Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Stanford iTunesU iOS class - FOR FREE (Score 1) 131 131

A strong example of their downfall are the online courses offered via iTunesU. If you want to be an iOS developer, the fact that you can watch ALL the lectures and get ALL the assignments and then converse with others doing the same thing for help/tips/hints/issues for FREE is astonishing. You don't get Stanford credit but in the end you learn. That's where I got my start.

Comment: Re:Zero respect for SCOTUS (Score 1) 1081 1081

The 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn't even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the "equal protection" clause to change state voting laws. Are we to believe that "equal protection" does not guarantee a woman's right to vote but does guarantee a woman's right to marry another woman??

Comment: Re:Very Disturbing Trend (Score 1) 1081 1081

NO NO NO NO. The Founding Fathers did not create the Supreme Court to assure of a living document. The Founding Fathers provided a way in the Constitution for people to amend as it as we "evolve" and "progress". If we truly have evolved then we should have no problem ratifying the constitution and going through that process. This is how we change the constitution. Leaving if up to 9 judges to decided and help us evolve was not what the Founding Fathers intended or wanted -

Comment: Re:Very Disturbing Trend (Score 1) 1081 1081

I am not sure if you misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I am saying, yes, marriage , the forming of bonding between two people was formed and defined by people long before this country was founded - but as matter of state recognition - the states get to decide who to recognize(not the federal government). Now why do marriages need recognition by the state? Good question. I wish even the states would have gotten out of that business - in this case with something so innate, so immutable, so fundamental as a union between two people. In fact, this issue probably is only an issue because the state and federal government are mixed in with being single, married, divorced, jointly married etc for tax purposes.

Somehow, some way, the status of me being single, married or divorced has an intricate effect on me tax wise and a bunch of other things entrenched at the local, state and federal levels. But the states DID murk their way into this act of matrimony and homosexual marriage in every state in the union was a FELONY in 1868 so by then it was too late. How this came about I don't know but we can least look back that far and probably further back in the late 1700s if someone has some law books handy.

Comment: Re:Very Disturbing Trend (Score 2) 1081 1081

how does life, liberty or property equal marriage? not just gay marriage. Marriage for anyone?

Also, when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So I am guessing you are going to sit there and tell me that they wrote this amendment they were going to allow same sex marriage - then throw them in prison after saying "I do" ?

Lastly, the words of the constitution do not grant unlimited flexibility. If we want to change the 14th amendment or any amendment to the Constitution then the people need to step up and work with their own states and legislatures (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) to do this. This is what the amendment process is for.

If judges can change laws to fit their "interpretation" of what the original writers meant then we no longer govern ourselves but are at the mercy of judges to tell govern for us.

Comment: Re:Very Disturbing Trend (Score 1) 1081 1081

When i refer to states rights, I mean the PEOPLE of the state deciding what is a deemed "a right". As I have been trying to say though, in my first post, marriage was never a right (until SCOTUS declared it to be) it was always a PRIVILEGE granted to by the states (the status constituents who are represented by their local representatives).

So based on what you said - if the constitution limits the powers of the government and our rights do not come from the government then how do you feel about the supreme court saying that all 50 states (and thus all united states citizens because they cannot use their rights to vote on local state level matters) have to recognize same sex couples? If the government cannot grant a citizen a right then how come they JUST DID??????

Comment: Re:Very Disturbing Trend (Score 1) 1081 1081

So now we get down to the meat here. Thanks so much for bringing it up. Issues of race, ethnicity, national origin, or gender are all real and provable human characteristics which are innate and immutable. I believe that homosexuality is a behavior that is learned and changeable, instead of inborn. If that were not true then I wouldn't be able to read stories of many people, people of no faith even, who have abandoned the lifestyle. Many celebrities who are homosexual have shared their sexual abuse stories when they were young and some have even left the lifestyle after realizing it was wrong. You asked why I feel differently about these, so there it is. But of course we won't be able to talk about this in a real cordial way because people in general here want to just flame and call names instead of actually discussing the issue.

Regardless of what I believe or you though, should a federal court get to decide that for all people for states? If they can make a ruling based on we believe or feel then what's to stop them from ruling on other issues that are based on feelings? That's what I agreed, in part at least, with what scalia said in his dissent. He talks about the majority ruling based on man's view (or the justices view) of the world instead of what is currently law.

