Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

[rightwinger]

I see...because we were shits to the Japanese, that somehow equates to "we have no rights". Okey dokey.

Nope, it just proves that they don't really exist. Not saying our behavior wasn't shitty. But at the time, everyone was just fine with it. Except the Japanese, they weren't too cool with it.


d.

It would be interesting to guess how the American people would have voted in 1942 if they were asked whether Japanese Americans should be locked up

Anyone willing to argue that they would have voted to protect their civil rights?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I stated- I would be equally fine with a LEGISLATIVE process. Which is how it should be done. My problem is with some gay judge on his way to the bathhouse saying, "Shit, screw what the peeople want, I'm a judge!"

There are 8 legal entitites where Same-sex Civil Marriage is currently law, in 5 of the 8 passage has been a legislative process.

Secondly, no law is overturned by a single judge, in the Prop 8 case, so far it has been one District Court Judge and a 3-judge panel from the 9th Circuit court. Yesterday Prop 8 supporters requested an en banc review which will add another 11 judges to the review process and then it will be likely be appealed to the SCOTUS which will be 9 more. By my count that's 24 judges that will be involved in making a final determination.

You have the same right as everyone else. You can marry any person of the opposite sex who will have you. Which is the same right the rest of us have.

Now, if you want to expand that to being able to marry someone of the same sex, or multiple people, or your cousin, that's fine, as long as can get the majority to agree with you that the law should be changed.

Because if you state, "But I waaaaaant it" as the legal standard, you have no standard.

Same arguments used in the Loving case, they didn't make logical since then either.

To paraphrase:

"You have the same right as everyone else. You can marry any person of the same race who will have you. Which is the same right the rest of us have.

Now, if you want to expand that to being able to someone of a different race, thats fine as long as can get the majority to agree with you that the law should be changed.

Because if you state, "But I waaaaaant it" as the legal standard, you have no standard."​

Race and gender are both biological conditions, so yes they are analogous.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

I see...because we were shits to the Japanese, that somehow equates to "we have no rights". Okey dokey.

Nope, it just proves that they don't really exist. Not saying our behavior wasn't shitty. But at the time, everyone was just fine with it. Except the Japanese, they weren't too cool with it.

There were plenty of people other than the Japanese that weren't "cool with it". Obviously we weren't "cool with it" either or we wouldn't have apologized for doing it.

And there you go again...letting a little of your bigotry slip out a bit. I know this isn't convenient, but being gay isn't a "lifestyle choice". That would be religion, bigotry and hatred, not sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation isn't a "choice", but acting on it is. What do you think lesbians in Iran do? They take one for the team. Because society will hang them if they don't. Again- hard concept for you to accept- it's what society will tolerate, not what you are "entitled" to.

Funny then that interracial marriage became the law of the land LONG before society "tolerated" such things.

The FACT remains that civil rights have NEVER in our history been put to a majority vote. Why do you suddenly want to change the rules just for the gheys? [/COLOR]

I stated- I would be equally fine with a LEGISLATIVE process. Which is how it should be done. My problem is with some gay judge on his way to the bathhouse saying, "Shit, screw what the peeople want, I'm a judge!"

You keep letting just a little bit of your homophobia slip out. One of the MANY judges who have ruled on same sex marriage was gay and yet anti gay laws have been struck down in more courts than Judge Walker's. His being gay doesn't negate his being able to rule on LAW (which is exactly what he did).

Why do you think we have a judicial system that is EQUAL with our other branches of government?

If "what the people want" is bigotry and discrimination...that is why the courts are there, to keep the tyranny of the majority from trampling the rights of the minority. Of course, you're the first person I've seen that called Loving v Virginia "judicial activism"...

And what "special rights" would those be? Far as I know, we're simply asking for the SAME EXACT rights as everyone else.

You have the same right as everyone else. You can marry any person of the opposite sex who will have you. Which is the same right the rest of us have.

Now, if you want to expand that to being able to marry someone of the same sex, or multiple people, or your cousin, that's fine, as long as can get the majority to agree with you that the law should be changed.

