I wish I were a Republican, so I could just make stuff up

Well the subject appeared to be disaster hyperbole surrounding AGW - Africangenesis

No, it wasn't. It was GWIAS's dishonesty. I returned to that topic at this point because I had been waiting for an email from Scientific American about the online version of their September 2004 issue. This confirmed that there is no additional online content available for the Hansen article, beyond what is in the printed version.

BTW way, Walton. Your blog is fucking bollocks - no wonder people here get cross with you! Are you really defending Fred fucking Phelps's "right" to "free speech"?

Hang on, please. As a gay American, I will also defend Phelps' right to free speech. He is protected by our First Amendment and I wouldn't have it any other way. He's about as dangerous as the Nazis who the ACLU defended at Skokie.

I realize Britain does not have as strong free speech laws, but that's a problem. And I realize there's blame to go around; both our nations abuse peaceful alter-globalization protesters.

By analogy you think that those opposing the invasion of Iraq, were not REALLY concerned about Saddam's sovereignty - Africangenesis

As far as I recall, I never heard a single opponent of the invasion of Iraq voice a concern for "Saddam's sovereignty" - or even Iraq's. Plenty of concern about the innocent people who would die, or be maimed, orphaned, driven from their homes, etc.; and opposition to the US elite's imperialism, and defiance of the UNSC. The pretence that "Saddam's sovereignty" was the issue is quite typical of your dishonesty.

Africangenesis, you are lying about your motivations. It doesn't matter how you feel about getting the state out of the marriage business (philosophically, I agree with you). That has no bearing on whether under a regime that already recognizes straight marriage gay people should be able to seek equal treatment through the courts.

It doesn't matter how you "feel" about gay people. If you believe that until the state ends civil marriage entirely, gay people should have their right to civil marriage voted upon, then you support the ability of homophobes to dominate gay people, and your politics are homophobic. You are a homophobe in practice.

An intersting perspective - and yes, you are right. Having him come over here to picket some play or other (or rather, his daughter Shirley) was blocked by the government. I think I'm really annoyed that he didn't show up because I think he's one of the world's few individuals who could really benefit from having the shit kicked out of him. But it doesn't happen over there in the US, where there are even more people with reason to loathe him. Wouldn't be him getting it in any case - I notice he tends to put women and children in his demonstations.
Still, I can look forward to his funeral. I'm sure many people over there will take the opportunity to exercise their right to be gleefully joyful!

SC: And if your participation here were eventually "discovered," it would - if you continue to engage and grow - be to your credit for any reasonable person. That's what I keep trying to explain: Learning and growing (and even thinking "I can't believe I ever thought that!") are nothing shameful. Intellectual humility is a virtue. No one with any character would hold it against you, and anyone who does isn't worth worrying about.

I'm not remotely afraid of people discovering my participation here in general; but I'm afraid of them reading my drunken screed from last night. It's simply a little embarrassing.

My political views are very well-known to my friends and acquaintances. My mental health issues are not, and I'd rather keep it that way.

I think you should be more embarrassed about your political views than your mental health issues. I mean, "mental health issues" are scarcely your fault....
(Lest I seem altogether too perky, I've had similar problems - but I didn't bring them here. All better now, thank Myers!)

Walton, it's really not worth worrying as much as this about your post. Your "mental health issues" are neither shameful nor unusual; you're feeling the way many people, myself included, have felt. Nobody is tracking your internet postings and collating a file on you :) and it will soon be lost in the world's daily data flood.

BTW, have you met the time "Morose delectation"? Catholic concept- the dark pleasure of dwelling on evil thoughts, one's one irredeemable depravity and so on. I think Augustine had a serious case, spent half a book convincing himself that scrumping for apples was worse than murder. I spent a long time in a cycle like that, dwelling on how bad things were, and all I got from it was gastritis. CBT really helped me spot the problem and get out of that kind of cycle.

All of us have done stupid shit while drunk out of our minds. Feel embarrassed, you have earned it. Learn from that embarrassment and keep yourself from getting in the same situation.

Funny thing, most people will overlook such drunken episodes if they are isolated events.

W,yis,

"That has no bearing on whether under a regime that already recognizes straight marriage gay people should be able to seek equal treatment through the courts."

I've expressed no opposition to this.

"If you believe that until the state ends civil marriage entirely, gay people should have their right to civil marriage voted upon, then you support the ability of homophobes to dominate gay people, and your politics are homophobic. You are a homophobe in practice."

