Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
But it could be argued the bench is his office. I'm not a follower of the Abrahamic religions but to me, I would rather him have that freedom to express himself than not. So long as his rulings are made on actual fact and law and not his religion I'm not bothered by his display. I am far more bothered by the fact that he cannot have them up because the government says no.
|
Except he's a government employee, and he is serving the people in his capacity as judge, not running some entrepreneurial business.
It matters what impression government buildings give off, and favoring one type of religion over all others - whether or not it affects his rulings - does not mesh with the separation of church and state. This has no impact on how he lives his personal life, but as a government official who is responsible for
judging people, he must at least give the appearance of impartiality. Not to mention that it's kind of absurd to claim the entire court as his personal office. Judges have personal offices: they're called chambers, and they do not include the entire courthouse, or even the courtroom. More importantly, let's look at this from a different angle: what if the judge wanted a
Deuteronomy 22:20,21 or a
Leviticus 20:13 monument instead of a 10 commandments monument? Is that OK, provided his rulings are based on fact and not hatred of women or homosexuals? I'd like to know if judges are allowed to express themselves in the court in all the ways a normal citizen can, or if there is some line. If there's a line, why are the 10 commandments - which explicitly demand worship of the Abrahamic deity, and outlaw even
wanting (coveting) something that your neighbor owns - acceptable, but other things are not?
Quote:
The problem with this question is no matter how I answer it, experience here has shown that everything will then be how I answered it and my opinion not what is truly said or the whole of the debate over government having too much power.
In all honesty I do not believe there should be any law concerning marriage between 2 people. If they are that much in love who cares. That said, I still believe in a state's population to decide by vote. it is not a power expressly given the government in the Constitution. And, with the possible exception of Utah, it probably isn't in any state's constitution either. Therefore, it should be up to the people. Let the people decide.
Now, if the federal government wants to recognize insurance and retirement /SSI/etc benefits across the board that's fine. They aren't dictating who can or cannot be married to whom, just the rights of the marriage. Now, if I live in Ohio and want to marry a guy and have to go to Cali. to do it, when I get back to Ohio, I should understand that Ohio does not have to recognize that marriage and change my will. Now if I want a divorce, the state of Ohio may nor recognize the marriage but should dissolve the it as a partnership unless a prenup iss in existence then the court just allows the prenup and is done.
|
I ask about interracial marriage not as a trap, but to understand your logic regarding what government can and cannot do, and also to demonstrate the flaws in that logic as it has so far been described. You're expressing - quite unbelievably - a total support for the tyranny of the majority, which would include allowing states to outlaw interracial marriage. I'd like to know if you actually support a state's right to do this, or if there is some line in your head that makes outlawing interracial marriage unacceptable, but other rejections of individual rights more acceptable, particularly when neither is explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
I completely agree that government should not be involved in "marriage," but I'm not sure you are understanding that there is a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. Your statement above seems to indicate that you believe them to be the same thing, but they are not. If a couple is married through a religious ceremony, there are two marriages that take place: the civil and the religious. Proponents of same-sex marriage could generally care less what restrictions religions place on marriage. The issue is whether or not the
state has the right to limit the expression of love between two individuals based on their sex. Seeing as how the government is areligious, there is no valid argument for limiting individual rights in that manner. The confusion between civil marriage and religious marriage is why I believe the government should do everything it already does, extend those benefits to same-sex couples, and just rename marriage to unions for everyone. Regardless of the name, restricting civil marriage because
religious marriage would be offended gives undue preference to a particular religious view. Whether or not that view is the majority doesn't matter, because it is fundamentally wrong for the government to restrict individual rights because of someone else's religious views.
It has been noted here before, but I specifically bring up and would like to know your thoughts on state's prohibiting interracial marriage because your arguments are just about the
exact same as those which were used to defend miscegenation laws in the past. So I'd like to know what makes your stance different, if you do not support state prohibition of interracial marriage, or if you are willing to accept the consequences of such an argument and allow the development of oppressive states and more free states.
Quote:
Yes, I am far more ok with the people having their voice heard than government dictation. If the government imposed smoking laws and refused to listen to the people, I'd fight it. But in Ohio, you have an overwhelming number of voters saying they do not want smoking in places they patronize. My rights stop when they affect others. Them voting for a ban on smoking tells me that they do not want to smell like an ashtray or be offended by the smoke. I can understand that. Going outside, while it maybe a hassle is an acceptable compromise I can live with. The voice of the people was heard in this case. If I want to smoke inside restaurants again, I can work on getting an initiative on the ballot and work for its passage. Someday, someone may do just that and that will pass and the power in that area stayed in the hands of the people.
I do not agree with everything people want, just as they I'm sure do not agree with everything I would want but I believe in the freedom of letting the people decide not the government.
|
I'm still not clear on where you stand re: ballot initiatives vs the legislature. Should we abolish the legislature and put everything to a popular vote? If not, what kinds of laws are OK for the legislature and what kinds of laws do you think demand a popular vote? Bringing this back to the tea parties, when, if ever, is it acceptable for the elected representatives of the people to vote on spending money, and when must that spending be brought to a popular vote? After all, your primary complaint from what I can tell is that you feel your voice isn't being heard. I'd like to understand where you draw the line between being heard through electing a representative and demanding each individual voice be counted. How do you think the rights of minorities should be protected from an unfriendly majority? As far as I can tell, your answer is that they should just move to a different state. Am I missing something?
Finally, you believe in letting the people decide and not the government. Is the elected representative government not an extension of the people? If not, why do we have such government at all? So again, do you support ballot initiatives for all laws, or is there something I'm missing here? It seems to me that you're arguing for each state to be its own direct democracy, loosely tied together by a federal government which exists in name only. I'd like to understand if you're arguing for something else, and what the logic is behind that argument.