Patterico's Pontifications

11/10/2010

NYT: That Vote Firing Three Iowa Justices Is Terrible, But We Should Emulate Their System (And Other Scattered Items Regarding the Iowa Supreme Court Elections)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 10:06 am



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; send your tips here.]

I discussed this over a week ago but the fallout keeps, well, falling.  Last week three of Justices serving on Iowa’s Supreme Court were booted out of office, apparently over their decision declaring a constitutional right to gay marriage.  So, for starters, this editorial from the NYT called A Blow to the Courts on the Iowa Supreme Court retention election is mostly exactly what you would expect, saying for instance that

What made the Iowa outcome even more demoralizing is that this was a retention election — one that asks for a simple yes-or-no vote on whether to grant judges another term. These elections are supposed to spare sitting judges from competing in multicandidate contests, making the process as apolitical as possible. It didn’t work that way this year in Iowa, or in many other states.

Right.  One is tempted to say it is hypocritical to say it was political of the voters to vote them out of office, but it was not at all political to pull a brand new right out of their keisters.  But really are we surprised by this, either?

But the funny thing is that they then praise the outcome of a straight judicial election in Illinois, ending by saying

This year’s campaign is one more reminder of why the 39 states that hold judicial elections should scrap them in favor of merit screening and appointment of judges for a long fixed term.

In other words, they are happy with the Illinois result, and dismayed by the Iowa result, so…  states should be more like Iowa?  Huh?

And the commentary on the election gets even dumber over at Proposition 8 Trial Tracker, when Rob Tisinai denounces the organization that campaigned  against the Iowa judges (the National Organization for Marriage or NOM) as “[t]he people your (Founding) Fathers warned you about.”  He explains that sure, the founders would be shocked by rulings in favor of gay marriage

but only because they understood so little about gays, lesbians, and same-sex relationships. What would shock them, too, though, is NOM’s thoroughly unAmerican rhetoric and behavior toward Iowa’s judges.

He explains that if you read Federalist 78, you will learn several principles that allegedly contradict what NOM believes in.  Which is their first and most serious mistake: mixing up their founders.  The Iowa constitution was not founded by Madison and company although we can reasonably presume a strong influence over the Iowa founders.  But putting that idiocy aside for the moment, how exactly is their conduct un-American?  For starters Tisinai says NOM’s behavior violates the principle that “[j]udges have a duty to declare laws invalid if they violate the Constitution.”

Which is wholly correct, but given his admission that the founders would be appalled by that gay marriage ruling (forgetting for the moment that he has blended together the founders of the Iowa and Federal Constitutions), how can he say that the constitution they wrote requires gay marriage?  Oh, right it is the theory of living constitutionalism that declares that the Constitution changes its meaning all on its own.   So today the Federal Constitution might say:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But since it is alive and changes without amendment, tomorrow it might be read to say this:

Congress may make laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I mean why should our courts be held back by the outdated notions of the founding fathers?  They could revise other amendments as appropriate.  For instance, the thirteenth could then be interpreted to say:

Slavery and involuntary servitude, including as a punishment for crime, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

I mean if the constitution is a magic living document that can change itself all on its own, what is to stop the courts from rewriting all of it?  Right?

Of course I am being facetious, but hopefully you start to see how dangerous this doctrine is.  Indeed, that is what I wish John McCain had said to Whoopi Goldberg when she argued that we can’t follow the constitution as the founders intended because it had slavery in it.  No Whoopie, the only danger of the reappearance of slavery comes from unfaithfulness to the constitution, not from adherence to it.  You forget that the founders of the constitution are not confined to the 18th century and the constitution has changed by amendment over twenty times.  If the Thirteenth Amendment is followed as written and intended by its founders, there is little danger of slavery being reestablished.

In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court said that the very fact the constitution purports to limit the power of the legislature implies that any statute in contradiction with the constitution is void as follows:

If, then, … the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions — a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction.

But if the constitutional limitations upon the Congress implies that any law that violates the constitution is void, then what does it imply when the constitution puts limits on the powers of the judiciary, too?  Doesn’t it imply that if the judiciary exceeds those power, that this act is void, as well.  Or would we read the Federal and Iowa Constitution as “giving to the [Judiciary] a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits”?

I mean just the other day I watched the movie Frost/Nixon (which was a pretty good movie, by the way) where Nixon declares “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”  (He said this in real life, too.)  Most people watching Nixon speak those words instinctively recognized that attitude is un-American.  But there are people who readily say “when the Supreme Court does it, that means it is not illegal.”

The second point Mr. Tisinai makes is to say that courts have a duty to protect minority rights.  Now that is true as far as it goes.  The more accurate way to put it is that the courts protect equally both those in the majority as well as those in the minority, but in a democracy, it is generally the minorities who need constitutional protection.  Too often liberals take this to mean that if a group can claim it is a minority, that it should get whatever it wants in the courts.  That is not how the constitution is written.

And Mr. Tisinai’s third point is to say that “[j]udges (especially at the highest levels) should not be subject to a vote by the people[.]”  This is where the confusion among the founders gets the most acute.  Obviously the federal founders believed exactly that, and designed a system based on that principle.  But the founders of Iowa’s constitutional provisions on judicial selection and retention obviously disagreed.  Really, as I have said several times, wasn’t that kind of retention election exactly what the founders of their constitution envisioned?  If these retention elections are meant to be a check on the power of the judiciary, then on November 2, the people of Iowa performed that function.  You can criticize them on the merits of whether this judge or that judge deserved to keep his or her job, but it seems more than a little silly to pretend that it is disrespecting the Constitution of Iowa do something it specifically and consciously provides for.

Or is this a case of the Constitution of Iowa being alive and changing meaning on its own?  It’s gotten fashionable to accuse conservatives of having an almost religious devotion to the constitution, although there is more than a little truth to that charge.  But what could be more religious than declaring that an inanimate object is alive and has a will of its own?  That a document’s words are alive and magically change on their own?

In other, less silly news, Pajamas Media has a nice backgrounder on how this victory was achieved in Iowa.  And while I find the commentary at Prop 8 Tracker to be a little silly, they are an excellent resource for materials about the various gay rights trials.  So, from this entry, for instance, I was able to get copies of the reply briefs filed by proponents of Prop 8 and Imperial County in the upcoming trial.  I have only read the proponents’ brief, but I see a resemblance to something I wrote a bit back…  So were they ripping me off?  Nah, probably more likely they just saw the same flaws in their opponents’ arguments that I did.

Update: Minor corrections.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

176 Responses to “NYT: That Vote Firing Three Iowa Justices Is Terrible, But We Should Emulate Their System (And Other Scattered Items Regarding the Iowa Supreme Court Elections)”

  1. “But what could be more religious than declaring that an inanimate object is alive and has a will of its own?”

    A.W. – This Creationist view of the Constitution is tough to reconcile with other views held by typical liberals.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  2. Actually, I think they are advocating removing judges from the election process entirely.

    Kevin M (73dcc9)

  3. And wouldn’t it be interesting if the Federal Courts had retention elections?

    The original idea was that CONGRESS would remove judges who exceeded their authority but it was decided early on (after Jefferson’s attempts to impeach for policy) that impeachment would only happen for actual crimes. So we have no check or balance other than the appointment process. Maybe we should revisit this.

    Kevin M (73dcc9)

  4. kevin #2

    now you say it, maybe you are right. maybe i am too attached to the term “merit.”

    And sheesh, what an awful system that would be, if that is what they want.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  5. So there is supposed to be a “yes or no” vote in which voters are not allowed to vote “no?” I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to see the NYT subscribing to the Saddam Hussein method of conducting votes.

    the wolf (54094c)

  6. Boy, I would loooooove to vote on retention of the Supremes.

    Gesundheit (cfa313)

  7. Unfortunately, Aaron is happy to allow an expansive view of “freedom of speech” such that it applies to corporations/unions donating money to political campaigns, although he would be hard-pressed to find ANY founding father who had that interpretation in mind.

    In other words, he mocks the concept of a “living Constitution” except when a broad reading of the Constitution suits his conservative views. Pretty lame.

    The truth is that the Constitution is a framework for a system of laws. It’s a broad blueprint, speaking in generic terms and concepts.

    It’s not, as some conservatives seem to think, the American equivalent of the Ten Commandments in its level of specificity.

    So the Constitution doesn’t change on its own. What it applies to, however, does change, as technology and society progress. This is why there is a Second Amendment protection for “arms” that didn’t even exist when the Framers were around. Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?

    Kman (d25c82)

  8. California threw out three of Jerry Brown’s appointed justices back when California voters had a little more sense. That was because they were automatically voiding every death penalty.

    Iowa, by the way, was the home of the Know Nothing Party so it was not a bastion of tolerance for gays.

    Mike K (568408)

  9. “Unfortunately, Aaron is happy to allow an expansive view of “freedom of speech” such that it applies to corporations/unions donating money to political campaigns”

    Kman – Are you advocating prohibiting union contributions to the political process?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  10. Gesundheit,

    I have long disagreed with that, and yet as I scratch my head trying to remember why I have a hard time.

    They continue to answer political questions based on politics. What a sigh of relief I had when O’Connor was out (I’ve always thought she was a dreadfully unwise justice anyway).

    I think an infrequent process of ousting jurists would improve our system, if we are this unable to have a court with 9 Clarence Thomases, waiting for bona fide amendments before they change precedents.

    I’d be happy if 3/4ths of the state legislatures could vote to remove any federal judge for any reason. I also think the Senate should be decided by the states. These won’t solve every single problem under the sun, but we simply need to bring government closer to the people instead of insulating it as much as possible.

    While this kind of talk is anathema to liberals, we need major reforms because their way is obviously broken.

