Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Syriusly]

No it doesn't. You just don't know what you're talking about. The ruling is clear is as a bell:

But as usual, you ignore anything you don't agree with. And shocker....you ignore Romer. Alas, the court is unlikely to ignore itself.

The case opens quoting, apparently approvingly, a dissent (usually the only opinions worth reading)

"One century ago, the first Justice Harlan admonished this Court that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (dissenting opinion)"

It then proceeds to strike down a law that purported to do just what Harlan wanted ....using, as far as I can figure, and as you said, a classification classifying gays as a protected class.

yes, I am ignoring this unintelligible pile of gibberish...which apparently has no bearing on gay marriage anyway or it would have already figured in the prop 8 or Doma cases.

By the way the underlying Colorado case talks of sexual orientation which sounds an awful lot like innateness to me.

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Romer v. Evans has a clear bearing on the Constitutional merits of measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws, and serves as compelling precedent.

From the Proposition 8 ruling:

'Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “single out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status․” Id. at 633. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 has the “peculiar property,” id. at 632, of “withdraw[ing] from homosexuals, but no others,” an existing legal right—here, access to the official designation of ‘marriage’—that had been broadly available, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not compel the state to confer it in the first place. Id. at 627. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 denies “equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense,” id. at 633, because it “carves out” an “exception” to California's equal protection clause, by removing equal access to marriage, which gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed, from the scope of that constitutional guarantee. Strauss, 207 P.3d at 61. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “by state decree ․ put [homosexuals] in a solitary class with respect to” an important aspect of human relations, and accordingly “imposes a special disability upon [homosexuals] alone.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 627, 631. And like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 constitutionalizes that disability, meaning that gays and lesbians may overcome it “only by enlisting the citizenry of [the state] to amend the State Constitution” for a second time. Id. at 631. As we explain below, Romer compels that we affirm the judgment of the district court.'

PERRY v. BROWN FindLaw

Romer did indeed 'figured in' the Proposition 8 case.

As for DOMA, that was Federal law, not state.

Last, the tired canard that 'the Supreme Court sometimes gets it wrong, thus all its rulings are suspect,' is a ridiculous and ignorant 'argument.'

There is something devious and deceptive with activist courts making rulings that the people disagree with, thus forcing the public's hand, as in both Colorado and California, and then nitpicking with questionable "doctrines" the resulting backlash from the public.

Romer certainly did not figure in the final outcome of the prop 8 case...as that rested on yet another dubious "doctrine" that in a supposed republic, 7 million or so Californians can effectively be denied standing....an idiotic,and very dangerous idea.....that you should worry far more about than the prospect of not getting gay "marriage".

I noticed you ignored the question of orientation and innateness tho you've been braying about that for quote a few posts

Is any court which rules against majority opinion an 'activist court'?

I did not think that the courts were supposed to rule based on popular opinion at the moment, but rather on their understanding of the law and constitution.

I wonder if accusing judges and courts of being 'activist' is a recent phenomenon or something that has always gone on?

no of course not, for one thing a lot of court issues the public cares little about.

yes, and their various rulings on gay marriage have not been. I have a link of a study which shows that a few posts back.

well, at the time of our founding the people rightfully worried about the courts being merely a wing of the aristocracy.

When the Courts ruled against bans on mixed race marriage, the majority of Americans were firmly against mixed race marriage. It took almost 30 years before the majority of Americans opposed such bans.

Yet now, most Americans agree that the Supreme Court was right.

The courts are here to rule on the law, even when the majority of Americans may disagree.

 

[dcraelin]

The case opens quoting, apparently approvingly, a dissent (usually the only opinions worth reading)

"One century ago, the first Justice Harlan admonished this Court that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (dissenting opinion)"

It then proceeds to strike down a law that purported to do just what Harlan wanted ....using, as far as I can figure, and as you said, a classification classifying gays as a protected class.

yes, I am ignoring this unintelligible pile of gibberish...which apparently has no bearing on gay marriage anyway or it would have already figured in the prop 8 or Doma cases.

