Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Which part of illegal does this judge not understand?

Feb 19, 2004 2:05PM PST
'Judge says gay marriages break the law', but he 'declined to order an immediate halt to the weddings.'. Does anyone sense an emmanation of a penumbra coming up here? Why is he waiting to see what the arguements are? Is this where we're headed? Anarchy when we don't like the law? If so, why was the southern judge (Moore?) unseated for the 10 commandments? I guess there are two standards of justice here. One for PC, and the other for NOT PC.

Since when is 'civil disobedience' engaged in by the government? Can we now expect the way to be opened for community standards to rule in the south?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
"anarchy when we don't like the law"
Feb 20, 2004 12:16PM PST

defines the establishment of the Union of States, and the Boston Tea Party.

The Judge considered that there were issues that needed to be heard before a definitive ruling could be made, and that the evidence to date submitted did not justify a stay order.

The world changes, and laws change to reflect that fact. It is GOOD to see a judge ackowledge the reality, and not take precipitate action prior to delivery of evidence.

Ian

- Collapse -
The proper course of legal action is;
Feb 20, 2004 12:37PM PST

to issue an injunction against those breaking the law, arrest them if they continue, and leave such injunction in place till at least a hearing, and where the breaking of law is obvious such injunction remains in place till a final ruling is made.

- Collapse -
It IS illegal Ian. (NT)
Feb 20, 2004 12:58PM PST

.

- Collapse -
I am very very glad we have Judges, not computers, interpreting our laws.
Feb 20, 2004 4:23PM PST

I acknowledge what you and James both said. However, you are interpreting laws as computers, because it suits your human needs.

Interpreting laws as a computer generally is grounds for a revolution. Regardless of your and James' feelings on the issue, regardless of how you believe it "should" have been handled,

a Judge has made a decision that this case is not open and shut, so has not indicated predecision, but clearly indicated he/she feels it is worthy of consideration by human minds in an open situation.

Issuing a shutdown and shutup order may be your perception of correct behaviour, but it establishes a precedent to the case that the person shutdown was in some sense in breach breach. By standing aside until delivery of evidence, it makes a clear indication that the judge believes the case has merit, in that the evidence should be obtained. The judge understands the final decision will have very significant impacts upon American society, which will have flow on effects throughout the world.

KP and James, you are not the Judge. Subject to appeals and Supreme Court decisions, the law is what the Judge says it is.

Ian

- Collapse -
Howdy, Ian
Feb 20, 2004 11:27PM PST

Here, the law is the law, until the law is changed. A judge's job is to APPLY the law that the legislature enacted.

You don't let a guy keep robbing banks while someone thinks about whether the law against it is a good one or not.

Cindi (Hi to Susie!)

- Collapse -
Not Really
Feb 21, 2004 1:06AM PST
A judge's job is to APPLY the law that the legislature enacted.

I would say the judge's job is more to interpret the law and it's intent than just to just simply apply it.

Suppose for example that you run a red light at 3 in the morning after stopping at that light for some time and not seeing a car in sight. You are then caught and ticketed for running the light. If the judge simply applied the law rigidly you would be fined. If instead he interprets that the law was written to ensure the safety of others that may cross your path he may decide that you caused no harm since no traffic was present and dismiss it at that. Which judge would you really rather have, the interpreter or the applicator?

The judge in this case stated that he felt no irreparable harm has been done so he decided not to issue an injunction at this time. He can still do so later if he thinks he needs to. This case will probably not be ultimately decided in his court anyhow. It is a good candidate to make it to the Supreme Court where it can be decided on more definitively as a constitutional issue.
- Collapse -
We don't want judges to decide if or when the law should be applied.
Feb 21, 2004 11:05AM PST

That's the legislature's job. If the judge rules that the legislature didn't intend for running a red light to be illegal, then he makes that ruling and it can be appealed. However, if he decides that he doesn't want to enforce the law today because he doesn't agree with it; that's not his job. Particularly before any arguments or evidence has been presented.