    If you pose as hypothetical the past 100 landmark Supreme Court questions to the people who ratified or wrote our constitution and the first 16 amendments, they would get almost every single one of those hypos wrong. Our constitutional ratifiers would flunk any Con Law course offered today, even if the test was limited to the amendments of their era.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  11. In other words, he mocks the concept of a “living Constitution” except when a broad reading of the Constitution suits his conservative views. Pretty lame.

    hahahaha!

    This is ridiculous. There’s nothing expansive about letting a corporation’s leaders speak.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  12. Kman

    First, did you finally read the case before expressing an opinion, this time? Because in the last thread you didn’t.

    Certainly you didn’t read what I had to say about corporate expression, because you have completely misrepresented my position.

    For one thing, would you care to cite something in the constitution that grants to congress the POWER to restrict corporate expression in regard to elections?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  13. Kman is advocating an expansive view of government powers to do what he likes, and a restrictive view of speech he doesn’t like.

    The New York Times, or the editorial board of nearly any major newspaper, for that matter, is a joke when it comes to serious constitutional analysis. They just start from the conclusions they want to reach. After all, it’s opinion, right? Who needs facts?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (8c3bc2)

  14. Dustin

    > This is ridiculous. There’s nothing expansive about letting a corporation’s leaders speak.

    Shorter Kman: your unwillingness to endorse the creation a power in the hands of congress that i want you to proves you to be an activist.

    Aaron Worthing (b1db52)

  15. Daleyrocks:

    Kman – Are you advocating prohibiting union contributions to the political process?

    Yes. Not just unions, but…. yes.

    Dustin:

    This is ridiculous. There’s nothing expansive about letting a corporation’s leaders speak.

    That’s not what I’m talking about, and if you don’t understand that, then this conversation is beyond your capabilities. But someone, I think you understand that.

    AW:

    …would you care to cite something in the constitution that grants to congress the POWER to restrict corporate expression in regard to elections?

    Article One, Section 4 — for a start.

    Kman (d25c82)

  16. That’s not what I’m talking about, and if you don’t understand that, then this conversation is beyond your capabilities. But someone, I think you understand that.

    I am actually well versed on con law.

    Your argument flips positive with negative rights.

    No wait… your argument has evolved to ‘if you don’t agree, you just don’t understand, because you are so stupid.’

    Coming from someone who confused a state constitution with the US constitution, I am not going faint in despair that you think I’m ignorant.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  17. Fine, Dustin. I guess I will have to explain it to you.

    There is a difference between a “corporation’s leader speaking” — literally speaking — and a corporation anonymously donating money to a political campaign.

    Get it?

    Kman (d25c82)

  18. Too bad the Supreme Court did not agree with you. Kman would extend freedom of political speech only to approved parties.

    JÐ (b98cae)

  19. Kman, are you familiar with freedom of association and speech? A central reason is so people can assemble and support their political views.

    You’re pretending this hasn’t always been the case in order to grant the government a power it simply doesn’t have that is obviously contrary to the US Constitution. Now, I’ve read the same hysterical propaganda pretending this reversed 950 million years of precedent.

    So I considered and rejected your parroted explanation you don’t even appear to understand (based on your ignoring my relevant debunking of it that you probably don’t even relate to your argument).

    You are the sort to spout off before you read something, based on your preconceptions. You may think you’re explaining something to us, but that’s all in your head.

    Get it?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  20. Kman – What if the donations are not anonymous?

    I think your knowledge is messed up here. I believe corporations are prohibited from contributing directly to individual campaigns, so your concerns are unfounded. Correct me if I’m wrong. Unions and liberal groups can access the same anonymity devices as corporations. You seem annoyed merely because the playing field got leveled and for nothing else.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  21. Liberals outspent conservatives in last week’s election even with the influx of evil corporate money, much of which incidentally went for Democrats, yet the whining continues.

    David Freddoso had a piece yesterday outlining which Big, Evil Industries funded which party which should take some wind out of Kman’s sails.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  22. Kman, are you familiar with freedom of association and speech? A central reason is so people can assemble and support their political views.

    I’m aware of the argument; I’m just saying that Exxon or AFL-CIO donating untold millions to campaigns by creating ads and buying air time for political candidates is not what the framers had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.

    Your argument only works if the people who comprise Exxon (the shareholders) or the AFL-CIO (the union members) all agree on the political view being espoused.

    And we both know they don’t.

    Kman (d25c82)

  23. kman

    My God, I can’t believe you understand so little about the constitution.

    First, here’s an important basic fact that you should have been smart enough to know. When Madison introduced the bill of rights, he explained that NONE OF THEM were strictly necessary. He believed that the constitution as written already restrained the Federal Government from doing those things.

    So the Bill of Rights informs our interpretation of the original constitution. If you are interpreting the original constitution to allow the Federal Government to do what the Bill of Rights specifically prohibits, then you are interpreting it incorrectly.

    So according to you art 1, section 4 says that congress can restrict freedom of expression of a corporation regard to an election? But nothing in that section limits that power to corporations, so by that logic, congress could restrict freedom of expression by ordinary people. So necessarily under your interpretation of that section, without a first amendment I could be restrained from saying “Vote republican on November 2!”

    But the first amendment forbids that. I mean even if you hallucinate the word “person” into the guarantees of freedom of expression, the first amendment forbids that. And as I said, Madison was telling us that the first amendment wasn’t necessary—that the original constitution, if correctly interpreted, would never violate the first amendment’s rules even if it was not there.

    So that means that as Madison understood it, Article 1, Section 4 DID NOT grant to congress the power to regulate expression at all. In fact the phrase “manner of elections” was about elements other than expression. Duh.

    And your greatest sin is to ignore what Madison said on why he was so reluctant to give us a bill of rights. He said that he was afraid that if he affirmatively protected some rights, that future courts would apply the principle of expressio unius to them. which is exactly what you just did, based on an interpretation of the first amendment that isn’t even supported by its words. There is not one single word in the first amendment indicating that freedom of expression is limited to real human beings only, who are not operating as the agents for a corporation. So you implied a limitation to the right that wasn’t there, and then used that implication to imply a federal power that wasn’t there.

    Just because I do not interpret the original constitution in line with your warped views doesn’t mean I don’t take the issue seriously, or apply a rigorous approach to it.

    Fail.

    Aaron Worthing (b1db52)

  24. ….which should take some wind out of Kman’s sails.

    Sorry to disappoint you daleyrocks, but Citizen United isn’t a partisan issue for me.

    Kman (d25c82)

  25. Btw, Kman, was NYT v. Sullivan correctly decided? How about the Hustler/Fallwell case? Care to answer?

    Aaron Worthing (b1db52)

  26. Kman

    > but Citizen United isn’t a partisan issue for me.

    bwahahahahhaahaha.

    Aaron Worthing (b1db52)

  27. “Sorry to disappoint you daleyrocks, but Citizen United isn’t a partisan issue for me.”

    I WORK HERE IS DONE!!!!!

    daleyrocks (940075)

  28. Kman thinks prior restraint rocks !!!!!!!!!!!!

    JD (5117ab)

  29. If you are interpreting the original constitution to allow the Federal Government to do what the Bill of Rights specifically prohibits, then you are interpreting it incorrectly.

    That would make sense if the Bill of Rights specifically prohibited what we’re talking about. It doesn’t. You have to make the leap that “freedom of speech” inures to the benefit of corporations which, strictly speaking, are legal fictions. You have to buy into the myth that our natural God-given rights include the possibility that GOD wanted corporations and unions to be able to create and broadcast political commercials.

    And your greatest sin is to ignore what Madison said on why he was so reluctant to give us a bill of rights.

    And yet, we have a Bill Of Rights. Which makes your greatest sin to be behaving like Madison is the only founding father to be considered, even though he lost out on this particular issue to Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, James Monroe, etc.

    Kman (d25c82)

  30. AW:

    Btw, Kman, was NYT v. Sullivan correctly decided? How about the Hustler/Fallwell case? Care to answer?

    What does freedom of the press have to do with this?

    Kman (d25c82)

  31. In other words, no, Kman doesn’t want to answer those questions.

    And why is he talking about “freedom of the press”? That’s obnoxious or just ignorant when we’re talking about freedom of speech and freedom of association.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  32. Protecting political speech was not what the Founders had in mind, right, kmart?

    JD (5117ab)

  33. And why is he talking about “freedom of the press”? That’s obnoxious or just ignorant when we’re talking about freedom of speech and freedom of association

    Because AW brought up NYT v. Sullivan and Hustler/Fallwel… so gripe to him.

    Kman (d25c82)

  34. kman

    > What does freedom of the press have to do with this?

    answer the damn question and i will tell you.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  35. That would make sense if the Bill of Rights specifically prohibited what we’re talking about. It doesn’t.

    No, this is an odd misunderstanding of Aaron’s main point. You are flipping the nature of government power from negative to positive rights, and probably also just plain not bothering to read what you’re responding to.

    ou have to buy into the myth that our natural God-given rights include the possibility that GOD wanted corporations and unions to be able to create and broadcast political commercials.

    Where in the hell in the US Constitution do you come up with this incredibly stupid argument?

    You have to make the leap that “freedom of speech” inures to the benefit of corporations which, strictly speaking, are legal fictions

    We get it… you’re trying to parrot something you read. I assure you that corporations are assemblies of people, just like the Constitution ACTUALLY talks about.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  36. Protecting political speech was not what the Founders had in mind, right, kmart?

    Sure it was, but protecting WHOSE political speech, JD? The political speech of American citizens…. or the political speech of WeCorp, a subdivision of GloboChem, Intl.?

    Kman (d25c82)

  37. answer the damn question and i will tell you.

    Yes, AW. I believe they were rightly decided.

    Kman (d25c82)

  38. Because AW brought up NYT v. Sullivan and Hustler/Fallwel… so gripe to him.

    Comment by Kman

    No, just answer his questions. I realize it is a little harder to rip off some Daily KOS complaint you don’t understand when they didn’t write one about those cases, though.