I don't believe this either. Apparently one can't discuss the state of the law, and whether that is the correct application of the existing law, without you assuming that the person agrees with the law. I don't agree with the law. I like the idea of states rights as a check on federal sovereignty, just as I like federalism and constitutional rights as a check on federal and state sovereignty. But I don't think the protection of law is sufficient any more. Minorities need actual political power to protect their own rights now. We can't count on the integrity of the legislative and judicial branches. I favor abandoning the old fashioned geographical representation in Congress in favor of propotional representation by subscription. Any individual who can get a certain number of subscribers could sit in the House of Representatives. I suspect that libertarians and gays once freed of the two party stranglehold, could garner 15 to 25% of the congress, significant enough that any hope of a majority would have to deal with them. We'd get drugs legalized, gay and polygamous marriage on an equal footing with heterosexual marriage and taxes reduced. I can't promise you that the state would fade away, unfortunately a less onerous state might actually have more staying power.

As David Friedman has highlighted, the FDA has killed many people during its existence. Every time the FDA takes several years to thoroughly test a drug and approve it for sale, people die who could have been saved because the drug is not available.

Do we have any numbers on how many people died due to FDA slowness vs. how many would have died from unsafe medications had the FDA never been created?

"That has no bearing on whether under a regime that already recognizes straight marriage gay people should be able to seek equal treatment through the courts."

I've expressed no opposition to this.

Lying again.
The story thus far:

Walton: I would, however, be uncomfortable - and this is what I said on the other thread that may have given rise to some confusion - if the US Supreme Court were to suddenly declare that bans on gay marriage (at the state level) are unconstitutional.

w,yis: There's no misunderstanding. You believe that the ability of homophobes to legislate against gay rights should trump the ability of gay people to seek justice through the courts. Gay people should wait until they have the approval of enough homophobes to vote to grant them their rights. We heard you the first time.

Africangenesis: It is actually more about respecting other collective sovereignties. Under the current legal system the federal government has no more right to impose gay marriage upon the states than it does upon Iraq.

That was your defense of what Walton was saying, that we should not use the US Supreme Court to overturn state laws that deny marriage equality to gay people. You're trying to make it sound pretty, but what you're saying is that gay people should wait until homophobes vote to give them their rights.

I favor abandoning the old fashioned geographical representation in Congress in favor of propotional representation by subscription. Any individual who can get a certain number of subscribers could sit in the House of Representatives. I suspect that libertarians and gays once freed of the two party stranglehold, could garner 15 to 25% of the congress, significant enough that any hope of a majority would have to deal with them.

AND WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO WAIT TO GET OUR RIGHTS VOTED UPON. WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE APPROVAL OF HOMOPHOBES. Just quit prevaricating, you ass!

Africangenesis, consistent with your opinions about gay marriage and the US Supreme Court, I will presume that you believe Loving v. Virgina was wrongly decided unless you explain otherwise.

W,yis @504: On further consideration, I will concede your point that there is a valid legal argument for the position that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. I suppose one could rely on the Fourteenth Amendment - "no state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" - if given a broad construction (which was, indeed, the principal rationale for the decision in Loving).

In any case, I would certainly like to see full marriage equality enshrined in the US Constitution and the laws of other jurisdictions. I reject the tyranny of the majority; individual liberty trumps "collective sovereignty" any time. People should not have to wait for the majority to agree to allow them their basic liberties; they should be guaranteed these liberties even against the will of the majority.

(I know I said I wouldn't be discussing politics for a while. But this isn't exactly about libertarianism; libertarians generally support marriage equality, but so do many other people.)

My political views are very well-known to my friends and acquaintances. My mental health issues are not.

I hate to break it to you Walton, but feelings of inadequacy and occasional suicidal ideation are common among University students. Hell, it's common (and normal) to most 11-24 year olds. If it lasts for extended periods of days to weeks (or months) then you have a problem that requires professional help. Depression (and the spectrum of depressive disorders) should not be considered a stigma any more than diabetes or Parkinson's Disease.

My personal feelings about anti-depressants are ambivalent. They work for some and make matters worse in others. Most psych pharmaceuticals are like using blasting caps to get rid of wasp nests, there is always collateral damage and a lack of surgical precision dismissively phrased as "side effects." P Docs tend to be dismissive of side effects unless they are severe enough to warrant a malpractice suit such as a fatal rash from one particular Mood Stabilizer. SNRIs are notorious for for killing libido - actually for radically diminishing orgasmic pleasure, but this may not be an issue with you. At any rate, Cognitive Therapy is indispensable.

Clinical depression is nothing to sneeze at and as Brownian pointed out, it is impossible to tough out or shrug off. It's like swimming in a steep-sided tank with wrist and ankle weights - sure you can tread water to rest, but when you become exhausted, you will go under.
Also, no booze, no grass as a coping method, crutch or excuse for poor behavior. These are triggers for a deeper form of depression.
Don't be shocked to find many of your peers are going through the same thing. The bad thing about being smart is that you learn to mask and deny. Cemeteries are filled with people who put on a false smiling mask and assured everyone "I'm fine, I'm okay." when all the while they were going down, down, down.

Walton, I'm glad to hear that you finally gave this matter the cursory examination which gay people's actual lives must at minimum deserve, but this question interferes with your ideology more than you perhaps realize.