- Collapse -
Re:We don't want judges to decide if or when the law should be applied.
Feb 22, 2004 1:38AM PST

I sure hope you get to leave your black & white world someday and visit the varied and colored world the rest of us live in.

- Collapse -
Who are the 'rest of us'? (NT)
Feb 22, 2004 7:21AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:Who are the 'rest of us'? (NT)
Feb 22, 2004 7:54AM PST

Everyone that realizes the law is not some set of rules that are only black & white with no gray in the middle.

Another example that comes to mind is the sixth grader that was suspended because the 10" chain on her tweety bird wallet violated the schools zero tolerance policy on weapons.

Should a judge simply apply the law in this case too or realize that this girl did not violate the intent of the law?

How about the case of Amanda Stiles a sophomore whom was expelled, not suspended, for having an advil at school.

Should a judge simply apply the law in this case too or realize that this girl did not violate the intent of the law?

Believe what you want but I'm glad we have judges that are human and use reason instead of just treating everything like it's just another black or white issue.

- Collapse -
When did school policy rise to the level of law?
Feb 22, 2004 10:35AM PST

Are judges now making 'law' there also?

- Collapse -
Re:When did school policy rise to the level of law?
Feb 22, 2004 10:58AM PST
- Collapse -
(sigh) (NT)
Feb 22, 2004 2:09PM PST

.

- Collapse -
"Intent of the law"
Feb 22, 2004 1:54PM PST

Please tell me how realizing a decorative or functional chain on some kid's wallet not breaking the "intent of the law" relates to a judge who IS willing to break the "intent of the law" in order to nullify that law? You have it all reversed and don't seem to even realize it. This judge in Gaytown USA is not concerned at all with "intent of the law" but instead he and that Mayor are deliberately ignoring the "intent of the law" concerning marriage in the state and trying to gloss it over with some hogwash reference to "non discrimination" mumbo jumbo.

- Collapse -
Re: 'intent of the law'
Feb 23, 2004 1:36AM PST

Hi, James.

But how about when the intent of the law is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional? How about if this law were about separate water fountains for whites and blacks? As I've said before, homophobia is the least legally sanctioned form of discrimination in this country, and this law ought to go the same way as "whites only" and "no Irish need apply."

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: 'intent of the law'
Feb 23, 2004 4:45AM PST

Do you consider laws against homosexual marriage, with all it's legal and traditional connotations, the same as the old laws legalizing forms of racial discrimination the same?

Do you consider that homosexuality or heteorsexuality should be the same legally as race, religion, or sex?

- Collapse -
Re: 'intent of the law'
Feb 23, 2004 12:25PM PST

Hi, Roger.

>>Do you consider that homosexuality or heteorsexuality should be the same legally as race, religion, or sex?<<
In a word, yes. And, btw, this is a fairly recent position for me -- as with our country, this was the last prejudice for me to discard, and in some ways I still haven't. But I have come to believe that for the vast majority it's not any more a choice than their race or sex, and much less a choice than religion, so I don't see it as being the basis of legal discrimination.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Would that mean. Dave...
Feb 23, 2004 11:29AM PST

Dave, would that mean that those splinter sects of the Mormons (LDS) who believe in polygamy should now be allowed to have more than one legally recognized spouse?
Dave, wouldn't refusing their desired form of marriage also be discrimination, in this case based upon religion (creed)?

- Collapse -
Re: Would that mean. Dave...
Feb 23, 2004 12:30PM PST

Hi, J.

A good question. The freedom of religion is not absolute, however (that was established by a SCOTUS decision by a more liberal court than this one, who decided that the ban on use of peyte in Amerind ceremnials was not a First Amendment infringement). This is actually an easier case, as one person's rights end when they infringe on another's -- an Aztec can't claim protection of human sacrifice, and polygamy is in many cases an infringement of the wive's rights (it's more problematical when it isn't...)