    Try the Chemerinski hornbook for your propaganda lines. I think you’ve been backed into a corner, though, if you actually attempt to explain those decisions. But that’s not a problem since you won’t actually bother.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  39. You are flipping the nature of government power from negative to positive rights, and probably also just plain not bothering to read what you’re responding to.

    I was responding to a question which asks what part of the Constitution gave Congress powers regulating the manner of elections.

    I assure you that corporations are assemblies of people, just like the Constitution ACTUALLY talks about.

    They are not the “assemblies” envisioned by the framers. “Assemblies” meant physical meetings of like-minded people — not ownership of stock certificates.

    Kman (d25c82)

  40. Sure it was, but protecting WHOSE political speech, JD?

    You still get it backwards. The government has no authority to restrict political speech. They don’t have to worry about whose speech.

    The solution to speech you don’t like is more speech. There’s no alternative such as worrying if the people saying it assembled into a corporation or a union. I realize you would pervert this completely. You actually think the first amendment grants the federal government control over freedom of speech, when as Aaron has explained very clearly, it simply helps highlight that the federal government is barred from this activity.

    It would be even if there was no bill of rights, since this power is not granted anywhere in the constitution. That’s how it works, whether your partisan axe grinding likes it or not. The only possible recourse you have is to completely ignore the law.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  41. I realize it is a little harder to rip off some Daily KOS complaint you don’t understand when they didn’t write one about those cases, though. Try the Chemerinski hornbook for your propaganda lines.

    You’re speaking gibberish.

    I got the part about Daily Kos. That’s a left-leaning website. I don’t know what you mean by a complaint. They filed a lawsuit related to this?

    Maybe before you waste your time (and mine) guessing what/who I read, you should just, you know… not. Because you’re not making sense.

    Kman (d25c82)

  42. Kman

    > Yes, AW. I believe they were rightly decided.

    Then why do you believe that freedom of press applies to corporations but not freedom of speech?

    After all, it was the corporation the NYT company on the docket in NYT v. Sullivan, and Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell.

    And in response to earlier comments.

    > That would make sense if the Bill of Rights specifically prohibited what we’re talking about.

    No. I only have to show that your interpretation of Art 1, Section 4 would allow for ANYTHING the bill of rights prohibits, in order to falsify your interpretation. Then you have to proffer a different interpretation.

    > You have to buy into the myth that our natural God-given rights include the possibility that GOD wanted corporations and unions to be able to create and broadcast political commercials.

    No, first, we are not talking about strictly God-given anything, but what man created in the constitution and bill of rights.

    God given rights come in when judging the legitimacy of that creation.

    Second, under the constitution (and again, this is really basic sh-t you should know), the question is first what grants the government the power to do this thing. Now are you really going to tell me that the constitution granted congress the power to control technology that didn’t even exist back then?

    Aaron Worthing (b1db52)

  43. It’s pretty funny how rude and angry Kman is over something as benign as free speech.

    People who hate civil rights just seem to gravitate to the left. KKK, Free speech haters like Kman, racists like W, gun grabbers. It makes perfect sense and we should all be aware that the law means nothing to these people.

    Kman isn’t the only guy who will spout off without even caring to read what he’s spouting off about. And why should Kman read a ruling or law? It makes no difference to a hardened partisan democrat anyway.

    As Bradley notes, it’s opinion, so who cares about facts?

    Of all the things to be hysterical and rude about, someone being able to speak shouldn’t be on the list if you are a well adjusted human being.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  44. So, political speech is okay, for approved groups of people. How quaint.

    JD (5117ab)

  45. ““Assemblies” meant physical meetings of like-minded people — not ownership of stock certificates.”

    Shareholders?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  46. this is really basic sh-t you should know), the question is first what grants the government the power

    +1

    This should be stamped on the forehead of every school teacher.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  47. ““Assemblies” meant physical meetings of like-minded people”

    My town meeting is seldom composed of like-minded people.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  48. Nawtural god given Rights in kmart’s world would not extend to actual life.

    JD (5117ab)

  49. Assemblies” meant physical meetings of like-minded people — not ownership of stock certificates

    This is simply a lie.

    People investing together in a company is an obvious assembly of people. Just as the NAACP is, even if you aren’t physically there. What an obnoxious and contrived attempt to grant sweeping federal powers to regulate and infringe assemblies that aren’t physical.

    According to Kman’s ad hoc and ridiculous idea, the government could deny people the right to register on online petitions or join Moveon.org. Those are not physical assemblies!

    He moves so quickly to completely horrible interpretations that are obviously completely ridiculous, and he does so in an ad hoc effort to deny obvious and basic freedoms that shouldn’t actually bother anyone but political strategists who hate a level playing field.

    That’s some hard core partisanship.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  50. Then why do you believe that freedom of press applies to corporations but not freedom of speech?

    I don’t. In my view, corporations don’t enjoy freedom of the press (unless, of course, they are corporations who carry on the business of media or publishing — i.e., press organizations).

    Do you think when the framers sought to guarantee “freedom of the press”, they were thinking about the East India Tea Company? I don’t.

    So I ask again, why are you conflating the two?

    Kman (d25c82)

  51. Kman

    While you are mulling over the b-tch slapping we all just gave you, contemplate something else.

    Your initial claim was that i was being hypocritical. but if my approach is even arguable, in that i reasonably believe in it without torturing the language too much, then the worst you could say was i was incorrect about freedom of expression, but not hypocritical.

    Aaron Worthing (b1db52)

  52. According to Kman’s ad hoc and ridiculous idea, the government could deny people the right to register on online petitions or join Moveon.org. Those are not physical assemblies!

    No, Dustin — that’s what people like AW are arguing! He’s saying that you have to be go by what the framers intended, and the framers intended freedom to assemble to mean “physical assemblies”.

    So if you go by the framer’s understanding of “assembly” that wouldn’t entail online petitions.

    So you should be thankful that the Constitution is a “living Constitution”.

    Kman (d25c82)

  53. Kman

    > I don’t. In my view, corporations don’t enjoy freedom of the press (unless, of course, they are corporations who carry on the business of media or publishing — i.e., press organizations).

    So you go with Stevens’ approach in Citizen’s united: that freedom of the press is limited to the institutional press?

    Except Thomas Paine was not any part of the institutional press. so you don’t think it applies to him.

    And you say it doesn’t apply to the east india tea company. How about LG? I guess not them right?

    Oh, but it does apply to GE, since they own NBC, right? So GE can put out its corporate messages through NBC, but its competitor LG cannot?

    its amazing how you think my refusal to insert a bunch of limiting words into the first amendment proves i am not serious about following it as written.

    And you never successfully identified any clause of the constitution that, correctly interpreted, gives congress the power to regulate corporate expression, let alone the use of technologies that didn’t even exist back then.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  54. Kman

    > So if you go by the framer’s understanding of “assembly” that wouldn’t entail online petitions.

    So now you think that an online petition is not a petition, either?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  55. So you go with Stevens’ approach in Citizen’s united: that freedom of the press is limited to the institutional press?

    Press and publishers, yes

    Oh, but it does apply to GE, since they own NBC, right? So GE can put out its corporate messages through NBC, but its competitor LG cannot?

    Well, are you talking about political speech? Or have you ventured off into some other area (“corporate messages”)?

    And you never successfully identified any clause of the constitution that, correctly interpreted, gives congress the power to regulate corporate expression, let alone the use of technologies that didn’t even exist back then.

    Well, I suspected you wouldn’t agree with me and wouldn’t interpret the Constitution “correctly”.

    But that aside, the above paragraph you wrote goes back to the point I originally made: if you are going to limit constitutional interpretation to the technologies that existed at the time of its writing, then the Second Amendment only applies to knifes and flintlocks, and very little modern “arms”. You sure you want to head down that road?

    Kman (d25c82)

  56. So now you think that an online petition is not a petition, either?

    No, I think it is. But how could you, if we can only interpret the Constitution by what the Framers intended at the time?

    Kman (d25c82)

  57. Got to run, but here’s my point:

    Don’t stand there are and say stupid stuff along the lines of “The framers never envisioned gay marriage, so how can the Constitution be applied to gay marriage???”

    Because there’s a whole sh*tload of stuff that the framers didn’t envision that the Constitution (arguably) applies to, some of which have been raised here: online petitions, modern weaponry, new mediums of “expression”, etc.

    That’s why it’s called a “living document”, and that’s why courts apply it to modern technologies and concepts.

    Kman (d25c82)

  58. Kman

    > Press and publishers, yes

    So the founders didn’t intend to protect any future Thomas Paines? Mmmm… right.

    > Well, are you talking about political speech? Or have you ventured off into some other area (“corporate messages”)?

    Corporate press, corporate speech, whatever you want to talk about. You want to grant to a car company that happens to own a newspaper rights that a car company that doesn’t have. I say that is insane, and not warranted by the language of the constitution itself. You keep wanting to insert words into the constitution that are not there. if they meant to limit the right of freedom of the press to the institutional press, for instance, why didn’t they say that? If they meant to say congress could limit the freedom of expression of people who are working as agents of a corporation, WHY DIDN’T THEY SAY THAT?

    > Well, I suspected you wouldn’t agree with me and wouldn’t interpret the Constitution “correctly”.

    But you haven’t established any hypocrisy.

    > But that aside, the above paragraph you wrote goes back to the point I originally made: if you are going to limit constitutional interpretation to the technologies that existed at the time of its writing, then the Second Amendment only applies to knifes and flintlocks, and very little modern “arms”. You sure you want to head down that road?

    No, first, it applies to “arms.” If they meant to limit the second amendment to knives and flintlocks, they could have said that.

    Second, you keep getting it backwards. Where is the federal POWER to deprive a man of his weapons? You keep assuming that all powers not denied are granted. That is 180 degrees wrong.

