# Pat Robertson claims federal judges are greater threat than al Qaeda/Nazi Germany **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 3, 2005, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171 "2005-05-03T03:02:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/161 "2005-05-09T21:31:06Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > Cost of massive amounts of railway safety. > Cost of health care for those injured. > Salaries of police officers who exist primarily to enforce traffic law. > > Now, combined with the fact that professional drivers should easily be able to pass a strong competency-based driving exam, what kinds of economic impact were you thinking of? The economic benefits of mobility is what I principally had in mind. Besides, we aren’t talking about mechanical competency, but rather emotional maturity, something much harder to quantify and test. But all of that is neither here nor there. You still haven’t addressed my point, which is that even if you disagree with the status quo regarding driver testing, surely you can see there are rational arguments for keeping it in place. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/162 "2005-05-09T21:33:43Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Do you honestly believe any court in America would actually agree with you? I find it absolutely incredible that a court would uphold legislation limiting marriage to only those who can procreate, even under the rational basis test. There is no way a court would uphold that kind of restriction. I did not say the courts would uphold such a regime. Doubtlessly, they would strike it down under modern theories of substantive due process. My point is that such a regime would survive the rational basis test for a challenge brought under the equal protection clause. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/163 "2005-05-09T22:08:13Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The authors did intend equal rights to mean equal rights. That’s the basis for the decision. But for some reason you persist in thinking it’s about gay marriage, not equal rights. The cognitive dissonance continues. Tautological definitions are not terribly useful. A proper analysis of equal protection necessarily involves understanding the scope of what equal protection means. The government treats differently-situated people unequally all the time: children different from adults, prisoners differently than the law-abiding, and so on. Taking the equal protection clause at absolute face value would require negating a vast number of laws, many of them beneficial and laudatory. Do you think, for example, that the rich should pay more in taxes? If so, how can that withstand an absolutist view of equal protection? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Newly-discovered and newly-stated ones (speaking of activism) intended clearly buttress the argument that the authors must have meant equal rights to somehow exclude gays. New? The dissent cites to academic studies as early as 1962, Massachusetts court cases as early as 1810, and legal treatises from 1852. How on earth can you call this stuff “newly discovered”? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Nor have I. That’s your word. I do not “wish away” anything. To point out the bullshitness of an argument is hardly wishing it weren’t there. The arguments you’re referring to are, as already stated, not based in history or reason, except that the reason is to find a way to make gay-hating acceptable. You buy it. Well, as I’ve said quite explicitly, I do not “buy it.” I disagree with the procreation theory of marriage. But again, for the umpteenth time, the issue isn’t whether you or I find that argument particularly persuasive. It’s whether that argument is _irrational_. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The question is irrelevant, as already pointed out. But keep yelling into your echo chamber if you like. The question is not irrelevant. Again, I’m trying to discern upon what grounds you pronounce a law as “irrational.” You’ve implied that the under-inclusiveness of excluding gay marriage with respect to procreation makes that law irrational. So I’m asking, quite simply, is under- or over-inclusiveness your standard for rationality? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Bullshit. You’re trying to find a superficially-acceptable way to make a “Gay sex is just icky and we shouldn’t allow it” argument. Well, that is a damned lie and you know it. I support gay marriage. I have no qualms with gay people or their sexual proclivities. All I have a problem with is major societal changes being implemented via an end-run of the legislature. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > We have here just another example, if any were needed, of “activism” being defined as “any rulings I don’t like, and if I do like it, it isn’t activism”. If you really did hold that as a principle, you’d have to support the decision. But your capacity for hatred is apparently even stronger. Well, no. Activism is when the judiciary usurps the legislature, particularly under the pretext of mere constitutional interpretation. The Massachusetts court’s decision really can’t withstand scrutiny as the neutral application of well-understood constitutional interpretational principles. Ergo, activist. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/164 "2005-05-09T22:11:46Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > The economic benefits of mobility is what I principally had in mind. Besides, we aren’t talking about mechanical competency, but rather emotional maturity, something much harder to quantify and test. > > But all of that is neither here nor there. You still haven’t addressed my point, which is that even if you disagree with the status quo regarding driver testing, surely you can see there are rational arguments for keeping it in place. Hey, don’t lump me in with some of these people. I never claimed that there were no rational arguments for the current system as opposed to a purely merit-based system. I’m merely pointing out that just because we do it this way does not mean that it is the best way. In addition, you haven’t shown that age is necessarily the best way to quanitfy emotional maturity, especially given the prevalence of road rage and other such phenomona. Also: if you can’t easily test for emotionial maturity meaningfully, how can you gather statistics that show that it is a necessary component for the ability to use a car safely? I mean, you are basing your statements that people need to be emotionally mature to drive (and that screening out drivers younger than sixteen (or 15 with adult supervision) increases the overall maturity to acceptable levels) on something tangible, right? ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/165 "2005-05-09T22:20:49Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That is so false that it calls your claim to regard for fact into serious doubt. “Our side” regards _equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and each of its states_ as a Good Thing, and applies that legal principle to the reality of this situation. Your side regards gay marriage as a Bad Thing, and looks for legalistic arguments to support banning it. There is no clearer example of being results-oriented than your own position. You are not reasoning, you are rationalizing. > > Reverse your pronouns there. The process \*was \* followed in MA, \*honestly \*, deriving from the principles enshrined in the MA Constitution, and you have not succeeded in any way in showing where it wasn’t. You, by contrast, are happy to dream up lame \*ad hoc \* stories about the purpose of marriage being procreation and similar bullshit in order to affirm the self-righteousness of your own hatred. > > Don’t bother to regale us with any more complaints about so-called “judicial activism”. You are eager to use it yourself rather than consider people with different inborn sexual orientations to be real, equal citizens, just as “good” as you and with the same rights under the law. > > **Dewey** , same for you. Er, am I the only one actually reading **Bricker** ’s posts, here? **Bricker** , I would point out that surely you must have some goal in mind with the process, yes? Surely you are not arguing that the process must be followed as an end in and of itself, beyond the good that following the process does towards all Americans? Because if not, I’m curious at what level of legal abuse directed towards yourself you would accept before simply deciding that the process is broken. If laws were passed preventing Catholics or lawyers or children of immigrants from marrying, and that dissolved such marriages that already existed were null and void? Is the absence of judicial activism more important to you than your family? Whatever your answer, I hope that the process (heh) of thinking about this question made it slightly more clear why some of us care less about judicial activism and more about the rights in question. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/166 "2005-05-09T22:21:08Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You are eager to use it yourself rather than consider people with different inborn sexual orientations to be real, equal citizens, just as “good” as you and with the same rights under the law. > > **Dewey** , same for you. Oh, fuck you. A belief that gay people should be treated decently and equally, including the right to marry, is not mutually exclusive of a belief that such chages are properly brought about legislatively. Indeed, as I’ve said many times, I favor permitting gays to marry. Shame on you for trying to pass off a legitimately-held belief in constitutional principle as veiled homophobia. And fuck you again. Just for good measure. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/167 "2005-05-09T22:23:55Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Now you’re just being silly. You’re using height/weight as a proxy for age, and in turn using that as a proxy for maturity. Well, actually, I’m using it as a proxy for being a safe driver, but call it whatever you like. You can see the same correlations between height/weight and driving safety that you can between age or years of driving experience and driving safety. You can speculate that age is the right thing to base the limit on, but it’s just that, speculation. > [@](#): > > The age cutoff isn’t so much about being able to competently manage the mechanical aspects of operating a motor vehicle – parallel parking and the like – as it is about having the emotional maturity to handle the responsibility of operating a motor vehicle. Ah yes, “emotional maturity”, everyone’s favorite vague, undefinable, unmeasurable concept. I prefer to look at things that can be tested in the real world - is this person a safe driver, or isn’t he? > [@](#): > > Can’t