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: Would that mean. Dave...
Feb 24, 2004 4:14AM PST

So polgamy should be legal if everyone knows it's going to be that way going in then, right?

And that doesn't apply to just men with mulitple wives, it would have to apply to the reverse.

It would also have to be allowed for a man AX to marry woman AY who then also marries man BX who marries woman BX and so on. Anyone desiring a legal marriage would have to be allowed wouldn't they?

Just pointing out the extremes, though chain marriages are not totally unknown in human socieites in history.

- Collapse -
Re: Would that mean. Dave...
Feb 24, 2004 9:48PM PST

Hi, Roger.

In point of fact, the polygamy laws are now rarely enforced unless someone specifically complains -- sort of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The recent case in Utah came about because the husband (who was some sort of cult leader) went around preaching the value of polygamy and pointing out his family as an example. Furthermore, at least one of the "wives" was below the age of consent.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: Would that mean. Dave...
Feb 25, 2004 5:52AM PST

"...polygamy laws are now rarely enforced unless someone specifically complains..."

Mostly true.

But for insurance, inheritance, tax purposes, survivors benefits, etc, only ONE can be the spouse. It might end up in court if the head dies, but what a mess.

- Collapse -
That's an OK suggestion for marriage.
Feb 24, 2004 11:14PM PST

I would prefer an arrangement where all parties were married at each step. A and B marry. Then A and B and C marry. Then A and B and C and D marry. That way everyone's involved and is an equal partner. Well, as equal as partners can be in marriage. We all know lopsided marriages.

Interesting.

Dan

- Collapse -
Hmmm maybe a great way to avoid inheritance
Feb 25, 2004 5:49AM PST

As long as you keep bringing in younger (slightly not teenagers or anything) spouses, and 'give' your interest away as you age, there would never be an inheritance to tax. BUT oh the grief of a divorce settlement after a few generations of accruing property like this.

Hmmm, how would one divorce a marriage older than he/she is?

Maybe just make the marriage a corporation for legal purposes then.

- Collapse -
Interesting question
Feb 25, 2004 5:53AM PST

I'm sure the IRS and divorce lawyers are going to come to an equitable arrangement.

Dan

- Collapse -
Care to explain yourself, Dave?
Feb 24, 2004 8:34AM PST

Dave, how about explaining to us your statement, "polygamy is in many cases an infringement of the wive's rights". Dave, what right is being infringed?
Polygamy can also mean more than one husband. Would that infringe the "rights" of the husbands? Same question. what right(s)?

- Collapse -
Re: Care to explain yourself, Dave?
Feb 24, 2004 9:52PM PST

Hi, James.

Many of the polygamous marriages are not completely free on the part of all the women -- in some cases there's coercion of one sort or another involved (For example, the husband is an elder of the cult to which the girl's family belongs, and they threaten her with shunning if she doesn't marry him). BTW, "polygamy" is by definition one man and multiple women; the opposite is "plyandry," and multiple-multiples (e.g. "the Harrad Experiment") is generally called "group marriage." All equally illegal in our society, of course.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Let's operate with the 'given' ...
Feb 24, 2004 11:16PM PST

that no one here is in favor of coerced relationships of any kind.

Agreed?

Dan

- Collapse -
But Dave, the Amish...
Feb 25, 2004 6:06AM PST

But Dave, the Amish also "shun". Is that also " infringement of the wive's rights"? Religion can be a minefield sometimes, especially with a blanket statement can't it?

- Collapse -
Re:But Dave, the Amish...
Feb 25, 2004 6:31AM PST

In the case Dave was describing the girl was threatened by her own family to coerce her to marry. Even if it's not a violation of her rights, it could be considered abuse.

Does a young girl have the right to have her family talk to her interact with her in all the ways that shunning would bar? I don't know, but it doesn't sound like a nice family to grow up in.

Dan