Louisiana Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

[bodecea]

That whole you can't vote away sone ones rights and thus judges as their job is too rule on such matters....

Don't like it, then blame the founders. Or you know, democrats like you like to do

Nobody's rights were voted away. Gay marriage is not a right.

14th Amendment peaches....this is the wrong website for you. Perhaps something about shapes and colors is more your speed?

14th Amendment is the most misused and misquoted in history. Repeal that sonofabitch.

I think you should encourage the Republican Party to put that down in their national platform.

They should.

Yes they should.

 

[Jroc]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

Wrong title moron. Judge rules against the people of Louisiana. Louisiana did not overturn anything

Hey we filled our quota today on stupid. Please come back tomorrow.

Tell the mods to edit the title idiot

 

[Plasmaball]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

Wrong title moron. Judge rules against the people of Louisiana. Louisiana did not overturn anything

Hey we filled our quota today on stupid. Please come back tomorrow.

Tell the mods to edit the title idiot

No...go away

 

[Jroc]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

Wrong title moron. Judge rules against the people of Louisiana. Louisiana did not overturn anything

Hey we filled our quota today on stupid. Please come back tomorrow.

Tell the mods to edit the title idiot

No...go away

Misleading thread ..nothing new with you liberals. Misleading people is your business

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'A judge in Louisiana has ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, in part because he says it violates equal protection rights.

KLFY-TV reported that Judge Edward Rubin ruled Monday that the ban violated the 14th Amendment and the constitutional requirement that states give "full faith and credit" to each other's laws.'



Opposition to equal protection rights for same-sex couples with regard to marriage is completely untenable.

 

[Plasmaball]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

Wrong title moron. Judge rules against the people of Louisiana. Louisiana did not overturn anything

Hey we filled our quota today on stupid. Please come back tomorrow.

Tell the mods to edit the title idiot

No...go away

Misleading thread ..nothing new with you liberals. Misleading people is your business

You need a tampon. ..you are bleeding

 

[Vandalshandle]

The bill of rights would not exist if it were not for the will of the Majority.....will of the majority is the only thing that gives the Constitution its legitimacy

http://www.usmessageboard.com/data/photos/l/2/2480-1378315917-ae01c96fbc1d7f92f67d6e6e2e04c65b.jpg[/QUOTE]

Well, if the man who had a decades long sexual relationship with his slave, and then enslaved his own children, said it, it must be sacred wisdom of the highest order.[/QUOTE]
What the **** are you babbling about. No prof of this relationship.[/QUOTE]

It is dangerous to stand in the Nile, Bush92. Crocadiles live there.

Jefferson Hemings controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[WorldWatcher]

I know how the system works. These are rogue judges deciding laws that should be left to the supreme court to determine.

That's interesting.

You say you know how the system works yet think the Supreme Court rules on laws directly. You do realize that the Supreme Court takes cases like this on appeal right? For a case to be appealed to the Supreme Court the case must have been heard by a lower court and then that ruling appealed.

Secondly, we must assume since you said you know how the system works, that you know this is a state court judge to the ruling will be appealed to the States Supreme Court. Once they rule, then the ruling can be appealed (again appealed based on a lower court ruling) to the United States Supreme Court.


>>>>

 

[deltex1]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

Plastic balls can get it in Nawlins now.

 

[bodecea]

I know how the system works. These are rogue judges deciding laws that should be left to the supreme court to determine.

That's interesting.

You say you know how the system works yet think the Supreme Court rules on laws directly. You do realize that the Supreme Court takes cases like this on appeal right? For a case to be appealed to the Supreme Court the case must have been heard by a lower court and then that ruling appealed.

Secondly, we must assume since you said you know how the system works, that you know this is a state court judge to the ruling will be appealed to the States Supreme Court. Once they rule, then the ruling can be appealed (again appealed based on a lower court ruling) to the United States Supreme Court.


>>>>

Isn't it tho...he doesn't seem to know how the third branch of government works.

 

[Plasmaball]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

Plastic balls can get it in Nawlins now.

Glad to know you are thinking of my nuts

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Explain again how the majority get what they want over the minority including depriving us of our liberty and property because we are a democracy who believe in mob rule, yet the majority can be overruled by one guy in a robe?

