Michigan's gay marriage ban struck down

[WorldWatcher]

I have an issue with judges overturning the will of the people. This has happened a lot over the years and I think too many judges legislate from the bench rather than uphold existing laws.

I have no issue with gay marriage and I think couples who plan to stay together should be supported. That means monogamy, tax breaks and putting spouses on insurance and such.

My only issue is with a judge who comes in and decides that the majority of people in a state are wrong and dismisses the whole process.

The focus should be on debate and changing people's minds. It shouldn't be about a single judge forcing their will on everyone. I don't know why people vote on things when the outcome will be dismissed when a judge decides differently. If you say nothing and accept that on one issue, just because you agree, you must realize that it may happen on an issue you care about. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

There is a reason judges are appointed and, sadly, it's often due to their political leanings when that shouldn't matter one bit. Upholding the law is their only duty, not injecting their opinions and seeking to change existing laws. That goes for both sides.

This would also apply to the State of Alabama, who voted to amend their Constitution to prevent interracial marriage.

Are you OK with that?



Would you be OK with a vote to disallow gun ownership if that was the will of the people of that jurisdiction and they put it on the ballot?



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

The court may impose it but they can't make the people accept it. They will just take more direct action.

The courts ARE direct action.

 

[bodecea]

I have an issue with judges overturning the will of the people. This has happened a lot over the years and I think too many judges legislate from the bench rather than uphold existing laws.

I have no issue with gay marriage and I think couples who plan to stay together should be supported. That means monogamy, tax breaks and putting spouses on insurance and such.

My only issue is with a judge who comes in and decides that the majority of people in a state are wrong and dismisses the whole process.

The focus should be on debate and changing people's minds. It shouldn't be about a single judge forcing their will on everyone. I don't know why people vote on things when the outcome will be dismissed when a judge decides differently. If you say nothing and accept that on one issue, just because you agree, you must realize that it may happen on an issue you care about. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

There is a reason judges are appointed and, sadly, it's often due to their political leanings when that shouldn't matter one bit. Upholding the law is their only duty, not injecting their opinions and seeking to change existing laws. That goes for both sides.

So...you have no problem with the "will of the people" being unConstitutional?

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

OK, these judges are just about unstoppable. Perhaps conservatives should just call a truce on gay marriage so we can focus on more important things.

 

[Seawytch]

So far it has been, what, ten Federal Courts that have ruled these anti gay laws unconstitutional. If you're keeping score, that's 10-0. Can you really play the "judicial activism" card with a score of 10-0?

 

[Luissa]

Michigan State also has equal protection in their state constitution. Pretty sure defining marriage based on sexual orientation is not equal protection.





Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Technically they didn't define it based on sexual orientation, they defined it based on gender. (i.e. one man and one woman)





>>>>

Um... Either way...


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

OK, these judges are just about unstoppable. Perhaps conservatives should just call a truce on gay marriage so we can focus on more important things.

Actually, it’s the Constitution that’s ‘unstoppable,’ having little to do with judges; and there’s no more important issue than ensuring every American realizes his comprehensive civil liberties.

Perhaps conservatives should instead consider addressing their unwarranted fear of change, diversity, and dissent.

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Libtards bellowing about some supposed right that isn't even a right...amusing. Rome continues to decay just hope the collapse comes soon.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have an issue with judges overturning the will of the people. This has happened a lot over the years and I think too many judges legislate from the bench rather than uphold existing laws.

I have no issue with gay marriage and I think couples who plan to stay together should be supported. That means monogamy, tax breaks and putting spouses on insurance and such.

My only issue is with a judge who comes in and decides that the majority of people in a state are wrong and dismisses the whole process.

The focus should be on debate and changing people's minds. It shouldn't be about a single judge forcing their will on everyone. I don't know why people vote on things when the outcome will be dismissed when a judge decides differently. If you say nothing and accept that on one issue, just because you agree, you must realize that it may happen on an issue you care about. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

There is a reason judges are appointed and, sadly, it's often due to their political leanings when that shouldn't matter one bit. Upholding the law is their only duty, not injecting their opinions and seeking to change existing laws. That goes for both sides.

Then you’re taking issue with a myth and partisan contrivance – as the ‘will of the people’ is not being ‘overturned,’ as the people lack the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil liberties. And the notion of ‘legislating from the bench’ is also a myth; indeed, striking down such an un-Constitutional measure as the Michigan amendment is upholding existing law.

The focus should rather be on the people understanding that it’s incumbent upon them – either through their elected representatives or referenda – to enact measures that comport with the Constitution and its case law, and if they willfully, intentionally, and in bad faith enact measures that are repugnant to the Constitution, they should expect those measures to be invalidated by the courts as mandated by the Constitution.

