Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:09 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 135 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bob in Boston wrote:
It would seem to me, too, that the tort bar has some serious work to do to reverse public opinion on the frivolous-lawsuit issue, unless the following is way off base:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34038872/ns/politics

And it would seem to me that those proposing tort reform should come up with less ham-fisted proposals than limiting jury trial awards, as was discussed in the article you cited. Limiting jury trial awards does not address the purported problem of too many frivolous lawsuits; all it does is lessen the amount of recovery one can receive from a medical malpractice claim, legitimate claims included. If you want to limit purportedly frivolous lawsuits, you have to increase the pleading standard for medical malpractice claims, and unfortunately that requires a little more thought that those proposing tort reform are willing to exercise.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5815
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
ZelieMike wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
Bob in Boston wrote:
With all due respect to the attorneys on the board, tort reform would reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits against medical practitioners and lower the cost of the malpractice cover they pay. That, too, would help lower the cost of healthcare. Not that I expect to see it in my lifetime.


Bob -
Defense lawyer here.
Working for clients advocating tort reform.
Its a farce. Blaming plaintiff's lawyers is a smoke screen. What is a "frivolous" lawsuit? One without any semblance of merit? One where the defendant wins? There are already remedies available for defendants who are the "victims" of "frivolous" lawsuits...


Into the sea, all of you! Just kidding, glad I chose the full tort option on my car insurance when ZelieWife's Honda was totaled.

But, I digress.

The question is then why the explosion in liability insurance for doctors to protect themselves against lawsuits? Why is it now almost impossible to find an obstetrician in PA under the age of 50 with no new ones on the way? Are doctors now THAT fundamentally bad that full tort is required to protect the patient?

Why has the cost of insurance gone down in states that have practiced some type of limited tort option?

If frivolous suits are not an economic issue, why are the economics of protection from them so expensive?

I daresay I think you and I, and doctors will have a different idea what constitutes frivolous.

ZM


Explosion in liability insurance for med mal insurance? Look at who owns those insurance companies (ummm, they are primarily owned by doctors) and look at thier bottom line (huge money maker - HUGE). Michigan enacted tort reform and med mal premiums continued to rise. Texas enacted tort reform and health care costs continued to rise.

As for frivolous . . . every doctor I have represented considers any lawsuit filed alleging malpractice to be frivolous. However, in every single jurisdiction in this country a med mal lawsuit cannot proceed unless there is an "expert" in that practitioner's field of practice willing to get on the stand, raise his/her right hand and swear on oath that the defendant physician deviated from the standard of care for a medical practitioner. Now . . . are those plaintiff's experts "whores?" Not all . . . but surely some are and are taking advantage of exorbitant fees.

Look at the statistics. Total money paid out in settlements. Down. Total money paid out in verdicts. Down. Total money paid in defense costs. Down. Total number of lawsuits filed (even in jurisdictions with no tort reform --- ssssssh). Down. The only increase in the insurer's equation involves the hourly rate of defense lawyers which has risen far less than the cost of living over the last 10-20 years. How do I know that? A vast number of firms doing med mal defense work simply quit because the med mal insurance companies didn't want to keep up with the market and would rather pay lower rates. So, with those stats, why are insurance premiums continuning to go up? Ask the physicians . . . . ask the insurers.

A study I read some time ago suggested that perhaps 3 percent of situations where a doctor deviated from the standard of care result in an actual lawsuit and about 7 percent result in a claim but no suit is filed. My wife (a former pediatric ICU nurse) will shock you with stories of what she saw in her unit with physicians absolutely blowing situations and where nurses (sometimes my wife and sometimes other nurses) pulled the doc's ass out of the fire for being asleep at the switch. Bottom line? There's a ton going on behind the scenes, stuff that never EVER gets recorded in the medical records and I have very little sympathy when I hear about "frivolous" lawsuits.

I can't speak to why no obstetricans are coming to Pennsylvania. While Philadelphia is no defendant's haven, the State of Pennsylvania is not generally regarded as a judicial hellhole.

In those states where the cost of insurance has gone down, what is the result to the patient? Doctors slashing their fees and rates? Health care costs going down? Health insurance costs going down for the general public?

Sorry to be a cynic but I've been too close to the situation to feel a whole lot of sympathy for those crying poor.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5815
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Bob in Boston wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
Bob -
Defense lawyer here.
Working for clients advocating tort reform.
Its a farce. Blaming plaintiff's lawyers is a smoke screen. What is a "frivolous" lawsuit? One without any semblance of merit? One where the defendant wins? There are already remedies available for defendants who are the "victims" of "frivolous" lawsuits.