    > . But how could you, if we can only interpret the Constitution by what the Framers intended at the time?

    Easy. Because its a petition. You even admit as much when you continually call it an online petition.

    And once again, where do you propose to find the power to stop online petitions?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  59. Kman

    > That’s why it’s called a “living document”, and that’s why courts apply it to modern technologies and concepts.

    Notice the move you are making, equating a change in technology to a change in attitudes. We didn’t have televisions in 1789. But we did have gay people. And if a change in attitude can literally change the meaning of words, then every right is endangered.

    For instance, the founders did intend to protect black people against discrimination. but according to you, the meaning of the constitution can change because how we feel on a subject changes. so i guess then tomorrow the SC could say, “come to think of it, Brown was wrong and Plessy was right.”

    and that still ignores the problem in that you keep assuming that whatever federal power not denied is granted.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  60. that whatever federal power not denied is granted.

    He must assume this or his entire argument fails instantly. I don’t have to fear that the government will ban the telepathic communication wristwatch of the year 3142 or the consortium of artificially intelligent robots making political arguments.

    The government doesn’t have the power to regulate speech anyway. If that somehow leads to a problem, you need to amend the constitution.

    Kman should demand an amendment reflecting whatever his actual motivation is (I guess it would be that only liberals have free speech once you eliminate all the ad hoc crap and static).

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  61. Rather, I shouldn’t have to fear. I am not under any illusions that the justices like Thomas will become the norm.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  62. Let me tell you a little about that observer;

    http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/05/chip-thoma-this-is-not-about-palin-but.html

    justin cord (82637e)

  63. In Pennsylvania, we elect our judges in contested elections — from the district courts (local magistrates) to the state Supreme Court.
    The district court terms are 6 years and are always contested elections. Common Pleas and the state appeals courts are contested elections only if there is not an incumbent; then, they are retention elections… yes or no. The system actually works fairly well. We’ve had some State Supreme Court judges rejected in retention elections.
    The system does provide a check on out-of-control jurists.
    What we need in the federal court system is term limits. Reappointment is always possible, but there needs to be a check on the judiciary.

    either orr (ddac4e)

  64. pretty good hijacking, kman

    Kevin M (73dcc9)

  65. The anti gay movement is obviously a position of the religious right. This is not surprising since many conservative evangelicals are notoriously self righteous that their religion is the only true path. This is biggoted in and of itself – to prejudge secularists, and all religions outside of Christianity as inferior or false. These are the same people who insist America is a “Christian nation” … which is like saying, America is a “white nation.” That is bigotted. True in terms of majorities, but not in terms of principles. Hence, the biggotry against judges who have a broader view of society.

    W (9df40f)

  66. Now, that is funny:

    “…notoriously self righteous that their religion is the only true path…”

    And the best part? He doesn’t even see it.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  67. The anti gay movement is obviously a position of the religious right.

    Obama believes marriage should never be between two people of the same sex.

    And W misses the point. A lot of people bashing these judges support gay marriage. They don’t support political questions (which this absolutely constitutes) should be decided by judges.

    W’s the one insinuating only hist path is the true one, actually. Those asking for this to be settled by elections are doing the exact opposite of what W is claiming they are doing.

    W pretends judges are somehow broader and better. Sorry… we don’t want philosopher kings.

    And it’s not bigoted (good lord Professor, can you at least misspell consistently?) for a Christian to believe his religion is correct and others are wrong. Demanding Christians not think this way is absurd.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  68. 1) Doesn’t matter what the president or what one person thinks, the anti-gay movement is primarily religious conservatives. Fact.
    2) I know many Christians who think their religion is not the only path or correct religion. It is bigoted to believe you are right and everyone different is wrong in matters as nebulous and unprovable as faith in the supernatural.
    3) Since you say that I insinuate “my path” is the only correct. Please tell, what IS my path?

    W (9df40f)

  69. I think we are going to see more and more of this sort of backlash against the courts. This is a Republic with a government of the people by the people and for the people. However the courts have taken to subjugating the will of the people to the judges INTERPRETATION of the constitution. The constitution has always placed the power in the hands of the people, not the judges. Most so called controversial rights are not even mentioned in the US Constitution, but were manufactured by liberal judges. The American people are tired of it.

    Emil (dec947)

  70. W, it’s simply irrational for a Christian to not prefer Christianity.

    I’m not surprised you pretend it doesn’t matter what Obama or Clinton’s position is on this. You probably think they are lying, anyway.

    W, your intolerance has been obvious. You’re projecting and now you want to play a game because you need some attention. It’s pathetic. You’re ignoring the actual arguments in order to insult groups of people you don’t like. You are throwing out the ‘bigot’ comment because you’re insecure about your own prejudice, bigot.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  71. Dustin – William Yelverton hates Christiani. He is a bigot. And a racist. And a plagiarizer. Note how he ignores Barcky’s opposition to same sex marriage and just continues with his little rant.

    JD (5117ab)

  72. Aaron,
    After all, it was the corporation the NYT company on the docket in NYT v. Sullivan, and Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell.
    That’s an excellent point I’ll remember whenever I hear some lefty whining about corporate rights.

    Second, you keep getting it backwards. Where is the federal POWER to deprive a man of his weapons? You keep assuming that all powers not denied are granted. That is 180 degrees wrong.
    Do I discern a whiff of the libertarian here? 😉

    Nicely done.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (465e08)

  73. Prefer, is different than believing other beliefs are inferior.

    Yes, for the people by the people.

    Since 66% of Americans believe “the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years”- is definitely or probably true, I think we need to change the textbook.

    For the people by the people. Right?

    W (9df40f)

  74. Prefer, is different than believing other beliefs are inferior.

    Yes, for the people by the people.

    Since 66% of Americans believe “the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years”- is definitely or probably true, I think we need to change the textbook.

    For the people by the people. Right?

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx

    W (9df40f)

  75. Yelverton is a hater. And a plagiarist. And a bigot. And a gender bender. Pam ?

    JD (5117ab)

  76. I happen to know JD is a Muslim terrorist. Instead of saying “good God”… he says “good Allah.” Also, he is married to a mai order Asian, a Communist

    He bears watching.

    FBI (9df40f)

  77. Fuck you. Say that to my face.

    JD (5117ab)

  78. Damn filter. F@ck you, coward. Say that to my face.

    JD (5117ab)

  79. You can really make your argument more compelling if you post it at least twice.

    Dmac (498ece)

  80. The best solution for the Supreme Court is to have justices appointed to single 18-year terms without possibility of reappointment, one expiring every 2 years. Thus each Presidential term gets two appointments and no one is there forever. Obviously there are transition issues, and questions of what to do if someone dies, who serves as Chief, etc., but these could be readily handled. I believe the state AG’s have proposed an Amendment to this effect.

    Mahon (920cf1)

  81. I fail to understand what value this particular commenter brings to this blog.

    Dmac (498ece)

  82. Dmac – were you referring to me, or William Yelverton, the Professor of Plagiarism from MTSU?

    JD (5117ab)

  83. Having the same position as Barcky is racist and bigoted.

    JD (5117ab)

  84. Prefer, is different than believing other beliefs are inferior.

    This is irrational. If you prefer one set of beliefs, that’s the same as saying others are inferior.

    Hopefully you’re just conflating intolerance with preference to be obnoxious. If you’re referring to Christians who say others are free to have other faiths, that’s not relevant. They favor one faith over others.

    BTW, please continue ignoring the fact that the democrat party always nominates someone who is opposed to gay marriage. If you want tolerance of gay marriage, you can look to Dick Cheney, Laura Bush, etc. Obama’s not your man.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  85. The same idiots who disingenously pushed the anti-Sharia law in OK are the same idiots who are anti-gay and are the same idiots who are pushing intelligent design in sciance class. It is an unprecedented wave of anti-intellectualism, anti-science that is being pushed by the ignorant religious right that uses fear and religion to divide people. That’s the bottom line.

    W (9df40f)

  86. Dustin – again, this thingie is not here to discuss, it is here to call names and proclaim it’s faux superiority,leftist Christoph.

    The bottom Lin, Yelverton, is that you are a bigoted racist hilljack plagiarist.

    JD (5117ab)

  87. Dmac – were you referring to me, or William Yelverton, the Professor of Plagiarism from MTSU?

    Comment by JD

    Let me take a wild guess here and say W.

    The same idiots who disingenously pushed the anti-Sharia law in OK are the same idiots who are anti-gay and are the same idiots who are pushing intelligent design in sciance class. It is an unprecedented wave of anti-intellectualism, anti-science that is being pushed by the ignorant religious right that uses fear and religion to divide people. That’s the bottom line.

    In other words, you’re just going to move from one crazy meme to the next. When one is thoroughly trounced and your points are shown to be completely unreasonable, you just move on to another set of smears.

    As I said, you’re showing extreme prejudice.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  88. Dustin – I was just checking. Yelverton pushes Sharia yet refuses to acknowledge that being teh ghey will get you stoned to death in many countries. He is an imbecile.

    JD (5117ab)

  89. JD, that’s a great point.

    He’s simultaneously complaining about a law forbidding sharia law… while complaining about religious law.

    Why? Because he has a huge problem with Christianity for some reason. That’s why he asks about whomever’s personal relationship with Jesus and how that leads to [insert horrible paranoia of the hour].

    Any reasonable American familiar with Sharia law should prefer secular law. Why is W complaining about this? I guess he’s hoping to stir up a distraction from the Iowa judges who just got a dose of democracy. Or maybe he’s just completely irrational.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  90. Maybe? Maybe?! he is so divorced from reality that any attempt at hyperbole would fall short of reality.

    JD (5117ab)

  91. It’s irrational to ban a religious law that the Constitution already forbids. It’s a meaningess excercise in voicing bigotry, nothing more.