By the way the underlying Colorado case talks of sexual orientation which sounds an awful lot like innateness to me.

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Romer v. Evans has a clear bearing on the Constitutional merits of measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws, and serves as compelling precedent.

From the Proposition 8 ruling:

'Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “single out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status․” Id. at 633. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 has the “peculiar property,” id. at 632, of “withdraw[ing] from homosexuals, but no others,” an existing legal right—here, access to the official designation of ‘marriage’—that had been broadly available, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not compel the state to confer it in the first place. Id. at 627. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 denies “equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense,” id. at 633, because it “carves out” an “exception” to California's equal protection clause, by removing equal access to marriage, which gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed, from the scope of that constitutional guarantee. Strauss, 207 P.3d at 61. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “by state decree ․ put [homosexuals] in a solitary class with respect to” an important aspect of human relations, and accordingly “imposes a special disability upon [homosexuals] alone.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 627, 631. And like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 constitutionalizes that disability, meaning that gays and lesbians may overcome it “only by enlisting the citizenry of [the state] to amend the State Constitution” for a second time. Id. at 631. As we explain below, Romer compels that we affirm the judgment of the district court.'

PERRY v. BROWN FindLaw

Romer did indeed 'figured in' the Proposition 8 case.

As for DOMA, that was Federal law, not state.

Last, the tired canard that 'the Supreme Court sometimes gets it wrong, thus all its rulings are suspect,' is a ridiculous and ignorant 'argument.'

There is something devious and deceptive with activist courts making rulings that the people disagree with, thus forcing the public's hand, as in both Colorado and California, and then nitpicking with questionable "doctrines" the resulting backlash from the public.

Romer certainly did not figure in the final outcome of the prop 8 case...as that rested on yet another dubious "doctrine" that in a supposed republic, 7 million or so Californians can effectively be denied standing....an idiotic,and very dangerous idea.....that you should worry far more about than the prospect of not getting gay "marriage".

I noticed you ignored the question of orientation and innateness tho you've been braying about that for quote a few posts

Is any court which rules against majority opinion an 'activist court'?

I did not think that the courts were supposed to rule based on popular opinion at the moment, but rather on their understanding of the law and constitution.

I wonder if accusing judges and courts of being 'activist' is a recent phenomenon or something that has always gone on?

no of course not, for one thing a lot of court issues the public cares little about.

yes, and their various rulings on gay marriage have not been. I have a link of a study which shows that a few posts back.

well, at the time of our founding the people rightfully worried about the courts being merely a wing of the aristocracy.

When the Courts ruled against bans on mixed race marriage, the majority of Americans were firmly against mixed race marriage. It took almost 30 years before the majority of Americans opposed such bans.

Yet now, most Americans agree that the Supreme Court was right.

The courts are here to rule on the law, even when the majority of Americans may disagree.

There were no polls as far as I know on the mixed race marriage...I think your just pulling that out of thin air.....there certainly were no votes. Given the history of slavery...the win, and opinion of the north...I think nationwide opinion would have allowed...certainly they would not have opposed cohabitation.......Some of these southern states even allowed interracial marriage at some point in their histories as was acknowledged by another poster some time back.

Regardless.....that issue could fairly be said to have been settled with the upfront understanding of the slavery amendments....I dont even think it would have required the 14th.

The Constitution, and its added-on Bill of Rights, are a statement of the broad opinion of american citizens. That is the only thing that gives it legitimacy. Ask yourself if the 14th would have had even a single state pass it if it had been known that it would lead to gay" marriage". The obvious answer is no...To go back on that understanding of it now is to, in effect, break the terms of a Contract.

 

[Skylar]

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Romer v. Evans has a clear bearing on the Constitutional merits of measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws, and serves as compelling precedent.