do what? Claim we know from experience that a same-sex couple cannot reproduce on their own? I think we certainly can do precisely that. No, we can’t use that as evidence that sexual orientation is used as a stand-in for the ability to procreate, because no one else is tested for their ability to procreate before being given a marriage license. With driving, you could say that the age limit is a shortcut around giving the driving test to people who you know will fail it anyway (or perhaps a shortcut around having to design a better test); you can’t do the same with marriage, because _there is no test_ to shortcut around. Only one factor that affects procreation is examined–the sex of the people applying for marriage–and the rest are simply ignored, no matter how easy they’d be to examine. Sure seems like the important factor there is sexual orientation itself, not the effect it has on procreation. > [@](#): > > You are aware that the lunch counters were a small part of a larger struggle, right? Just as I’m sure you’re aware that the DMV is only one of many places that young people face discrimination. I’m not going to argue that young people have it worse today than black people did decades ago, but of course, I don’t have to. I compared two specific forms of discrimination, not _all_ discrimination targeted at the two groups. > [@robertliguori](#): > > I mean, you are basing your statements that people need to be emotionally mature to drive (and that screening out drivers younger than sixteen (or 15 with adult supervision) increases the overall maturity to acceptable levels) on something tangible, right? If the past is any indication: don’t hold your breath waiting for that tangible evidence. People love to talk about “maturity” and how vital it is for various activities, but no one seems to know how to tell whether or not someone has it, or exactly how much of it is necessary for any given task. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/168 "2005-05-09T22:26:39Z")
For the lova’ Mike! Sure, you may view the current legal practices as wrong, but if you say so, in a text based environment, then you are going to be seen as a bigot. Why? Because you are opposing a positive change, that’s why, as well as the fact that it is hard to tell your arguments apart from those of bigots trying to rationalize their hatred, that’s why. Now, you may put legal process ahead of freedom, but in the real world, that’s bad. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/169 "2005-05-09T22:39:39Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > Hey, don’t lump me in with some of these people. Heh. Sorry. > [@robertliguori](#): > > I never claimed that there were no rational arguments for the current system as opposed to a purely merit-based system. Well, my goal is not to defend the current system as a shining example of policy perfection. It’s just to show that there are rational arguments in favor of it, even though it discriminates based on age. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/170 "2005-05-09T22:54:02Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Well, actually, I’m using it as a proxy for being a safe driver, but call it whatever you like. You can see the same correlations between height/weight and driving safety that you can between age or years of driving experience and driving safety. You can speculate that age is the right thing to base the limit on, but it’s just that, speculation. You can see the same correlation because height and weight correlate with age. You’re just using those as substitute (and inferior) proxies for age. > [@Mr2001](#): > > Ah yes, “emotional maturity”, everyone’s favorite vague, undefinable, unmeasurable concept. I prefer to look at things that can be tested in the real world - is this person a safe driver, or isn’t he? I know plenty of 14-year olds who can master the mechanical aspects of driving a car. I know precious few who are ready for the responsibility of driving. You may find “emotional maturity” to be a vague concept, but that doesn’t mean it does not exist. Ask anyone who’s had to spend time around a group of 14 year olds. > [@Mr2001](#): > > No, we can’t use that as evidence that sexual orientation is used as a stand-in for the ability to procreate, because no one else is tested for their ability to procreate before being given a marriage license. > > With driving, you could say that the age limit is a shortcut around giving the driving test to people who you know will fail it anyway (or perhaps a shortcut around having to design a better test); you can’t do the same with marriage, because _there is no test_ to shortcut around. Only one factor that affects procreation is examined–the sex of the people applying for marriage–and the rest are simply ignored, no matter how easy they’d be to examine. Sure seems like the important factor there is sexual orientation itself, not the effect it has on procreation. You’re hand-waving away the costs of examining marital candidates for procreative ability. Besides, you can’t really say that about driving, because the age limit isn’t a shortcut around giving the test to people who will inevitably fail – I suspect most 14-year olds could in fact pass the driving test. It ain’t that hard. No, we limit youthful access to automobiles because most young 'uns simply aren’t prepared for the responsibility of driving. I’m amazed that anyone would seriously suggest we do so for other