    W (9df40f)

  92. So you are for Sharia, or against? You are for Supreme Court justices quoting foreign law, or not? Yopu approve of stonight homosexuals, or not?

    JÐ (b98cae)

  93. If there was ever an expert on meaningless exercises in expressing bigotry, William Yelverton would qualify as an expert.

    JÐ (b98cae)

  94. #

    Maybe? Maybe?! he is so divorced from reality that any attempt at hyperbole would fall short of reality.

    Comment by JD

    My guess is that he’s just a loser who is trolling without seriously meaning much of what he says. No doubt his comments are absurd. If they are sincere, he is mentally ill, which just warrants sympathy.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  95. “Conservatives (and Tea Partiers in particular) constantly invoke the Federalist Papers to explain the government our Founders intended.”–Tisinai

    Do they now?

    Well, I’m an anti-federalist, not a federalist, so I don’t usually go around citing the Federalist Papers or advocate following the various theories of Alexander Hamilton.

    Dave Surls (179900)

  96. Short W:

    Tents are hard.

    Ag80 (743fd1)

  97. JD, “FBI”

    I temporarily unapproved your dust up. “FBI,” that comment was personally insulting and racist, so into the penalty box for you. And JD, I ain’t mad, but having taken out FBI, it makes you sound like you are saying f— you to some other guy who didn’t deserve it. But let me be clear, I consider that a fully justified response and if he said that to me, i would probably have had the same reaction.

    I won’t delete any of the messages permanently, so Patterico can overrule me if he is inclined.

    Btw, “FBI” if you would like to meet JD for a fight, his home address 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, D.C. Just tell them at the gate you are here to beat up J.D. Only J.D.’s real name is Joe Biden. So be sure to say “I am here to beat up Joe Biden.” Or if you prefer, “I am here to f—ing kill Joe Biden” if you want to add a little flourish.

    Aaron Worthing (b8e056)

  98. W

    > that their religion is the only true path. This is biggoted in and of itself

    No, it is not bigotry. All humans are created equal. All opinions are not.

    > These are the same people who insist America is a “Christian nation” … That is bigotted.

    Well, it depends on what they mean by it. if they are just observing that most Americans are Christian, it is a statement of fact. If they are saying that you are not a true American if you are not Christian, or that Christianity should be our official faith, that is bigotry or discrimination. But that is a minority view.

    > Hence, the biggotry against judges who have a broader view of society.

    Hence what? That whole paragraph makes zero sense.

    > I know many Christians who think their religion is not the only path or correct religion

    If you do not believe that there is one God, the one in the bible who gave us Jesus, then you are not a Christian.

    > Please tell, what IS my path?

    Bigotry toward the religious, the right and the religious right, as best as I can tell.

    > Prefer, is different than believing other beliefs are inferior.

    That is illogical. Why would you prefer something if you didn’t believe it was better on some level? Or are you saying that to them its like what color your car is, no right or wrong, just a matter of personal preference. But if you treat something as serious as faith as a matter of that little concern, then you are a shallow idiot.

    > is definitely or probably true, I think we need to change the textbook.

    Logic is not one of your strong suits, is it? no, the one does not follow from the other.

    > The same idiots who disingenously pushed the anti-Sharia law in OK are the same idiots who are anti-gay

    Um, you do know what sharia has to say about homosexuality, right?

    Here’s a hint. If you had to choose it is better to be a gay man in America in the 1950’s in Alabama, then it is to be a gay man in Afghanistan on 9/10/01.

    > It’s irrational to ban a religious law that the Constitution already forbids

    Not so long as there are living constitutionalists running around. I mean that is what this whole thread is about: judicial activism.

    Aaron Worthing (b8e056)

  99. AW – that vile f@cker attacked my wife, her heritage, and was otherwise an asshat. FBI was one of our trolls, hiding behind a BS name. I understand what you did completely, but I just want it to be clear to others what the trolls are doing.

    JD (5117ab)

  100. And further, AW, I do not want to fight that cowardly ffcker. I just don’t think it would have the courage to say that to my face. Better Half, on the other hand, would kick the holy hell out of that pansy coward.

    JD (5117ab)

  101. Comment by Aaron Worthing — 11/10/2010 @ 8:22 pm

    Big difference between Aaron and me is that I lack the patience for that kind of careful deconstruction of such a messy argument.

    And he closed that out very artfully. You can’t moan about the broader view of activist judges and insist we don’t need to prevent them from doing what is already forbidden by law. We can’t react to judicial activists very easily. We need to be proactive.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  102. that vile f@cker attacked my wife, her heritage,

    What a POS. Probably the same guy mocking Allen West with the minstrel act.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  103. Dustin – hatred and anger and bile is all they have left. I doubt it was the one you suggested, though that was an excellent guess. AW or Patterico could confirm my suspicions, but who it is matters little. That is who the left is.

    JD (5117ab)

  104. JD

    Patterico would be the one who might be able to figure it out on the allen west thing.

    But it is stunning how many liberals are out and out racists these days, and aren’t even hiding it good.

    Aaron Worthing (b8e056)

  105. I believe that any combination of adults should be able to get “married” if they want and the state should have nothing to do with it.

    WHY does the United States discriminate against Christians, Jews, and Mormons? CLEARLY those faiths are founded by polygamous societies with God — as outlined in each of the faith’s Holy Texts — approving of it.

    Or at least that’s a reasonable religious interpretation, and it absolutely none of the state’s business deciding if it is correct or not … providing it involves consenting adults.

    What does the U.S. have against Abijah, Abraham (the great patriarch, for goodness sakes!), Ahab, Ahasuerus, Ashur, Belshazzar, Benhadad, Caleb, David (King David!), Eliphaz, Elkanah, Esau, Ezra, Gideon
    Jacob, Jehoiachin, Jehoram, Jerahmeel, Joash, Lamech, Machir, Manasseh, Mered, Moses (he did something important right, if I remember — who is the United States government to sit in judgement of Moses?), Nahor, Rehoboam, Saul, Shaharaim, Simeon, Solomon, Zedekiah, and Joseph Smith?

    Let’s get the government out of marriage and let individuals decide to marry who they want for themselves, or not, as free people.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  106. If you follow Christoph’s construct, William Yelverton could bugger his kitteh without fear of animal cruelty laws.

    JD (5117ab)

  107. You are a liar, JD.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  108. I can’t tell if Christoph is serious in arguing for polygamy.

    Some of his comments he later explains were just cute lies meant to flamebait. I think gay marriage is a much more serious issue and shouldn’t be conflated with multiple partner marriage.

    I also note that society does have the political power to determine this kind of issue. Why? Because it does. It’s circular, but true anyway.

    One major reason the middle east is has problems is the lack of access to sex and a family. There are an awful lot of men with no hope of getting a wife, and they are not happy.

    Christoph’s probably trying to be funny, but I think it’s an interesting issue.

    At any rate, it’s a political issue. If you want to change it, change it by talking to the voters about it. Pretending one way is the only constitutional way is lazy. I think it’s also a band-aid solution that lets wounds rot.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  109. Christoph

    > I believe that any combination of adults should be able to get “married” if they want and the state should have nothing to do with it.

    So you think even siblings should be allowed to marry?

    And if not, why not?

    Aaron Worthing (b8e056)

  110. Let’s get the government out of marriage and let individuals decide to marry who they want for themselves

    JD interprets that as insisting the government cannot use anyone’s ultimate norms to define who is an acceptable marriage partner. He points out an extreme, which Christoph calls so incorrect it’s a lie. Why? Because that extreme example violates nature…

    So still, Christoph would have his norms decide who can and cannot marry. just not your norms. Yours are discrimination, his are not. Political questions solved without political processes wind up hitting that sort of brick wall.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  111. “I can’t tell if Christoph is serious in arguing for polygamy.”

    Yes.

    Both for religious freedom grounds and and liberty grounds: People’s right to pursue happiness in their own way. Also on naturalism grounds: We are a naturally somewhat poygymous species (the vast majority of human societies were polygamous and many still are) as are most primates.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  112. He points out an extreme, which Christoph calls so incorrect it’s a lie. Why?

    Consenting adults does not include kittens.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  113. Christoph believes himself to be superior, Dustin. That is no surprise.

    JD (5117ab)

  114. So you think even siblings should be allowed to marry?

    And if not, why not?

    Good question.

    No.

    One, all major religions have had quite strong edicts against this. So religious freedom, at least for most people, is less of an issue.

    Two, unlike polygyny which offers some genetic advantages over enforced monogamy (higher quality males get more mating opportunities with more females including those that produce chidren).

    Three, humans have a strong instinct against incest, indicating this isn’t natural because of those genetic reasons.

    I don’t know about you, but I have a strong instinct to be physically attracted to more than one female, if not simultaneously (and that happens), then certainly more than one over a lifetime … and you do too, as do almost all men (and many women with being attracted to different men over their lives) reading this thread because it is natural.

    We do not feel the same desire to sleep with siblings.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  115. I somehow left out genetic reasons from my list. That would be Two-point-five.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  116. And by genetic reasons, I’m not talking about the benefits of polygyny here. I am clearly talking about the detrimental effects of incest.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  117. Consenting adults does not include kittens.

    Comment by Christoph —

    That’s not strictly what you said, though I’m aware that you meant this the whole time. You meant it because of norms. You just have your norms and don’t like other norms.

    This is a political question.

    as far as your ‘we’re a polygamous species’ crap… that falls far, far, far short of justifying the massive damage to society your proposal inflicts.

    Naturally, a wealthy male will attract several wives, leaving lots of men without wives. It’s just a stupid idea. Even if guys like to sow their oats, under your ‘naturalism’ grounds, society will reject your proposal in favor of our superior status quo.

    Lots of religious freedom concepts are illegal. Reread the religious text you cited and see just how many.

