Prop. 8 overturned in California, court says state can’t ban gay marriage

tiffanywint wrote:

I have no problem with gay marriage as long as its not decreed by the courts.

In a democracy we the people need have the right to define something as important as marriage.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a statement saying the "fight" over states' rights to ban gay marriage is not over. "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," he said, adding that he would appoint judges who oppose same-sex marriage if he's elected. President Obama also opposes same-sex marriage, but says that his opinion on the issue is "evolving."

Not even Obama supports ssm ( for purely political reasons I'm sure) but Romney being the good conservative that he is, is championing States Rights. When this goes to the Supreme Court, hopefully they will rule in favour of States rights, meaning each state can pass its own definition based on the will of its own people or their elected reprentatives.

Daniel Radcliffe has weighed in on the issue:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2012/02/06/your-obama-apologist-of-the-day-daniel-radcliffe/

"First, the actor slammed the GOP presidential candidates for their stances on gay rights. Next, he applauded President Barack Obama on the issue even though Obama holds the very same position on gay marriage as his ideological opponents. He’s against it.

[Radcliffe] went on to say that he has been “disgusted, amazed, stunned” by candidates seeking the Republican presidential nomination, such as Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann, who have been openly hostile to gay rights.

“But they disgusted me less than candidates like Rick Perry, who made that ridiculous advert wearing ‘the Brokeback jacket’, and I think pretend to be homophobic just to win votes.”

Asked if he wished that Barack Obama would publicly back gay marriage, he replied: “Yes, I do, but can he really? Of course he’s in favour of it, but he has to be careful about saying so. I’d rather have someone like him in the White House than the alternative."

-----------------------

My question is: If Obama doesn't represent the alternative to the Republicans and their base, why exactly is Radcliffe supporting him? Basically Radcliffe is supporting a president too gutless and cowardly to stand up for what he truly believes in, and is perfectly willing to let the Republicans take the heat on this issue, even though it's an opinion that he admits he agrees with. But I digress.....

I honestly just don't know the difference between a civil union and a marriage, and I don't care. Gay marriage won't affect me in any way, shape or form that I'm aware of, so it's of no consequence to me whether they get married or not. However, societies from the beginning of time have held the right(s) to prohibit or ban certain activities and behaviors, even if the society at large doesn't wish to partake in those activities. In other words, for someone to say that nobody is forcing straight people to get married to a same gender person, therefore gay marriage shouldn't be a problem for them, is to miss the point. American society, like most others, puts limits on what is and isn't a marriage and reserves those rights to do so and to restrict other people's ability to engage in it.

For example, having more than one wife is still illegal in just about every state that I know, including Utah (I think they outlawed polygamy, finally, years ago). In Georgia, if a couple were living together for 6 months they used to be considered "married" through what was called Common-law Marriage; not any more.

I think it is a fair question to ask: after gay marriage, then what? If the State abdicates the right to define marriage as between a man and a woman, who is to say that polygamy is wrong? How can the State even bother itself to condemn and outlaw polygamy once it has already redefined the meaning of marriage?

And in a country that allows someone like Kim Kardashian to lie through her teeth in her marriage vows, get married on tv, then divorce 72 days later, how can anyone really talk about the sanctity of marriage (and with a divorce rate of over 50%)? The moral high ground on heterosexual marriage seems to have been abandoned, and for a long time I might add. Some people are now getting all pious and haughty about the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, but are people such as David Vitter and Newt Gingrich really the ones to lead this issue?

It seems to me like this issue just sort of exploded out of nowhere back in 2003, and without any real debate or discussion, it has been deemed a "constitutional right".

Santa wrote:

They're nothing special.

Outside of Chernobyl, three tits are a rare sight.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Santa wrote:

They're nothing special.

Outside of Chernobyl, three tits are a rare sight.

Clearly you've never been to Mars:

I'm clicking to see, but nothing's happening.

Help me, J7.

GS, you and I got suckered into taking this thread seriously. :oops:

Ambler and others have done a tour-de-force job of derailing it.

Hats off. Well done.

As to your post GS. All I choose to add, is that I've only seen one Potter film, and I nearly walked out, it was so boring. I can't even tell you which one, other than it was one of the earlier ones. I thought this might be watchable one day, when the girl grows up. She had potential. But I've never gone back to check. I hear she has since blossomed, and now the series is over. Oh well.

