No room for voters rights in this Country

[RetiredGySgt]

Family snapshot: Federal trial's stakes for one gay couple - Yahoo! News

Unbelievable. Just no room for the democratic process when politically correct runs amock.

 

[Ravi]

The court system is part of the democratic process, moron.

 

[mudwhistle]

The court system is part of the democratic process, moron.

Problem being that we aren't a Democracy. We're a Republic.

Democracy has very little to do with the courts.......unless you think stacking the State court or the Supreme court with enough votes to get what you want. But then again that's not exactly true Democracy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The court system is part of the democratic process, moron.

Courts were never intended to replace the will of the people or the other brancjhes of the Government. This trial is a farce and a sham. Hopefully when it gets to the Supreme Court 5 of them will have the balls to stop this shit.

 

[Ravi]

The court system is part of the democratic process, moron.

Courts were never intended to replace the will of the people or the other brancjhes of the Government. This trial is a farce and a sham. Hopefully when it gets to the Supreme Court 5 of them will have the balls to stop this shit.

Wrong...the court system can overturn the will of the people when the will of the people engages in denying people civil rights.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The court system is part of the democratic process, moron.

Courts were never intended to replace the will of the people or the other brancjhes of the Government. This trial is a farce and a sham. Hopefully when it gets to the Supreme Court 5 of them will have the balls to stop this shit.

Wrong...the court system can overturn the will of the people when the will of the people engages in denying people civil rights.

WRONG. The Courts and ONLY the Supreme Court , can rule on Constitutionality of issues but has no power to create from whole cloth rights or laws or powers of any branch of Government or for the people. Gays have no Constitutionally protected right to marry, which the 9th Court will assume they do from the get go, as does the Judge in this particular case.

That is creating from whole cloth rights that do not exist. That is Legislating from the bench.

 

[Ravi]

Courts were never intended to replace the will of the people or the other brancjhes of the Government. This trial is a farce and a sham. Hopefully when it gets to the Supreme Court 5 of them will have the balls to stop this shit.

Wrong...the court system can overturn the will of the people when the will of the people engages in denying people civil rights.

WRONG. The Courts and ONLY the Supreme Court , can rule on Constitutionality of issues but has no power to create from whole cloth rights or laws or powers of any branch of Government or for the people. Gays have no Constitutionally protected right to marry, which the 9th Court will assume they do from the get go, as does the Judge in this particular case.

That is creating from whole cloth rights that do not exist. That is Legislating from the bench.

They have just as much right to marry as everyone else does. So yes, the courts may interpret the constitutionality of Prop 8.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong...the court system can overturn the will of the people when the will of the people engages in denying people civil rights.

WRONG. The Courts and ONLY the Supreme Court , can rule on Constitutionality of issues but has no power to create from whole cloth rights or laws or powers of any branch of Government or for the people. Gays have no Constitutionally protected right to marry, which the 9th Court will assume they do from the get go, as does the Judge in this particular case.

That is creating from whole cloth rights that do not exist. That is Legislating from the bench.

They have just as much right to marry as everyone else does. So yes, the courts may interpret the constitutionality of Prop 8.

Hopefully when the Supreme Court gets done you and your idiot friends will find out that the Courts do NOT get to fabricate rights on a whim or for politically correct reasons.

 

[Ravi]

WRONG. The Courts and ONLY the Supreme Court , can rule on Constitutionality of issues but has no power to create from whole cloth rights or laws or powers of any branch of Government or for the people. Gays have no Constitutionally protected right to marry, which the 9th Court will assume they do from the get go, as does the Judge in this particular case.

That is creating from whole cloth rights that do not exist. That is Legislating from the bench.

They have just as much right to marry as everyone else does. So yes, the courts may interpret the constitutionality of Prop 8.

Hopefully when the Supreme Court gets done you and your idiot friends will find out that the Courts do NOT get to fabricate rights on a whim or for politically correct reasons.

It has nothing to do with political correctness...in fact just the opposite. You want to deny people the rights you enjoy simply because they are not politically correct.

You are one sad puppy.

 

[DiamondDave]

Wrong...the court system can overturn the will of the people when the will of the people engages in denying people civil rights.

WRONG. The Courts and ONLY the Supreme Court , can rule on Constitutionality of issues but has no power to create from whole cloth rights or laws or powers of any branch of Government or for the people. Gays have no Constitutionally protected right to marry, which the 9th Court will assume they do from the get go, as does the Judge in this particular case.

That is creating from whole cloth rights that do not exist. That is Legislating from the bench.

They have just as much right to marry as everyone else does. So yes, the courts may interpret the constitutionality of Prop 8.

No

They have a right to be together as anyone else does... there is no "right to marry"

 

[Yukon]

The court system is part of the democratic process, moron.

Don't confuse the gaySgt with facts - his head might explode.

 

[mudwhistle]

WRONG. The Courts and ONLY the Supreme Court , can rule on Constitutionality of issues but has no power to create from whole cloth rights or laws or powers of any branch of Government or for the people. Gays have no Constitutionally protected right to marry, which the 9th Court will assume they do from the get go, as does the Judge in this particular case.

That is creating from whole cloth rights that do not exist. That is Legislating from the bench.

They have just as much right to marry as everyone else does. So yes, the courts may interpret the constitutionality of Prop 8.

No

They have a right to be together as anyone else does... there is no "right to marry"

They have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The whole same-sex argument was over banning them from marriage. The amendment was intended to state that only a man and a woman could enter into a marriage. Not that it was already banned.

 

[Ravi]

WRONG. The Courts and ONLY the Supreme Court , can rule on Constitutionality of issues but has no power to create from whole cloth rights or laws or powers of any branch of Government or for the people. Gays have no Constitutionally protected right to marry, which the 9th Court will assume they do from the get go, as does the Judge in this particular case.

That is creating from whole cloth rights that do not exist. That is Legislating from the bench.

They have just as much right to marry as everyone else does. So yes, the courts may interpret the constitutionality of Prop 8.

No

They have a right to be together as anyone else does... there is no "right to marry"

There is if you grant a straight couple that right...and since we do, it becomes a right that any two consenting adults are entitled to.

 

[Yukon]

Raviola,
Are you homosexual ?

 

[DiamondDave]

They have just as much right to marry as everyone else does. So yes, the courts may interpret the constitutionality of Prop 8.

No

They have a right to be together as anyone else does... there is no "right to marry"

There is if you grant a straight couple that right...and since we do, it becomes a right that any two consenting adults are entitled to.

No.. there is no 'right to marry'... PERIOD....

Hell.. the govt should be out of the marriage business all together

If 2 guys or 2 girls wish to live together as a family unit and file taxes together and have inheritance rights or whatever other LEGAL equality... all well and good.... but there is no 'right to marry' and the government does not exist to force churches or states or citizens to recognize 2 men or 2 women as 'married'... just as there is no 'right' to marry your sibling

 

[Ravi]

No

They have a right to be together as anyone else does... there is no "right to marry"

There is if you grant a straight couple that right...and since we do, it becomes a right that any two consenting adults are entitled to.

No.. there is no 'right to marry'... PERIOD....

Hell.. the govt should be out of the marriage business all together

If 2 guys or 2 girls wish to live together as a family unit and file taxes together and have inheritance rights or whatever other LEGAL equality... all well and good.... but there is no 'right to marry' and the government does not exist to force churches or states or citizens to recognize 2 men or 2 women as 'married'... just as there is no 'right' to marry your sibling

That is correct. But since the government itself recognizes a man/woman marriage it is obligated to recognize other partnerships between consenting adults.

 

[Ravi]

Raviola,
Are you homosexual ?

No, you?

 

[Yukon]

Raviola,
Are you homosexual ?

No, you?

Not at all but you must be. You are too overly concerned with the fags being able to marry. Does your boyfriend want you to marry him ?

 

[DiamondDave]

There is if you grant a straight couple that right...and since we do, it becomes a right that any two consenting adults are entitled to.

No.. there is no 'right to marry'... PERIOD....

Hell.. the govt should be out of the marriage business all together

If 2 guys or 2 girls wish to live together as a family unit and file taxes together and have inheritance rights or whatever other LEGAL equality... all well and good.... but there is no 'right to marry' and the government does not exist to force churches or states or citizens to recognize 2 men or 2 women as 'married'... just as there is no 'right' to marry your sibling

That is correct. But since the government itself recognizes a man/woman marriage it is obligated to recognize other partnerships between consenting adults.

No...

The government should only recognize the legal aspects of a union or partnership (with examples of those legalities listed in one of my many previous posts on this matter)... not getting into what is marriage or into the churches to force them to recognize some union of 2 men or 2 women as 'married', etc...

The is no right to marry, as stated SO many times

 

[FA_Q2]

[quote}ravi
That is correct. But since the government itself recognizes a man/woman marriage it is obligated to recognize other partnerships between consenting adults.[/quote]

That is not necessarily true. As was said earlier, the state will not recognize marriage in direct families. That does not mean I think that gay couples should not be allowed the ability to marry, I just do not want to see it done in this manner. The judicial system was not meant to write its own law and that is what they are trying to accomplish.