    Not that I’m bothered by a radical and unrealistic proposal no one will ever seriously entertain. You’re probably flame baiting anyway (I know, you said you aren’t, but you’re Christoph).

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  118. Just wanted to note that Christoph is pretending to speak for Christianity and Judaism and, of course, Mormonism (not sure who the hell Christoph is to say that Mormons aren’t Christians, or single them out here, but it’s the obvious stereotype that probably led him to do this).

    He doesn’t actually speak for those faiths at all, who largely are extremely opposed to his idea. And Christoph rejects those faiths. But if you don’t life up to Christoph’s ideals… to the extent where you drop what you’re talking about and reply to him directly, you are a pathetic and sad Christian (he is an agnostic, of course… what else could Christoph possibly be?).

    It’s hilarious that he pretends all these religious factions are so persecuted. I’m sure he’s really upset about their plight.

    If Christoph doesn’t submit to religious edicts, and already is free to screw lots of women, and the law isn’t going to stop him from having several women in his household… he might just be a kook with poor reasoning skills.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  119. That’s not strictly what you said …

    Yes. It is.

    any combination of adults … providing it involves consenting adults.

    Monogamy leads to a more peaceful society. That’s one of the reasons the Romans had it and forced it on the polygamous Jews.

    It has advantages.

    I, however, favour freedom. And I see it as no business of the state to tell consenting adults what relationship they do or do not want. If some people can’t compete, well that’s life. Some can’t compete now.

    I’m not a collectivist. I’m okay with competition in the romantic sphere as I am in the economic.

    And I don’t think the majority of people would choose polygamy. Most would still be monogamous (and most human relationships in history have probably been socially if not sexually monogamous).

    But if the majority of people DID choose polygamy, well guess what? That’s what they want.

    It’s doubtful, but all I’m arguing is for freedom here.

    Besides — do you see any evidence that we don’t already have a situation with a massive divorce rate, plenty of (natural and instinctive) extra pair copulations, and lots of pre-marital sex. Serial monogamy if not necessarily outright polygamy.

    Society would be fine. There would be changes: To wit, more personal liberty.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  120. Just wanted to note that Christoph is pretending to speak for Christianity and Judaism and, of course, Mormonism (not sure who the hell Christoph is to say that Mormons aren’t Christians, or single them out here, but it’s the obvious stereotype that probably led him to do this).

    I’m an ex-Mormon. Albeit I was a convert to the Church and my beliefs aren’t informed by Mormon doctrine, which I reject, as I do all religious doctrine.

    I am a believer in freedom of religion. Just because I support religious people’s rights to form consensual unions among adults doesn’t mean I agree with their doctrine.

    He doesn’t actually speak for those faiths at all

    Of course. There’s no possible way I could speak for all those faiths. I can, however, read their texts, which were my texts (and reading of said texts caused me to leave my religion as it does for many, many people who can actually be bothered to sit down and read the entirety of the Bible and/or Book of Mormon in detail), and see that polygamy was practiced and outright advocated by God (at least at times).

    From this history of very religious people in the mainstream religions of our culture actually being polygamous, including the heroes of the Bible, I can conclude that polygamy makes sense from a religious perspective … were it not for social pressures to the contrary, social pressures imposed by military force from the Romans as it happens.

    I’m a believer of freedom. And of making my own choices. And of you making your personal choices.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  121. To be honest, I think my initial rebuttal, that polygamy is just stupid as hell for a society, is my strongest one.

    That’s why no one else is taking the bait, right?

    No one wants to revert to the societies where a few people concentrate spouses, because that’s just obviously miserable. Even if they do this in many miserable societies, or there’s an example of miserable primates doing it, or there’s a lot of historical examples of misery.

    It’s a bad idea. I’d rather argue about toothpaste, because this is a completely dead issue.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  122. Christoph

    > I am clearly talking about the detrimental effects of incest.

    Yeah I figured, because it is frankly a clichéd answer. And wrong, by the way, as far as the law is concerned.

    But, honestly, my question was kind of a head fake. I mean what if the siblings wishing to get married are both brothers? What then?

    As for the rest of your argument, including kittens, I address pretty much all of it, here, so I won’t reiterate it all.

    The point is that if you take Lawrence v. Texas seriously, you have a right to f— kittens. The fact that the Supreme Court hasn’t declared a right to f— kittens proves they don’t actually take their task very seriously.

    And for the record, the instinct to be possessive of the one you love is every bit as real as the normal male urge to f— everything that moves and has boobs. Asking a woman to be cool with a guy screwing around on her is not natural. And frankly while I might feel attraction to other women, I don’t want to be with anyone buy my wife. If you really love her, she should be enough for you.

    Aaron Worthing (b8e056)

  123. So…we’re going to “get government out of marriage”, but we’re not going to allow siblings to marry?

    Exactly how is that going to be accomplished?

    Dave Surls (cd6377)

  124. To be honest, I think my initial rebuttal, that polygamy is just stupid as hell for a society, is my strongest one.

    Yes, I agree, that’s your strongest rebuttal. I counter that most human societies have been polygamous and it isn’t right for the state to use force to keep people from their natural, instinctive mating pattern. People have a right to pursue happiness and make their own decisions.

    I’m an agent. So are other adults. The government shouldn’t use force in people’s romance life, if consenting.

    Child care law is another matter, and that could be addressed. It’s not like other societies didn’t have and care for children or that our society gets this perfect.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  125. Society would be fine. There would be changes: To wit, more personal liberty.

    Comment by Christoph

    That’s an extremely bold claim, given how awful societies are that actually have polygamy.

    You can pretend the consequences away, or you can prove your bold claim has some basis.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  126. “I’m an agent.”

    99?

    96?

    daleyrocks (9896ff)

  127. “And for the record, the instinct to be possessive of the one you love is every bit as real as the normal male urge to f— everything that moves and has boobs.”

    You’re right. Humans have competing mating patterns, each of which has advantages. That’s why you see that competition played out before you across society and in almost every family … even with marriage monogamy imposed by law.

    A very common human mating pattern, seen in most socially monogamous species, is to form long-term pair bonds and to occasionally mate outside of those pair bonds. That gives a female who may not have attracted the best mate the chance to bed a higher quality male while still having a male to help her make a home for any offspring. This also gives higher quality males more opportunity to impregnate a greater number of females for the betterment of the species, generally (and if you’ll notice, this mating strategy was no barrier to us becoming the dominant species on the planet).

    That may not make you feel “nice”, but it is biology. There are so many biological structures even within our bodies that demonstrate we are not meant to be strictly monogamous.

    We can be. Some prefer it. But that should be an individual’s choice, not the state’s.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  128. Exactly how is that going to be accomplished?

    It’s against criminal law to start with.

    But in the final analysis, even if it were legal, very very few people would actually want to do it.

    It’s disgusting. And every single person on this thread feels that way too.

    I bet you most people on this thread have mated with more than one person.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  129. JD, if FBI comes back, you don’t have to literally say, ” f… you”. Just use this graph:

    ………………../´¯/)..
    ………………,/¯../………….
    ………………/…./.
    ……../“/´¯/’—‘/´¯¯`•¸……..
    ……./’/…/…./……./¨¯\……..
    ……(‘(…´…´…. ¯’~/…’)……
    …….\……………..’…../…….
    ……….\…………..(.
    …………\………….\.

    peedoffamerican (bab13b)

  130. Dustin

    certainly you can’t find a right to polygamy in the fourteenth amendment. one needs only look up owen lovejoy’s speech on the twin pillars of barbarism–referring to slavery and polygamy.

    the framers of the 14th A hated polygamy. They did not legalize it.

    Aaron Worthing (b8e056)

  131. #125

    IOW, we’re not going to get government out of regulating marriage.

    Dave Surls (cd6377)

  132. one needs only look up owen lovejoy’s speech on the twin pillars of barbarism–referring to slavery and polygamy.

    That’s not a ringing endorsement of the Bible.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  133. the framers of the 14th A hated polygamy. They did not legalize it.

    Oh, they basically legalized anything a judge wants to claim they did (joking).

    Which is why we have to provide additional guidance to our judiciary. It’s a shame that is extremely difficult to do.

    It’s great to become more aware of the social issues that made people miserable enough to fall for “you get 72 virgins after you fly this plane into those thousands of innocent people”. Polygamy is a huge part of the problem. It’s horrible for women, and it’s also horrible for men who can’t afford to marry (the average marriage in Afghanistan is similar in cost to a pretty expensive marriage in the USA… we’re talking about a subset of society).

    Social engineering is a political issue best argued mildly. I don’t think gays appreciate being lumped in with polygamists.

    If someone’s example of personal oppression is that they only have one spouse, I think they must be quite fortunate and should search for perspective.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  134. That’s not a ringing endorsement of the Bible.

    Comment by Christoph —

    correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t your comment 102 relying on this Bible?

    And aren’t you complaining about others having a problem with the Bible? Do you have a problem with the Bible? Why would you be on both sides of this, if you’re a clear thinker?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  135. If someone’s example of personal oppression is that they only have one spouse, I think they must be quite fortunate and should search for perspective.

    It impinges on my spirit, man. I’m not meant for that.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  136. Why would you be on both sides of this, if you’re a clear thinker?

    It isn’t complicated. As I said above, I’m no longer religious. But I respect people’s freedoms, generally, including the right to practice their religion, which I will argue with them about, but that’s neither here nor there.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  137. dustin

    > Which is why we have to provide additional guidance to our judiciary. It’s a shame that is extremely difficult to do.

    Nah, its simple. you take a rolled up newspaper and when they start making up the law, you smack them on the nose and say, “Bad judge!”