Daniel Radcliffe is a moron. He and Drew Barrymore would make a great couple. Hollywood = Plutowood. They are not from this planet.

(sorry Fae. I'm not of the Potter generation)

tiffanywint wrote:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a statement saying the "fight" over states' rights to ban gay marriage is not over. "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," he said, adding that he would appoint judges who oppose same-sex marriage if he's elected. President Obama also opposes same-sex marriage, but says that his opinion on the issue is "evolving."

What if the people voted to banish the right to free speech? (I don't even know if such an issue can go on the ballot, but you get my point.)

It may yet happen in the States. Free speech ended in In England and Wales in 2005 with the passing of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act.

All hail New Labour.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006's another. Shame these things go overlooked.

Only Sharkocop can save us from ourselves.

Sharkocop has good theme music, but does not yet have enough £ to record it....

Jack Wade wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a statement saying the "fight" over states' rights to ban gay marriage is not over. "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," he said, adding that he would appoint judges who oppose same-sex marriage if he's elected. President Obama also opposes same-sex marriage, but says that his opinion on the issue is "evolving."

What if the people voted to banish the right to free speech? (I don't even know if such an issue can go on the ballot, but you get my point.)

You do raise a good point. The judiciary does have a role to play. Their job is to uphold the constitution, however where things get dicey IMO, is when they appear to be stamping on the democratic will of the people - most notably when they trample on the findings of a plebiscite, which is about as grassroots as you can get. It's one thing to throw back legislation to legislators, tellling them its unconstitutional and to make an attempt to re-work it, but I think its quite another to over-rule a plebiscite. We thus effectively become ruled by judges. It's a dicey issue though as what's going on in California is perfectly legal, so no problem there.

Generally though, legislators will suss out constitutional issues before they pass law to avoid this embarrassing situation, of the courts over-ruling the people's will. As a conservative, I naturally lean more towards localized government and am very leery of powerful centralized government. It has a role to play, but the more limited the better. The United States is a union of 50 states, each with its own distinct character. States rights are vital to the union.

I think the abortion law is a travesty of democracy in the USA. It only exists because of Roe v Wade, a judicial ruling. Overturn that and it would become a States issue which I think is what it should be.

Personally I think activist judges are the greatest threat to democracy in both Canada and USA. Here we pretty much have them pretty much under control though. They don't tend to over-step. For example, they refused to rule on ssm, sayin it was a matter for parliament, tossing out liberal arguments that it was a rights issue. They also refused to rule on abortion in 1993, tossing that issue back to parliament, throwing out the liberal "rights' argument again. As a result we have no abortion law in Canada - in that there is no law prohibiting it or delcaring it a right, so people do what they want. The baby has no legal status till its feet come all the way out. We continue to have no abortion law, because no political party has had the courage to draft legislation one way or the other, but at least the judges refused to create law themselves.

A big problem for our free societes IMO is liberal activist judges. Liberals think in terms of rights as opposed to will of the people. When they want something done, they try to characterize it as a right. Conservatives prefer to put things to a vote. Conservative judges lean less towards activist legislation. They don't like to create law, which IMO is how it should be, and what was intended by the framers of the constitution. But the role of the judiciary is constantly being debated. Generally those debating have their own agenda which they put first. They love the judges if the judges agree with them, so its a very politically charged debate.

But again from observation, you very rarely see activist judges doing anything but helping the liberal "rights' causes. Conservatives simply don't go running to the courts, other than to uphold legislation as opposed to over-ruling it. Liberals have a different perspective on democracy.

To answer your question, if the people were ever to vote via referendum to suspend their free speech rights, in any given state, the matter would likely be challenged in the courts, and the Supreme Court would likely declare the referendum result to be in violation of the federal constitution. Its pretty much a moot discussion, but what judges do have to rule on, are case by case examples of free speech. And again its almost always conservatives who find themselves defending Ist amendment rights, while liberals fall all overthemselves to create new categories of speech, that need be exempted. liberals like to keep the judges busy.

But you're point is well taken. It is not unprecedented that we can be "ruled" by unelected judges. The constitution does grant the judcial branch a very definite role to play.

Curbing judicial activism is really a case of making public noise. Legally judges can be activist as they are the final arbiters of the constitution, so if we don't like their activism, we have to beat them in the court of public opinion.

Jump up and down, so they are less inclined to make law, as opposed to interpret it.