 ratilfar says: Justice triumphs! More like judicial activism. Where do people come up with this "judicial activism" crap? Have you read the court opinion? Have you ever heard of the "common law"? http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF I thought the people of California voted on this issue before... if I recall correctly - 61% voted AGAINST this very ruling. Now you have 4 judges make the call and you want to tell me somehow these 4 overrule 61% of the population of one of the largest states in the Union? I don't know what other term to use here. Very simple, if 61% of the population of California voted to re institute slavery, that law would fail because the Federal Constitution says that no law can do so. So unless the law that passed violates the state's own constitution, it can not stand, as that is the supreme law of the state of California. No "judicial" activism, there. That's an extremely poor example. The bottom line is that they voted against this situation, no reason jumping into a totally different territory. So much for democracy. How does that joke go? What do you call 500,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?...  What are you talking about? Do you even understand the principles involved? You can not pass either in the Legislature or by ballot a law that violates the constitution of a given state or the nation, is that simple. Please read the opinion and what it really says before you imply so called "judicial activism". Constitution= supreme law of the land, end of story. So explain then why there was a vote taken (by the population)? And why? But then again, to see Ellen get married is totally worth it. A vote was taken because California allows for voter "propositions". It is not the way the law gets enacted, the question is what is enacted and if the law as written violates the Constitution. BTW, the vote was not an amendment to said constitution, had it been then the Court would have to follow that. Again, the "judicial activism" meme does not apply here. I'm going to side with ratilfar on this one, at least as so far as it concerns the irrelevance of the popular opinion. It doesn't matter if 99.9% of the population votes for a law, if it is unconstitutional it is unconstitutional, the populace's only recourse is to change the relevant constitution to make such a law fall within the bounds of the constitution. That said, it does not mean it is not judicial activism, nor does it mean it is, I haven't read the opinion, so I haven't formed an opinion on whether it is or not. Very simple, if 61% of the population of California voted to re institute slavery, that law would fail because the Federal Constitution says that no law can do so. So unless the law that passed violates the state's own constitution, it can not stand, as that is the supreme law of the state of California. No "judicial" activism, there.Okay for one thing you CANNOT compare slavery with how marriage should be defined! When gay marriange was banned, we were not enslaving homosexuals, and we weren't even telling them that they couldn't have sex! And we weren't telling them they couldn't get married, if a person who practices homosexuality wants to marry a person of the opposite s... Oh boy! The right we are talking about is the right of to consenting adults, whether heterosexual or homosexual, to enter in a marriage with a consenting adult of their choosing, whether is of the same sex or not. Marrying someone from the opposite sex misses the point entirely. The California Supreme Court argument is that under the California Constitution using an equal rights analysis, the state can not deny that right to homosexuals. So no, nice try, but your argument doesn't really make sense. I used slavery as an example of how Constitutional law works, I was not making a direct comparison. And how would homosexuals marrying "tear down marriage". Would you or anyone else have to leave their homes and their children because gays are getting married? "Honey I love you, but I can not live like this! The gays, they are getting 'married'! You know what this means? Our vows are meaningless! Our love, futile! Our children, bastards! Each an everyone of them, especially Billy who I caught trying to cook meth in the shed in the backyard!" That's a wonderful example ratiflar... very common. Makes me want to run out and vote for gay marriage amendment hearing such words of wisdom. You left out some of the great gay examples though, such as George Michael getting arrested in some public bathroom or the old senator from the great state of Idaho educating a fellow pisser in another bathroom. The lifestyle certainly merits proper paperwork. What's that? These aren't the typical examples, you say? So what the hell are you writing the BS you wrote for? What? Let me get this straight, because some guys got lecherous in public bathrooms gays should not marry? So if a guy is found with a prostitute in a bathroom, all marriages should be abolished? I used slavery (I could have used voting rights) its because it is in the Constitution. In order to let say bring back slavery you would have to change the Constitution. In order to abolish Habeas Corpus you have to change the Constitution. In order to redefine Equal Rights (fundamentally, not at its edges) you would have to change the Constitution. Voting rights...etc. And I am sorry you didn't understand what I was saying. It sounds to me like you hear/read what you want instead of what is there. The right we are talking about is the right of to consenting adults, whether heterosexual or homosexual, to enter in a marriage with a consenting adult of their choosing, whether is of the same sex or notThe problem is that there is no such right! We don't allow a father to marry his 18 year old daughter! We don't allow a brother and sister, or even two cousins, to marry! Also, if you use this as a universal principle, it only gets worse. For example, a boyfriend hurts a girlfriend, the girlfriend reports it to the police, but later on decides it's not that big of a deal. The court doesn't say "Oh well, she doesn't have a problem with it, and he obviously doesn't, so let's ju... Let me get this straight, because some guys got lecherous in public bathrooms gays should not marry?I have to go with rat on this one, that argument doesn't make any since. We can't debate the morality of the issue because we live in a society that doesn't define anything as "immoral". That was not my point. Ok, I'll bite. Why do you oppose gay marriage? Why do you think it would somehow allow for incest? My point was that the state doesn't allow "two consenting adults to marry whomever they choose", and for good reason. I wasn't referring to a belief that it will "inevetibly" lead to incest. I do personally believe that if we allow for gay marriages, then we will no longer have any argument to deny marriages to anyone, including brothers and sisters, regardless of the reasoning for not allowing it to happen. |
View the Top Clips from May 15, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