From the Proposition 8 ruling:

'Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “single out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status․” Id. at 633. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 has the “peculiar property,” id. at 632, of “withdraw[ing] from homosexuals, but no others,” an existing legal right—here, access to the official designation of ‘marriage’—that had been broadly available, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not compel the state to confer it in the first place. Id. at 627. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 denies “equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense,” id. at 633, because it “carves out” an “exception” to California's equal protection clause, by removing equal access to marriage, which gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed, from the scope of that constitutional guarantee. Strauss, 207 P.3d at 61. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “by state decree ․ put [homosexuals] in a solitary class with respect to” an important aspect of human relations, and accordingly “imposes a special disability upon [homosexuals] alone.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 627, 631. And like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 constitutionalizes that disability, meaning that gays and lesbians may overcome it “only by enlisting the citizenry of [the state] to amend the State Constitution” for a second time. Id. at 631. As we explain below, Romer compels that we affirm the judgment of the district court.'

PERRY v. BROWN FindLaw

Romer did indeed 'figured in' the Proposition 8 case.

As for DOMA, that was Federal law, not state.

Last, the tired canard that 'the Supreme Court sometimes gets it wrong, thus all its rulings are suspect,' is a ridiculous and ignorant 'argument.'

There is something devious and deceptive with activist courts making rulings that the people disagree with, thus forcing the public's hand, as in both Colorado and California, and then nitpicking with questionable "doctrines" the resulting backlash from the public.

Romer certainly did not figure in the final outcome of the prop 8 case...as that rested on yet another dubious "doctrine" that in a supposed republic, 7 million or so Californians can effectively be denied standing....an idiotic,and very dangerous idea.....that you should worry far more about than the prospect of not getting gay "marriage".

I noticed you ignored the question of orientation and innateness tho you've been braying about that for quote a few posts

Is any court which rules against majority opinion an 'activist court'?

I did not think that the courts were supposed to rule based on popular opinion at the moment, but rather on their understanding of the law and constitution.

I wonder if accusing judges and courts of being 'activist' is a recent phenomenon or something that has always gone on?

no of course not, for one thing a lot of court issues the public cares little about.

yes, and their various rulings on gay marriage have not been. I have a link of a study which shows that a few posts back.

well, at the time of our founding the people rightfully worried about the courts being merely a wing of the aristocracy.

When the Courts ruled against bans on mixed race marriage, the majority of Americans were firmly against mixed race marriage. It took almost 30 years before the majority of Americans opposed such bans.

Yet now, most Americans agree that the Supreme Court was right.

The courts are here to rule on the law, even when the majority of Americans may disagree.

There were no polls as far as I know on the mixed race marriage...I think your just pulling that out of thin air.....there certainly were no votes.

Do you do this with every discussion? Just deny anything that contradicts you exists? From Socrates to John Adams quotes, this has to be at least the 6th or 7th time I've seen you straight up deny that whatever yuo're addressing even existed.

And there were polls on mixed race marriage. Gallup has been asking about it since 1958.

Most Americans Approve of Interracial Marriages

So what now? Deny Gallup existed?

 

[WorldWatcher]

There were no polls as far as I know on the mixed race marriage...

Loving was decided in 1967 when 80% of the population supported not allowing interracial marriages.


>>>>

 

[dcraelin]

There is something devious and deceptive with activist courts making rulings that the people disagree with, thus forcing the public's hand, as in both Colorado and California, and then nitpicking with questionable "doctrines" the resulting backlash from the public.

Romer certainly did not figure in the final outcome of the prop 8 case...as that rested on yet another dubious "doctrine" that in a supposed republic, 7 million or so Californians can effectively be denied standing....an idiotic,and very dangerous idea.....that you should worry far more about than the prospect of not getting gay "marriage".

I noticed you ignored the question of orientation and innateness tho you've been braying about that for quote a few posts

Is any court which rules against majority opinion an 'activist court'?

I did not think that the courts were supposed to rule based on popular opinion at the moment, but rather on their understanding of the law and constitution.