Because if you state, "But I waaaaaant it" as the legal standard, you have no standard.

You can assert your wrongheaded position until the cows come home, but it's still wrong. We've never, I repeat, NEVER allowed the "majority" to vote on the rights of the minority...until now. It wouldn't have been okay to put interracial marriage to a majority vote (especially because it would have then taken another 20+ years to get it passed) and it isn't okay to put gay and lesbian marriage equality to a vote.

Civil rights have historically been won in the court and they will in this case as well. Marriage equality IS going to the Supreme Court and based on precedent, they have no choice but to rule in favor of marriage equality.

I really shouldn't be too shocked that you choose the same position as the bigoted Rabbi either...that we already have the same rights as everyone else because we can marry someone of the opposite sex. I did expect a bit better of you, but you've been letting more and more of your homophobia slip out.

 

[Texanmike]

Um...Loving v Virginia took the power of the states to forbid inter-racial marriages away. I would have thought you would have known that.



Well, it's interesting that those who wrote the 14th amendment meant it for ALL Americans. Amendments have a way of applying to ALL Americans.

This is the perfect example of what is wrong. Loving v Va took something away from the States? You thought I would know that. I understand the effect that the ruling had, but the 14th amendment was not written to have an ever-expanding scope.

For example. The 14th Amendment was written to respond to the needs of former slaves. It wasn't supposed to invent any new rights, it wasn't supposed to impose more on the state's authority... it was just supposed to apply what already was to the 14rth amendments. If your case were true then why did it take decades for marriage to be brought up? In fact, why didn't the ratifiers declare an end to all regulations on marriage period?

"The layman's view is that, that which they like is Constitutional and that which they dislike is Unconstitutional"-- SJC Black

Mike

So, you are saying that the 14th amendment applied ONLY to former slaves? That would mean it is now defunct since they are all dead now.

See how very very foolish and WRONG your argument is?

Good thing you are not a Constitutional Expert.

Jesus you are dense. The idea was not to create new rights but to guarantee that the rights applied to everyone.(yes it was written for the former slaves)

You my not like what it says but you don't get to change what it says, of course you can just pretend it says something else I guess.

Mike

 

[JoeB131]

If they don't really exist, why did the U.S. Government admit they were wrong for what they did to the Japanese-Americans during the war and compensate them?

political correct bullshit?

Point isn't feeling bad about it 40 years after the fact. The point was, the notion that you have these "rights" is just silly. AT THE TIME, nobody had an issue with it. A few wanted to do far worse things to them. The country was angry, and they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. One could only imagine what might have happened to them had the war gone badly for us.

Which is why the whole notion of "rights" is just plain silly. Rights imply that you come with these garuntees that can't ever vanish. Nope. They don't exist. What we have are privilages the rest of society grants. Until they don't.

Because at the end of the day, we aren't creatures created by a Sky Pixie, we are a bunch of apes whose animal instincts will come out if we are threatened.

 

[JoeB131]

There were plenty of people other than the Japanese that weren't "cool with it". Obviously we weren't "cool with it" either or we wouldn't have apologized for doing it.

Well, most of the people who "apologized" for it weren't even born yet when we finally did. Incidently, this was a case where the courts actually sided with the government against the Japanese-Americans, in the Koramatsu decision. So a court said it was okay, it must have been right!

You keep letting just a little bit of your homophobia slip out. One of the MANY judges who have ruled on same sex marriage was gay and yet anti gay laws have been struck down in more courts than Judge Walker's. His being gay doesn't negate his being able to rule on LAW (which is exactly what he did).

Why do you think we have a judicial system that is EQUAL with our other branches of government?

If "what the people want" is bigotry and discrimination...that is why the courts are there, to keep the tyranny of the majority from trampling the rights of the minority. Of course, you're the first person I've seen that called Loving v Virginia "judicial activism"...