    Aaron Worthing (b8e056)

  138. “but I have a strong instinct to be physically attracted to more than one female, if not simultaneously (and that happens), then certainly more than one over a lifetime”

    Christoph – Tell that to your current SO and let me know how that works out for you. None of that if they can’t let me have my freedom, it’s their loss BS.

    daleyrocks (9896ff)

  139. Christoph – Tell that to your current SO and let me know how that works out for you.

    I lost a great woman, daleyrocks, by realizing that I tell her that, or I will eventually be like so many hypocrites (including a great many religious people) and have an affair. I’m not beyond hypocrisy, including that way, but I left it behind me.

    Since then, I have been honest about it. I have found women that agree with me and other women that don’t agree with me, but like me anyway.

    They all know I’m not monogamous.

    I’m still friends with the first woman.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  140. It isn’t complicated. As I said above, I’m no longer religious. But I respect people’s freedoms, generally, including the right to practice their religion, which I will argue with them about, but that’s neither here nor there.

    Comment by Christoph

    You’re right, at least, that it’s not complicated.

    You didn’t mean it when you referred to the bible. You pretended Christians and Jews want something they do not want, instead of just owning your own views. You listed out ancient names from a bible you do not find persuasive at all, and have no right to expect anyone else to be impressed with.

    It was a dishonest argument, obviously.

    And Aaron’s right. Normal people have a strong desire to be somehow possessive of their SO. That doesn’t have to be anywhere near as oppressive as nearly all polygamy marriages are for women, btw. I just want my wife to be exclusive to me. If you reject this as a common instinct, you’re being dishonest.

    Society seems to be working splendidly with monogamy. I love it. Societies with rampant polygamy just aren’t the direction I want to head in.

    Thank goodness we are not a theocracy where some moron can demand we follow some dumb old idea, invented by men who wouldn’t control themselves.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  141. You didn’t mean it when you referred to the bible.

    I have religious friends, including Mormons, Christians, and, yes, Muslims. They should be free to and not coerced by the state to practice their religion different than their consciences providing they are making consensual decisions with adults. And being non-violent and non-slave owning, obvious. 😉

    Christoph (8ec277)

  142. It impinges on my spirit, man. I’m not meant for that.

    Comment by Christoph

    If you can’t handle being married… don’t get married.

    Why define something society benefits from just to make the world better for you personally?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  143. You pretended Christians and Jews want something they do not want…

    NO. I said the Jews, and by extension the Christians, were conquered by the Romans and the Romans imposed monogamy on them by force.

    I realize most Christians and Jews now, indeed almost all of them, and most Mormons too, do not practice polygamy for religious reasons. A very few would like to and they should be free to.

    If you’re being intellectually honest, Dustin, you’ll re-read my comment 116, you’ll see I said:

    “And I don’t think the majority of people would choose polygamy. Most would still be monogamous (and most human relationships in history have probably been socially if not sexually monogamous).”

    I believe I also made the same basic point elsewhere.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  144. “Why define something society benefits from just to make the world better for you personally?”

    Because I’m not a collectivist: I am a capitalist.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  145. Further, society benefits from individual people being happy and they’re happiest when they can make their own decisions.

    But happy or not, they should be free to pursue happiness (relationships) with consenting adults without going to prison … in the country with the highest incarceration rate on Earth.

    The land of the free! Sure it is, to a degree, but this can be improved upon and that’s what I propose.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  146. I mentioned oppression of women and you didn’t take even a second to stop and express how regrettable that is!

    According to Christoph logic, you are therefore pathetic and sad, and I an superior. Of course, this isn’t really logic, though.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  147. “I mentioned oppression of women and you didn’t take even a second to stop and express how regrettable that is!”

    I’m not advocating a religious theocracy, monogamous or otherwise (and there have been monogamous theocracies).

    I’m not advocating following a religion which oppresses women (as the ancient Jews surely did, and the early Christians too, to a significant degree, and arguably, by now allowing them to be priests, the Catholic church does now) like Islam.

    I have expressly stated “consenting” adults. I am not sure Brad Pitt’s three wives would agree with you that they’re being “repressed”.

    But that’s the thing, isn’t it?

    Consensual polygamy doesn’t hurt the vast majority of women (except for maybe the highest status women who can dominate the attention of a high quality man), it is challenging for lower status males.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  148. *oppressed

    Christoph (8ec277)

  149. I hate how Islam treats women. Is that what you want me to say, Dustin?

    I do. But it isn’t because it gives women the opportunity to choose to marry a rich and successful man who, in their considered opinion, can support them in style and with the degree of love and yet time for social freedom that they want.

    It would be the other things I object to, including arranged marriages (including monogamous), which must always remain illegal on freedom grounds.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  150. Anyway, a lot of you say gay marriage is a slippery slope to polygamy. I doubt it, but that’s for social popularity reasons in the U.S. There’s a stronger rational case for polygamy in my view. Polygamous marriages were certainly was practiced in a great many more human societies than homosexual marriage, if nothing else.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  151. ________________________________________

    The anti gay movement is obviously a position of the religious right.

    Meanwhile, you might just as well go back to pre-Christiandom and no less than a philosopher as famous as this one:

    plato.stanford.edu:

    In the Laws, Plato applies the idea of a fixed, natural law to sex, and takes a much harsher line than he does in the Symposium or the Phraedrus.

    In Book One he writes about how opposite-sex sex acts cause pleasure by nature, while same-sex sexuality is “unnatural” (636c).

    In Book Eight, the Athenian speaker considers how to have legislation banning homosexual acts, masturbation, and illegitimate procreative sex widely accepted. He then states that this law is according to nature (838-839d).


    It’s interesting that, by contrast, Plato earlier on in his life had sort of a modern-day-leftist mindset about homosexuality. His tone reminds me of a professor living in the rarefied air of a college campus — or a Hollywood celebrity living in the world of showbiz-liberalism gone berserk — his nose turned way up at society’s horrible anti-gay rednecks!

    religionfacts.com:

    Plato is quoted as commenting: Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love–all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce

    .
    ________________________________________

    Mark (411533)

  152. While I think homosexuality is perfectly natural, it occurs in only a small percentage of animals in a population (and not just humans by any means).

    I’m sure the feeling most heterosexuals feel about homosexuality, the revulsion, is natural and I don’t have a problem with those feelings. I’m hetero and the thought of getting it on with you guys just does nothing for me.

    Plato was still wrong, however.

    And masturbation is also natural.

    But thanks! You’ve proven ignorance is not limited to us modern people. I quite agree.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  153. I didn’t mean to sound flippant, by the way. That was very interesting.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  154. Christoph thinks Plato’s a dumbass!

    Color me surprised.

    Not really. I think he’s just extremely confused about what Plato meant. Even a basically educated person knows that Plato was aware homosexuality occurs in the world. That is not what he meant by the term ‘natural’. He was obviously referring to some sort of biological functionality argument. The nature of sex being to procreate.

    Christoph has to ignore a hell of a lot of material to call Plato’s insightful discussion of homosexuality as ignorant. He latches on, instantly, to something he finds politically incorrect, and then proclaims his superiority.

    As usual.

    And it’s hilarious at this point. What a freaking kook.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  155. Not really. I think he’s just extremely confused about what Plato meant. Even a basically educated person knows that Plato was aware homosexuality occurs in the world. That is not what he meant by the term ‘natural’. He was obviously referring to some sort of biological functionality argument. The nature of sex being to procreate.

    Yeah, but he’s wrong about that. Sex serves many functions. One may even be birth control (homosexuality is more common in mammals living in dense populations). And as for being a dumbass, I was mostly talking about the “Athenian speaker’s” attempt to ban homosexuality and masturbation.

    I think banning homosexuality, by law, is dumb. Banning masturbation is not only dumb, but unpopular.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  156. And Dustin, seriously, you miss the mark in the vast, vast majority of your criticisms and ad hominems, like that one.

    Oh, and did I say Plato was a dumbass, in your usual slimy attempt to build a straw man to then launch an ad hominem slur?

    No, I said Plato was wrong and also that ignorance was not limited to us modern people.

    You are one of the slimiest guys I have ever debated.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  157. It actually occurred to this guy to establish his superiority to Plato.

    I can’t recall a single discussion Christoph was in that he didn’t eventually note he is superior. He’s must feel quite a lot of emotional urge to prove this.

    He probably doesn’t even notice, and is confused people call him arrogant.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  158. You are one of the slimiest guys I have ever debated.

    Comment by Christoph

    Yeah, yeah, I know, I know. I’m absolutely loathsome.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  159. “It actually occurred to this guy to establish his superiority to Plato.”

    You are a piece of shit, Dustin.

    Are you so stupid that you cannot realize it isn’t improper to disagree with an ancient philosopher — most of whom disagreed with each other on many things?

    And yes, saying homosexuality is unnatural is wrong. It occurs all over nature. It’s quite common.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  160. “It actually occurred to this guy to establish his superiority to Plato.”

    You are a piece of sh!t, Dustin.

    Are you so stupid that you cannot realize it isn’t improper to disagree with an ancient philosopher — most of whom disagreed with each other on many things?

    And yes, saying homosexuality is unnatural is wrong. It occurs all over nature. It’s quite common.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  161. And as far as homosexuality isn’t natural because it doesn’t cause reproduction, that’s dumb too.

    Lots of natural things don’t cause reproduction … felatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, kissing breasts … holding hands!

    Changing gears entirely:

    Smiling … playing … singing … prayer.

    Homosexual animals (including humans) make contributions which lead to the increased likelihood of the survival of their group as a whole. This increases the odds their genes will be passed on because they share most of their genes in common with others in their group, as opposed to other groups and other species.

    Natural is what occurs in nature, not what someone prefers. It’s just a retarded cop-out to say homosexuality isn’t natural.

    I don’t know what data set Plato had to go on, but from the work of biologists, we now know homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom.

    And we’re part of it.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  162. And as far as homosexuality isn’t natural because it doesn’t cause reproduction, that’s dumb too.

    Lots of natural things don’t cause reproduction … f*latio, c*nnilingus, masturbation, kissing breasts … holding hands!

