Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yeah right; since when does the right have any problem with judicial activism when it is in their favor.Isn't it odd how this only comes up because gay couples want to legally marry. Where were these people all along?Privatize Marriage Now
Reviewed by Ryan McMaken
The state hates it when property changes hands without being taxed and regulated, so the state set its sights on marriage centuries ago. Over time civil governments inserted themselves more and more into the religious institutions of marriage. This was helped along by the Reformation and by defenders of government-controlled marriage like King Henry VIII of England. As nation-states consolidated their monopolies on all law and over all institutions in society, the state finally displaced religious institutions as the final arbiter on marriage.
Many people get "married" in courthouses in totally non-religious ceremonies. Such marriage contracts are in essence no different from run-of-the-mill legal contracts. The fact that we call such unions "marriage" doesn’t make them so. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage is a religious matter. Some government judge can’t make you "married" any more than can your hair dresser. Here, we see that the so-called "traditional" marriage types who nevertheless defend government civil "marriage" (as defined by them) have already sown the seeds of their own defeat. They’ve already removed the institution of marriage from its traditional role and status.
Unfortunately, though, when Conservatives and Christian Right types bemoan the loss of so-called "traditional" marriage yet agitate for more government control of the institution, they really have only themselves to blame since they’re therefore accepting the proposition that government has the legitimate authority to regulate and control marriage. The power to regulate marriage is the power to destroy it. "
.
not odd at all, most people didnt think it was up to judges to redefine basic terms......they thought they should interpret conflicts within the law.......
But federal patronage judges have decided that here is their chance to give meaning to their otherwise mundane tho overpaid job.....even if it does mean ruling on emotion and not logic.
first its not really a left-right issue.....I consider myself on the left..........I imagine a huge chunk of those voting against gay marriage in California were democrats.......I believe Obama won the election there that year on the same ballot that gay marriage lost.
second.....this isnt really a law issue......it a definitional issue. Judges are redefining terms .........which is really a way to pull the rug out from under the law.
Of course it is a law issue.
The concept is not complicated: The United States Constitution and the protections thereof are superior to State Constitutions and Federal law.
Judges- over a dozen- have found that the bans on same gender marriage violate certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Those decisions have been upheld by the Appeals Courts- all except 1. If it wasn't for that 1 Appeals court- the Supreme Court would have just left the decisions standing- but instead the Supreme Court will hear the case and make a decision.
Like the Supreme Court has done at least 3 other times when it comes to state marriage laws.
Yeah right; since when does the right have any problem with judicial activism when it is in their favor.Isn't it odd how this only comes up because gay couples want to legally marry. Where were these people all along?
not odd at all, most people didnt think it was up to judges to redefine basic terms......they thought they should interpret conflicts within the law.......
But federal patronage judges have decided that here is their chance to give meaning to their otherwise mundane tho overpaid job.....even if it does mean ruling on emotion and not logic.
first its not really a left-right issue.....I consider myself on the left..........I imagine a huge chunk of those voting against gay marriage in California were democrats.......I believe Obama won the election there that year on the same ballot that gay marriage lost.
second.....this isnt really a law issue......it a definitional issue. Judges are redefining terms .........which is really a way to pull the rug out from under the law.
Of course it is a law issue.
The concept is not complicated: The United States Constitution and the protections thereof are superior to State Constitutions and Federal law.
Judges- over a dozen- have found that the bans on same gender marriage violate certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Those decisions have been upheld by the Appeals Courts- all except 1. If it wasn't for that 1 Appeals court- the Supreme Court would have just left the decisions standing- but instead the Supreme Court will hear the case and make a decision.
Like the Supreme Court has done at least 3 other times when it comes to state marriage laws.
It isnt a law issue in the sense that all those laws you (and a bunch of lazy judges,) find it violated never were broken before.....It all rests on a definition.....that the courts are re-defining....for emotional...not legal reasons.
first its not really a left-right issue.....I consider myself on the left..........I imagine a huge chunk of those voting against gay marriage in California were democrats.......I believe Obama won the election there that year on the same ballot that gay marriage lost.
second.....this isnt really a law issue......it a definitional issue. Judges are redefining terms .........which is really a way to pull the rug out from under the law.
That's true, gay marriage did lose the same year Obama was elected. And you're right, Judges are redefining terms which truly is a form of sabotaging duly-enacted law.
They're getting a leg-up too from Supreme Court Justices with shadow-justice issuing refusals to keep stays on interim law pending a final Hearing on the merits: causing attrition to state marriage laws without explanation or redress of the states: Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
first its not really a left-right issue.....I consider myself on the left..........I imagine a huge chunk of those voting against gay marriage in California were democrats.......I believe Obama won the election there that year on the same ballot that gay marriage lost.
second.....this isnt really a law issue......it a definitional issue. Judges are redefining terms .........which is really a way to pull the rug out from under the law.
That's true, gay marriage did lose the same year Obama was elected. And you're right, Judges are redefining terms which truly is a form of sabotaging duly-enacted law.
They're getting a leg-up too from Supreme Court Justices with shadow-justice issuing refusals to keep stays on interim law pending a final Hearing on the merits: causing attrition to state marriage laws without explanation or redress of the states: Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
yep, whatever your position on gay marriage is....you should be concerned about court overreach here.
Yeah right; since when does the right have any problem with judicial activism when it is in their favor.not odd at all, most people didnt think it was up to judges to redefine basic terms......they thought they should interpret conflicts within the law.......
But federal patronage judges have decided that here is their chance to give meaning to their otherwise mundane tho overpaid job.....even if it does mean ruling on emotion and not logic.
first its not really a left-right issue.....I consider myself on the left..........I imagine a huge chunk of those voting against gay marriage in California were democrats.......I believe Obama won the election there that year on the same ballot that gay marriage lost.
second.....this isnt really a law issue......it a definitional issue. Judges are redefining terms .........which is really a way to pull the rug out from under the law.
Of course it is a law issue.
The concept is not complicated: The United States Constitution and the protections thereof are superior to State Constitutions and Federal law.
Judges- over a dozen- have found that the bans on same gender marriage violate certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Those decisions have been upheld by the Appeals Courts- all except 1. If it wasn't for that 1 Appeals court- the Supreme Court would have just left the decisions standing- but instead the Supreme Court will hear the case and make a decision.
Like the Supreme Court has done at least 3 other times when it comes to state marriage laws.
It isnt a law issue in the sense that all those laws you (and a bunch of lazy judges,) find it violated never were broken before.....It all rests on a definition.....that the courts are re-defining....for emotional...not legal reasons.
And you make that claim based upon your emotional response, not based upon legal reasons.
Yeah right; since when does the right have any problem with judicial activism when it is in their favor.
first its not really a left-right issue.....I consider myself on the left..........I imagine a huge chunk of those voting against gay marriage in California were democrats.......I believe Obama won the election there that year on the same ballot that gay marriage lost.
second.....this isnt really a law issue......it a definitional issue. Judges are redefining terms .........which is really a way to pull the rug out from under the law.
Of course it is a law issue.
The concept is not complicated: The United States Constitution and the protections thereof are superior to State Constitutions and Federal law.
Judges- over a dozen- have found that the bans on same gender marriage violate certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Those decisions have been upheld by the Appeals Courts- all except 1. If it wasn't for that 1 Appeals court- the Supreme Court would have just left the decisions standing- but instead the Supreme Court will hear the case and make a decision.
Like the Supreme Court has done at least 3 other times when it comes to state marriage laws.
It isnt a law issue in the sense that all those laws you (and a bunch of lazy judges,) find it violated never were broken before.....It all rests on a definition.....that the courts are re-defining....for emotional...not legal reasons.
And you make that claim based upon your emotional response, not based upon legal reasons.
no, again, I base it on history.....and simple common sense.......
I bet you couldn't type that with a straight face.Yeah right; since when does the right have any problem with judicial activism when it is in their favor.Isn't it odd how this only comes up because gay couples want to legally marry. Where were these people all along?
not odd at all, most people didnt think it was up to judges to redefine basic terms......they thought they should interpret conflicts within the law.......
But federal patronage judges have decided that here is their chance to give meaning to their otherwise mundane tho overpaid job.....even if it does mean ruling on emotion and not logic.
first its not really a left-right issue.....I consider myself on the left..........I imagine a huge chunk of those voting against gay marriage in California were democrats.......I believe Obama won the election there that year on the same ballot that gay marriage lost.
second.....this isnt really a law issue......it a definitional issue. Judges are redefining terms .........which is really a way to pull the rug out from under the law.
Of course it is a law issue.
The concept is not complicated: The United States Constitution and the protections thereof are superior to State Constitutions and Federal law.
Judges- over a dozen- have found that the bans on same gender marriage violate certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Those decisions have been upheld by the Appeals Courts- all except 1. If it wasn't for that 1 Appeals court- the Supreme Court would have just left the decisions standing- but instead the Supreme Court will hear the case and make a decision.
Like the Supreme Court has done at least 3 other times when it comes to state marriage laws.
It isnt a law issue in the sense that all those laws you (and a bunch of lazy judges,) find it violated never were broken before.....It all rests on a definition.....that the courts are re-defining....for emotional...not legal reasons.
Yeah right; since when does the right have any problem with judicial activism when it is in their favor.
first its not really a left-right issue.....I consider myself on the left..........I imagine a huge chunk of those voting against gay marriage in California were democrats.......I believe Obama won the election there that year on the same ballot that gay marriage lost.
second.....this isnt really a law issue......it a definitional issue. Judges are redefining terms .........which is really a way to pull the rug out from under the law.
Of course it is a law issue.
The concept is not complicated: The United States Constitution and the protections thereof are superior to State Constitutions and Federal law.
Judges- over a dozen- have found that the bans on same gender marriage violate certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Those decisions have been upheld by the Appeals Courts- all except 1. If it wasn't for that 1 Appeals court- the Supreme Court would have just left the decisions standing- but instead the Supreme Court will hear the case and make a decision.
Like the Supreme Court has done at least 3 other times when it comes to state marriage laws.
It isnt a law issue in the sense that all those laws you (and a bunch of lazy judges,) find it violated never were broken before.....It all rests on a definition.....that the courts are re-defining....for emotional...not legal reasons.
And you make that claim based upon your emotional response, not based upon legal reasons.
no, again, I base it on history.....and simple common sense......
Why do YOU trust a court who has decided wrongly on citizens united,.....and Kelo ...and numerous others....they don't get ANYTHING right.....what makes you think they're getting this right.
pursuing this in court rather than the ballot box has already created some disturbing interpretations of standing in California....and of the role of the courts to hear a case before they decide.....as in refusal to grant stays.....that go beyond your simple focus on one issue.
Moore is the epitome of an activist judge.
They eventually get civil rights right. Civil rights have a history of being won through the courts as much as through legislation.
first its not really a left-right issue.....I consider myself on the left..........I imagine a huge chunk of those voting against gay marriage in California were democrats.......I believe Obama won the election there that year on the same ballot that gay marriage lost.
second.....this isnt really a law issue......it a definitional issue. Judges are redefining terms .........which is really a way to pull the rug out from under the law.
Of course it is a law issue.
The concept is not complicated: The United States Constitution and the protections thereof are superior to State Constitutions and Federal law.
Judges- over a dozen- have found that the bans on same gender marriage violate certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Those decisions have been upheld by the Appeals Courts- all except 1. If it wasn't for that 1 Appeals court- the Supreme Court would have just left the decisions standing- but instead the Supreme Court will hear the case and make a decision.
Like the Supreme Court has done at least 3 other times when it comes to state marriage laws.
It isnt a law issue in the sense that all those laws you (and a bunch of lazy judges,) find it violated never were broken before.....It all rests on a definition.....that the courts are re-defining....for emotional...not legal reasons.
And you make that claim based upon your emotional response, not based upon legal reasons.
no, again, I base it on history.....and simple common sense.......
Common sense is nothing more than your rationalization for deciding this based upon your emotional response.
