Replies

Obviously the demonization of the ACLU is a personal interest of yours, and I haven't spent enough time on the subject to argue point by point. I mentioned before that I'd probably question your sources on the subject sure enough I find ones you mentioned downright laughable.

But to continue to argue about the ACLU as an organization is to stray from the subject at hand. To me, the ACLU is overly picky and can be quite annoying at times, but basically they do more good then harm. I don't for a moment expect you to ever agree with me.

Back to the core of the subject:

"You missed the key element: Is this a 'solution' enforced by imperial Judges or enacted by the people?
I have already stated I would have 1/10th the problem if the law is actually done by the legislatures."

I find this curious as the judges went out of their way NOT to decree a solution. Basically, they said to the legislature: "Having heard the arguments, we find there is a problem here as regards these laws and our constitution that you need to fix. Here you go!"

These are your imperial judges? Your robed elite?
Clearly you are not happy that they found a problem. You obviously don't think there is a problem given your suggestion to "Keep things as they were." But it looks like a majority of the judges found one in terms of how long term gay couples are treated in civil law and they handed it over to the legislature to fix probably figuring that it will respond with some type of compromise as you mentioned.

Short if ignoring an element of injustice they have identified, I don't understand what you want them to do?

"I believe the ONLY solution that is appropriate is for different states - through their legislatures - to take their own approach on this concept of gay 'unions' piecemeal and to leave marriage itself alone."

Could you favor *that*?

I would love for every state high court in the country to rule as they did and to inform their legislatures fix the problem. And if every state leg, by honoring that ruling, threw out the word "marriage but came up with a "civil union" designation that gave gay couples the ability to commit themselves to one another in some official capacity and have all the rights and privileges of married couples, I would be ecstatic!

I have long wished that the gay community could leave the semantics of "Marriage" aside and just focus on getting their rights as long term couples. Just to keep people from going nuts on the whole marriage idea as so many people in this forum have done.

Personally don't care if they are sanctioned as "married" or not as I still find the idea that gay marriage harms or denigrates my, or anyone else’s marriage in anyway shape or form, completely absurd.

Ahem, I am not demonizing the ACLU, it's not a 'personal interest', although liberty and the ACLU's attack on liberty and the rule of law should concern *any* Constitutional conservative. Their sorry record speaks for itself.

Your response goes downhill from there.

"To me, the ACLU is overly picky and can be quite annoying at times, but basically they do more good then harm."
You have no basis on which to make that laughable remark. Have you been threatened by too many nativity scenes? Wanted to have your sex business to escape local ordinances? Or maybe offended by the inability of homeless vagrants to live in libraries and offend librarians? It's kind of funny that any anti-social behavior is deemed part of the first amendment; but praying and running for office, they are all for Govt restriction and regulation of that. (sigh)

"I find this curious as the judges went out of their way NOT to decree a solution."

This is a laughable distortion of the court record!
If they wanted not to decree their values, they would have done what courts in most states and the lower court in that state did - say it is a legislative matter.

Which is what it properly should be.

"These are your imperial judges? Your robed elite?
Clearly you are not happy that they found a problem."

They didnt find a problem, they invented one.
There was no problem in law for 500 years in the definition of marriage. The 'problem' is a construct of legal theories that trump the rule of law with judicial-bench legislation.

This is no different than the Supreme Court ruling that said it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL to regulate the working hours of bakers.

" You obviously don't think there is a problem given your suggestion to "Keep things as they were."

frankly I dont see a problem with treating two different things as two different things. I think there is great harm that comes from devaluing the currency of what marriage means, as there is harm in devaluing traditional families and raising up 'non-traditional' families as their equivalent - they are not, and the failure to distinguish harms our children.

If it is a problem, nevertheless, it's the duty of the legislature to attend to such matters. The Massachusetts constitution is quite clear that matters

" But it looks like a majority of the judges found one in terms of how long term gay couples are treated in civil law and they handed it over to the legislature to fix probably figuring that it will respond with some type of compromise as you mentioned."

Again, you display ignorance of the actual ruling and its intended effects. They handed nothing over to the legislature, they usurped legislative authority and gave the legislature a 180 day 'reprieve' to go along with this. This is like a DA convicting a man on false evidence and then "kindly" telling the Judge to be lenient in sentencing!

Why are you hellbent on changing things anyway? Why are you more "ecstatic" to see marriage redefined but care not a whit when the Rule of Law and the separation of powers and democratic right is undermined? I find that set of priorities absurd.

The Ends do not Justify the Means, not in this court nor in other cases.