Re: Undermining Society's Morals

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Papa Jack) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pavil Natanovich) wrote in message
> > news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Papa Jack) wrote in message
> >> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 
> =======================================================================
> >> Papa Jack cited:
> >> On  November 28, 2003. the Washington Post included
> >> an article by Alan Charles Raul titled: "Undermining
> >> Society's Morals."  Go to:
>  
>     http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17611-2003Nov27.html
> ___________________________________________________________________
> 
> >>    "The promotion of gay marriage is not the most devastating
> >>     aspect of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's
> >>     recent decision. The more destructive impact of the deci-
> >>     sion for society is the court's insidious denial of morality
> >>     itself as a rational basis for legislation. This observation
> >>     is not hyperbole or a mere rhetorical characterization of
> >>     the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision.
> >>     The Massachusetts justices actually quoted two opinions
> >>     of the U.S. Supreme Court (the recent anti-anti-sodomy
> >>     ruling in Lawrence v. Texas and an older anti-antiabor-
> >>     tion ruling, Planned Parenthood v. Casey) to support
> >>     the proposition that the legislature may not "mandate [a]
> >>     moral code" for society at large. The courts, it would
> >>     seem, have read a fundamental political choice into the
> >>     Constitution that is not apparent from the face of the
> >>     document itself -- that is, that individual desires must
> >>     necessarily trump community interests whenever impor-
> >>     tant issues are at stake.
> 
> =======================================================================
> > Pavil Natanovich wrote:
> > Purple notes the same thing I have long noticed.  How often does
> > something have to be repeated before it assumes a truth of its own?
> > "The 'promotion' of gay marriage has 'devestating' consequences."  I
> > have heard numerous conservatives link homosexuality with pedophilia.
> > It is done unconsciously (as most conservative thinking is
> > unconcious).
> 
> =======================================================================
> Papa Jack replied:
> Actually, the author was really saying :
> 
>    "The promotion of gay marriage is NOT the most
>     devastating aspect ..."
> 
> Now if you really believe it's wrong of conservatives to
> express their opinions on such topics as gay marriage,
> you will have to explain why you don't support the
> 1st Amendment.

Feel free to express your opinion away.  What I would DEARLY love to
hear is some tiny shred of evidence supporting gay marriage's
"devestating aspects."  Use these words to your heart's content, but
know that they are empty without being filled with fact.

This is what I'm complaining about.  We get all this hot air about how
horrible gay marriage is, until there is so much air there is a
hurricane.  The only real damage I see was brougt about by all the
wind, and not a bit of it by actual gay marriage itself.


> =======================================================================
> > Pavil Natanovich wrote:
> > The second part of this paragraph implies individual rights should be
> > superceded by community interests.  This again is completely backwards
> > from what one might hope to expect.  When I think "conservative," I
> > tend to think of individual rights NOT being trampled by government
> > authority.  Why is it then so-called liberal organizations like the
> > ACLU are the ones most staunchly defending individual rights, while
> > right-wing zealots seek to tear them down?
 
> =======================================================================
> Papa Jack replied:
>  Again, allow me to quote Justice Black's dissent in
> Griswold v Connecticut   Go to:
> 
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=381&page=484#484

Don't bother.  Justice Black isn't the only judge on the bench with an
opinion.  And now thankfully his opinion is the minority view.  It is
a nice opinion, but wrong, according to the present court, and one not
likely to be overturned (we can all hope and pray).

> 
> IOW, it's not the job of the courts to decide such matters.
> It's the job of the federal and state legislatures.

It is the job of state and federal legislatures to protect the
individual liberties upon which this great nation was founded. 
Without them, we are lost, and have nothing left worth preserving.


> =======================================================================
> > Pavil Natanovich wrote: 
> > More importantly, society's values are protected with environmental
> > protections.  Should it be permissible for some capitalist to pollute
> > the environment with toxic wastes at the expense of the health of
> > those who live in surrounding areas?  I don't mean to infer all
> > capitalists are polluters, of course.  Most are not, and communists
> > have despoiled far more wilderness area than the worst capitalist
> > polluter could hope.
 
> =======================================================================
> Papa Jack replied:
> You really do need a remedial reading course, Pavil.
> The author is not talking about whether or not there
> should be environmental protections.  Rather, he is
> using them as examples of the way laws are impacted
> by morals.

So am I.


> =======================================================================
> > Pavil Natanovich wrote:
> > How is society advanced by the regimentation of society? 
> > I personally would not wish to live in a world where my
> > individual liberties were so infringed....
 
> =======================================================================
> Papa Jack replied:
> Whoa!  Where did you get that?  This article is not
> talking about what the morals should be or how to
> enforce them.  It is discussing WHO is charge with
> setting social policy "...by embodying their view of
> America's moral choices in law."  The answer is
> clearly the legislatures -- not the courts.

If the courts can do a better job of protecting individual liberty
than can the legislatures, more power to them.  If a bus is about to
run over some small child in the street, does it really make any
difference whether the child is rescued by a policeman or a fireman,
so long as she DOES get rescued?

I hear you arguing that it is not the fireman's job to rescue
defenseless children--this should be left up to the police.  I say I
don't care WHO does it, so long as the job gets done right.


> =======================================================================
> > Pavil Natanovich wrote:
> > Consider alcohol prohibition as a shining example of
> > government's moral legislation, and how well that
> > worked....
> 
> =======================================================================
> Papa Jack stated:
> Why?  That has nothing to do with what is being
> discussed in this thread.

Can't you read?  I just added it to the thread.  Alcohol.  Have a
drink, buddy!


> =======================================================================
> > Pavil Natanovich wrote:
> > ...Why don't these right-wing zealots ever learn from
> > their mistakes? 

