Louisiana Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

[frigidweirdo]

yes, I realize all of those things. I just said that same thing in different words.

While you want a minority view to prevail on the gay marriage issue, you want a majority view to prevail on most others. You have an agenda, just like wytch and a few others.

Why not admit it and move on truthfully?

I want a majority view on HUMAN RIGHTS to prevail. Often people don't quite understand everything. Do you understand human rights?

 

[frigidweirdo]

a constitutional amendment would require a vote in every state i.e. a national vote.

Your lack of understanding of the Constitution is INCREDIBLE.

Nope, your's is. A constitutional amendment would require approval by popular vote in 38 states. That would require a voter referendum in every state. Effectively, a national vote.

Uh hu. 38 States not being "every state". You don't need a vote in every state, you just need 38 states.

 

[Redfish]

a constitutional amendment would require a vote in every state i.e. a national vote.

Your lack of understanding of the Constitution is INCREDIBLE.

Nope, your's is. A constitutional amendment would require approval by popular vote in 38 states. That would require a voter referendum in every state. Effectively, a national vote.

Uh hu. 38 States not being "every state". You don't need a vote in every state, you just need 38 states.

OK, technically you are correct. So what? do you think the other 12 would do nothing?

 

[Redfish]

yes, I realize all of those things. I just said that same thing in different words.

While you want a minority view to prevail on the gay marriage issue, you want a majority view to prevail on most others. You have an agenda, just like wytch and a few others.

Why not admit it and move on truthfully?

I want a majority view on HUMAN RIGHTS to prevail. Often people don't quite understand everything. Do you understand human rights?

Yeah, me too. I agree that being gay or lesbian is a human right. I have friends and relatives who are gay. I want them to have the same rights that everyone else has-----and they do.

The gays that I know think this gay marriage debate is foolish and actually is hurting them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, but equal treatment under the law is.

Really, show the section of the 14th Amendment where all citizens and persons is limited to government actions based on race.

Societal rules maybe, but we're not talking about "societal rules" we're talking about Civil Marriage which is how government treats it's citizen.

No where in the constitution or any of the amendments are interracial marriage mentioned either.

It's a sad day when people think the Constitution is supposed to be en enumerated lists of rights held by the people.

Of course not. It does mean equal treatment by the government though, that's a good first step.

A straight people can enter into Civil Marriage and get treated a certain way. That same option is denied to same-sex couples (in only about 20 states now). Therefore the right of equal treatment under the law is in play because they aren't treated the same.

There are no provisions for a national ballot and you know that. Even if their were the provisions to amend the Constitution to do what you want require a super-majority and you don't have that.



>>>>

nice try, but to summarize your position. You don't want a vote on a constitutional amendment because you fear that it would not pass. We get it. You favor societal acceptance by government mandate rather than the will of the people.

And this is about societal rules-----------------that is all it is about.

Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, try reading what I said. YOU have called for some kind of national vote to put an end to the issue. There are no provisions for any kind of national vote to approve or reject laws. If you think there is please site the Article and Section of the United States Constitution that provides this.

And FYI and no I don't think there should be national votes to amend laws like they have in California. If we did that we'd have national gun control votes and the liberals would make it illegal for me to own guns. If we did that the 47% who don't pay taxes along with the liberal elite would vote to take more money out of my pocket.

No thanks, I prefer what the founder setup which is a Constitutional Republic and not a direct democracy like you are calling for.


>>>>

a constitutional amendment could be passed by 38 states. Lets do it.


Let the people decide like they did on the original wording of the founding documents.

1. Mathematically yes it takes 3/4's of the states to approve an amendment.

2. The people did decide (using your logic) when they said that all citizens (which includes homosexuals) have a right to due process and equal treatment.

3. The founding document of government (the Constitution) does not have provisions for people to vote to Amend the Constitution, the process uses a representative process.

4. At the height of the anti-gay movement there were numerous attempts to write such an amendment into the Constitution, they already failed.



>>>>


C

what you are missing is that nowhere is marriage defined as a civil right.

Never said it was.

Equal treatment under the law, barring a compelling government interest to the contrary though - is a restriction on government and that IS in the Constitution.

Under your logic then States were free to bar interracial marriage because no where in the Constitution is interracial marriage was defined - how'd that work out?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

What we get is your are avoiding the reality of the US Constitution.

No, people don't want a vote on the rights of people. Why? Because it might set a precedent that could destroy the Bill of Rights.

Let's have a vote on whether people can be religious, or can be part of this church or that church. Let's have a vote on whether people can say what they like as long as it doesn't hurt people. Let's have a vote on guns, let's have a vote on torture hey?

the point that you refuse to comprehend is that WE ALREADY HAD THOSE VOTES. The constitution and its amendments were passed by majority vote.