    Changing gears entirely:

    Smiling … playing … singing … prayer.

    Homosexual animals (including humans) make contributions which lead to the increased likelihood of the survival of their group as a whole. This increases the odds their genes will be passed on because they share most of their genes in common with others in their group, as opposed to other groups and other species.

    Natural is what occurs in nature, not what someone prefers. It’s just a retarded cop-out to say homosexuality isn’t natural.

    I don’t know what data set Plato had to go on, but from the work of biologists, we now know homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom.

    And we’re part of it.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  163. I would be just a little careful about quoting what biologists think applied to larger social issues. Biology is complex and subtle.

    Remember Paul Ehrlich.

    Eric Blair (ad3ef3)

  164. I can’t recall a single discussion Christoph was in that he didn’t eventually note he is superior. He’s must feel quite a lot of emotional urge to prove this.

    Which is why most of us just ignore his bloviating prattle these days. Why do you even bother, Dustin? You must get some kind of charge out of debating yet another Percey Dovetonsils. I would imagine it gets boring after depantsing another Troll.

    Dmac (498ece)

  165. ____________________________________________

    I’m sure the feeling most heterosexuals feel about homosexuality, the revulsion, is natural

    Even more so if they’re truly aware of what makes most humans tick.

    When observing the history of civilization, it’s not only surprising to see innate biases against homosexuality dating back eons, but also how much of that homosexuality apparently is more “bi” than “homo.” That’s why I think “gay” is less correct of a label than “bisexual.” So when activists (virtually all of them of the left) run around touting the acronym of “GLBT,” society should always keep in mind and emphasize the “B” in the GLBT.

    Activists can claim that various humans have no choice when it comes to their homosexuality, but such activists also need to declare that if people make bad choices, well, let’s celebrate those bad choices. After all, bad decisionmaking and lousy behavior — or the notion of personal responsibility and the ramifications of that — rarely are repudiated by much of the left.

    IOW, if it feels good, do it! It’s all a matter of feelings [insert sappy song here: Feelings, nothing more than feelings…Feelings, wo-o-o feelings, wo-o-o, feel you again in my arms].

    Timesonline.co.uk:

    The media may also be excused for not knowing that [actor Wally] Cox was only one of many men with whom [Marlon] Brando had liaisons. Brando was bisexual and voracious. The roles he lived off-screen were even more provocative than those he created in films.

    At his peak his list of lovers read like a Who’s Who of Hollywood and beyond, including Burt Lancaster, Laurence Olivier, John Gielgud, Marilyn Monroe, Marlene Dietrich, Grace Kelly, Rita Hayworth, Leonard Bernstein, Noël Coward, Shelley Winters, Ava Gardner, Gloria Vanderbilt, Tyrone Power, Hedy Lamarr, Anna Magnani, Montgomery Clift (they once ran naked down Wall Street together for a dare), James Dean, Tallulah Bankhead, Ingrid Bergman, Edith Piaf and Doris Duke (at the time the world’s richest woman).

    Yet just as the film studio publicity machines covered up the proclivities of closet gays such as Rock Hudson — another Brando lover — so they hid the extent of Brando’s excesses.

    [Bobby] Lewis [a founder of the Actors Studio] recalled seeing a lot of Marlon and Wally in those days: “Those two attended parties together and everybody just assumed they were a couple.” But Brando had also discovered his magnetism for women and brought them to Cox’s flat.

    “Wally was obviously playing the role of the dutiful wife. But Marlon could never commit to anyone, much less a man. He loved his women too much.

    As if to humiliate his friend, Marlon often brought his girlfriends over to Wally’s apartment to screw them. He’d take over the bedroom and make Wally sleep on that filthy mattress in the living room. Wally had to listen to the sounds of Marlon’s love-making all night. It was sadistic, really.”

    Cox reacted to Brando’s new set of rules by becoming a bit of a womaniser himself and he married twice. “But if Marlon called, Wally dropped whatever he was doing and came running like a faithful puppy dog to his master,” said Lewis. “I think that Wally continued to love Marlon until he drew his last breath.”

    ^ I wonder how many of the judges (not to mention politicians) throughout America who become so teary-eyed about the idea of same-sex marriage and the notion that sexuality is identical to, say, race or gender, even are aware of (or care about) what’s going on below the surface?
    ____________________________________________

    Mark (411533)

  166. What do you have against black women?

    A little over one in 100 American men are in prison—but there are several states where one in five young black men are behind bars. Since most women marry men of a similar age, and of the same race and in the same state, there are some groups of women who face a dramatic shortfall of marriage partners.

    Economist Kerwin Charles has recently studied the plight of these women. Their problem is not merely that some who would want to marry won’t be able to. It’s that the available men—those not in prison—suddenly have more bargaining power. Goodbye to doing the dishes and paying the rent; hello to mistresses and wham, bam, thank you ma’am. The women whose potential partners have had their ranks thinned by prison are less likely to marry, and when they do marry, are likely to marry a man less educated than they are. Meanwhile, the remaining men, finding a surfeit of marriage partners, suddenly seem in no hurry to marry. And why would they?

    The women’s response makes sense: girl power. The women affected do everything to make the most of single life, including staying at school for longer and hunting for more paid work. The American prison system hasn’t left them much choice.

    When men are taken out of the marriage market by war or by prison, women suffer. The reverse is probably true, too: When women are taken from the marriage market, men suffer. In China, the policy of one-child families coupled with selective abortion of girls has produced “surplus” males. Such men are called “bare branches,” and China could have 30 million of them by 2020. Perhaps polyandry—women with multiple husbands—would be the logical response to the situation in China. What will happen instead is that these lonely, wifeless men will end up sleeping with a relatively small number of women—prostitutes—with severe risks of sexually transmitted disease all around.

    Men from polygamous societies live longer.

    Anyway, we evolved as a mildly polygynous species which, like other mammals, also so monogamous relationships with often secretive extra-pair copulations. This is the natural human mating pattern and I see nothing wrong with adults being allowed to live according to their true nature without being thrown in jail by the government … of the free country … that takes away the direct personal freedom of more people by taking them off to prison than any other country in the entire world.

    I believe in freedom not conservatism, which often translates into throwing massive numbers of people behind bars for making personal choices regarding themselves and engaging in consensual, non-fraudulent transactions.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  167. Why do you even bother, Dustin? You must get some kind of charge out of debating yet another Percey Dovetonsils. I would imagine it gets boring after depantsing another Troll.

    Comment by Dmac

    In my defense, I’m not really trying to debate him at this point so much as I’m just amazed.

    But would things be better if I just stopped reacting to flamebait? Yes. I’ll do better in the future.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  168. Is there any position Christoph has not taken on this thread?

    daleyrocks (9896ff)

  169. “Is there any position Christoph has not taken on this thread?”

    Anti-gay marriage? Pro-enforced monogamy? In support of sending people to prison for engaging in consensual transactions with like-minded adults?

    Christoph (8ec277)

  170. You must get some kind of charge out of debating yet another Percey Dovetonsils.

    Damn. There’s about three people nowadays who get that reference.

    Kman (d25c82)

  171. The original idea was that CONGRESS would remove judges who exceeded their authority but it was decided early on (after Jefferson’s attempts to impeach for policy) that impeachment would only happen for actual crimes. So we have no check or balance other than the appointment process. Maybe we should revisit this.

    Theoretically, under the current Constitution, the House can impeach judges for any reason it sees fit.

    As a political matter, removal of judges faces very steep hurdles.
    Sure it was, but protecting WHOSE political speech, JD? The political speech of American citizens…. or the political speech of WeCorp, a subdivision of GloboChem, Intl.?

    Was the Pentagon Papers case wrongly decided?

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  172. The New York Times, or the editorial board of nearly any major newspaper, for that matter, is a joke when it comes to serious constitutional analysis. They just start from the conclusions they want to reach. After all, it’s opinion, right? Who needs facts?

    when the L.A. Times advocated that Prop. 8 be overturned on the merits, they did not even cite the anti-polygamy rulings, let alone Baker v. Nelson.

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  173. Aaron Worthing wrote:
    “If you do not believe that there is one God, the one in the bible who gave us Jesus, then you are not a Christian.”

    That is your definition. If you do not accept other definitions or concepts of Christianity, you are a bigot and have proved my point.

    Thank you for clarifying

    W (9df40f)

  174. You have proven yourself to be a bigot, yelverton. And your anti-veteran vile rants today have shown you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be the cretinous vermin we knew you to be. Go bugger that kitteh, and mooching off the actual taxpayers of your otherwise great State.

    JÐ (0d2ffc)

  175. Because he has his own good faith definition of what qualifies as a Christian according to his doctrine as he understands it, he’s a bigot? That’s ridiculous.

    Is everyone who has an opinion on something that disagrees with others a bigot? He didn’t say he hates people who don’t meet that definition, just that’s the definition of what he understands a Christian to be.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  176. If a person who was religious said I’m going to hell or what have you, that might bother me on some level, but I wouldn’t call them a bigot. I’d just say that’s their interpretation of their religion and follows logically if and only if one accepts the tenets of their religion as true.

    I’d argue with them about it and the fundamental truthfulness of their religion — and its morality or lack thereof. They would have an opinion on mine.

    We’d both be diametrically opposed because truly our beliefs are irreconcilable: either their religion is true or it is false and we each have different opinions, which aren’t amenable to compromise. Persuasion, maybe. Compromise, no.

    But that isn’t the same as bigotry and neither is a religious person having a definition in their heads of what it takes to be a true member of their religion.

    It would be like if a person had a definition of what it meant to be “black” or not. 25 percent genes recently from Africa? 59 percent? A certain skin tone?

    They would be a bigot if they hated someone for not meeting their definition … not by just having one.

    Christoph (8ec277)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1616 secs.