The courts are an equal branch with a specific function. The Legislature makes laws, the Executive carries them out, and the Judiciary adjudicates. When the Judiciary takes it upon itself to make laws, or the Executives issues regulations that run contrary to what the legislative passes, that's a broken system.

And when you have a character like Judge Walker, who not only should have recused himself, but actually tried to use his position to find a right to marriage for the whole country (even the 9th Circuit, known for batshit crazy rulings, pulled back on that one) decides, after the people of California voted "Twice" to not have this, that's an abuse of power. Sorry, just is.

Going back to the Hardwicke decision. A lot of states were surprised to find they still had these laws on the books. Most of them repealed them. That's the way it should have worked. But then the court decided, "Meh, screw it, you aren't taking these laws off the books fast enough. We're going to find a "right" to sodomy. It's here in the 14th Amendment, right next to the right to a partial birth abortion."

You can assert your wrongheaded position until the cows come home, but it's still wrong. We've never, I repeat, NEVER allowed the "majority" to vote on the rights of the minority...until now. It wouldn't have been okay to put interracial marriage to a majority vote (especially because it would have then taken another 20+ years to get it passed) and it isn't okay to put gay and lesbian marriage equality to a vote.

Civil rights have historically been won in the court and they will in this case as well. Marriage equality IS going to the Supreme Court and based on precedent, they have no choice but to rule in favor of marriage equality.

I really shouldn't be too shocked that you choose the same position as the bigoted Rabbi either...that we already have the same rights as everyone else because we can marry someone of the opposite sex. I did expect a bit better of you, but you've been letting more and more of your homophobia slip out.

Not a matter of homophobia. It's a matter of wanting to preserve democracy. Because if a court can grant "rights" against the will of the people, it can take them away just as easily.

Look, you folks on the left still scream about Bush v. Gore 12 years later. And you probably have a point. it wasn't a good ruling.

You want to do this through the legislature or the ballot box, I have no problem. You want to do it through the courts, I'm going to have a big problem with it.

 

[JoeB131]

I see...because we were shits to the Japanese, that somehow equates to "we have no rights". Okey dokey.

Nope, it just proves that they don't really exist. Not saying our behavior wasn't shitty. But at the time, everyone was just fine with it. Except the Japanese, they weren't too cool with it.

It would be interesting to guess how the American people would have voted in 1942 if they were asked whether Japanese Americans should be locked up

Anyone willing to argue that they would have voted to protect their civil rights?

Nope, they wouldn't have.

but here's the thing. I'm not arguing that the ballot box always makes good decisions. Sweet C'Thulhu, the fact that a turd like Obama is occupying the White House is proof of that.

The thing is, the courts didn't do any better in that particular case. Some of these japanese Americans actually sued. But the Supreme Court in three separate cases, found the government really did have the power to lock them up merely on the basis of where their ancestors were born. Korematsu v. US being the top one.

The argument that the courts make better decisions is a fallacy. And you liberals would agree, if we were talking about decisions you haven't liked, such as Bush v. Gore.

In this case, the people of California voted twice to keep the definition of marriage as it was. You can have civil unions that give you most of the same privilages of marriage, but the definition of marriage should remain what it was. and if the ballot had gone the other way, I'd have no problem with that, either.

I have a HUGE problem when a judge, especially one like Judge Walker who has an obvious conflict of interest, decides that despite what the people have said, they are going to just make up their own rulings with dubious constitutional grounding.

 

[JoeB131]

There are 8 legal entitites where Same-sex Civil Marriage is currently law, in 5 of the 8 passage has been a legislative process.

And I have no issue in states where it was done that way. None whatsoever. (Although I also doubt that count. But I don't have time to research it further this morning.) That is the right way to do it.

Secondly, no law is overturned by a single judge, in the Prop 8 case, so far it has been one District Court Judge and a 3-judge panel from the 9th Circuit court. Yesterday Prop 8 supporters requested an en banc review which will add another 11 judges to the review process and then it will be likely be appealed to the SCOTUS which will be 9 more. By my count that's 24 judges that will be involved in making a final determination.