You mind showing where the Constitution and it's amendments we passed by direct democratic vote?

My understanding was it was the States the passed the Constitution and it was the State legislatures (and elected body) that approved the Amendments.



>>>>

a majority vote of the people sent representatives to DC to vote for them. We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

So you agree, there is not national process for the people to vote on a law. That's an improvement, maybe now you can stop calling for a national vote.


>>>>

a constitutional amendment would require a vote in every state i.e. a national vote.

No it isn't' a national vote by the people. There are no provisions in the Constitution for a direct vote. The vote you are referring to is State legislatures or through a representative State Constitutional convention.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

a constitutional amendment would require a vote in every state i.e. a national vote.

Your lack of understanding of the Constitution is INCREDIBLE.

Nope, your's is. A constitutional amendment would require approval by popular vote in 38 states. That would require a voter referendum in every state. Effectively, a national vote.

False.

There Constitution does not call for a voter referendum or "popular vote" for amendments. As a matter of fact it is not one of the methods described:

"Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;"​

The Constitution calls for a representative vote either in the Legislature or in State Convention - not a "popular vote" and requires 3/4th's of the State ratifications to pass.

Calls for a Constitutional amendment have numerously been proposed and never reached the super majority required.



>>>>

 

[dcraelin]

“As I've said numerous times before, The issue of interracial marriage was in effect decided by the large majority opinnon expressed in the 13th and 15th amendments.”

And has been proven to you numerous times before, this is ridiculous and as a fact of law wrong.

The 13A and 15A were made by the majority and the 14A wasn't?

The 14th actually failed before it was "reconsidered" under coercive threat.

 

[daws101]

It is worrying when a lot of people don't have much concept of what rights are and what they do and how they should be.

Everyone worries about their own rights, the ones they want, and anyone else can, well.......

I agree with Jefferson, the only sure guardian of the rights of man is the will of the majority........History has shown reliance on the wisdom of courts is foolish.

California is an example which proves you're wrong. People willing to vote against human rights. er....

Also, how much real democracy did the Founding Fathers allow? President, not elected by the people, Supreme Court not elected by the people, Senate not elected by the people but by the states, and most people couldn't vote anyway.

First of all---------- marriage of any kind is not a right guaranteed by the constitution
Second---------------the 14th amendment is about race, not sex
third-------------------in the USA societal rules are decided by majority vote
fourth-------------no where in the constitution or any of the amendments are gay marriage or homosexual rights mentioned.
fifth--------------using the word "marriage" does not guarantee equal treatment for gay couples
sixth------------forced societal acceptance by govt edict does not work
seventh-------------gays are not denied any of the rights enjoyed by straights
finally-------------the only way to settle this is to put it on the ballot in every state, let the people decide. And let everyone abide by the will of the people.

 

[daws101]

It is worrying when a lot of people don't have much concept of what rights are and what they do and how they should be.

Everyone worries about their own rights, the ones they want, and anyone else can, well.......

I agree with Jefferson, the only sure guardian of the rights of man is the will of the majority........History has shown reliance on the wisdom of courts is foolish.

California is an example which proves you're wrong. People willing to vote against human rights. er....

Also, how much real democracy did the Founding Fathers allow? President, not elected by the people, Supreme Court not elected by the people, Senate not elected by the people but by the states, and most people couldn't vote anyway.

So, in the Cal prop 8 vote, the will of the people meant nothing and the decision was made by one activist gay judge????????????????? is that the way you want this country run?

false! the term "activist judge" is a ploy used by the right when things don't go their way....

 

[daws101]

No, but equal treatment under the law is.

Really, show the section of the 14th Amendment where all citizens and persons is limited to government actions based on race.

Societal rules maybe, but we're not talking about "societal rules" we're talking about Civil Marriage which is how government treats it's citizen.

No where in the constitution or any of the amendments are interracial marriage mentioned either.

It's a sad day when people think the Constitution is supposed to be en enumerated lists of rights held by the people.

Of course not. It does mean equal treatment by the government though, that's a good first step.

A straight people can enter into Civil Marriage and get treated a certain way. That same option is denied to same-sex couples (in only about 20 states now). Therefore the right of equal treatment under the law is in play because they aren't treated the same.

There are no provisions for a national ballot and you know that. Even if their were the provisions to amend the Constitution to do what you want require a super-majority and you don't have that.



>>>>

nice try, but to summarize your position. You don't want a vote on a constitutional amendment because you fear that it would not pass. We get it. You favor societal acceptance by government mandate rather than the will of the people.