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are proof of that.

And when the people err and indeed enact measures intended to deny citizens their civil liberties, those disadvantaged are at liberty to seek relief in the Federal courts, where the measure in question is subject to judicial review in accordance with the rule of law, and if found to be repugnant to the Constitution, invalidated.

Measures are determined to be un-Constitutional not by “one guy in a robe," but by the Constitutional case law relevant to the issue under review, where that case law is applied consistently to all like conflicts and controversies.

With regard to same-sex couples, therefore, “[a] state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws” (Romer v. Evans (1996)), and that would include marriage laws.

 

[deltex1]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

Plastic balls can get it in Nawlins now.

Glad to know you are thinking of my nuts

I thought you had a deductadickfrome...

 

[Plasmaball]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

Plastic balls can get it in Nawlins now.

Glad to know you are thinking of my nuts

I thought you had a deductadickfrome...

And now my dick.....good for you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's time we replace these rogue judges. We don't want dictators deciding what is law.

Oh good the first retard showed up to prove the point you dont understand how our system works.

Blow me! I know how the system works. These are rogue judges deciding laws that should be left to the supreme court to determine. He a liberal, so of course he's going to rule in favor of liberal policies no matter if it goes against what the people have voted for. Winning the popular vote doesn't count unless it's in the Liberals favor.

Incorrect.

In fact, the many judges who have invalidated measures denying same-sex couples equal protection of the law are following settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence as determined by the Supreme Court.

Indeed, if you and others hostile to same-sex couples would bother to actually read these rulings, you'd see the citations of Supreme Court cases supporting the decisions invalidating these measures.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The will of the majority is irrelevant when it violates the Constitution.

The bill of rights would not exist if it were not for the will of the Majority.....will of the majority is the only thing that gives the Constitution its legitimacy

http://www.usmessageboard.com/data/photos/l/2/2480-1378315917-ae01c96fbc1d7f92f67d6e6e2e04c65b.jpg

Through constitutional amendment. And that is over and done.

dcraelin tis what it is

 

[kaz]

Explain again how the majority get what they want over the minority including depriving us of our liberty and property because we are a democracy who believe in mob rule, yet the majority can be overruled by one guy in a robe?

That whole you can't vote away sone ones rights and thus judges as their job is too rule on such matters....

You aren't reading what liberals are posting, which is exactly what I said.

Don't like it, then blame the founders. Or you know, democrats like you like to do

Right, reasonable people blame Republicans, like you like to do...

 

[kaz]

Explain again how the majority get what they want over the minority including depriving us of our liberty and property because we are a democracy who believe in mob rule, yet the majority can be overruled by one guy in a robe?

It is in the constitution

The courts protect the rights of the minority

LOL, you're a clown, and a liar

 

[kaz]

Explain again how the majority get what they want over the minority including depriving us of our liberty and property because we are a democracy who believe in mob rule, yet the majority can be overruled by one guy in a robe?

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are proof of that.

And when the people err and indeed enact measures intended to deny citizens their civil liberties, those disadvantaged are at liberty to seek relief in the Federal courts, where the measure in question is subject to judicial review in accordance with the rule of law, and if found to be repugnant to the Constitution, invalidated.

Measures are determined to be un-Constitutional not by “one guy in a robe," but by the Constitutional case law relevant to the issue under review, where that case law is applied consistently to all like conflicts and controversies.

With regard to same-sex couples, therefore, “[a] state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws” (Romer v. Evans (1996)), and that would include marriage laws.

Wow, you completely didn't understand my question at all, and you used so many words to demonstrate that.

 

[Plasmaball]

Explain again how the majority get what they want over the minority including depriving us of our liberty and property because we are a democracy who believe in mob rule, yet the majority can be overruled by one guy in a robe?

That whole you can't vote away sone ones rights and thus judges as their job is too rule on such matters....

You aren't reading what liberals are posting, which is exactly what I said.

Don't like it, then blame the founders. Or you know, democrats like you like to do

Right, reasonable people blame Republicans, like you like to do...

Hey kaz is projecting again...shocking