The judges- and the Justices however, actually base their rulings on analysis of the Constitution, the law and precedent
They eventually get civil rights right. Civil rights have a history of being won through the courts as much as through legislation.
Kids welfare trumps everyone else's concern in this debate. There is no question about that. States must have the say on this.
Yeah right; since when does the right have any problem with judicial activism when it is in their favor.Isn't it odd how this only comes up because gay couples want to legally marry. Where were these people all along?
not odd at all, most people didnt think it was up to judges to redefine basic terms......they thought they should interpret conflicts within the law.......
But federal patronage judges have decided that here is their chance to give meaning to their otherwise mundane tho overpaid job.....even if it does mean ruling on emotion and not logic.
first its not really a left-right issue.....I consider myself on the left..........I imagine a huge chunk of those voting against gay marriage in California were democrats.......I believe Obama won the election there that year on the same ballot that gay marriage lost.
second.....this isnt really a law issue......it a definitional issue. Judges are redefining terms .........which is really a way to pull the rug out from under the law.
Of course it is a law issue.
The concept is not complicated: The United States Constitution and the protections thereof are superior to State Constitutions and Federal law.
Judges- over a dozen- have found that the bans on same gender marriage violate certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Those decisions have been upheld by the Appeals Courts- all except 1. If it wasn't for that 1 Appeals court- the Supreme Court would have just left the decisions standing- but instead the Supreme Court will hear the case and make a decision.
Like the Supreme Court has done at least 3 other times when it comes to state marriage laws.
It isnt a law issue in the sense that all those laws you (and a bunch of lazy judges,) find it violated never were broken before.....It all rests on a definition.....that the courts are re-defining....for emotional...not legal reasons.
Sorry; you just proved yourself "wrong". If the stakes are that high then Spartan policies public may give us the best chance at providing for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States.They eventually get civil rights right. Civil rights have a history of being won through the courts as much as through legislation.
Because of the high stakes of using kids as guinea pigs in a new social experiment, the largest number of people need to weigh in on this one. Therefore it must be reaffirmed as within the states' authority for their broad consensus in each of their discreet communities to weigh.
Kids welfare trumps everyone else's concern in this debate. There is no question about that. States must have the say on this.
1. Gay couples that have children= denying them marriage only ensures that their children will not have married parents.
Gay couples that never have children= denying them marriage has no impact on children at all...2.What children are you speaking of Silhouette- what children do you think would be 'harmed by gay marriage' and how?... 3. Because gay parents have children with or without marriage- and preventing them from marriage only 'protects' their children from having married parents.
1. Gay couples that have children= denying them marriage only ensures that their children will not have married parents.
Gay couples that never have children= denying them marriage has no impact on children at all...2.What children are you speaking of Silhouette- what children do you think would be 'harmed by gay marriage' and how?... 3. Because gay parents have children with or without marriage- and preventing them from marriage only 'protects' their children from having married parents.
1. Polygamists and wolves and single parents who have children
2. I'm speaking of all children who will be harmed into the unforeseeable future by institutionalizing a formative environment that lacks the gender of the child as a role model in 50% of all children involved in so-called "gay marriage"..2.What children are you speaking of Silhouette- what children do you think would be 'harmed by gay marriage' and how?... 3. Because gay parents have children with or without marriage- and preventing them from marriage only 'protects' their children from having married parents.
1. Gay couples that have children= denying them marriage only ensures that their children will not have married parents.
Gay couples that never have children= denying them marriage has no impact on children at all...2.What children are you speaking of Silhouette- what children do you think would be 'harmed by gay marriage' and how?... 3. Because gay parents have children with or without marriage- and preventing them from marriage only 'protects' their children from having married parents.
1. Polygamists and wolves and single parents who have children
Do you think that polygamists and single parents are likely to eat children?
That is what wolves likely to do to children.
Your posts get more and more bizarre.
I believe polygamists may offer better childrearing capability, if any form of village can help raise the children.
I believe polygamists may offer better childrearing capability, if any form of village can help raise the children.
That should be your amicus brief to the SCOTUS.