And this is about societal rules-----------------that is all it is about.

Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, try reading what I said. YOU have called for some kind of national vote to put an end to the issue. There are no provisions for any kind of national vote to approve or reject laws. If you think there is please site the Article and Section of the United States Constitution that provides this.

And FYI and no I don't think there should be national votes to amend laws like they have in California. If we did that we'd have national gun control votes and the liberals would make it illegal for me to own guns. If we did that the 47% who don't pay taxes along with the liberal elite would vote to take more money out of my pocket.

No thanks, I prefer what the founder setup which is a Constitutional Republic and not a direct democracy like you are calling for.


>>>>

a constitutional amendment could be passed by 38 states. Lets do it.


Let the people decide like they did on the original wording of the founding documents.

1. Mathematically yes it takes 3/4's of the states to approve an amendment.

2. The people did decide (using your logic) when they said that all citizens (which includes homosexuals) have a right to due process and equal treatment.

3. The founding document of government (the Constitution) does not have provisions for people to vote to Amend the Constitution, the process uses a representative process.

4. At the height of the anti-gay movement there were numerous attempts to write such an amendment into the Constitution, they already failed.



>>>>


C

what you are missing is that nowhere is marriage defined as a civil right.

bullshit!

Question: Is Marriage a Civil Right?

Answer: Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Redfish]

a constitutional amendment would require a vote in every state i.e. a national vote.

Your lack of understanding of the Constitution is INCREDIBLE.

Nope, your's is. A constitutional amendment would require approval by popular vote in 38 states. That would require a voter referendum in every state. Effectively, a national vote.

False.

There Constitution does not call for a voter referendum or "popular vote" for amendments. As a matter of fact it is not one of the methods described:

"Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;"​

The Constitution calls for a representative vote either in the Legislature or in State Convention - not a "popular vote" and requires 3/4th's of the State ratifications to pass.

Calls for a Constitutional amendment have numerously been proposed and never reached the super majority required.



>>>>

Sure, but three fourths of the states would have to have a state referendum. Yes, you are correct 38 could do it and 12 could do nothing------------------how likely is that?

 

[Redfish]

nice try, but to summarize your position. You don't want a vote on a constitutional amendment because you fear that it would not pass. We get it. You favor societal acceptance by government mandate rather than the will of the people.

And this is about societal rules-----------------that is all it is about.

Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, try reading what I said. YOU have called for some kind of national vote to put an end to the issue. There are no provisions for any kind of national vote to approve or reject laws. If you think there is please site the Article and Section of the United States Constitution that provides this.

And FYI and no I don't think there should be national votes to amend laws like they have in California. If we did that we'd have national gun control votes and the liberals would make it illegal for me to own guns. If we did that the 47% who don't pay taxes along with the liberal elite would vote to take more money out of my pocket.

No thanks, I prefer what the founder setup which is a Constitutional Republic and not a direct democracy like you are calling for.


>>>>

a constitutional amendment could be passed by 38 states. Lets do it.


Let the people decide like they did on the original wording of the founding documents.

1. Mathematically yes it takes 3/4's of the states to approve an amendment.

2. The people did decide (using your logic) when they said that all citizens (which includes homosexuals) have a right to due process and equal treatment.

3. The founding document of government (the Constitution) does not have provisions for people to vote to Amend the Constitution, the process uses a representative process.

4. At the height of the anti-gay movement there were numerous attempts to write such an amendment into the Constitution, they already failed.



>>>>


C

what you are missing is that nowhere is marriage defined as a civil right.

bullshit!

Question: Is Marriage a Civil Right?

Answer: Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Hmmmmm, the word "marriage" seems to be missing. is marriage one of the "privileges" or "immunities" ?

marriages are sanctioned by states, not the federal government

 

[WorldWatcher]

a constitutional amendment would require a vote in every state i.e. a national vote.

Your lack of understanding of the Constitution is INCREDIBLE.

Nope, your's is. A constitutional amendment would require approval by popular vote in 38 states. That would require a voter referendum in every state. Effectively, a national vote.

False.

There Constitution does not call for a voter referendum or "popular vote" for amendments. As a matter of fact it is not one of the methods described:

"Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;"​

The Constitution calls for a representative vote either in the Legislature or in State Convention - not a "popular vote" and requires 3/4th's of the State ratifications to pass.

Calls for a Constitutional amendment have numerously been proposed and never reached the super majority required.



>>>>

Sure, but three fourths of the states would have to have a state referendum. Yes, you are correct 38 could do it and 12 could do nothing------------------how likely is that?