I wonder if accusing judges and courts of being 'activist' is a recent phenomenon or something that has always gone on?

no of course not, for one thing a lot of court issues the public cares little about.

yes, and their various rulings on gay marriage have not been. I have a link of a study which shows that a few posts back.

well, at the time of our founding the people rightfully worried about the courts being merely a wing of the aristocracy.

When the Courts ruled against bans on mixed race marriage, the majority of Americans were firmly against mixed race marriage. It took almost 30 years before the majority of Americans opposed such bans.

Yet now, most Americans agree that the Supreme Court was right.

The courts are here to rule on the law, even when the majority of Americans may disagree.

There were no polls as far as I know on the mixed race marriage...I think your just pulling that out of thin air.....there certainly were no votes.

Do you do this with every discussion? Just deny anything that contradicts you exists? From Socrates to John Adams quotes, this has to be at least the 6th or 7th time I've seen you straight up deny that whatever yuo're addressing even existed.

And there were polls on mixed race marriage. Gallup has been asking about it since 1958.

Most Americans Approve of Interracial Marriages

So what now? Deny Gallup existed?

I do think its made up....why the hell would they be asking that question....was it an actual issue in 1958?...I doubt it

I already covered the possibility that it might be true tho....which you ignored......there is a reason we dont elect people as a result of polls.............

 

[dcraelin]

There were no polls as far as I know on the mixed race marriage...

Loving was decided in 1967 when 80% of the population supported not allowing interracial marriages.


>>>>

see above..............

 

[Skylar]

Is any court which rules against majority opinion an 'activist court'?

I did not think that the courts were supposed to rule based on popular opinion at the moment, but rather on their understanding of the law and constitution.

I wonder if accusing judges and courts of being 'activist' is a recent phenomenon or something that has always gone on?

no of course not, for one thing a lot of court issues the public cares little about.

yes, and their various rulings on gay marriage have not been. I have a link of a study which shows that a few posts back.

well, at the time of our founding the people rightfully worried about the courts being merely a wing of the aristocracy.

When the Courts ruled against bans on mixed race marriage, the majority of Americans were firmly against mixed race marriage. It took almost 30 years before the majority of Americans opposed such bans.

Yet now, most Americans agree that the Supreme Court was right.

The courts are here to rule on the law, even when the majority of Americans may disagree.

There were no polls as far as I know on the mixed race marriage...I think your just pulling that out of thin air.....there certainly were no votes.

Do you do this with every discussion? Just deny anything that contradicts you exists? From Socrates to John Adams quotes, this has to be at least the 6th or 7th time I've seen you straight up deny that whatever yuo're addressing even existed.

And there were polls on mixed race marriage. Gallup has been asking about it since 1958.

Most Americans Approve of Interracial Marriages

So what now? Deny Gallup existed?

I do think its made up....why the hell would they be asking that question....was it an actual issue in 1958?...I doubt it

You're simply denying the existence of anything that contradicts you. You have no basis in evidence to conclude that Gallup didn't conduct those polls. You simply don't like the results.....so you pretend they never happened.

Just like you do anything else that contradicts you.

Alas, the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. Your basis of perception is plain old confirmation bias ramped up on steroids. Where you only acknowledge the existence of things that agree with you. Anything that doesn't......literally doesn't exist in your world.

That's spectacularly unreliable. And functionally irrelevant to any fact based discussion.

 

[Skylar]

There were no polls as far as I know on the mixed race marriage...

Loving was decided in 1967 when 80% of the population supported not allowing interracial marriages.


>>>>

see above..............

Gallup contradicts him. So in his world, none of the polls ever happened. As anything that contradicts him never existed.

You can't teach that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yet genetic issues such as race is wholly irrelevant to sexual behavior, which is entirely a function of CHOICE.

There is no potential right to attempt others to accept your deciant behavior... Period.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yet genetic issues such as race is wholly irrelevant to sexual behavior, which is entirely a function of CHOICE.