The most expensive lawsuits to defend and the biggest defense cost to medical insurers involve close cases - cases which are hotly contested and debated. And, thus, very expensive. Frivolous cases are dealt with quickly by courts. Plaintiff's lawyers already have very little incentive to take "frivolous" cases because medical malpractice cases are very expensive to pursue. Really bad cases (and when I write "bad" I am referring to where the doctor screwed up) settle quickly. By far, the major cost to medical insurers involve cases which have merit and where the outcome at trial could go either way.

But . . . it is good strategy to go after lawyers. No one likes a lawyer unless you need one.

Sorry . . . not buying it. Not one bit.


No. 9, you would know more about this aspect of the discussion than I. You make an interesting point. But all these practitioners who complain about the high cost of malpractice insurance they're required to carry: Are they just blowing smoke?

Just asking.

It would seem to me, too, that the tort bar has some serious work to do to reverse public opinion on the frivolous-lawsuit issue, unless the following is way off base:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34038872/ns/politics


I complain about the amount of taxes I pay. Why? I'd rather have more $$ in my pocket.
Why do physicians complain about malpractice insurance? Same reason. They want to keep more $$ in their pocket instead of adding to the bottom line of their carrier.

Does the public think that lawsuits are a problem? They sure do. But, if they actually took the time to study the numbers, examine the proposals, have an understanding of how the system works and the result of proposed cap on damages, I suggest that they might reverse thier opinion. But, in today's society, most don't want to invest the necessary time, resources or energy to fully educate themselves. A sound bite here, a sound bite there coupled with loaded emotional language is all it takes for the majority of our population. And, before anyone jumps to defend thier particular political party, it happens on both sides of the debate on any particular issue.

Most, if not all, persons would conclude that "frivolous" lawsuits are not desired.
Those same people would likely conclude that, if a licensed physician has declared that a plaintiff has a case because the treating physician deviated from the standard of care, the plaintiff should be able to bring a lawsuit. And, as mentioned earlier, every single jurisdiction in this country requires a licensed physician in the particular field of practice.

Everyone knows the McDonald's case. It is the poster child for tort reform.
The media did a horrible job of reporting all of the facts about this case and there is much misinformation circulated.

The focus on this case has been the amount of the punitive damages assessed against McD's. The jury determined based upon the facts of the case (including McD's getting caught in a number of . . . how shall I say this nicely . . . half-truths . . . which were proved by McD's own documents) that McD's conduct demonstrated a willful disregard for the public's safety. For instance, McD's claimed that customers wanted coffee served at a certain temperature (40 degrees hotter than its competitors???) but internal documents showed that McD's served it at the elevated temperature so that it could use less coffee grounds and maximize profits. There is other evidence which would support the conclusion as well but it is beside the point.

As far as the public's perception is concerned . . . . I was at a seminar and learned of a study performed in reaction to this case . . .
100 people were asked, if punitive damages were fully justified, was $2.7M an excessive punitive damages award? The vast majority said "yes."
100 people were asked, if punitive damages were fully justified, was punishing McD's an amount equal to 2 days coffee sales excessive? Nearly everyone said "no."

The irony? $2.7M = 2 days coffee sales for McD's.

Also, the punitive damages were reduced to less than $500,000.

So . . . if the purpose of punitive damages is to deter future bad conduct and to punish a wrongdoer . . . how would you decide if you were on a jury? What amount of money would deter future bad conduct? 2 days of coffee sales = "frivolous" "excessive" ?????

Again, I hate to be a cynic, but I put very little into what the public as a whole thinks about most matters.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5815
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Bob in Boston wrote:
You're correct about one thing, though: You may argue political issues here to your heart's content but you will not change my mind. I am a proud conservative. I embrace conservatism. I revel in it. I cherish it. I believe in people standing on their own two feet. Beyond keeping this nation safe from all enemies foreign and domestic, I favor as little governmental involvement in our lives as possible.


Bob,
Do you believe that the government should be able to outlaw a pregnant woman's desire to have/procure an abortion?
Do you believe that the government should be able to outlaw the "morning after" pill?
Do you believe that the government should be able to outlaw a gay or lesbian couple from getting married?
Do you believe that the government should be able to keep a gay or lesbian person from adopting a child?
Do you believe that a public school should be able to have a prayer at the beginning of a school day?