Sexual orientation is not a suspect classification at the federal level, so barring some unprecedented radical reclassification that would not account for the historical racial focus of the Fourteenth Amendment as noted in Loving, laws concerning discrimination against gays are held to rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause. As in California's Proposition 8 battle, the conservatives argue that encouraging a male-female parentage of children is a legitimate state interest and prohibiting gay marriage is a rational approach toward achieving that interest. Hopefully, this sounds as contrived to you as Virginia's claim that preventing race-mixing -- as ever, for the children's sake -- was a legitimate state interest. But given that sexual orientation unlike race is not a suspect classification, the homophobes are on surer legal ground than were the white supremacists, and they may simply offer that "on this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging [same-sex] marriages."

Further, they argue that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply at any level of scrutiny, because gay people are afforded the exact same right as straight people: to marry someone of the opposite sex. Hey, the state never promised that anyone's marriages would be fulfilling.

The decision in Loving provides a precedent that we can use, but this one is going to cut you. "These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)." By deeming marriage a fundamental right, the court elevated the issue to strict scrutiny regardless of race, and this precedent would apply as well to gender and orientation.

However, marriage is not a right enumerated in the Constitution. In your words, Loving (or Skinner or Maynard) "invented" this right, and recognizing individual citizens' rights that are not enumerated somehow sets a precedent for judicial tyranny, Ninth Amendment be damned. To be sure, marriage comes to us through these precedents from natural law, the philosophical basis for so much of US law since the second sentence of our Declaration of Independence. But irrespective of US legal theory, you reject natural law -- until it serves your purpose, whereupon you start pontificating on "the distinction between malo in se and malum prohibitum (long recognised by legal theorists)" -- so you're still sitting on a dilemma. Loving isn't really to your tastes.

You could of course save yourself by loosely adopting a standard wherein the Ninth Amendment, rationally interpreted, grants that individuals' freedoms are not to be voted upon by those who seek to oppress them, but then you'd have to stop crowing about Roe v. Wade.

In your words, Loving (or Skinner or Maynard) "invented" this right, and recognizing individual citizens' rights that are not enumerated somehow sets a precedent for judicial tyranny, Ninth Amendment be damned.

The Ninth Amendment isn't relevant; even in Roe itself, Justice Douglas (in a concurring opinion) expressly acknowledged that "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."

From the standpoint of legal philosophy, I sympathise with, but don't accept uncritically, the arguments of natural law theorists. It's esay to state that there are certain "natural" rights which exist independent of any legislative enactment, and which the courts ought to recognise and enforce, developing through the common-law adjudicative process (Ronald Dworkin in Law's Empire being a prominent exponent of this kind of thinking, with his "right answer" thesis, the notion that there is in principle a right answer to every legal question). But the difficulty lies in identifying precisely what these rights are.

You and I both believe, on some level, in fundamental human rights and civil liberties; but we would certainly disagree over aspects of their substantive content. Which of us, then, is right? And how is a court, staffed by fallible human judges, to decide authoritatively which of us is right?

I'm just pontificating, not coming up with any sort of coherent argument. I do entirely see your point. In all the types of cases we are discussing, the plaintiff is, ex hypothesi, part of a minority who cannot obtain his desired rights through the democratic political process. It seems, then, unsatisfactory to assert that he cannot have those rights until they are conferred on him by legislation.

Perhaps, really, the best answer is that of the "presumption of liberty". An ideal constitution, rather than enumerating specific rights and liberties, should state that, prima facie, the government shall have no power at all; the presumption is that citizens are free to act as they wish without government intervention. It should then enumerate a specific, limited list of instances in which the government is allowed to act and to impose coercive requirements on citizens. Any government action whatsoever which goes outside these enumerated powers would therefore be ultra vires and void, and would be struck down by the courts. This would mean, therefore, that by discriminating against gay people in the realm of marriage - or, indeed, by prescribing any rules in the realm of marriage, except those for the protection of children and the insane - government would be acting beyond its powers. It wouldn't be necessary to enumerate a right to marriage. My suggested constitution would, therefore, protect liberty rather than liberties; and it would render it unnecessary for judges to create new rights by analogy.

Oh, for fuck's sake!
What is this meaningless drivel?
I mean I can talk rubbish for England, but I can't get anywhere close to this!

W'yis#512,

I know you'd like to find a homophobe under every bed, but you aren't entitled to ignore the context.

"It may be as stupid to respect the sovereignty of the states as it was for some to call upon the US to respect the sovereignty of Saddam. What is important is not sovereign rights but individual rights."

As the above quote indicates, and those who have had intercourse with me at this site know, I have no respect for sovereignty, Saddam's sovereignty, state sovereignty, or otherwise. I also don't confuse legal reasoning, whether correct application of the law or not, with right or wrong. You need to try to cultivate a moral compass, think about more than your sexuality, and not just attack people willy-nilly, if you want to be taken seriously.