Gay marriage, the courts, and the Cherokee precedent

Starchild, It is interesting that you defend a top down rather than a bottom up approach here.


Is that how my position has come across? I thought I clearly stated that I prefer a bottom-up approach. But again, if the choice is between a top-down move toward freedom or none at all, I'll take it. Just as I prefer that the worst government human rights violations around the world be countered by voluntary non-state military efforts when other means of rectification fail, but would rather see other national governments intervene to stop them than for the abuses to continue unabated.

Love & liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Starchild, It is interesting that you defend a top down rather than a bottom up approach here.


From: Starchild
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Gay marriage, the courts, and the Cherokee precedent

Sure it's better to have a positive change occur in a manner consistent with federalism than otherwise. And it's better to have this positive change implemented by a state legislature than by a judge, and better yet to have it done by a vote of the people. But I'll take a positive judicial decision, even one by a federal judge who has no constitutional jurisdiction over that particular issue, over no change at all.

The chief consideration in making a public policy decision, imho, should not be "Is this the proper jurisdiction for this question," or "Is my decision likely to be overturned or not enforced if I vote my conscience," but rather "what is the morally correct position on this topic?" There will always be some pragmatic or legal rationalization for not doing the right thing.

Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>

Certainly best to have it done by a state judge instead a federal one.
Was the judge plugged into the establishment. Did this decision meet strong
resistence from the legislature. I am all for activists judges, especially
when the action taken will be enforced. I was just making the arguement
for the constitutional republican view and demonstrating the possibility
that changes in local mores brought from the ground up may be more
effective. Suppose this judge had made the same decision in the Tennessee
of 1920. when the public and legislature would likely have overturned the
decision .

Tennessee has come a long way since then along with the rest of the country.
From: "Rob" <robpower@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:46 AM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Gay marriage, the courts, and the Cherokee

> --- In, "Philip Berg" <philzberg@...> wrote:
>> Have you ever lived in the South, or for that matter Redding,
> California. Using the courts to do what the legislature should do ,
> especially state by state, may feel good, but it does not change
> minds. It invites serious , often violent resistence.
> I'm from Tennessee. Our own "activist judges" in the state supreme
> court didn't overturn the state's sodomy law until 1996. I was a
> college sophomore, just barely creaking the closet door open.
> I was also in student government at the University of Tennessee at the
> time. The student senate voted earlier that year to support an
> amendment of the University's nondiscrimination policy to include
> sexual orientation. The student government president vetoed the
> resolution, under the advice of university administrators, based on
> the state's sodomy law.
> In 1997, after the state's sodomy law was overturned by "activist
> judges," on the state supreme court, the student government finally
> passed and submitted to administrators an inclusive nondiscrimination
> policy. The administration didn't change the policy (still hasn't,
> ten years later, in fact). But at least that one stupid argument for
> continuing to discriminate against gay taxpayers in a taxpayer-funded
> institution had evaporated. And a whole new generation of leaders in
> the state recognized that government discrimination on the basis of
> sexual orientation was wrong. It may take ten or twenty years for
> that effect to be felt, but let's not deny that it did most certainly
> have a positive effect.
> Thank goodness for "activist judges," I say. Especially in the South.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.18/734 - Release Date: 3/26/2007
> 2:31 PM