So, my last several posts haven’t been commented on, likely since there wasn’t anything particularly commentable about them. So, here’s my plea to leave a comment. Ask me a question, make analogies about far to the right I am, or invite yourself over for supper sometime. Hijack my journal entry for your own nefarious purposes. Let’s converse about nothing in particular, or everything all at once. Just say something, so I don’t feel like nobody likes me anymore :).
we need another Xbox party at some point…
that’s all I have to say.
We sure do… I’ll offer our house once we get it built, but we may want one before then.
Hmmm, how about after the first of the new year I host an xbox party. Till then Zoë I tied up pretty much every weekend.
Till then Zoë I tied up pretty much every weekend.
That’s a mental image I really didn’t need, Dave.
Ohh, XBox!
As for ideology, if you really wonder why people think the way they do, why don’t you start asking questions? Don’t wait for people to attack your beliefs or proactively teach you. :)
Despite our different religious beliefs and our being on different ends of the political spectrum, I’m still friends with you. I just happen to live in Boston, which is kind of annoying for seeing people. I’ll be in Worcester for an interview on Tuesday though and I hope to also be there next weekend for wedge gaming. If you’d like to invite Ryan and me over for dinner at some point while I’m in town, we’ll be happy to take you up on it.
Okay then,, why do you think the way that you do?
I think a lot of things, Pete. Are there any I’ve mentioned that rub you the wrong way that you’d like to see me try to justify?
Or are you merely dissatisfied with the difference rather than critical of my reasons? If the mere presence of difference dissatifies you, then I’m not sure we’ll be capable of discussing these matters rationally; however, if you’re willing to think about (purely in the hypothetical, mind you) a different, even godless, approach to life and society, something worthwhile might grow out of this conversation. :)
(PS: I like you a lot.)
Thank you. Well, I wanted to keep the floor fairly open. I also didn’t want to ask questions that you might not want to answer in a public forum, and I’m not always sure what exactly to ask, or whether the discussion would really be valuable. And, the main point of this post was just to say hi to people and let them say hello back.
But, since you insist, how about this… Answer any number of these questions. I won’t hold ignoring a question against you in any way; I just figured that I’d touch on a variety of topics.
From the professional perspective, I can say in all honesty that there isn’t anything in the Goodridge decision that isn’t backed by the most commonly accepted of modern legal principles.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution and guarantees all individuals “the equal protection of the law”. There are even more specific provisions within Massachusetts law that say a state agency can’t deny people the benefits of a government program or benefit solely because of their gender. This makes what the Department of Public Health was doing very much illegal.
As for the ethical violations, Justice Antonin Scalia is probably the most publically outspoken of any currently sitting judge on the Federal bench. I’ve seen recordings of him speaking at fundraisers and at celebrations and giving lectures to various groups. (He actually lectured at my school several years ago.) This is the norm for all Supreme Court justices. I don’t see the ethical violation in either case, but if one is making a violation, clearly the other should be disciplined and/or removed as well.
Scalia’s the one who enjoys orgies, right? ;-)
I have said nothing recently because I was dead all weekend, and I have had no interesting comments to make.
Right. And anybody, regardless of gender, can get married as long as they follow the law. The law says that you can’t get married to a 2-year old, you can’t get married to your sister, you can’t get married to your dog, and you can’t get married if you’re already married. Up until recently, you couldn’t get married to someone of the same gender. As long as you follow the law, regardless of who you are, you can get married. And to change the law, the people (or the people’s elected representatives) should be the ones changing it.
If somehow restrictions on who one can be married to are unconstitutional (which I disagree with, but I only judge Magic, not state law), there’s no reason to stop someone from marrying a dog, a sister, a child, a married person, a chair, or himself. And thus, marriage ends up losing its meaning, which I mentioned in a previous posting as being something I objected to.
I’m more objecting to the process here than the actual result, although I suppose the reason that I don’t like the process is because of the result.
Trust me on this, Pete. The process was solid. Dogs and 2-year olds can’t enter into contracts because they’re generally understood not to understand the consequences of their actions. And the State has the ability to regulate issues of public health, which has always been interpreted to include incest because of the serious birth defects that tend to result. Apart from those exceptions, (inability to enter into a contract for themselves and public health concerns, just to review), the general presumption is that adults are capable of making their own decisions. So unless somehow you can make the case that gays are either mentally incapable of contracting or pose a public health risk, you’re stuck with the question that courts have struggled with since Brown vs. Board of Education: Does this law treat one group of people differently than the other? If you don’t understand why the answer to that question is a resounding yes, you’ll never understand how the law of individual rights works.
Pete, you do realize that it’s OK to get just one or two comments, right? ;-) You don’t have to limit yourself to talking only about politics and religion (topics on which almost everyone has an opinion, and many people are likely to defend said opinion to their last breath). Of course you have every right to make inflammatory posts because it’s your own journal, but I’m not sure you’re going to enjoy some comments. ;-)
Yes, certainly. I was really looking more here toward connecting with my readers, and saying hello, although perhaps that intention wasn’t very clear. I accepted that there would likely be some political/religious discussion, but merely because that’s something me and my friends talk about.
So, the 3 dissenting justices just don’t have any idea what they’re talking about?
If it were a unanimous (or nearly so) decision, than I might be able to accept the argument that the legal process was cut-and-dry. But the dissenting opinions make more sense to me (as a random citizen) than the official opinion.
Think of it this way, Pete:
The majority religion in the state of MA is catholicism. Hardline catholicism regards the use of any form of contraception, including condoms, as immoral. If the predominantly catholic legislature passed a law illegalizing contraception in all forms, would you still believe that the legislature is the be all and end all of what the law should be? Or would you do exactly what the gay couples did in the Goodridge case and ask the courts for the protection you feel you deserve?
I ask because such a law existed in CT 39 years ago until the courts struck it down, so it’s not as far-fetched as you might think.