> =======================================================================
> Papa Jack stated:
> If you're trying to bring prohibition into the discussion
> you need to show some relation to what we're
> considering.

Congress brought prohibition upon us, then later rescinced it. 
America would have been better off had an activist court overturned
the abomination before it could cement the power of the mafia, corrupt
our courts, police, and legislatures, erode civil liberties, and wreak
such other untold havoc.

 
> =======================================================================
> > Pavil Natanovich wrote:
> > ...Must be for the same reason they repeat the same
> > nonsensical phrases again and again, in the vacuous hope
> > that by so doing these will cement as  TRVTH.
>  
> > "Abortion is Irresponsible."
>  
> > "Pornography hurts women."
>  
> > "War is Peace."
>  
> > "Freedom is Slavery."
> 
> =======================================================================
> Papa Jack stated:
> If you're going to plagiarize George Orwell, you
> should note that he was predicting how the
> socialist would misuse the language.  You, know,
> like using "Choice" instead of "abortion."

"Defense of Marriage."

Damn that is funny!


> =======================================================================
> >> Papa Jack quoted:
> >>     "...community, no one contends that the government does
> >>     not have the legitimate power to promote the general
> >>     welfare as popularly defined (subject, of course, to
> >>     the specific constitutional rights of individuals and
> >>     due regard for the protection of discrete and insular
> >>     minorities bereft of meaningful political influence).
> 
> =======================================================================
> > Pavil Natanovich wrote:
> > On this we agree.  How discriminating against queers
> > promotes the welfare of society escapes me, however. 
> 
> =======================================================================
> Papa Jack replied:
> What are you talking about?  Where does this
> article justify discriminating against gays?  
> Do you know what "straw man" means? 
> 
>   Straw Man: The author attacks an argument 
>   which is different from, and usually weaker
>   than, the opposition's best argument.
> 
> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm
> 
> =======================================================================
> > Pavil Natanovich wrote:
> > How does trampling the rights of "sodomites" defend
> > marriage? 
> 
> =======================================================================
> Papa Jack replied:
> What "RIGHTS" are you talking about?  A gay man and
> I both have the same rights.  The difference is that 
> he is unhappy with his rights and wants the government 
> to expand his rights in ways that seem immoral to many
> citizens.

You have the right to marry any unmarried, consenting adult whom you
choose, do you not, Papa Jack?  I dont' see this right extended to
your homosexual neighbor.

> =======================================================================
> >> Papa Jack comments:
>  
> >>    "We must recognize that what the Massachusetts
> >>     court has done is not preserve liberty but
> >>     merely substitute its own moral code for that
> >>     of the people...."
>  
> >> This is a good summary of what we constantly observe
> >> the radical liberals trying to misuse the courts to
> >> accomplish in all facets of our society.  They would
> >> strip the nation of its traditional morals, substitu-
> >> ting the morals of the collective. 
> 
> =======================================================================
> > Pavil Natanovich wrote: 
> > Moral codes are personal, Papa Jack.  They do not
> > require the force of law.  Some moral codes have an
> > obvious social benefit.  "Thou shalt not commit murder." 
> 
> =======================================================================
> Papa Jack replied:
> Except it's okay to kill unborn children if their
> mothers decide they might not be convenient.

Granted that may not fit your moral code, but what can you do?  I know
some mormons who believe it is immoral to drink soda pop.  Suppose
they acquire a majority of the seats in congress.  Should they be able
to pass antisoda legislation?  Should such useless, idiotic laws be
enforced?  God forbid.  And God forbid your meddlesome busybodies win
any more senate seats, Papa Jack.

 
> =======================================================================
> > Pavil Natanovich wrote: 
> > On the other hand, how is society harmed by profanity? 
> > How is society harmed by taking the Lord's name in vain?
> > Is society so weak it cannot withstand trivial expressions
> > of individual liberty, odious as particular instances of these
> > may be to you and I?...
> [snip]
> 
> =======================================================================
> Papa Jack replied:
> WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING WHAT THE MORAL CODE SHOULD 
> BE.  We are discussing  WHO (i.e., the legislatures 
> or the courts) should be influenced by those moral 
> codes when enacting laws.

Well, I'm more interested in the end result than in the process.  I'm
focussed on the goal.  I can see why you would want to distract
attention from your goals, Papa Jack, seeing how unpopular they are.

I'm reminded of the Florida election.  There it was the goal that
counted, not the process.  So when the goal is the primary objective,
right wing zealots focus on that.  When instead the process more suits
their purpose, their attention changes with the wind.  You got to
admire such tenacity, I suppose.  Actually, it kind of makes me sick.

I know I said above I would support activist judges abolishing laws
that conflict with individual liberty.  That is my principle, Papa
Jack.  Individual liberty first.  It should succumb to the will of
society only out of most dire necessity.

For you, the goal appears to be whatever promotes your particular
moral ideology.  I'm happy for you that what is good for Papa Jack is
good for all the world.  Must give you immeasureable personal
satisfaction.


> The author is showing the Constitution gave that
> obligation and authority to the legislatures -- not 
> to the courts.  However, the Bill of Rights and the
> subsequent amendments have placed limits on how far 
> legislatures may go in exercising this authority.
> 
> Remember, if you don't like the decisions of your
> elected representatives (at both state and federal
> levels), you have a right to work to see they are
> replaced at the next election.  However, if you
> don't like the decisions of a federal judge, that's
> just "tough" because he or she is appointed for
> life.

Judges don't make law.  They interpret it, and where it conflicts with
higher law (the constitution) they overturn it.

I'm thankful that with but a few exceptions, judges tend to be smarter
and more competent than the bozos passing the bogus laws.