1 judge or 24 judges, they should not be able to throw out the will of millions of people.

And clearly, when you have one judge who has a conflict of interest, like Judge Walker did, that should also be taken into consideration.

You see, here's part of the thing. Walker really did go too far. He found a right to marriage lurking there in the 14th Amendment no one had noticed in the last 140 years. (No doubt, it was hidden under the right to a Partial Birth abortion). The three judge panel ratcheted that back. Their rulling was that since it was legal for a while, it should remain legal.

Same arguments used in the Loving case, they didn't make logical since then either.

To paraphrase:

"You have the same right as everyone else. You can marry any person of the same race who will have you. Which is the same right the rest of us have.

Now, if you want to expand that to being able to someone of a different race, thats fine as long as can get the majority to agree with you that the law should be changed.

Because if you state, "But I waaaaaant it" as the legal standard, you have no standard."​

Race and gender are both biological conditions, so yes they are analogous.


>>>>

A few problems with that reasoning. First, the 14th Amendment specifically was passed to end racial discrimination, so a lot of the judicial activism that finally upheld that amendment was probably on reasonably solid ground. in fact, the mixed marriage laws were enacted after slavery ended to keep race mixing from happening legally. (It had been going on for some time as slave-owners had sex with their slaves.)

Marriage has never been defined as one man and one man. This is completely rewriting the definition.

Gender discrimination is part of our law. I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but men and women really are different. This is why people recoiled at passing the ERA. It was going along just fine until people realized that if you have bathrooms marked "Men" and "Women", it's just the same as having ones marked "White" and "Colored".

 

[Full-Auto]

And I have no issue in states where it was done that way. None whatsoever. (Although I also doubt that count. But I don't have time to research it further this morning.) That is the right way to do it.


What about if the issue went to the voters and was rejected then later trumped by the legislators?

 

[WorldWatcher]

1 judge or 24 judges, they should not be able to throw out the will of millions of people.

So if California had an initiative and passed a ban on private citizens owning firearms, then the federal courts should not step in and uphold the second amendment, I mean the California citizens voted on it.

And clearly, when you have one judge who has a conflict of interest, like Judge Walker did, that should also be taken into consideration.

I wonder if you would call for a heterosexual judge to recuse him/herself as they would have the same conflict. Or maybe a religous judge should recuse him/herself if their religion has a conflict.

Somehow I don't see that call being made.

You see, here's part of the thing. Walker really did go too far. He found a right to marriage lurking there in the 14th Amendment no one had noticed in the last 140 years. (No doubt, it was hidden under the right to a Partial Birth abortion). The three judge panel ratcheted that back. Their rulling was that since it was legal for a while, it should remain legal.

Walker didn't "find" a right to equal treatment under the law, that is well established precedent from the SCOTUS.

The ruling was that since Same-sex Civil Marriage was legal in California, that the removal of that right for no compelling government reason was a capricious and invidious law generated specifically to target a group. That without a compelling reason the law, then violated equal protection.

A few problems with that reasoning. First, the 14th Amendment specifically was passed to end racial discrimination, so a lot of the judicial activism that finally upheld that amendment was probably on reasonably solid ground. in fact, the mixed marriage laws were enacted after slavery ended to keep race mixing from happening legally. (It had been going on for some time as slave-owners had sex with their slaves.)

The 14th does not apply only to blacks.

Marriage has never been defined as one man and one man. This is completely rewriting the definition.

Tradition is not a compelling government interest in continued discrimination.

Gender discrimination is part of our law. I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but men and women really are different. This is why people recoiled at passing the ERA. It was going along just fine until people realized that if you have bathrooms marked "Men" and "Women", it's just the same as having ones marked "White" and "Colored".

