Originally Posted By VCR_Pongo It's no use. I used to think the same way. I was a conservative religious Right Winger among those that think they are conservative. And then one day I actually met and got to know this guy who was in med school with my wife. As time went by we became closer and closer friends. After about a year of seeing this guy (he and my wife were study partners with 2 other students) weekly more or less, and hanging out socially I began to notice that he never spoke of having a girl or of dating. He knew me well, knew my beliefs, and never let on anything. After beginning to realize he never dated (girls) I noticed a ring on his right hand ring finger. I then realized his ear ring. I then realized a photo in his car that I always assumed was a brother or something. But what really smacked me between the eyes what the realization that this was a great guy who was a dear friend, who I cared about like any other friend that I held dear to me. And...OMG...he was GAY!!! It landed on me like a piano dropped from the second floor window. Not only did I have to come to grips with my homophobia, not only did I have to come to grips that I had been hanging out with a "homo" but I had to make a choice. For the first time (unlike many of my far right friends) I had actually been made to realize that gay men are just like straight men, except that they are gay. They still love the same food, they still like the same shows, they wear the same clothes, they go to work and come home like everyone else, they have morals and ethics and personal convictions just like everyone else. They aren't "freaks" who live in "sin" and "choose" to be "perverts" or something like that. It was a difficult time for me, a real turning point in my life of who I was. A real paradigm shift that latched on to me fast, like a venus fly trap to an unsuspecting fly. He knew the instant I realized it as well. I was dumbfounded and could not for the life of me understand how I had not realized it sooner. Looking back, I think I just didn't want to see. To make a long story short, my feelings toward the entire gay orientation changed. Contrary to popular belief gays are not gay by choice. Gays are not perverts. Gays are not mental cases that should choose to be straight, in fact I find that most gay people have TRIED to be straight at some point. Gays are gay, thats it, that is where it ends. Heck I have more problems with having my kids around straight white trash relatives than I do gays. But for arguments sake. Let's say that gays are gay by choice and are wrong to be gay. Even then, isn't it what Christ taught that we should love the person in spite of sin? What about "let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" and that's only if being gay is "wrong." The right really needs to actually follow the teachings instead of acting as judge and jury. The thing the OP forgets is, all SIN is equal in the eyes of God, well according to that book he's carrying around thumping.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "When judges interpret the words, phrases and sentences other than their meanings, they act upon their own will - and therefore become activists." Hmm...well then wouldn't this apply to just about every preacher, pastor, priest, minister, etc? I mean, look at all the different interpretations of the Bible you have...wouldn't that be activism as well then? How can something be written and questioned? How dare we question anything written down! Take everything at face value and never try to interpret anything to have meaning in current society!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "By the way SPP, I have read and re-read post 55 several times trying to glean something between the lines. I can't quite guess so I'll just ask, are you gay?" Nope.. Very hetero. But I firmly believe in equal rights.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 To get back OT, SuperDry just rocked the house with #39. He shows conclusively that either a). Doug's definition of judicial activism is seriously flawed, or b). Brown v. Board of Ed, a once controversial case that virtually everyone now sees as both necessary and correctly decided, should be considered judicial activism. And if so, maybe it isn't such a bad thing to break with precedent sometimes and look to the world we live in today as well as the 18th century. On the other thread, Doug copped out again, saying he wouldn't respond because SuperDry hadn't asked him to. (!) Okay. But then he'll have to accept that he was thoroughly taken to school by SD. (And BTW, isn't is kind of ironic that the thread begun by DVC/VCR as a means of burying the hatchet should be the first thread in a while to get banned?) And DVC/VCR, #61 was a great post. I'm 48 now and I've witnessed so many straight people have a similar "light bulb moment." For a lot of years I never thought I'd see it happen to the extent it has. Hell, when I was a teenager, trying and wishing and praying to be straight, I had to have my OWN light bulb moment when I realized I didn't have to accept the then-prevalent conventional wisdom on what being gay was, if I knew at the very core of myself that the conventional wisdom was wrong.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan That's the problem with conventional wisdom. It's awfully conventional.
Originally Posted By X-san Since Douglas has made several posts in WE today, I was wondering if he would finally reply to SuperDry's last post here (not holding my breath though).
Originally Posted By X-san 11 days ago Douglas ASKED this question of SuperDry. ***What I'd like to know is how, "if you apply the criteria listed in #1 to Brown, you come up with "b" for every question"?*** So, since he answered your question (quite thoroughly), shouldn't you acknowledge his reply? YOU'RE the one who asked the question, after all. Now that he answered you, you mentioned something aboutreconsidering your opinion of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision. Me **Do you think Brown was wrongly decided?** Douglas **I don't, but if he can show me that it meets my criteria of being judicial activism, then I might change my mind.** So now that he HAS shown you that it meets your criteria of being judicial activism, have you changed your mind? HAVE you changed your mind on that issue thanks to SuperDrys' help?
Originally Posted By X-san 11 days ago Douglas ASKED this question of SuperDry. ***What I'd like to know is how, "if you apply the criteria listed in #1 to Brown, you come up with "b" for every question"?*** So, since he answered your question (quite thoroughly), shouldn't you acknowledge his reply? YOU'RE the one who asked the question, after all. Now that he answered you, you mentioned something aboutreconsidering your opinion of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision. Me **Do you think Brown was wrongly decided?** Douglas **I don't, but if he can show me that it meets my criteria of being judicial activism, then I might change my mind.** So now that he HAS shown you that it meets your criteria of being judicial activism, have you changed your mind? HAVE you changed your mind on that issue thanks to SuperDrys' help?
