Gays Excluded from 14th Amendment Protections, Argue Chicago Lawyers - Page 2

"Can we all get along...and fuck-up a black guy?" Beautiful words, Rodney King.

I'm sure you could find someone who would argue just that. Bill Kristol, perhaps, or maybe a chunk of the losers on Free Republic. Treason is defined by many Republicans as 'things people do or say that we don't like.'

Don't you get it, Dave? It's funny to mock bisexuals. Their orientation is atypical, and therefore threatening and confusing. Plus, there aren't very many of them, so you're unlikely to get called on your knee-jerk reaction. HA HA!

A slight hijack: there's nothing in the UN resolutions relevant to this issue that says any member state can react in any manner it chooses if it believes (or pretends) the resolution is being violated. In fact, the text ends with 'we remain seized of this matter', meaning the UNSC decides when and how to act. Not you guys. The US isn't upholding the UN Resolutions regarding Iraq, it's hiding behind them.

Anyway, carry on.

I can get on board with this.

I expect it. I have learned that most message boards without a pre-loaded political slant tend toward leftist populations. I'm used to it which is why I do my best to engage in respectful, intelligent banter to help ingratiate myself to my captors.

Part of the problem here at CHUD is that we haven't had a libertarian who is actually capable of engaging in respectful, intelligent banter. We have some really good lefties and some really good righties so here's hoping to a good libertarian being added to the mix.

I understand that quite well. Comparing white collar crime to murder isn't applicable. I am comparing murder to murder. Murder should be enough to hang a trial on. It makes citizens unequal in the eyes of the law to bring additional punishment to bear because of the thoughts you have.

On a slight derailing note I have lobbied at two other boards for the current Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT) community to change, for the sake of television media, their acronym to Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian and Transgender (GBLT). I feel it would make things easier for Katie Couric if she could just say "giblet" instead of the entire phrase.

That's because libertarianism is a childish philosophy and it's tough to make conversation about it rise above that level.

And what kind of a Libertarian supports the UN?

Like DaveB pointed out, there are gradations even within murder. Length of punishment differs depending on whether the person was collected and calm while he killed someone, the manner he did it in, what type of activity he was engaged in when he committed the crime, etc. And you forget a major reason why hate crimes legislation exists. When someone commits a hate crime, it is in part to instill fear and dominance over the target minority. All reasons why having greater punishments for hate crimes seem acceptable to me.

Hate Crimes are basically a form of terrorism, that's why they're worse.

I don't support the UN. But it happens to be the current international governing body for resolving certain things. The UN resolutions were enforceable by the member nations. The US had the guts. It isn't the only reason I hold, just the basis.

And can you elaborate on the childishness of libertarianism? What is childish about going about your business to the extent that it doesn't interfere with someone else's life, liberty or property?

I think childish might be a little harsh. I think it's a more black and white philosophy then most but some people see the world in black and white.

Of course part of my rankling at that term is that I'm a Douglas socialist and I've been accused of being childish and naive on any number of occasions so maybe I'm just not so fond of it as a criticism.

Bingo. There's an intentional societal element that's not there in a robbery-related assault. If anything, robbers don't want people to be scared to the point that they move away from an area or stay indoors. They want victims out there. Hate crime perpetrators ostensibly* want to drive out people who are like those that they attack.

* "Ostensibly" because, deep down, some racists and homophobes might love having targets around upon which to vent their otherwise aimless rage. But even with that as a consideration, hate crimes have different societal consequences than robbery-based assaults.

You don't support the UN, but you support what they say? Yikes. I think I'm okay with your style, because you're not very good at being a Libertarian.

And see your above response as to why it's childish. Libertarians don't trust the government, except to do shit they want them to do. What that really means is that they don't actually distrust the government, it's that they don't WANT the government to help people other than them, or people like them. On a philosophical level, no Libertarian should support the UN in the least, but here we have a situation where you support going into a sovereign nation to take over their land. But you support THIS government action just because you agree with it on some other level.

Fuck that. Libertarianism is a grown up acting like a selfish child.

I can't have respect for current law yet wish that those laws were different? I respect our current drug laws but work to change them in anyway that I can.

I want my government to mediate disputes arising out of the infringement of others life, liberty and property rights in the most basic of forms. Start there and lets work our way outward.

I never claimed to distrust the government. I think government is too intrusive. Look at it this way, on the left you have your moonbats and the rest of the liberals and on the right you have your religious right and the rest of the conservatives. I am in the "rest of the libertarian" group outside of the more eccentric members of my chosen political party.

See above, I don't want government to help me on any level besides upholding my rights to life, liberty and my property rights.

Philosophically, yes. But you are trying to pigeon hole me into a platform when you should know better that things are never black and white in any political party. The way I described myself gets you the most accurate information that I could provide in as succinct a post as possible. Any further generalizations you make at your own peril of looking foolish.

No, I don't. I favored removing a brutal dictator that possessed weapons he had not accounted for in direct violation of UN resolutions. Beyond the accomplishment of that goal I favor seeing the Iraqi people in full control of their own country with a Middle Eastern viable republic. I do favor having a presence in the region similar to our bases in Germany following WWII but I am no occupier, sir.

Also, the nature of my job oftentimes means I will disappear in the middle of a spirited debate for long periods of time. I apologize in advance for this and do my best to come back around to threads I have had to step away from.

Not to go too far afield here, but I think the fundamental problem with Libertarianism is that it doesn't sufficiently recognize that a representational government, at its best, is not separate from its people, but is directly controlled by them. It's only supposed to have the authority that we grant it. To me, this means if the government isn't doing what you want, you work to fix it, you don't limit its powers outright. When you limit it, you allow other entities (read: giant corporations) to run the show. Unlike the government, which is supposed to represent our interests, corporations do not give a fuck about you. The way I see it, in this case, you fix what's broke, rather than let the power shift from us (who are, essentially, the government) to not us (corporations).

My feelings used to be more mixed about Libertarianism, but Adam Warren (who doesn't post here nearly enough these days) led me to this book, and it significantly changed how I looked at the concept of government and its relationship to corporatism.

He's protected as an American, he doesn't need to be protected under anything else. This makes no sense, and any judge who hears that argument should be disbarred along with this scumbag retarded lawyer.

It's a shame that his name got sullied when his wife badly abused her power as Governor General of Canada. He's a brilliant man (read Voltaire's Bastards as well as the Doubter's Companion) but has bad taste in partners.

Also, not to mis-characterize scsotdc's beliefs, but I find that Libertarianism does tend to appeal to young people who:

A. Have fallen in love with the idea of the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

B. Are overly paranoid about their guns being taken away.

C. Have never had significant medical bills that cause them to question what would happen if they'd been unemployed at the time.

D. Have just read Ayn Rand for the first time and are relieved to discover that their instinctive selfishness isn't just selfishness, but is a so-called Philosophy.

E. Are financially stable to begin with. The poor are seldom in favor of the Free Market.

So I don't think Guttenberg's too off-base. There is something kind of childish about Libertarianism, if only in that it's a kind of simple philosophy that has a lot of appeal to young people who haven't been exposed to much of the world yet.

FROM A LAWYER FRIEND ON ANOTHER BOARD:

Ok, I actually read the complaint. It's a seven count complaint poorly draftd, but only one count relates to the equal protection clause. The strongest count is the one under section 1983 for civil rights violations by the police officers. The dismissal of the equal protection count won't really hurt his case, and it's likely that the city will offer him some money to get rid of him quickly, or drag it out because he is HIV positive hoping that he'll die before it comes to trial.


I also read the motion to dismiss, and the city did not move to dismiss the section 1983 count. They did move to dismiss some state law counts that are time barred, as well as the equal protection count.


The court hasn't ruled yet and it's set for status hearing on 10/31/07.


If any of you actually want to see the documents (I can't imagine why you would), I can email them to you. I have them in PDF form.

I agree with most of what you've said there Dave but I've always wondered about A. I'm a firm believer in the legalization of drugs and prostitution but under the control of the government ie) like liquor laws in most Canadian provinces or prostitution in Holland (not the best example but it will have to suffice). I guess I'm not sure how a libertarian would see one more thing under the control of the government as a good thing.

While I'm not going to lose sleep over it and I'm going to state this dirty and quick, but I'd rather the punishment for murder increased to whatever the hate crime max is (let's say from 40 to 60 years) and allow decreases for what would be "mitgating circumstances."

I know that gets into a whole debate about the role of judges (and then into judicial elections), but I just don't like speech, even the most egregious speech, playing any role.