Last, at least 10 Federal judges have ruled to strike down measures denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights, and in each of those rulings the judges cite the same 14th Amendment jurisprudence, the same case law, and the same legal rationale; it is consequently ridiculous to argue that these judges’ rulings are “due to their political leanings,” when in fact each judge has ruled in accordance with accepted and settled Constitutional law.

 

[Plasmaball]

I have an issue with judges overturning the will of the people. This has happened a lot over the years and I think too many judges legislate from the bench rather than uphold existing laws.

I have no issue with gay marriage and I think couples who plan to stay together should be supported. That means monogamy, tax breaks and putting spouses on insurance and such.

My only issue is with a judge who comes in and decides that the majority of people in a state are wrong and dismisses the whole process.

The focus should be on debate and changing people's minds. It shouldn't be about a single judge forcing their will on everyone. I don't know why people vote on things when the outcome will be dismissed when a judge decides differently. If you say nothing and accept that on one issue, just because you agree, you must realize that it may happen on an issue you care about. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

There is a reason judges are appointed and, sadly, it's often due to their political leanings when that shouldn't matter one bit. Upholding the law is their only duty, not injecting their opinions and seeking to change existing laws. That goes for both sides.

You cant vote to ban someone from rights. Why are you people so ignorant of this?
The judges did what they are constitutionally supposed to do. There no activism bogeyman to be found.

I know you need a bogeyman in every thread ypu make in order to carry your conspiracies, but seriously this is why I hate you.

 

[Plasmaball]

Yes but the Civil Rights Act expanded this to all public institutions.

And by the laws of reciprocity, the Golden Rule that applies to all people,
if you want equal freedom, you must respect the same of others.
If you impose on others, they will impose back on you.

By natural laws, people will defend their free will and beliefs, and will protest, resist, and petition against anything that oppresses their consent or free will.

This is just natural law, which our Constitutional principles were drawn from.

Regardless if we do or do not follow the Constitution literally,
all human beings are operating under natural laws that govern our behavior.
If you impose something against someone's free will, they will object and fight to correct or reform it.
I've never met a human being who didn't react that way.

The only natural law that matters is hoping that the universe doesn't kill you.

The Universe doesn't give a damn either way. You are of no importance.

Oh I know, Im just pointing out this natural law or god law is bullshit.

 

[Luissa]

Libtards bellowing about some supposed right that isn't even a right...amusing. Rome continues to decay just hope the collapse comes soon.

It's decays because of asshole bigots like you.
And the Supreme Court established it as a right.



Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Sure thing sparky. If I can help the collapse of The New Rome then I am more than happy to oblige.

 

[Katzndogz]

Society collapses when it becomes so deprave that the majority of the people just lose interest in maintaining it. The society no longer represents their interests. Sometimes an external force appears that better represents the majority interests. The majority abandons the decayed culture and adopts the invaders.

 

[Luissa]

Society collapses when it becomes so deprave that the majority of the people just lose interest in maintaining it. The society no longer represents their interests. Sometimes an external force appears that better represents the majority interests. The majority abandons the decayed culture and adopts the invaders.

I hear tin foil is on BOGO at Walmart. You can share with Orion.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Inconvenient truth....I know its hard to swallow.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Society collapses when it becomes so deprave that the majority of the people just lose interest in maintaining it. The society no longer represents their interests. Sometimes an external force appears that better represents the majority interests. The majority abandons the decayed culture and adopts the invaders.

We heard the same nonsense after Brown in 1954; it was ignorant demagoguery then and it’s ignorant demagoguery now.

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Nope its truth.

 

[Katzndogz]

A lack of historical knowledge is the only explanation.

Have you ever had any curiosity as to what would happen when the US no longer represents the interests of a majority of Americans, but someone else does? The existing government no longer has the consent of the governed. To maintain power they must increase oppression (which is where we are at right now) until the power is one of absolute tyranny. Once an external force appears that better represents those interests, there is a mass defection.

 

[Katzndogz]

Society collapses when it becomes so deprave that the majority of the people just lose interest in maintaining it. The society no longer represents their interests. Sometimes an external force appears that better represents the majority interests. The majority abandons the decayed culture and adopts the invaders.

We heard the same nonsense after Brown in 1954; it was ignorant demagoguery then and it’s ignorant demagoguery now.

How did integration work out? Did busing really work? Is there less racism today, or more? The civil rights act was successful only on the surface, underneath the veneer it is worse than ever. On top of decisions like Brown, we have further acts imposed on an unwilling people. Just because it tolerated some, doesn't mean it will tolerate all.

Since the Civil Rights Act, the nation has divided much further. The various factions that make up the splintered American structure are not even on speaking terms except to hurl insults. This is NOT a country that will stay together.