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Men and women are different? Ya, so what? When the government has put itself in a position where discrimination is being conducted and a citizen exercises their Constitutional right under the Grievance Clause of the 1st Amendment, then the government has a responsibility to provide compelling government interest to justify the continuation of the discrimination. If the government were to pass a law (and yes the people acting through an initiative process are action as a legislative branch of government) that blind people can't drive, if challenged it would be the government responsibility to make a case that blind people are endangering the public by operating multi-ton vehicles at high rates of speed on the public highways. On the other hand if the government passed a law that said females could not operate motor on public highways, then they would be responsible for making a case based on gender.

The basic premise of the Constitutionally guaranteed right to equal treatment under the law is that like situated individuals (or in this case couples) should be treated the same unless the government an provide such justification. Do date, I've not seen such a justification that would warrent different treatment for the following like situated couples:

Law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a different-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a same-sex couple.​

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

And I have no issue in states where it was done that way. None whatsoever. (Although I also doubt that count. But I don't have time to research it further this morning.) That is the right way to do it.


What about if the issue went to the voters and was rejected then later trumped by the legislators?

The California Constitution says that once an initiative is passed by the voters, the Legislature cannot later change the results of the initiative through the legislative process without submitting it to the people for another vote.

(Which BTW, IIRC, is part of the problems California has with it's budget. Groups have gotten mandatory spending initiatives passed by direct vote and now the Legislature cannot change those requirements when making a budget.)



>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

And I have no issue in states where it was done that way. None whatsoever. (Although I also doubt that count. But I don't have time to research it further this morning.) That is the right way to do it.

What about if the issue went to the voters and was rejected then later trumped by the legislators?

Interesting question. I would say that in that case, the people would still have the remedy of voting the offending legislators out of office.

To the point, California has the option of removing Supreme Court Justices, which is why the anti-8 protestors went to the federal court rather than the state courts again.

 

[JoeB131]

1 judge or 24 judges, they should not be able to throw out the will of millions of people.

So if California had an initiative and passed a ban on private citizens owning firearms, then the federal courts should not step in and uphold the second amendment, I mean the California citizens voted on it.

Good question. Not a big gun nut, so I'm not emotionally invested in Gun ownership. I would also argue that the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated" militia being a condition of the "right to bear Arms".

I should also point out the courts HAVE ruled that that states and municipalities have the right to regulate firearms ownership.

And clearly, when you have one judge who has a conflict of interest, like Judge Walker did, that should also be taken into consideration.

I wonder if you would call for a heterosexual judge to recuse him/herself as they would have the same conflict. Or maybe a religous judge should recuse him/herself if their religion has a conflict.

Somehow I don't see that call being made.

I'd call on the religious judge, sure. I don't think a heterosexual judge would have any skin in the game if he were otherwise impartial on the matter.

Walker didn't "find" a right to equal treatment under the law, that is well established precedent from the SCOTUS.

Well, that's the problem with the SCOTUS previous judicial activism in Lawernce v. Texas and Romer.. When you're ina hole, you stop digging.

The ruling was that since Same-sex Civil Marriage was legal in California, that the removal of that right for no compelling government reason was a capricious and invidious law generated specifically to target a group. That without a compelling reason the law, then violated equal protection.

But the thing was, that legality was ONLY based on a court ruling, not legistlation or a mandate by the people. It's a wrong covering another wrong.

Tradition is not a compelling government interest in continued discrimination.

Good enough for most people.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Men and women are different? Ya, so what? When the government has put itself in a position where discrimination is being conducted and a citizen exercises their Constitutional right under the Grievance Clause of the 1st Amendment, then the government has a responsibility to provide compelling government interest to justify the continuation of the discrimination. If the government were to pass a law (and yes the people acting through an initiative process are action as a legislative branch of government) that blind people can't drive, if challenged it would be the government responsibility to make a case that blind people are endangering the public by operating multi-ton vehicles at high rates of speed on the public highways. On the other hand if the government passed a law that said females could not operate motor on public highways, then they would be responsible for making a case based on gender.

Not really comperable here. I know you are really trying.

What's the "compelling" reason to require separate bathrooms, which most businesses are REQUIRED to do? Or to exempt women from Selective Service? Or to treat a crime against a woman more seriously than that against a man? There isn't one. There is just a cultural reason to do so.