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
Lots of "stuff" there. The big one for me is that I did not realize the doctors owned med mal insurance companies to any great degree.

My brother did not as a GP. I only saw the meteoric rise in insurance costs to his practice even though he was not taken to any court and was considered one of the best, if not the best, GP in his city.

To your questions of Bob regarding Government.

By Government, do you mean the will of the people, as voted, or of the political class insulated from, and disregarding that voice?

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5815
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Bob said he wanted as little governmental involvement in our lives as possible. I don't know what he means by government. Perhaps he can explain what he meant.

I read it as suggesting that we should have "freedom" and the government should stay out of our lives and merely exist to protect the citizenry from domestic and foreign enemies.

Personally, I don't view two lesbians in love with one another who want to legally commit to one another (in what our society calls marriage) as a "domestic enemy." From what I read, most conservatives want legislation in place to outlaw or prevent this activity. To me, that is "governmental involvement" in our lives beyond protecting me from either "domestic" and/or "foreign" enemies.

But that's just me . . . . I haven't seen the destruction, devaluing or disintegration of the institution of heterosexual marriage in Iowa since the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year - at least not anything more than what occurred before the ruling.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
"From what I read"

I believe this is the problem we have in America today. We isolate ourselves from anyone with a different point of view and never bother to learn what the average person thinks. You say that Republicans/Conservatives want to ban gay marriage. But I sit here knowing people like Pete Coors (chairman of Coors Brewing Co and a former candidate for the Senate from Colorado) and Meg McCain (daughter of Senator John McCain) are advocates of gay marriage. Coors Brewing Company already gives benefits to the same sex partners of it's homosexual employees. Both Cindy and Meg McCain (the wife and daughter of Sen John McCain) recently did ads in California opposing Prop 8.

If you want to take the stances of the religious right and apply them to all Republicans/Conservatives, that's fine. Just don't be offended when Republicans/Conservatives take the stances of groups like Code Pink and applyt them to all Democrats/Liberals.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
"From what I read"

I believe this is the problem we have in America today. We isolate ourselves from anyone with a different point of view and never bother to learn what the average person thinks. You say that Republicans/Conservatives want to ban gay marriage. But I sit here knowing people like Pete Coors (chairman of Coors Brewing Co and a former candidate for the Senate from Colorado) and Meg McCain (daughter of Senator John McCain) are advocates of gay marriage. Coors Brewing Company already gives benefits to the same sex partners of it's homosexual employees. Both Cindy and Meg McCain (the wife and daughter of Sen John McCain) recently did ads in California opposing Prop 8.

If you want to take the stances of the religious right and apply them to all Republicans/Conservatives, that's fine. Just don't be offended when Republicans/Conservatives take the stances of groups like Code Pink and applyt them to all Democrats/Liberals.

Jeremy, enough with the strawman arguments. No. 9 is not taking the stances of the religious right and applying them to all Republicans/Conservatives. He's taking said stances and applying them to most Republicans/Conservatives, which is largely correct. Cindy and Meghan McCain are not representative of most Republicans or conservatives.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
Willton wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
"From what I read"

I believe this is the problem we have in America today. We isolate ourselves from anyone with a different point of view and never bother to learn what the average person thinks. You say that Republicans/Conservatives want to ban gay marriage. But I sit here knowing people like Pete Coors (chairman of Coors Brewing Co and a former candidate for the Senate from Colorado) and Meg McCain (daughter of Senator John McCain) are advocates of gay marriage. Coors Brewing Company already gives benefits to the same sex partners of it's homosexual employees. Both Cindy and Meg McCain (the wife and daughter of Sen John McCain) recently did ads in California opposing Prop 8.

If you want to take the stances of the religious right and apply them to all Republicans/Conservatives, that's fine. Just don't be offended when Republicans/Conservatives take the stances of groups like Code Pink and applyt them to all Democrats/Liberals.

Jeremy, enough with the strawman arguments. No. 9 is not taking the stances of the religious right and applying them to all Republicans/Conservatives. He's taking said stances and applying them to most Republicans/Conservatives, which is largely correct. Cindy and Meghan McCain are not representative of most Republicans or conservatives.


Jesus you're just a miserable son of a bitch aren't you. No wonder you spend so much time on here, you must have alomost no friends in real life.