There is no potential right to attempt others to accept your deciant behavior... Period.

In Virginia blacks could marry. In Virginia whites could marry. In Virginia the decadent behavior of marriage between blacks and whites (as viewed through social mores of that time) was illegal.

Marrying someone of a different race is a behavior that was limited.


>>>>

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yet genetic issues such as race is wholly irrelevant to sexual behavior, which is entirely a function of CHOICE.

There is no potential right to attempt others to accept your deciant behavior... Period.

In Virginia blacks could marry. In Virginia whites could marry. In Virginia the decadent behavior of marriage between blacks and whites (as viewed through social mores of that time) was illegal.

Marrying someone of a different race is a behavior that was limited.


>>>>

No... What was illegal was interracial marriage. Which is an irrational prejudice against people who bear genetic distinction.

There is no genetic distinction in those who present with the sexual deviancy common to mental disorder.

 

[Silhouette]

In Virginia blacks could marry. In Virginia whites could marry. In Virginia the decadent behavior of marriage between blacks and whites (as viewed through social mores of that time) was illegal.

Marrying someone of a different race is a behavior that was limited.


>>>>

And lucky for them they fit the actual physical structure of marriage which is man/woman, regardless of race. They still provided a mother and father to children. So they won their case.

 

[WorldWatcher]

In Virginia blacks could marry. In Virginia whites could marry. In Virginia the decadent behavior of marriage between blacks and whites (as viewed through social mores of that time) was illegal.

Marrying someone of a different race is a behavior that was limited.


>>>>

And lucky for them they fit the actual physical structure of marriage which is man/woman, regardless of race. They still provided a mother and father to children. So they won their case.

Choosing to marry someone of a different race is a behavioral choice.

Your claim though is that there are no Constitutional protections for behavior.

Loving proves you wrong.

Again.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Romer v. Evans has a clear bearing on the Constitutional merits of measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws, and serves as compelling precedent.

From the Proposition 8 ruling:

'Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “single out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status․” Id. at 633. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 has the “peculiar property,” id. at 632, of “withdraw[ing] from homosexuals, but no others,” an existing legal right—here, access to the official designation of ‘marriage’—that had been broadly available, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not compel the state to confer it in the first place. Id. at 627. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 denies “equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense,” id. at 633, because it “carves out” an “exception” to California's equal protection clause, by removing equal access to marriage, which gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed, from the scope of that constitutional guarantee. Strauss, 207 P.3d at 61. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “by state decree ․ put [homosexuals] in a solitary class with respect to” an important aspect of human relations, and accordingly “imposes a special disability upon [homosexuals] alone.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 627, 631. And like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 constitutionalizes that disability, meaning that gays and lesbians may overcome it “only by enlisting the citizenry of [the state] to amend the State Constitution” for a second time. Id. at 631. As we explain below, Romer compels that we affirm the judgment of the district court.'

PERRY v. BROWN FindLaw

Romer did indeed 'figured in' the Proposition 8 case.

As for DOMA, that was Federal law, not state.

Last, the tired canard that 'the Supreme Court sometimes gets it wrong, thus all its rulings are suspect,' is a ridiculous and ignorant 'argument.'

There is something devious and deceptive with activist courts making rulings that the people disagree with, thus forcing the public's hand, as in both Colorado and California, and then nitpicking with questionable "doctrines" the resulting backlash from the public.

Romer certainly did not figure in the final outcome of the prop 8 case...as that rested on yet another dubious "doctrine" that in a supposed republic, 7 million or so Californians can effectively be denied standing....an idiotic,and very dangerous idea.....that you should worry far more about than the prospect of not getting gay "marriage".

I noticed you ignored the question of orientation and innateness tho you've been braying about that for quote a few posts

Is any court which rules against majority opinion an 'activist court'?

I did not think that the courts were supposed to rule based on popular opinion at the moment, but rather on their understanding of the law and constitution.