Originally Posted By X-san 11 days ago Douglas ASKED this question of SuperDry. ***What I'd like to know is how, "if you apply the criteria listed in #1 to Brown, you come up with "b" for every question"?*** So, since he answered your question (quite thoroughly), shouldn't you acknowledge his reply? YOU'RE the one who asked the question, after all. Now that he answered you, you mentioned something aboutreconsidering your opinion of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision. Me **Do you think Brown was wrongly decided?** Douglas **I don't, but if he can show me that it meets my criteria of being judicial activism, then I might change my mind.** So now that he HAS shown you that it meets your criteria of being judicial activism, have you changed your mind? HAVE you changed your mind on that issue thanks to SuperDrys' help?
Originally Posted By X-san 11 days ago Douglas ASKED this question of SuperDry. ***What I'd like to know is how, "if you apply the criteria listed in #1 to Brown, you come up with "b" for every question"?*** So, since he answered your question (quite thoroughly), shouldn't you acknowledge his reply? YOU'RE the one who asked the question, after all. Now that he answered you, you mentioned something aboutreconsidering your opinion of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision. Me **Do you think Brown was wrongly decided?** Douglas **I don't, but if he can show me that it meets my criteria of being judicial activism, then I might change my mind.** So now that he HAS shown you that it meets your criteria of being judicial activism, have you changed your mind? HAVE you changed your mind on that issue thanks to SuperDrys' help?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So, since he answered your question (quite thoroughly), shouldn't you acknowledge his reply?> I didn't know it was a requirement, but very well. Thanks for answering my question, SuperDry. <So now that he HAS shown you that it meets your criteria of being judicial activism, have you changed your mind?> One, he hasn't "shown" that it meets my criteria of being judicial activism, he's merely asserted that it does. I disagree with that assertion. But even if I did agree, that doesn't change my opinion about judicial activism. You can agree with the results without agreeing with the process.
Originally Posted By X-san ***I disagree with that assertion.*** I don't understand. Which part do you disagree with? You asked him to explain it, and he did. Point by point. Now you claim you disagree. Could you show us which points you disagree with and why?
Originally Posted By X-san Here's the original point by point analysis by SuperDry, as a refresher... <<< What I'd like to know is how, "if you apply the criteria listed in #1 to Brown, you come up with "b" for every question"? I mean, if the segregated Kansas schools really were "seperate but equal" than you'd have a case that it was judicial activism. But they weren't, were they? >>> Well, let's go through your criteria one by one: <<< a. merely overturn relatively new law and therefore return conditions to what they were before the law was enacted? b. Necessitate the creation of new laws or include guidelines in order to execute the decision? >>> Clearly, Brown is a "b" here. If you've been to Topeka, certainly you're aware of the broader problems and strife caused by school integration, both in the South and elsewhere. The whole way of doing things had to be changed as a result of Brown, in some cases at gunpoint. <<< a. rely on the writings of the Founding Fathers to explain what they meant in the Constitution? b. rely on an evolving sense of what the phrase means to society? >>> Well, since Brown was decided primarily on 14th Amendment grounds, it's not really the Founding Fathers in this case, but the leaders of the country during the post-Civil War 1860's that wrote it that would be the applicable standard. I guess we really don't know how exactly they would have treated school segregation/integration in the context of equal protection, but we do know the status quo at the time was segregation even in the newly "free" South and specifically that the notion of segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine was affirmed by SCOTUS in 1896 (see below). It was only as the "evolving understanding" that there's no such thing as "separate but equal" that came in the Brown decision that things changed. So, this one's a "b" as well. <<< a. Rely on precedent? b. Overturn precedent? >>> The notion of "separate but equal" was long accepted as being the status quo and compatible with the law of the land. In fact, in another landmark case, Plessy v Ferguson, in 1896, SCOTUS specifically said that "separate but equal" was possible, compatible with the 14th Amendment, and could be carried out to accomplish some public purpose (as specified by the legislature). So, Brown most definitely overturned precedent with regard to the notion of "separate but equal" being possible, and whether such a notion was compatible with the 14th Amendment. Again, a "b". <<< a. Affirm a recognized, enumerated right? b. Discover a new right that has never been recognized before? >>> The right to have integrated public accommodations, or put another way, the right not to be segregated in public accommodation based on race, did not exist prior to Brown. Most definitely a "b". So, I think the b's have it.
Originally Posted By SuperDry I'm at a bit of a handicap at the moment, as I'm out of town and have little time to discuss things on LP. In fact, just last night, X-san and I had a wonderful chat over yakitori made out of strange parts of a chicken and some beer near Ginza in Tokyo. But I digress... I've been meaning to post a follow-up to this thread, but have not had the time due to travel and preparations for it. I'm glad that we're discussing this important topic in WE, and I plan to continue the conversation once I get back home and have some time.
Originally Posted By X-san Cool hang last night SuperDry. Next time we'll save ALL the chicken livers and guts and cartilage for you though...I DEFINITELY mis-ordered! Kickin myself on that one. Ain't Ginza awesome!?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< One, he hasn't "shown" that it meets my criteria of being judicial activism >>> Yes, I have.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh No, you haven't, and I'm really not interested in trading opinions back and forth about whether the Brown was judicial activism. Even if it was, it doesn't refute what I said about judicial activism, nor prove that judicial activism is a good thing.