The basic premise of the Constitutionally guaranteed right to equal treatment under the law is that like situated individuals (or in this case couples) should be treated the same unless the government an provide such justification. Do date, I've not seen such a justification that would warrent different treatment for the following like situated couples:

Law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a different-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a same-sex couple.​

But the states ALREADY set rules. Polygamy is illegal, and so are incestuous marriages. (Although states vary on when incest comes in. Some states, you CAN marry your first cousin. ICK!) The states also vary on what age you can actually consent to marriage. Which is kind of stupid, in some states, the marrying age is lower than the age of consent.

Now if the homosexuals want to argue that there are good reasons to change the law, they should do that- at the ballot box or in the state legislature.

 

[WorldWatcher]

To the point, California has the option of removing Supreme Court Justices,...

True, but...

A California Supreme Court Justice is only eligible for a retention vote, IIRC, only every 12-years after the first year. There isn't really an ability to vote out the court, maybe 1 or 2, but not in mass.

...which is why the anti-8 protestors went to the federal court rather than the state courts again.

Incorrect.

There were a number of lawsuits filed after Prop 8's passage in State court. The three main suits were consolidated in to one case (Strauss v. Horton).

"In summary, we conclude that Proposition 8 constitutes a permissible constitutional amendment (rather than an impermissible constitutional revision), does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and is not invalid under the “inalienable rights” theory proffered by the Attorney General. We further conclude that Proposition 8 does not apply retroactively and therefore that the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid. Having determined that none of the constitutional challenges to the adoption of Proposition 8 have merit, we observe that if there is to be a change to the state constitutional rule embodied in that measure, it must “find its expression at the ballot box.” (In re Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, 884 (conc. & dis. opn. of Corrigan, J.); see also id. at pp. 861, 878 (conc. & dis. opn. of Baxter, J.).)

In each of the three cases before us, the request for a peremptory writ of mandate is denied. Each party shall bear its own costs.

GEORGE, C. J."

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/S168047.pdf​

The State Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8 was filed May 26, 2009. The initial filing of the complaint in Perry v. Schwarzenegger was made on May 22, 2009, ONLY 4-days prior to the CSC ruling and well AFTER the Strauss complaints had been filed and already adjudicated in the lower California courts.

Challenges to Prop 8 were heard in the California courts system first, then in federal courts.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Now if the homosexuals want to argue that there are good reasons to change the law, they should do that- at the ballot box or in the state legislature.

Or in the courts a right enumerated in the 1st Amendment to bring grievance against the government. The onus in on the government to justify discrimination, it is not on the plantiff.


BTW - If you want to pee with the girls, file a suit. Make the government provide a compelling reason.


>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

Now if the homosexuals want to argue that there are good reasons to change the law, they should do that- at the ballot box or in the state legislature.

Or in the courts a right enumerated in the 1st Amendment to bring grievance against the government. The onus in on the government to justify discrimination, it is not on the plantiff.


BTW - If you want to pee with the girls, file a suit. Make the government provide a compelling reason.


>>>>

I have no reason to want to do that. Which is the point.

BUt the petition for a redress of greivences should be directed at legislatures, not the judiciary doing whatever it wants.

The Constitution lists Congress as the first branch because it thought it was the most important. The Executive Branch came second and the Judiciary came third, and there was a reason for that.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Dumb, dumb dumb...

U.S. News - NJ Gov. Christie vetoes same-sex marriage bill

I've always been a critic of judges who decide they are going to disregard the will of legistlatures and the populace and impose these things, but here's a case where they did it the right way, they passed a bill, and Christie the Hutt decides he's stull sucking up to be RomBot's running mate.

Whats the big deal, as an elected Governor he exorcised his right to veto a bill he didn't like.

If people are really that bent out of shape about it, they'll vote him out next time.

He supposedly represents The People Who Voted For Him.