I wonder if accusing judges and courts of being 'activist' is a recent phenomenon or something that has always gone on?

no of course not, for one thing a lot of court issues the public cares little about.

yes, and their various rulings on gay marriage have not been. I have a link of a study which shows that a few posts back.

well, at the time of our founding the people rightfully worried about the courts being merely a wing of the aristocracy.

When the Courts ruled against bans on mixed race marriage, the majority of Americans were firmly against mixed race marriage. It took almost 30 years before the majority of Americans opposed such bans.

Yet now, most Americans agree that the Supreme Court was right.

The courts are here to rule on the law, even when the majority of Americans may disagree.

The Constitution, and its added-on Bill of Rights, are a statement of the broad opinion of american citizens. That is the only thing that gives it legitimacy. Ask yourself if the 14th would have had even a single state pass it if it had been known that it would lead to gay" marriage". The obvious answer is no...To go back on that understanding of it now is to, in effect, break the terms of a Contract.

The Constitution- including the Bill of Rights- would not have passed if Slavery had been outlawed.

Yet the obvious 'answer' is that slavery is wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

In Virginia blacks could marry. In Virginia whites could marry. In Virginia the decadent behavior of marriage between blacks and whites (as viewed through social mores of that time) was illegal.

Marrying someone of a different race is a behavior that was limited.


>>>>

And lucky for them they fit the actual physical structure of marriage which is man/woman, regardless of race. They still provided a mother and father to children. So they won their case.

Actually the State of Virginia argued- much like you do- that children of mixed race parents would suffer by being the children of mixed race parents.

The courts didn't accept that argument in the case of the Lovings either.

The face of homophobia

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In Virginia blacks could marry. In Virginia whites could marry. In Virginia the decadent behavior of marriage between blacks and whites (as viewed through social mores of that time) was illegal.

Marrying someone of a different race is a behavior that was limited.


>>>>

And lucky for them they fit the actual physical structure of marriage which is man/woman, regardless of race. They still provided a mother and father to children. So they won their case.

Lucky for them the Constitution and its case law prohibits the codification of the ignorance and hate you advocate.

 

[Silhouette]

The face of homophobia

The people holding up those signs don't look angry or actually pumped up at all about their "cause". In fact, they look young, like millenial-young. Kind of dandy looking too

I wonder if they were making those signs for the LGBT crowd in order to drum up sympathy?

 

[Darkwind]

Well, I said I would come back now and again. So I might as well hang in until June sporadically. Let's see how vigorously the *usual crowd* will spam good points into oblivion, trying to silence the conversation..

We have a couple of questions. 1. The "should the fed mandate gay marriage and silence any opposition" question and 2. The "should the fed allow some people/businesses to refuse to participate in "gay marriages" question. I sort of walk back and forth between the two questions and have a bit more of a discussion about the invisible demographic in all these conversations: children and their spongy, socially-learning minds. It weighs heavily on the future of society as we sit poised, deliberating at such a divergent fork in the social fabric...

What if a community in Iowa where pigs are raised a great deal, decided to pass a local law that said all citizens who aren't allergic to pork, must eat pork at least once a week to show their civic devotion to their mainstay and town's name? Just for instance, hypothetically.
A jew who refused to abide by that law would be in his rights. Would he not?

Denying participation in gay marriage isn't a statement about a race. It's a statement about BEHAVIORS. "I don't want to eat pork" ...where "to eat" is a verb, not a noun. "I don't want to support people who identify with a lifestyle where they have sex with the same gender".....where "they have sex with the same gender" is an action, a verb, not a noun. In contrast African Americans or First Nation People are not verbs. They are nouns. Please learn the legal difference.

The equivalent is if bulimics got together and organized to force restaurant owners to place vomit urns on every table, because to not do so was "hurtful and discriminatory to bulimic Americans!". Bulimia, like homosexuality, is a stubborn habitual behavior that once learned is very difficult to change. And youngsters often pass on the bad habit socially by teaching/learning/observation of peer behaviors.