reasons. > [@Mr2001](#): > > Just as I’m sure you’re aware that the DMV is only one of many places that young people face discrimination. > > I’m not going to argue that young people have it worse today than black people did decades ago, but of course, I don’t have to. I compared two specific forms of discrimination, not _all_ discrimination targeted at the two groups. Segregated lunch counters were of a piece with segregation at large. Not so with youth-related restrictions – they are hardly systemic, and are generally in place for the protection of the minor. > [@Mr2001](#): > > If the past is any indication: don’t hold your breath waiting for that tangible evidence. People love to talk about “maturity” and how vital it is for various activities, but no one seems to know how to tell whether or not someone has it, or exactly how much of it is necessary for any given task. Maturity isn’t objectively measurable. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Again, spend a bit of time with a group of 14-year old boys and you’ll understand this to be true. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/171 "2005-05-09T23:00:15Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > Sure, you may view the current legal practices as wrong, but if you say so, in a text based environment, then you are going to be seen as a bigot. Why? Because you are opposing a positive change, that’s why, as well as the fact that it is hard to tell your arguments apart from those of bigots trying to rationalize their hatred, that’s why. It’s really not that hard if you take a minute to ACTUALLY READ MY FUCKING ARGUMENTS. Jesus Fucking Christ on a pogo stick, how many times to I have to put the disclaimer that I favor gay marriage in front of my posts, and that this is an argument about process, not results, before it sticks? Learn to read, you barking moron. > [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > Now, you may put legal process ahead of freedom, but in the real world, that’s bad. I give that process a great deal of emphasis because that process is what SECURES our freedom. There is a larger principle at play than the mere outcome of the current issue du jour. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/172 "2005-05-09T23:14:52Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > There is a larger principle at play than the mere outcome of the current issue du jour. I’ll ask you the same thing I did **Bricker** : what kind of issue du jour would you consider important enough to circumvent the larger principle? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/173 "2005-05-10T01:08:15Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Reverse your pronouns there. The process \*was \* followed in MA, \*honestly \*, deriving from the principles enshrined in the MA Constitution, and you have not succeeded in any way in showing where it wasn’t. Because, in Massachusetts, “equal protection” means exactly that: literal equal protection for every single person? OK. Then explain to me why Massachusetts can charge a higher percentage of income tax to people that make more money? If “equal protection” means that each and every person must be treated exactly equally, why are some people paying a higher percentage of tax than others? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/174 "2005-05-10T01:37:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If “equal protection” means that each and every person must be treated exactly equally, why are some people paying a higher percentage of tax than others? But everyone pays the exact same tax rate on the exact same income. Do you contend that this is the same as saying that gays are free to marry people of the opposite sex, so the law treats everyone equally? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/175 "2005-05-10T01:47:06Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > It’s really not that hard if you take a minute to ACTUALLY READ MY FUCKING ARGUMENTS. > > Jesus Fucking Christ on a pogo stick, how many times to I have to put the disclaimer that I favor gay marriage in front of my posts, and that this is an argument about process, not results, before it sticks? Learn to read, you barking moron. > I give that process a great deal of emphasis because that process is what SECURES our freedom. There is a larger principle at play than the mere outcome of the current issue du jour. Fuck this, I made my statement as diplomatic as possible, showing how people could have misunderstood your arguement. However, now I am saying it straight out. You may claim to favior gay marriage, but when you argue so much against the Mass. rulling, despite all reality, you show you don’t. Why? Because it was not created out of whole cloth, but from actual interpretation of the state’s consistuiton, and you did’t want to face reality earlier in this thread. Now, even if you love the idea of gay marriage, but simply don’t support the methods used to get to it, **bow out**. You arguements are so simular to people who argue against gay marriage, that you are almost aiding their cause. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/176 "2005-05-10T01:49:39Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > I’ll ask you the same thing I did **Bricker** : what kind of issue du jour would you consider important enough to circumvent the larger principle? At what point would I welcome a court’s activist legislation to reverse an unjust legislature’s act? That’s a good question. I’m going to take a stab at answering it, unlike the Loyal Opposition, who dodged my question. As a practical matter, I cannot imagine a realistic scenario here. In other words, while I can list some scenarios - and I will - I think none of them are actually possible; the electorate wouldn’t stand for it. Let’s take the first thing mentioned below - a law forbidding Catholics from marrying. Now, the PROCESS as it now exists would serve me well here. Religious classifications are suspect, and are subject to strict scrutiny. But let’s assume that a Constitutional amendment was passed, explictly granting Congress the power to regulate all marriage in any way they wish, and no other provision of the Constitution would be construed to limit that power in any way. Now comes a court ruling that says, in essence, “Even though the Constitution says thus-and-so, Congress may not discriminate against Catholics when regulating marriage, because we’re an activist court and we say so.” Would I welcome this, because it gives me my marriage back? No. In fact, I’d say it was a terrible event. In addition to once again giving courts the power to legislative notwithstanding the will of the electorate, it would _give the legislature an excuse to remain inactive_. In other words, the legislature has promulgated an unjust and worong bill. If the courts simply doi an end-run around it, the people will not force the legislature to change. I would rather see the country governed by the people, and the people ensure that the legislature reflects their will, than get my way by having the courts short-circuit the process. Short answer: I would NOT welcome a court fixing the no-Catholic-marriage issue. Now, let’s rachet up the stakes. The legislature now permits the death penalty for parking tickets for Catholics - same deal vis-a-vis an amendment permitting same. Here, I’d welcome a court using whatever means necessary, because the result of failure is DEATH. I’d eagerly subsume my principles concerning self-governance to save my own, or others’ lives in this circumstance. I hope that helps as far as an answer. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/177 "2005-05-10T01:56:18Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But everyone pays the exact same tax rate on the exact same income. Do you contend that this is the same as saying that gays are free to marry people of the opposite sex, so the law treats everyone equally? No. People with higher incomes pay a different percentage of tax than people with lower incomes. You’re right that two people with identical incomes are treated identically… but since Massachusetts’ equal protection demands that _everyone_ be treated equally, I’m pointing out that a high-income and a low-income person are NOT treated equally. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/178 "2005-05-10T01:57:20Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > I did not say the courts would uphold such a regime. Doubtlessly, they would strike it down under modern theories of substantive due process. My point is that such a regime would survive the rational basis test for a challenge brought under the equal protection clause. I fully understand your total distaste for all things related to substantive due process, but is it truly your position that using only the equal protection argument, the courts would hold that the distinction does not violate the constitution? Suppose Iowa’s legislature decides tomorrow that, since marriage is so fundamentally tied to procreation, that they pass a law that says only fertile people may marry, and that once a partner becomes infertile, the marriage is null and void. This legislation is challenged only on equal protection ground. How do you see a court ruling on that issue? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/179 "2005-05-10T01:58:52Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > Now, even if you love the idea of gay marriage, but simply don’t support the methods used to get to it, **bow out**. You arguements are so simular to people who argue against gay marriage, that you are almost aiding their cause. If I sought to obtain same-sex marriage in my state by kidnapping the families of state legislators, and threaten to eviscerate them if the legislators fail to pass a same-sex marriage bill, I would HOPE that you would raise objections to the method, even though you favored the result. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/180 "2005-05-10T02:02:42Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Jesus Fucking Christ on a pogo stick, how many times to I have to put the disclaimer that I favor gay marriage in front of my posts, and that this is an argument about process, not results, before it sticks? Learn to read, you barking moron. > I give that process a great deal of emphasis because that process is what SECURES our freedom. There is a larger principle at play than the mere outcome of the current issue du jour. Would you agree that it is an injustice that a homosexual is not allowed to marry someone of his/her same gender? Would you agree that the same sex marriage ban is on par as the anti-miscegenation laws in our country’s dark past? Would you tolerate injustice in the name of process, a process that there is great academic debate about whether or not your view is correct? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171.md?page=10)