Another issue that I take with this as another side reason is that regardless of what the womens movement tell us or what they would have us believe or how much some people would love for us to believe and accept that we are all just 'genderless' there are obvious falsehoods from those tenants. Something that is without a doubt best for children are a mom and a dad. All female and male innate and immutable traits necessary for child rearing cannot be copied or simulated from a two female or two males parents.

As hard as the 'male' or 'female' of the same sex couple wants to be or act like the other sex he or she will not be able to because some innate abilities they just don't possess. Thus, the consequences of child rearing from same sex couples become a problem for me. If you don't think this makes a difference look at all the statistics - from physical, physiological and mental health and including the heightened probabilities of drug use, suicide, school drop out rates, wedlock births and crime - if you just take the father out of the equation. If there is no father, whether the father is absent whether is in jail, just doesn't come around or whatever then these statistics show an alarming effect on children. Having two women trying to raise a child mimics correctly the absence of a father - thus "think of children" in this case really does apply I think.

Comment: Re:Assuming you're not a troll (Score 1, Flamebait) 1081 1081

So you aren't concerned about being being sued, fined and jailed for so called "hate speech"? If a person of faith speaks out against gay marriage and the government reprimands that person - then that is the government interfering.. and if you are so naive to think that scenario isn't coming - then I have a nice little bridge to sell you.

And Yes, i do believe the state (and moreso the states constituents) should be allowed, at their discretion to make any type of marriage illegal. If the state doesn't have that discretion then you are ok with the massive federal government doing so? It is very clear that the federal government overstepped here.. even hearing the case in the first place.

Comment: Re:Very Disturbing Trend (Score 2) 1081 1081

What I am saying is is that marriage was never a fundamental right to begin with. For anyone. I know the Supreme Court made it one - yeah they got that wrong to because for one that's not their job. Anything not specifically left to the federal government should be left to the states. That's whats clear in the constitution that I see and read.

The 14th amendment doesn't say that we as a people have a right to marry. How can it? The federal government didn't create or conceive it and therefore it should be a matter of the people to figure that out. (states rights) As we all know though people think differently, have different views and beliefs and those should be enacted on through the legislative branch where they reside. Therefore each state ought to decide through their own democratic process. Some states, before this ruling already gave same sex marriage legal status...some didn't and I am fine with that. I have a problem with the court telling all 50 states what to do on an issue that it has no job(legally) meddling with in in the first place.

Comment: Very Disturbing Trend (Score 5, Interesting) 1081 1081

So now we have a right out of thin air that has been left to the states in every form since the founding of our country. The majority in this case have clearly decided that 'progress' should sustain and even override the Constitution. Scalia's dissent is very brute force and blunt ...and rings true. Justice Roberts, on the other hand, seems to be confused. He, along with Scalia in this case basically says, the federal government has no say in an institution that it never conceived or created..etc etc and it should be left to the states - but then yesterday in the ACA ruling he basically is part of the majority that there should be a new right out of thin air based on word games. i.e. What does 'state' actually mean, instead of just abiding by what the Constitution says.

The 14th amendment does talk about equality for all but it doesn't express a fundamental right to marry, even for heterosexuals. In other words, since the states have been handing out marriage certificates, it has never had a legal right to do nor a fundamental religious or natural reason to do so but the states chose to do so to help solidify a taxpayer base that was grounded in strong family units - (i.e. families that stay in the state that shop, live, eat and contribute overall to their communities) and the states recognized that a stable family unit was beneficial (whether you agree or question the motives).

What's to stop three people from wanting to marry? I don't mean to be a conspirator but according to the language that I see there is nothing that can stop it. What about four? How in this world now are we supposed to both protect same sex marriage AND protect the freedom of religion and the ability to practice and act upon our beliefs without being sued? I am waiting now for the first lawsuit to appear about a pastor at a church won't marry Jane and Sally because of the pastors firmly held beliefs and the core doctrine and tenants of the church's faith. I see there is language talking about this balance in the ruling - but that's not going to stop people from getting targeted and sued.

This is the beginning of mish mash of lawsuits that the SCOTUS has brought on all of us. If they can make up rights out of thin air then there's nothing stopping them from doing it again...and again..and scalia calls the court egotistical..with an overreaching hubris...

Today and yesterday really and truly make me afraid of our freedoms moving forward.

Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself.