Latest from NJ

[roadhouse158]

Oh well. The next thing that will be challenged is polygamy. The argument will be "It's against my civil liberties to say I can only fall in love with one person, or marry only one woman(man)". I swear IMO that is what is going to come next. I guarantee you that if homosexuals are legally able to marry then; they will be as much in an uproar over that as the majority of America is now about homosexual marriage. How do you fix this? Well...It's not going to be fixed. IMO the only way to fix this is to leave marriage to your religious institution. It needs to be dropped altogether. Marriage has it's roots in a covenant with God between a Man and a Woman. There was no ceremony, no clergy man to wed you. It was like a prayer. You just made a promise to God. That was it. The reason "Marriage" was invented was to protect women from their men commiting adultry and such. The woman had to be protected. That's the historical aspect. The Government should just drop it completely. It's un-fixable now. This country is in a whole lot of trouble. All we do is second guess the Bill of Rights, which doesn't mention marriage by the way. It wasn't a civil liberty, and our Constitution. American History should just be dropped altogether; because tomorrow you will just have to come out with a new edition of the book. Constantly changing. The majority of Americans are traditional. We mainly just express our views on Election Day. Well, if they(we) don't wake up and learn what the "changers" are doing and trully start to protest, then change will come. Traditionalist may be the majority, but they are the ritchest and most seen on the TV. Start with protesting the ACLU. Their not for the "A" in their abbreviation. Christians and traditionalist are Americans too. I don't see them standing with them. More like against.
One more thing.....If your one that want's change, don't say you love America. You don't. You don't change things that you love. You may love the scenery, and the friends you have here, but you don't love AMERICA. Sounds more like you love Denmark.

 

[Kagom]

Your prediction is full of hot air.

 

[roadhouse158]

If someone back in the 1980's told you that gay marriage would be truly considered in the near future you would have probably had the same reaction.

 

[Gunny]

If someone back in the 1980's told you that gay marriage would be truly considered in the near future you would have probably had the same reaction.

No probably to it. The whole idea would have been considered preposterous, even by all but the most extreme lefties.

Oh .....that's who drives their train now.

 

[Gunny]

Did I misread the story or isn't that exactly what happened here? The court found the law unconstitutional and told the legislature to fix it.

And I said that the judiciary telling the legislature to do ANYTHING is overstepping its bounds.

The judiciary's role ends with its ruling. It is the legislature's role to decide whether or not it wishes to strike, amend, or completely rewrite a law. Which of course, should be based on the wishes of the majority of its constituency.

 

[MissileMan]

And I said that the judiciary telling the legislature to do ANYTHING is overstepping its bounds.

The judiciary's role ends with its ruling. It is the legislature's role to decide whether or not it wishes to strike, amend, or completely rewrite a law. Which of course, should be based on the wishes of the majority of its constituency.

I disagree. If the law is unconstitutional, the legislature HAS to fix it. That's THEIR job. You're making this huge fuss because a judge told the lawmakers to do their job? That doesn't sound much like a conservative, IMO. For the record, I agree the law should be in accordance with the wishes of the majority as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.

 

[roadhouse158]

Not allowing same sex marriage isn't unconstitutional. Since marriage was "invented" it has been a union between and a man and a woman. How is it unconstitutional to not allow it? The majority of the worlds country's, and people are against it. Only 4 Country's allow it. Talk about unconstitutional, A gay couple can get same sex benefits, but a Grandmother raising her grandchild can't get the same priviledge unless she adopts this said grandchild. What I really can't wait to see is if Homosexual marriage is legalized, and a church refuses to marry them, if this Church can get sued for discrimination....I mean if people can buy cigarettes knowing they are dangerous and addictive and still sue and win, then this is a foreseeable action.

 

[roadhouse158]

oh yeah..Just thought of a good argument for Polygamy. What about the civil liberties of Bisexuals???? I mean if a historical definition of marriage isn't good enough, then lets not stop at just same sex marriage

 

[Gunny]

I disagree. If the law is unconstitutional, the legislature HAS to fix it. That's THEIR job. You're making this huge fuss because a judge told the lawmakers to do their job? That doesn't sound much like a conservative, IMO. For the record, I agree the law should be in accordance with the wishes of the majority as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.

The judiciary ruling that a law is unconstitutional pretty much "fixes it." The judiciary is saying with its ruling it is not going to enforce a particular law. If the judiciary can legally justify not enforcing a law, end of story.

I'm not making a "big fuss," as you say. I am merely making the point that the legislature is not subservient to the judiciary, and the judiciary is overstepping its bounds attempting to dictate to the legislature.

This would be a basic tenet of the division of power between two of the three branches of government and have NOTHING to do with my political ideology.

 

[Annie]

The judiciary ruling that a law is unconstitutional pretty much "fixes it." The judiciary is saying with its ruling it is not going to enforce a particular law. If the judiciary can legally justify not enforcing a law, end of story.

I'm not making a "big fuss," as you say. I am merely making the point that the legislature is not subservient to the judiciary, and the judiciary is overstepping its bounds attempting to dictate to the legislature.

This would be a basic tenet of the division of power between two of the three branches of government and have NOTHING to do with my political ideology.

Actually I'm confused about this whole issue. The court said the legislature has 180 days to 'create' what they've ordered. Problem is, the court cannot 'make' law, only declare the law was improper to begin with-thus either voiding the law or the legislature would have to 'fix' the law.

Now the courts cannot 'enforce' or not anything, that falls to the executive branch.

Bottom line, what is the court going to 'do' if the legislature fails to act? Order contempt charge? "make law or we're going to incarcerate/fine" exactly whom?