I


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
No. 9 wrote:
B
Personally, I don't view two lesbians in love with one another who want to legally commit to one another (in what our society calls marriage) as a "domestic enemy." From what I read, most conservatives want legislation in place to outlaw or prevent this activity. To me, that is "governmental involvement" in our lives beyond protecting me from either "domestic" and/or "foreign" enemies..


You personally, and me, personally. However, what about when the act is shot down in voter referendum after voter referendum? Is that the government speaking. And,is it a government speaking to what they view as added value to society in a heterosexual marriage.

Or, do you ask a court to shove an act down the throats of the electorate? (no pun intended)

Is that government?

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
Willton wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
"From what I read"

I believe this is the problem we have in America today. We isolate ourselves from anyone with a different point of view and never bother to learn what the average person thinks. You say that Republicans/Conservatives want to ban gay marriage. But I sit here knowing people like Pete Coors (chairman of Coors Brewing Co and a former candidate for the Senate from Colorado) and Meg McCain (daughter of Senator John McCain) are advocates of gay marriage. Coors Brewing Company already gives benefits to the same sex partners of it's homosexual employees. Both Cindy and Meg McCain (the wife and daughter of Sen John McCain) recently did ads in California opposing Prop 8.

If you want to take the stances of the religious right and apply them to all Republicans/Conservatives, that's fine. Just don't be offended when Republicans/Conservatives take the stances of groups like Code Pink and applyt them to all Democrats/Liberals.

Jeremy, enough with the strawman arguments. No. 9 is not taking the stances of the religious right and applying them to all Republicans/Conservatives. He's taking said stances and applying them to most Republicans/Conservatives, which is largely correct. Cindy and Meghan McCain are not representative of most Republicans or conservatives.


Jesus you're just a miserable son of a bitch aren't you. No wonder you spend so much time on here, you must have alomost no friends in real life.

I

... says the person who is apparently so frustrated that he must resort to ad hominem attacks.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
You know what...forget it.

You're one of the more arrogant and condesceding people I've come across on a message board and I simply going to choose to stop engaging you. It's become obvious that you have no interest in conversation, rather you enjoy proselytizing and have made this board a far less enjoyable place.

Others can enjoy your hypocrisy and arrogance. I'd rather talk to real Pirates fans.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
B
Personally, I don't view two lesbians in love with one another who want to legally commit to one another (in what our society calls marriage) as a "domestic enemy." From what I read, most conservatives want legislation in place to outlaw or prevent this activity. To me, that is "governmental involvement" in our lives beyond protecting me from either "domestic" and/or "foreign" enemies..


You personally, and me, personally. However, what about when the act is shot down in voter referendum after voter referendum? Is that the government speaking. And,is it a government speaking to what they view as added value to society in a heterosexual marriage.

Or, do you ask a court to shove an act down the throats of the electorate? (no pun intended)

Is that government?

ZM

I'm lost here. What is this act of which you speak? Last I checked, voter referendums regarding this issue have created new law, not shot it down. Furthermore, courts have not been asked to cram legislation down the throats of the electorate. Courts have been asked to do quite the opposite: invalidate legislation.

If you think that government involvement is permissible when the voter electorate believes that such involvement adds value to society, then I suppose you would have had no problem with Jim Crow laws prior to the 1960's, as they were enacted under the same auspices.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Last edited by Willton on Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
You know what...forget it.

You're one of the more arrogant and condesceding people I've come across on a message board and I simply going to choose to stop engaging you. It's become obvious that you have no interest in conversation, rather you enjoy proselytizing and have made this board a far less enjoyable place.

Others can enjoy your hypocrisy and arrogance. I'd rather talk to real Pirates fans.

Right, because I'm not a real Pirate fan. Real Pirate fans think and act like you. How silly of me!

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
Willton wrote:
I'm lost here. What is this act of which you speak? Last I checked, voter referendums regarding this issue have created new law, not shot it down. Furthermore, courts have not been asked to cram legislation down the throats of the electorate. Courts have been asked to do quite the opposite: invalidate legislation.


You are correct, and I worded that badly. But, the point is still correct, everywhere that the issue has been put on the ballot, it has been shot down by vote.

Quote:
If you think that government involvement is permissible when the voter electorate believes that such involvement adds value to society, then I suppose you would have had no problem with Jim Crow laws prior to the 1960's, as they were enacted under the same auspices.


Not so, the courts ruled that Jim Crow laws violated the most basic tenants of the constitution. You are equating the a born trait of skin color with a lifestyle choice?