Please, call me Scotty. Easier to type.

Simple, I agree with drunk driving laws because the consequences of doing so can and often do interfere with someone else's life and property.

As to drugs, I feel people should be able to do with their bodies what they please as long as doing so doesn't deprive me of, well, I think you guys get my drift by now.

I wonder what Larry Craig had to say about this issue.

Here's a good essay on why hate crime laws are important. Many of the points have been brought up already in this thread, but he states them well.

Why would the government have control of drugs and prostitution be legalizing it? If you're libertarian, you want them legalized, and just a part of the free market, i.e. no special taxation, regulation, etc.

To somewhat summarize DaveB's point, Libertarianism is childish because it requires a complete lack of empathy. Children have a hard time seeing things from anything but their own perspective, as do Libertarians (okay, in all honesty, we all have a 'hard time' with it. I'm aware there's no such thing as true empathy, but we recognize this and do the best we can).

I'll ask him. "Okay, Larry. If the 14th Amendment covers gays, tap your foot twice..."

Yeah, I'm not sure where Ryan got the idea that I was implying government control of those things. Most Libertarians wouldn't want government control of them.

Frankly, I'm pro-decriminalization of those things, but with government control. The thing is that a good share of the young Libertarians I've known embraced the party on this single issue, usually because these folks were in an experimental phase, and they discovered a visible political entity that makes legalization a talking point.

I don't think drug availability needs to be intrinsically tied to the Libertarian Party, though. In fact, the biggest flaw in their stance is that, minus some sort of FDA approval (or some sort of standardization process), corporations could put any dangerous shit they want on the market. Naturally, this wouldn't be much differen than it is now on the illegal market, but drug use, upon legality, would probably be a lot more widespread.

It also often assumes too much on behalf of other people's empathy. I've heard Libertarians suggest that general benevolence and charitable organizations will somehow take the place of mandatory taxation and government welfare. This is, of course, bullshit. We're just not that empathetic a people without someone nudging us a bit.

Yeah, it's just funny to me how a government run by the people can be distrusted more than a corporation whose sole goal is to make money, or a church whose sole goal is conversion (only through conversion can they 'save my soul').

I've heard the old charitable donations argument as well, and is another example of immaturity. I mean, the theory is, if we all have more money - i.e. not giving the government tax dollars - then we'd just give away that extra money that we would have paid in taxes, right? Assuming that's correct, it's insanely stupid for a couple of reasons; 1) People who don't want to pay taxes just want more money. They're not asking the government to give it back to them, just so they can give it away. They're liars. And 2) I'm not an economics expert (or even decent at it), but if everyone has more money, then isn't that money worth less? If everyone's financial situation rises the same percentage, doesn't that mean nothing has actually changed? Isn't that just inflation? In fact, doesn't it actually harm the lower classes more, since they already essentially go without taxes. So, we're just giving more money to the people who already have it, which increases the poverty gap exponentially.

There's some merit to some libertarian ideals, but only when taken in moderation. It's when taken at full face value and then put together with every other libertarian ideal that it's becomes the true craziness that is the libertarian party. The charitable donation reduction angle does have some merit when you look at the myriad of government sponsored charities. There's obvious cases for unemployment, health and many social services which really should be taxed as the cost of dealing with the social welfare of a government's citizens. But digging through the U.S. books now, you can find countless government sponsored programs that are the result of pork barrel initiatives designed to appease specific legislator's campaign supporters. It's tough to say it's the duty of a free and enlightened government to support grants for developing finger-painting techniques instead of letting those people who enjoy that art form support it on their own.


I'm no economics expert either, but that would only be correct if people held on to their money. Extra available income on the average tends to result in people spending money on non-essential items (Imported Scotch, expensive electronic equipment, more Imported Scotch) and extra-curricular activities (nights out at restaurants, the movies, bars). This tends to drive secondary business initiatives, especially in service oriented industries, where the end-result is job creation allowing lower classes to enter the workforce often at a higher pay scale due to demand.


As for the libertarian angle on Vice Crimes (Drugs & Ho's) it's better argued from a public welfare and economic angle than the no big-government one. Legalization would best be served by government regulation, creating a safer situation for those indulging, and taxation, which would transfer money from criminal elements to citizens and the government making more money available for public services. A win-win for everyone involved save Columbian cartels who wouldn't be able to fund their private armies anymore.