 

[Gunny]

Not allowing same sex marriage isn't unconstitutional. Since marriage was "invented" it has been a union between and a man and a woman. How is it unconstitutional to not allow it? The majority of the worlds country's, and people are against it. Only 4 Country's allow it. Talk about unconstitutional, A gay couple can get same sex benefits, but a Grandmother raising her grandchild can't get the same priviledge unless she adopts this said grandchild. What I really can't wait to see is if Homosexual marriage is legalized, and a church refuses to marry them, if this Church can get sued for discrimination....I mean if people can buy cigarettes knowing they are dangerous and addictive and still sue and win, then this is a foreseeable action.

The gay agenda attempting to impose its will on churches is inevitable. IIRC, a church was challenged in such a manner a year or so ago.

I don't see it going anywhere. Churches are by their very nature discriminatory. They are also private organizations. If a church loses a discrimination lawsuit for refusing to marry two homosexuals, then what's next? Losing a discrimination lawsuit for not giving Satanists equal time in the pulpit?

 

[Gunny]

Actually I'm confused about this whole issue. The court said the legislature has 180 days to 'create' what they've ordered. Problem is, the court cannot 'make' law, only declare the law was improper to begin with-thus either voiding the law or the legislature would have to 'fix' the law.

Now the courts cannot 'enforce' or not anything, that falls to the executive branch.

Bottom line, what is the court going to 'do' if the legislature fails to act? Order contempt charge? "make law or we're going to incarcerate/fine" exactly whom?

That just goes more toward the point I have been trying to make. The judiciary has stepped over the line ordering the legislature to meet its arbitrary timeline.

And you have a good point .... what's the judiciary going to do? If I was in the legislature, I'd turn around and appeal the ruling based on the unconstitutionality of the judiciary attempting to dictate to the legislature.

 

[Gunny]

I disagree. If the law is unconstitutional, the legislature HAS to fix it. That's THEIR job. You're making this huge fuss because a judge told the lawmakers to do their job? That doesn't sound much like a conservative, IMO. For the record, I agree the law should be in accordance with the wishes of the majority as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.

The judiciary ruling that a law is unconstitutional pretty much "fixes it." The judiciary is saying with its ruling it is not going to enforce a particular law. If the judiciary can legally justify not enforcing a law, end of story.

I'm not making a "big fuss," as you say. I am merely making the point that the legislature is not subservient to the judiciary, and the judiciary is overstepping its bounds attempting to dictate to the legislature.

This would be a basic tenet of the division of power between two of the three branches of government and have NOTHING to do with my political ideology.

 

[Annie]

That just goes more toward the point I have been trying to make. The judiciary has stepped over the line ordering the legislature to meet its arbitrary timeline.

And you have a good point .... what's the judiciary going to do? If I was in the legislature, I'd turn around and appeal the ruling based on the unconstitutionality of the judiciary attempting to dictate to the legislature.

I could be wrong, it's happened once or twice, but from what I can see, the court is in fact ordering the legislature to pass a law the justices want. Regardless of their time constraint, I fail to see their having the power to do that.

 

[Kagom]

oh yeah..Just thought of a good argument for Polygamy. What about the civil liberties of Bisexuals???? I mean if a historical definition of marriage isn't good enough, then lets not stop at just same sex marriage

That is, again, a crock. Bisexuals will usually want to marry the one partner they're with. Being bisexual doesn't insinuate polygamy or polyamory will ensue.

 

[roadhouse158]

Again I disagree. This gay marriage issue is just the beginning of the opening of Pandoras' Box. You know why there is nothing in the constitution about marriage? Because marriage is between a man and a woman. Why is that so hard to understand? I keep hearing that gay rightS are an issue...What do you mean rightS....Gay people can vote, bare arms, have freedom of speech, have freedom of press. What rightS exactly do they mean? The right to marriage is one topic....Not rightS. I can't go into a womans bathroom because I am man. How can I be banned from a room in a government building that I pay taxes for? See what I mean. If the door gets open it will spiral totally out of control. You have to take a stand. It's not against the law for two gay men or women to live together. Their rights are not being witheld. A lot of people just go along with whatever anymore. Just whatever...It doesn't affect me.

 

[glockmail]

I disagree. If the law is unconstitutional, the legislature HAS to fix it. That's THEIR job. ...

It is their job to be politicians, and such, they can choose to ignore the ruling, making the law in question moot. Or they can re-write it to avoid the constitutional issue altogether. They can also tell the judges to pound sand.

 

[glockmail]

That is, again, a crock. Bisexuals will usually want to marry the one partner they're with.....

Anyone else see the irony?

 

[jillian]

It is their job to be politicians, and such, they can choose to ignore the ruling, making the law in question moot. Or they can re-write it to avoid the constitutional issue altogether. They can also tell the judges to pound sand.

It is their job to uphold the Constitution. It is the job of the Courts to construe that Constitution. They cannot ignore the ruling. Nor does ignoring a ruling render it moot. A ruling is rendered moot only when the facts being adjudicated no longer exist prior to a decision being rendered. The legislature also cannot avoid the Constitutional issue because they were told to make the law Constitutional. They have to bow to the Court unless there is a Constitutional Amendment.... Fat chance of that happening.

As for telling the judges to "pound sand".... what planet do you live on?

 

[Annie]

It is their job to uphold the Constitution. It is the job of the Courts to construe that Constitution. They cannot ignore the ruling. Nor does ignoring a ruling render it moot. A ruling is rendered moot only when the facts being adjudicated no longer exist prior to a decision being rendered. The legislature also cannot avoid the Constitutional issue because they were told to make the law Constitutional. They have to bow to the Court unless there is a Constitutional Amendment.... Fat chance of that happening.

As for telling the judges to "pound sand".... what planet do you live on?

Ok, what is it that the legislature is supposed to 'rewrite' within the 6 months? Emphasis on 're'...