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
Willton wrote:
I'm lost here. What is this act of which you speak? Last I checked, voter referendums regarding this issue have created new law, not shot it down. Furthermore, courts have not been asked to cram legislation down the throats of the electorate. Courts have been asked to do quite the opposite: invalidate legislation.


You are correct, and I worded that badly. But, the point is still correct, everywhere that the issue has been put on the ballot, it has been shot down by vote.

Quote:
If you think that government involvement is permissible when the voter electorate believes that such involvement adds value to society, then I suppose you would have had no problem with Jim Crow laws prior to the 1960's, as they were enacted under the same auspices.


Not so, the courts ruled that Jim Crow laws violated the most basic tenants of the constitution. You are equating the a born trait of skin color with a lifestyle choice?

ZM

If you think being a homosexual is a lifestyle choice, then there is no helping you.

If you think that gay marriage is a lifestyle choice, then I suggest you read Loving v. Virginia. See below for a quick blurb from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
Willton wrote:
ZelieMike wrote:
Willton wrote:
I'm lost here. What is this act of which you speak? Last I checked, voter referendums regarding this issue have created new law, not shot it down. Furthermore, courts have not been asked to cram legislation down the throats of the electorate. Courts have been asked to do quite the opposite: invalidate legislation.


You are correct, and I worded that badly. But, the point is still correct, everywhere that the issue has been put on the ballot, it has been shot down by vote.

Quote:
If you think that government involvement is permissible when the voter electorate believes that such involvement adds value to society, then I suppose you would have had no problem with Jim Crow laws prior to the 1960's, as they were enacted under the same auspices.


Not so, the courts ruled that Jim Crow laws violated the most basic tenants of the constitution. You are equating the a born trait of skin color with a lifestyle choice?

ZM

If you think being a homosexual is a lifestyle choice, then there is no helping you.

If you think that gay marriage is a lifestyle choice, then I suggest you read Loving v. Virginia. See below for a quick blurb from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia


Any lifestyle is a choice. Marriage is a choice. You sir, are equating a lifestyle choice with a born trait. And, poorly using Jim Crow in the process, or even developing a strawman to equate homosexual marriage as a BORN TRAIT.

Homosexuals are not restricted in any inalienable right due the constitution. Thus overturning Jim Crow laws. Wanting to adopt a lifestyle is something else altogether. Wanting to change a millennial old institution is something else altogether.

PS, trying to use interracial marriage is again, a very poor analogy.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
Willton wrote:
If you think being a homosexual is a lifestyle choice, then there is no helping you.

If you think that gay marriage is a lifestyle choice, then I suggest you read Loving v. Virginia. See below for a quick blurb from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia


Any lifestyle is a choice. Marriage is a choice. You sir, are equating a lifestyle choice with a born trait. And, poorly using Jim Crow in the process, or even developing a strawman to equate homosexual marriage as a BORN TRAIT.

Hardly. What I am equating is a born physical trait (skin color) with a born mental trait (sexual orientation), and what I'm saying is what's good for the goose (interracial marriage) is good for the gander (same-sex marriage).

Quote:
Homosexuals are not restricted in any inalienable right due the constitution. Thus overturning Jim Crow laws. Wanting to adopt a lifestyle is something else altogether. Wanting to change a millennial old institution is something else altogether.

I see. So while you say that homosexuals are not restricted in any inalienable right, you have no problem denying them legal protections and privileges (e.g., the privilege of marriage) based upon their sexual orientation. Perhaps you need another look at the 14th Amendment.

By the way, the same "millennial old institution" used to also prohibit interracial marriage.

ZelieMike wrote:
PS, trying to use interracial marriage is again, a very poor analogy.

ZM

Really? Would you care to explain why? Because many legal scholars disagree with you.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
By the way, Bob in Boston's silence is deafening. ;)

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
Well, first, in the history of the world, marriage between races is the norm, not the exception. This of course, does not include certain cultures having rules to ban such things (usually ignored)

But, you are trying to equivocate skin color with sexual orientation. Bad, bad, bad. Crow laws denied folks of color from inalienable rights due a person. Recognition of same-sex marriage is not in that league. You are asking a religious institution that is accepted as a civic union to be applied in the face of the religion behind it. Not good.

As pointed out earlier, I have no problem with folks being together whether heterosexual or homosexual. I would support a civic union that allows all the tax ramification of marriage. For myself, I recognize and respect the religious view whether I agree or not, and would vote against a marriage proposal that forces religions to recognize the marriages against their will.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 135 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits