority. It’s easy to dictate when your group dominates. The problem comes in when the majority infringes on the rights of the minority. And while marriage is not a ‘right’ per se, it shouldn’t be denied to someone based on some religious ethic. Society has decided marriage is between two people, not six or nine (hence the illegality of bigamy); so why should two men or women not have the right to marry? Because it’s deemed ‘immoral’? That’s not a legal argument, it’s a religious one.

User	MyX | 2007-04-30 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Sure is fun in there tho, aint it =D MyX

User	XmaryjaneX | 2007-04-30 |
Subject	untitled
Message	>.> yeah i know rite..

User	silent_death12 | 2007-04-30 |
Subject	untitled
Message	.....

User	XmaryjaneX | 2007-04-30 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"what happens in MyX’s mind..... stays in mine...."

User	Blue Monk | 2007-04-27 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Morality and ethics are subjective within the whole set of the population, but become increasingly focused (objective) when that set is narrowed to specific groups. Within one’s own group (or groups) questions of acceptable behavior become pretty well defined, often extracting social and/or criminal penalities for infractions thereof. "What happens in Vegas...". If I were to "act gay" in San Francisco, I would fit right in and find acceptance in a relatively large gay population set, unlike if I did so in my own small town in the Bible belt. Any change in my social behavior dependent upon where I am located at a given time would be an example of a sliding scale "morality" which most people have no trouble using if it rewards them with acceptance into a group or anything else that may be needed or desired.

User	UnderINK | 2007-04-27 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I know the fastest growing religion. However, speaking in terms of America which is a Christian-dominated country, as well as my home country, the ’ethics’ I was always taught were strictly Christian. By that I don’t tread the ground of whether I am ethical or not because I do not adhere to the ethics I was taught or that dominate both of the countries I’ve lived in. However, by some peoples’ definition, I’m quite ethical. The point is that ethics are subjective. This can be looped around again to gay marriage. Who decides what is ethical? Should it be up to every individual person? How could we make laws concerning topics like this, then? What should such ethics be governed by? The majority? The dominate belief system? I would say the most rational or reasonable, but that’s not solid enough to stand on. By Christian ethics, gay marriage is typically considered wrong. Harnessing the fundemental point of utilitarianism, shouldn’t it be outlawed simply because most of the country is Christian and it follows their ethics, thus it would probably make them happiest? Or should we adhere to the idea of just and fairness and rationalize that, ’hey, they’re not hurting anyone; who cares?’ Driving this thread back on topic, but not abandoning my original point, regarding again that I do not typically follow the Christian morals I grew up with, I find nothing wrong with gay marriage. Perhaps someone could argue in challenge without using the bible as their only reference; possibly something more stable and less rebuttable?

User	Blue Monk | 2007-04-27 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Wiki can be fun, as long as you understand that it also is an open forum. Not knowing the background of many readers, terminology may often be a stumbling block for which such a reference can provide a detour. Fortunately, disclaimers are often given by the Wiki editors as to possible problems. The real value is that you have opportunity to see what others think strongly enough to actually consider themselves an authority on a given subject. Kind of like here. Nevertheless, to avoid grumbling... "I disagree with most modern day concepts of ethics" would be yet another red flag but that much was already understood. Such a statement would, however, better serve as a preamble to views expressed as opposed to a later confession. What would a debate be without different opinions? No mention has ever been made about "Christianity" or those particular values. A much broader bush has been used, such as "the vast majority of human beings". If anyone wishes to be categorized outside that vein, more power to them because progress is only found at one side of the bell curve, just make sure you’re on that particular side and not the opposite. BTW, the fastest growing religion is Islam, since I didn’t Wiki that and there are a few who might assume otherwise.

User	joeyalphabet | 2007-04-27 |
Subject	untitled
Message	No accusations. If everyone was ethical all the time, things would certainly be a lot less f---ed up than they are. I know I do something unethical once in a while, even though I try as much as possible to adhere to my principles.