Gays claim homosexuality is innate, intrinsic. They have not demonstrated this. And in fact a vast source of knowledge from some of the most credible institutions suggests that homosexuality is learned, and worse considering this particular question of law, may actually be passed on socially:

The little ole' Mayo Clinic, 2007:

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child. This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor, in which the abused child is trying to gain a new identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

And...the shabby source called "The CDC"..

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta... Drug Use among Gay Men Pervasive by Worcester Sharon - Clinical Psychiatry News Vol. 33 Issue 2 February 2005 Online Research Library Questia

LGBT professional bloggers/spammers would say instead we must listen to the latest lavendar "CQR" "excellence" being pumped out of the rainbow-propaganda machine, erstwhile known as "The American Psychological Association", right?

Legal discussion:

Since objecting to participate in supporting so-called "gay marriage" isn't an affront to life or limb of the the "victims" of such a "crime", then there's the gold standard of law when it comes to rightful and lawful discrimination against BEHAVIORS (verb) but not race (noun). Hurting people's feelings by practicing free speech and freedom of religion is not against the law. It may hurt homosexuals' feelings to be reminded that their behaviors aren't universally and blindly accepted/acceptable and promoted, but that isn't a crime.

I'll just end this here by saying that children are watching what we approve of and what we don't, and making decisions in their own learning/habituating experiences based on what is modeled before them.

Bigotry in the name of religion.

Bigotry in the name of same-sex marriage.

 

[Darkwind]

In Virginia blacks could marry. In Virginia whites could marry. In Virginia the decadent behavior of marriage between blacks and whites (as viewed through social mores of that time) was illegal.

Marrying someone of a different race is a behavior that was limited.


>>>>

And lucky for them they fit the actual physical structure of marriage which is man/woman, regardless of race. They still provided a mother and father to children. So they won their case.

Lucky for them the Constitution and its case law prohibits the codification of the ignorance and hate you advocate.

No it doesn't.

The left codify ignorance and hate on a regular basis.

 

[dcraelin]

There is something devious and deceptive with activist courts making rulings that the people disagree with, thus forcing the public's hand, as in both Colorado and California, and then nitpicking with questionable "doctrines" the resulting backlash from the public.

Romer certainly did not figure in the final outcome of the prop 8 case...as that rested on yet another dubious "doctrine" that in a supposed republic, 7 million or so Californians can effectively be denied standing....an idiotic,and very dangerous idea.....that you should worry far more about than the prospect of not getting gay "marriage".

I noticed you ignored the question of orientation and innateness tho you've been braying about that for quote a few posts

Is any court which rules against majority opinion an 'activist court'?

I did not think that the courts were supposed to rule based on popular opinion at the moment, but rather on their understanding of the law and constitution.

I wonder if accusing judges and courts of being 'activist' is a recent phenomenon or something that has always gone on?

no of course not, for one thing a lot of court issues the public cares little about.

yes, and their various rulings on gay marriage have not been. I have a link of a study which shows that a few posts back.

well, at the time of our founding the people rightfully worried about the courts being merely a wing of the aristocracy.

When the Courts ruled against bans on mixed race marriage, the majority of Americans were firmly against mixed race marriage. It took almost 30 years before the majority of Americans opposed such bans.

Yet now, most Americans agree that the Supreme Court was right.

The courts are here to rule on the law, even when the majority of Americans may disagree.

The Constitution, and its added-on Bill of Rights, are a statement of the broad opinion of american citizens. That is the only thing that gives it legitimacy. Ask yourself if the 14th would have had even a single state pass it if it had been known that it would lead to gay" marriage". The obvious answer is no...To go back on that understanding of it now is to, in effect, break the terms of a Contract.

The Constitution- including the Bill of Rights- would not have passed if Slavery had been outlawed.

Yet the obvious 'answer' is that slavery is wrong.

I dont see the basis for that statement.......

did the courts solve the slavery problem?...no they didnt, and my understanding of the history is that they actually made matters worse..