He's just another pathetic R who, since he can't have sex**, doesn't want anyone else to either.

This is an angry man who eats because that's all he's got. He's a bully who is madly and desperately jockeying for a place of political relevance in the future.

And failing.

**Don't wanna get too graphic here, but let's facts here: Unless he uses a mirror glued to a broom handle, he hasn't even SEEN his wang since grade school. Be honest. wouldn't that make YOU a bit nutz?

 

[Lakhota]

Governor expected to sign:

Maryland Gay Marriage Bill Approved By State Senate

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BUt the petition for a redress of greivences should be directed at legislatures, not the judiciary doing whatever it wants.

Not when a citizen is seeking relief from a legislative action. And grievances aren’t directed at the judiciary, the judiciary is the venue in which the grievance is heard.

The Constitution lists Congress as the first branch because it thought it was the most important. The Executive Branch came second and the Judiciary came third, and there was a reason for that.

The order reflects a process, not supremacy. The Executive checks the Legislative, and when needed the Judiciary checks both.

Otherwise, it’s really very simple:

In theory the courts need never get involved, assuming the people – through either elected representatives or referendum – abide the Constitution.

But in over 1000 years of Anglo-American judicial tradition, this has never occurred.

The natural propensity of human nature is to be arrogant, hateful, and unjust; the courts are a neutral, objective venue in which the people petition the government for a redress of grievances; we are subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – Prop 8 is evidence of that.

 

[Full-Auto]

1 judge or 24 judges, they should not be able to throw out the will of millions of people.

So if California had an initiative and passed a ban on private citizens owning firearms, then the federal courts should not step in and uphold the second amendment, I mean the California citizens voted on it.

Good question. Not a big gun nut, so I'm not emotionally invested in Gun ownership. I would also argue that the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated" militia being a condition of the "right to bear Arms".

I should also point out the courts HAVE ruled that that states and municipalities have the right to regulate firearms ownership.






I'd call on the religious judge, sure. I don't think a heterosexual judge would have any skin in the game if he were otherwise impartial on the matter.




Well, that's the problem with the SCOTUS previous judicial activism in Lawernce v. Texas and Romer.. When you're ina hole, you stop digging.



But the thing was, that legality was ONLY based on a court ruling, not legistlation or a mandate by the people. It's a wrong covering another wrong.




Good enough for most people.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Men and women are different? Ya, so what? When the government has put itself in a position where discrimination is being conducted and a citizen exercises their Constitutional right under the Grievance Clause of the 1st Amendment, then the government has a responsibility to provide compelling government interest to justify the continuation of the discrimination. If the government were to pass a law (and yes the people acting through an initiative process are action as a legislative branch of government) that blind people can't drive, if challenged it would be the government responsibility to make a case that blind people are endangering the public by operating multi-ton vehicles at high rates of speed on the public highways. On the other hand if the government passed a law that said females could not operate motor on public highways, then they would be responsible for making a case based on gender.

Not really comperable here. I know you are really trying.

What's the "compelling" reason to require separate bathrooms, which most businesses are REQUIRED to do? Or to exempt women from Selective Service? Or to treat a crime against a woman more seriously than that against a man? There isn't one. There is just a cultural reason to do so.

The basic premise of the Constitutionally guaranteed right to equal treatment under the law is that like situated individuals (or in this case couples) should be treated the same unless the government an provide such justification. Do date, I've not seen such a justification that would warrent different treatment for the following like situated couples:

Law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a different-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a same-sex couple.​

But the states ALREADY set rules. Polygamy is illegal, and so are incestuous marriages. (Although states vary on when incest comes in. Some states, you CAN marry your first cousin. ICK!) The states also vary on what age you can actually consent to marriage. Which is kind of stupid, in some states, the marrying age is lower than the age of consent.

Now if the homosexuals want to argue that there are good reasons to change the law, they should do that- at the ballot box or in the state legislature.

Why are you so damn ignorant about the second?

That militia for regulation you speak of.

When did the call to arms go out to be formed?