No Article V does not call for a state referendum on an amendment. It says that proposed amendments are approved by the legislature of the state or the state can call a Constitutional Convention for that state for passage. A Constitutional Convention is not a referendum. Delegates are elected and then they attend the Convention. Again a representative process and not a referendum process.

BTW - I don't think, you can correct me if I'm wrong by showing the Amendment, where any Amendment has been passed by a State Constitutional Convention process. IIRC they've all been passed by State Legislature action.


>>>>

 

[Redfish]

It is worrying when a lot of people don't have much concept of what rights are and what they do and how they should be.

Everyone worries about their own rights, the ones they want, and anyone else can, well.......

I agree with Jefferson, the only sure guardian of the rights of man is the will of the majority........History has shown reliance on the wisdom of courts is foolish.

California is an example which proves you're wrong. People willing to vote against human rights. er....

Also, how much real democracy did the Founding Fathers allow? President, not elected by the people, Supreme Court not elected by the people, Senate not elected by the people but by the states, and most people couldn't vote anyway.

So, in the Cal prop 8 vote, the will of the people meant nothing and the decision was made by one activist gay judge????????????????? is that the way you want this country run?

false! the term "activist judge" is a ploy used by the right when things don't go their way....

nope, its an accurate description. its what you libs call Thomas and Scalia.

 

[Redfish]

a constitutional amendment would require a vote in every state i.e. a national vote.

Your lack of understanding of the Constitution is INCREDIBLE.

Nope, your's is. A constitutional amendment would require approval by popular vote in 38 states. That would require a voter referendum in every state. Effectively, a national vote.

False.

There Constitution does not call for a voter referendum or "popular vote" for amendments. As a matter of fact it is not one of the methods described:

"Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;"​

The Constitution calls for a representative vote either in the Legislature or in State Convention - not a "popular vote" and requires 3/4th's of the State ratifications to pass.

Calls for a Constitutional amendment have numerously been proposed and never reached the super majority required.



>>>>

Sure, but three fourths of the states would have to have a state referendum. Yes, you are correct 38 could do it and 12 could do nothing------------------how likely is that?

No Article V does not call for a state referendum on an amendment. It says that proposed amendments are approved by the legislature of the state or the state can call a Constitutional Convention for that state for passage. A Constitutional Convention is not a referendum. Delegates are elected and then they attend the Convention. Again a representative process and not a referendum process.

BTW - I don't think, you can correct me if I'm wrong by showing the Amendment, where any Amendment has been passed by a State Constitutional Convention process. IIRC they've all been passed by State Legislature action.


>>>>

are state legislators elected by majority vote? Do they serve at the will of their constituents? On a sensitive issue like this, do you think any state legislature would ignore the will of a majority of the residents of that state? of course not, they would insist on a referendum in order to protect their jobs.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your lack of understanding of the Constitution is INCREDIBLE.

Nope, your's is. A constitutional amendment would require approval by popular vote in 38 states. That would require a voter referendum in every state. Effectively, a national vote.

False.

There Constitution does not call for a voter referendum or "popular vote" for amendments. As a matter of fact it is not one of the methods described:

"Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;"​

The Constitution calls for a representative vote either in the Legislature or in State Convention - not a "popular vote" and requires 3/4th's of the State ratifications to pass.

Calls for a Constitutional amendment have numerously been proposed and never reached the super majority required.



>>>>

Sure, but three fourths of the states would have to have a state referendum. Yes, you are correct 38 could do it and 12 could do nothing------------------how likely is that?

No Article V does not call for a state referendum on an amendment. It says that proposed amendments are approved by the legislature of the state or the state can call a Constitutional Convention for that state for passage. A Constitutional Convention is not a referendum. Delegates are elected and then they attend the Convention. Again a representative process and not a referendum process.

BTW - I don't think, you can correct me if I'm wrong by showing the Amendment, where any Amendment has been passed by a State Constitutional Convention process. IIRC they've all been passed by State Legislature action.


>>>>

are state legislators elected by majority vote? Do they serve at the will of their constituents? On a sensitive issue like this, do you think any state legislature would ignore the will of a majority of the residents of that state? of course not, they would insist on a referendum in order to protect their jobs.

Irrelevant to what you said about amendments being passed by popular vote or referendum vote.

There are no, none, zippo, zero provisions to amend the constitution through any type of national vote.



>>>>

 

[Redfish]

Nope, your's is. A constitutional amendment would require approval by popular vote in 38 states. That would require a voter referendum in every state. Effectively, a national vote.

False.

There Constitution does not call for a voter referendum or "popular vote" for amendments. As a matter of fact it is not one of the methods described:

"Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;"​

The Constitution calls for a representative vote either in the Legislature or in State Convention - not a "popular vote" and requires 3/4th's of the State ratifications to pass.

Calls for a Constitutional amendment have numerously been proposed and never reached the super majority required.



>>>>

Sure, but three fourths of the states would have to have a state referendum. Yes, you are correct 38 could do it and 12 could do nothing------------------how likely is that?

No Article V does not call for a state referendum on an amendment. It says that proposed amendments are approved by the legislature of the state or the state can call a Constitutional Convention for that state for passage. A Constitutional Convention is not a referendum. Delegates are elected and then they attend the Convention. Again a representative process and not a referendum process.

BTW - I don't think, you can correct me if I'm wrong by showing the Amendment, where any Amendment has been passed by a State Constitutional Convention process. IIRC they've all been passed by State Legislature action.


>>>>

are state legislators elected by majority vote? Do they serve at the will of their constituents? On a sensitive issue like this, do you think any state legislature would ignore the will of a majority of the residents of that state? of course not, they would insist on a referendum in order to protect their jobs.

Irrelevant to what you said about amendments being passed by popular vote or referendum vote.

There are no, none, zippo, zero provisions to amend the constitution through any type of national vote.



>>>>

yes, I have already said that you are technically correct. But a constitutional amendment on gay marriage would not be passed without such a referendum------------thats my opinion. you are free to differ.

 

[daws101]

Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, try reading what I said. YOU have called for some kind of national vote to put an end to the issue. There are no provisions for any kind of national vote to approve or reject laws. If you think there is please site the Article and Section of the United States Constitution that provides this.

And FYI and no I don't think there should be national votes to amend laws like they have in California. If we did that we'd have national gun control votes and the liberals would make it illegal for me to own guns. If we did that the 47% who don't pay taxes along with the liberal elite would vote to take more money out of my pocket.

No thanks, I prefer what the founder setup which is a Constitutional Republic and not a direct democracy like you are calling for.


>>>>

a constitutional amendment could be passed by 38 states. Lets do it.


Let the people decide like they did on the original wording of the founding documents.

1. Mathematically yes it takes 3/4's of the states to approve an amendment.

2. The people did decide (using your logic) when they said that all citizens (which includes homosexuals) have a right to due process and equal treatment.

3. The founding document of government (the Constitution) does not have provisions for people to vote to Amend the Constitution, the process uses a representative process.

4. At the height of the anti-gay movement there were numerous attempts to write such an amendment into the Constitution, they already failed.



>>>>


C

what you are missing is that nowhere is marriage defined as a civil right.

bullshit!

Question: Is Marriage a Civil Right?

Answer: Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Hmmmmm, the word "marriage" seems to be missing. is marriage one of the "privileges" or "immunities" ?

marriages are sanctioned by states, not the federal government

bullshit ! seems like a case of selective ignorance to me...
"Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right."

 

[daws101]

It is worrying when a lot of people don't have much concept of what rights are and what they do and how they should be.

Everyone worries about their own rights, the ones they want, and anyone else can, well.......

I agree with Jefferson, the only sure guardian of the rights of man is the will of the majority........History has shown reliance on the wisdom of courts is foolish.

California is an example which proves you're wrong. People willing to vote against human rights. er....

Also, how much real democracy did the Founding Fathers allow? President, not elected by the people, Supreme Court not elected by the people, Senate not elected by the people but by the states, and most people couldn't vote anyway.

So, in the Cal prop 8 vote, the will of the people meant nothing and the decision was made by one activist gay judge????????????????? is that the way you want this country run?

false! the term "activist judge" is a ploy used by the right when things don't go their way....

nope, its an accurate description. its what you libs call Thomas and Scalia.

I see, you repubs aren't smart enough to create your own shit so you plagiarize.
btw Thomas and Scalia are activist judges.....or three years, at least, there have been nagging questions about Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia’s close ties to right-wing organizations and their funding mechanism the Koch Brothers, but without a rigorous code of ethics in place there was little chance they would be held to account for, or forced to stop, using their positions on the Court to promote the Koch brothers’ right-wing agenda. Two days ago, Clarence Thomas was at it again when he appeared at a Federalist Society“fundraiser” as a featured speaker that two other High Court justices, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito also attended. It is a violation of Canon 4C of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges who are forbidden from being “a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program” of a fundraising event, but because Thomas, a federal judge, sits on the nation’s highest court he is exempt, apparently, from adhering to any code of conduct. Just when it appeared no-one in a position of authority would take action and demand Thomas be held accountable for his recurring ethical violations, a lone elected representative once again spoke out for the American people.

Justices Thomas and Scalia Violate Judicial Ethics By Headlining Right Wing Fundraisers