While this is probably worthy of a second thread, do you believe that homosexual unions should get the same legal benifts (ie tax breaks, power of attorney, etc) as heterosexual marriages?
Homosexuals do not deserve the same legal benefits as married couples for the same reasons that two unmarried friends don't deserve them. You have to draw the line somewhere. If they want the benefits, marry a woman. There are also economic benfits to childbirth as well as a stable family environment/strong family values. Heterosexual couples provide this.
Do you think consevative judges are more likely to overturn Bowers? One would think they are very unlikely to overturn anti-homosexual legislation as 'conservative' judges.
You make a really good point here. I guess it would all depend on how an individual defines conservative. To me, there is nothing in the Constitution that supports such laws, so they should be striken. I do understand your point though, and it's a very valid one. We'll have to see.
I would think that encouraging stable homosexual unions through legal benefits will lead to stable family environments and strong family values...
That does seem to be what is being said. The argument appears to be that minorities can't compete on the criteria normally used for college admission, therefore, they need the standard to be lower for minorities. Some would read that as a strange admission that minorities simply aren't as smart (or at least not as able to get the grades and test scores) as whites. I'm sure that's not what is meant, but the argument does come across that way to many. If, under the affirmative-action system currently in place at many Universities, minorities who are allowed admissions under standards lower than those required of white students manage to do essentially as well once they get to college as the seemingly higher-qualified white students then perhaps the standards used to judge qualified candidates for admission is flawed. If that makes any sense at all.
Maybe it's just me, but I always thought justices were supposed to interpret the law and make decisions based on the constitution, not use their conservative or liberal bias to set precident and circumvent the laws in existence. This is confusing. Are you saying that they don't deserve benefits because they choose a lifestyle that is different? What if we were to say that childless couples don't get benefits or gun owners or atheists? The line being drawn is wholly arbitrary and based only on subjective belief, not concrete fact. As for your economic benefits, care to share a link on that one? In the case of the impoverished, childbirth rates are higher and directly proportional to the level of poverty - having kids in this case actually creates poverty. If we can say who can and cannot get married legally, shouldn't we have the right to say who can and cannot legally give birth? IMO, both instances are out of line. Smaller government is often the cry of conservatives but does anyone honestly believe that legislating personal beliefs is LESS costly than say social welfare? The fastest way to gigantic government is allowing it to legislate what we can do in the privacy of our own homes.
valuable coin falling ... disappearing ... darkness ... no splash, no impact ... what has happened to the coin?
Judges *interpret* the law. These interpretations are influenced by personal beliefs. Are you contesting this?! If every decision was based on objective analysis, people like Max, Ref, and haven wouldn't have wasted 3 years in law school. Yes I am. They do not deserve benefits because the benefits are designed for those who are married. I am single right now. I am choosing a lifestyle that is different from a married couple. I do not receive the benefits a married couple would receive. I view this as totally fair. Think about it in this crude fashion: Without children, we will ultimately be left with no citizens. That would create an economic problem. Last time I checked, homosexuals were unable to reproduce with one another. Sure. We can all say that homosexuals can not reproduce with one another. We can make this a law if you'd like. Classic liberal distortion argument. Nobody is regulating what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes. If you read my earlier responses, you would know that I am against the sodomy laws because I feel it is an invasion on individual freedoms. This is a different subject however. This is a debate over the right of the unmarried to receive married benefits.
Homosexuals are not allowed to legally marry in almost all the states. It reminds me of those Jim Crow Laws in principle.
I realize that. However, they are still required to remain within the framework of the constitution. You act as if they are suddenly going to install some right-wing fantasy land in America. Besides, like it or not, half of the country isn't conservative and reject those concepts. I'm guessing you'd be pretty pissed if liberal justices simply ignored the wishes of conservaties to install their own version of a liberal America. It goes both ways. You don't get the benefits of a couple because you are only one person. There is a difference. You didn't answer my other questions. If benefits were not offered to gun owners, would you favor that? This is such a wanker of an argument. The world is VASTLY overpopulated. We have tripled the size of the world's population in less than half a century. We will likely have more than 10 billion people on the planet by 2020. If anything, we need FEWER people, not more. [quoteSure. We can all say that homosexuals can not reproduce with one another. We can make this a law if you'd like.[/quote] What about heterosexual couples? If you can dictate what people can do when it comes to children, it should extend beyond homosexuals. What I'm saying is, what is the LOGIC behind that decision. There is none. It is simply a decision based on the notion that homosexuals are wierd and different so they do not deserve to be treated fairly like the rest of us.
Get ready for Chief Justice Scalia. Quid pro quo? ___________________________ Chief Justice Rehnquist Misses Session The Associated Press Monday, December 2, 2002; 1:07 PM Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, recuperating from leg surgery, missed Monday's Supreme Court hearings in two cases involving Arizona Indians who argued that the government shirked its obligations to the tribes. Justice John Paul Stevens announced at the beginning of the session that Rehnquist would still rule on the cases by reading the briefs and transcripts. Rehnquist, 78, hurt his knee in a fall at his home last month. He had surgery to repair a torn tendon last Tuesday. He also has missed a meeting with the other eight justices behind closed doors to decide which cases to schedule for arguments. Rehnquist, who has been on the high court 30 years, has suffered from back problems and had back surgery in 1995.
mrpaige and Ref, Perhaps it is a statement more along the lines of: 1. Minorities generally go to inferior schools, meaning that they are robbed of an education - huge disparity. 2. Minorities generally fare worse on the over-important SAT - pointing both to my #1 and also apparently to other factors. 3. Standards are constantly lowered for whites - if daddy has a lot of money (more of an issue with privates, but still accross the board) meaning others would be getting social priveleges devoid of race (well, in this pecific instance perhaps) 4. That right now it might not be possible to attain fair admissions practices. Just guesses, but they seem reasonable to me.
