Comments on Advance Indiana™: Reagan Judge Warns Amendments Will Warrant History's Censure

The anonymous nobody at 1:33 demonstrates its un-A...

2007-04-23T16:46:00.000-05:00

The anonymous nobody at 1:33 demonstrates its un-Americanism with its callous brushing away of U.S. constitutional democracy and then further shows its ignorance by incorrectly spelling "martial law" -- when one gets one's thoughts from rightwing AM-talk radio, I guess everything is phonetic!

Yeah, your civil rights are a bitch to defend, unl...

2007-04-23T15:42:00.000-05:00

Yeah, your civil rights are a bitch to defend, unless you need them.

We need marshal law in indiana and the first peopl...

2007-04-23T13:33:00.000-05:00

We need marshal law in indiana and the first people to go should be ACLU lawyers

Oh please do not bring up the dreaded W and J name...

2007-04-23T11:43:00.000-05:00

Oh please do not bring up the dreaded W and J names. Good post Gary.

(click) paste(click) copy(click) paste into email ...

2007-04-23T07:14:00.000-05:00

(click) paste
(click) copy
(click) paste into email to my legislator, SJR7 sponsors, and Eric Miller, Micah Clark, et al

I always wondered why conservative Republicans, who typically eschew federal intervention into private affairs, could stomach this Amendment. It runs counter to their basic beliefs about government, which is grounded in a healthy distrust of all things federal.

Superb. THIS is why I read AI.

It's so good that even a good Jocelyn-Wilson fight could bring me down from this high.

Thanks for an excellent beginning to the week.

Wilkinson said a mouthful there. He's perfectly c...

2007-04-23T06:19:00.000-05:00

Wilkinson said a mouthful there. He's perfectly correct. I'd qualify his statement about final authority to judges though, any single judicial ruling wouldn't be the final authority. Since the wording on SJR-7 makes little sense, whenever this law is challenged in court, the judge will pull any kind of ruling he wants out of his hat. That will stand as the law until the next judge comes up with his own completely different ruling. Could be a Monty Python episode.

Thanks! That was a great read, and quite a sane ...

2007-04-23T01:52:00.000-05:00

Thanks! That was a great read, and quite a sane treatment of the situation in America. Though I am puzzled by his interpretation of Lawrence as being "eminently just and humane" and yet deriding the need for a decision of the Surpeme Court concerning "gay rights." What Wilkinson termed "a decent and humane path" should not necessarily be a legislative process; a true democracy would not have denied what is decent and humane to have been a right in the first place.

Wilkinson at times seems to withdraw into a position commensurate with what might be his religious/moral determination. Thus he even points towards a "slippery slope" concerning marriage for gays and lesbians in his conclusion.

I remember thinking after Lawrence that this was just as far as we should go concerning gay rights in the courts and that everything should then be fought on a state-by-state basis in the legislatures. But then the far-rightist "family" organizations started whining about gay marriage (and I was sure all they wanted was money at the time). Then they went after constitutional amendments and Goodridge happened. I said then that decision might help Massachusetts gays but it would screw the pooch for all the rest of us. I was mostly right.

But other than that Wilkinson certainly seems to have a level head there, and assess the constitutional situation quite well.

-- Lynn David

Wilkinson is absolutely correct. SJR7 is/was punit...

2007-04-22T18:43:00.000-05:00

Wilkinson is absolutely correct. SJR7 is/was punitive in nature and is also as redundant as the asinine "Equal Rights Amendment" that seems to be resurfacing these days. We already have laws in Indiana that protect the meaning of marriage, and that's more than good enough.