|
California's top court legalizes gay marriage (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Gen3r4l1ty |
| quote: | Originally posted by djjoshuaallen
just against activist judges using their legal position to forward their own agendas'. |
"activist" judges? ALL judges have their own agenda. Some judges have wacky ideas like legalizing gay marriage, other judges have wacky ideas like banning gay marriage.
Progress comes through change. Dont fight it. |
|
|
| BLOWZO |
this is great for Bas, and Clovis!
j/k guys there had to be some digg in here somewhere |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by BLOWZO
this is great for Bas, and Clovis!
j/k guys there had to be some digg in here somewhere |
Don't worry, you're about the 8th person to say this. |
|
|
| R!CH |
| quote: | Originally posted by djjoshuaallen
i wonder, would you guys get upset if a court was able to make abortion illegal if the will of the people had just voted in favor of legal abortions? I know id be furious
I am not against gay marriage, just against activist judges using their legal position to forward their own agendas'. If we allow this, it could get ugly. Just because we are in favor of the outcome, doesnt mean we should be ok with the process in which it came about |
activist judges, lol... this is just the kind of ignorance conservatives rely on to charge their base. if "the people" voted on a ban against interracial marriage and the supreme court ruled that ban was unconstitutional, would you be singing the same tune? or would you argue that the judges are doing their job by interpreting what is legally enforceable according to the state constitution? your abortion analogy is flawed for the simple fact that banning abortion is yet another theft of civil liberty while yesterday's ruling is an affirmation of it. |
|
|
| Yookeroo |
| quote: | Originally posted by djjoshuaallen
i wonder, would you guys get upset if a court was able to make abortion illegal if the will of the people had just voted in favor of legal abortions? I know id be furious
I am not against gay marriage, just against activist judges using their legal position to forward their own agendas'. If we allow this, it could get ugly. Just because we are in favor of the outcome, doesnt mean we should be ok with the process in which it came about |
The California legislature passed bills that legalized gay marriage twice. (Republican) Arnold vetoed both times claiming it's up to the (conservative) court to decide about the constitutionality of the ban. How is this "judicial activism"? |
|
|
| pnutttty |
| quote: | Originally posted by djjoshuaallen
i wonder, would you guys get upset if a court was able to make abortion illegal if the will of the people had just voted in favor of legal abortions? I know id be furious
I am not against gay marriage, just against activist judges using their legal position to forward their own agendas'. If we allow this, it could get ugly. Just because we are in favor of the outcome, doesnt mean we should be ok with the process in which it came about |
LOL. You cannot be serious. Activist judges? No, they are just doing the right thing. |
|
|
| djjoshuaallen |
| quote: | Originally posted by R!CH
activist judges, lol... this is just the kind of ignorance conservatives rely on to charge their base. if "the people" voted on a ban against interracial marriage and the supreme court ruled that ban was unconstitutional, would you be singing the same tune? |
you dont get my point. If the people voted to ALLOW gay marriage and a supreme court had ruled that unconstitutional i would be singing the same tune and think the court was wrong, it has not much to do with the ISSUE but the PROCESS.
Anyway, i think most would agree that this will probably be short lived anyway, and unfortunatly isnt much of a victory for the gay community |
|
|
| R!CH |
| quote: | Originally posted by djjoshuaallen
you dont get my point. If the people voted to ALLOW gay marriage and a supreme court had ruled that unconstitutional i would be singing the same tune and think the court was wrong, it has not much to do with the ISSUE but the PROCESS.
Anyway, i think most would agree that this will probably be short lived anyway, and unfortunatly isnt much of a victory for the gay community |
the process is sound, it works the way it was designed to work by its authors. just because the majority decides one thing by voter initiative doesn't mean their decision is even constitutional to begin with. when you talk about banning things, the issue of constitutionality immediately arises. when you talk about allowing things, there is no issue of constitutionality, only social acceptance. the constitution exists to protect rights, not traditions. for all the state is and should be concerned, marriage is a legal contract between two people. it is not some divine union that should be religiously defined as between man and woman. the issue here boils down to religious discrimination and separation of church from state. |
|
|
| 72hrpartyanimal |
| quote: | Originally posted by R!CH
the process is sound, it works the way it was designed to work by its authors. just because the majority decides one thing by voter initiative doesn't mean their decision is even constitutional to begin with. when you talk about banning things, the issue of constitutionality immediately arises. when you talk about allowing things, there is no issue of constitutionality, only social acceptance. the constitution exists to protect rights, not traditions. for all the state is and should be concerned, marriage is a legal contract between two people. it is not some divine union that should be religiously defined as between man and woman. the issue here boils down to religious discrimination and separation of church from state. |
what about ganja!!! |
|
|
| R!CH |
| quote: | Originally posted by 72hrpartyanimal
what about ganja!!! |
there are a lot of laws and institutions in this country that are blatantly unconstitutional. drug laws are amongst the worst. the history of every drug law in this country is grounded in racism and discrimination and has nothing to do with public health and safety. the marihuana tax act was designed to push mexican migrant workers out of the south and protect tobacco. the controlled substances act basically took the power to regulate drugs out of the hands of congress and into the hands of an illegal institution known as the dea. the dea has the power to ban any drug for any reason whether it's true or not. |
|
|
| 72hrpartyanimal |
| quote: | Originally posted by R!CH
there are a lot of laws and institutions in this country that are blatantly unconstitutional. drug laws are amongst the worst. the history of every drug law in this country is grounded in racism and discrimination and has nothing to do with public health and safety. the marihuana tax act was designed to push mexican migrant workers out of the south and protect tobacco. the controlled substances act basically took the power to regulate drugs out of the hands of congress and into the hands of an illegal institution known as the dea. the dea has the power to ban any drug for any reason whether it's true or not. |
craziness!!! the DEA! they're some crooked ass bitches. |
|
|
| djjoshuaallen |
| quote: | Originally posted by R!CH
there are a lot of laws and institutions in this country that are blatantly unconstitutional. drug laws are amongst the worst. the history of every drug law in this country is grounded in racism and discrimination and has nothing to do with public health and safety. the marihuana tax act was designed to push mexican migrant workers out of the south and protect tobacco. the controlled substances act basically took the power to regulate drugs out of the hands of congress and into the hands of an illegal institution known as the dea. the dea has the power to ban any drug for any reason whether it's true or not. |
there goes rich, injecting "substance" and "style" into yet another thread, thanks bud :wtf: :tongue2 |
|
|
|
|
