Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War
Breaking...
I agree. The only possibility I could see is if there was high publicity and they were shamed into it with a "Let the people vote on what they want" campaign. After all, they would only be voting to allow it on the ballot, not to implement it.
Nobody is mentioning that there is no "love test" for marriage. A homosexual man who marriage a woman will not be asked if he "loves" her. He is free to marry her and give her insurance or obtain her insurance.
I am sure there are f*g h*gs out there who would welcome the opportunity. (is there a male equivalent of a f*g h*g?)
The only way this judge could come this this conclusion that even the lowest standard does not meet the liberal needs, would be to ingnore all common law and all common sense. This just just made it up. His logic would not pass muster on a first year law school exam.
A constitutional amendment appears that it will be the first step in fighting back the judges.
Same thing for beastality and Pedophilia after all they exist so we must tolerate it!
Okay... Thanks for that, but I still don't quite get it. Like, it shouldn't have to do with judges distorting the will of the people. What I understand from the legal ruling itself is not about what a majority wants. It is that they are saying they do not find that the constitution says gay marriage is wrong. And to me, that's consistent with someone saying we need to amend the constitution to MAKE it illegal. Do you see my point? I mean, does it make sense? It seems like if we argue that the judges are wrong and so that gay marriage is against the constitution, then we can't turn around and say that we need to add something to the constitution so that it says gay marriage is wrong.
This seems so obvious to me that I know must be simple. :)
"Gays are pleading for employee benefit rights to health insurance for their partners. "
Yeah, and many big employers already provide that ... meanwhile those same employers are cutting jobs, outsourcing, and giving other folks less than they got before in other ways. I know. Been there, seen it.
Okay, I think between the three of you, I got a handle on it now. The constitution is always open to interpretation and so one can say or not say that gay marriage is banned by it. And when judges do that, their decision has some "teeth," of course. Meanwhile, if you add the specific amendment against a right for a group, you are making much more sure no one will ever be able to change it.
I have one remaining thought about amendments that give groups rights vs. an amendment that takes them away, especially pending additional scientific knowledge we may someday have on the matter, but I do now understand the logical explanation of my confusion.
Thank you, very much, ladies and/or gentlemen.
Are you implying that gays cannot behave themselves without marriage ?
It does make sense to cut benefits if you are a smaller business and would have to provide it for homosexuals. Just like the increased costs of smokers drove that one business to restrict hiring them. It is only logical that a lifestyle choice that leads to a life expectancy of fourty with a prolonged and horribly slooooooow death would removed from the cost of insurance where possible.
bttt
Employee benefits are not "rights".
I disagree and am of the same opinion as Justice Scalia that Marbury v. Madison was virtual plagarism of Hamilton in the Federalist Papers #78, in which Hamilton argued that the judiciary is the "least dangerous branch" and not a threat(overstepping its role).
Hamilton's Federalist Papers #78 argument defended judicial review of congressional acts -as such, the Marbury v. Madison ruling was not a deviation from the original intent of the Constitution nor an attempt to invoke a new general meaning of law or new law. [It] was simply the judiciary doing its job...
Why would same sex marriage be "constitutional"?
Thanks for the ping!
It is convenient that that trolls and MSM homo-adocates forget that UTAH was admitted on the condition they adopt one man one woman marriage. It was the FEDERAL legislature setting the standard.
I wonder what other recreational behavior is going to recieve such enhanced protection as homosexuals are demanding.
Did you read what you wrote? Did you read what I wrote? My comment is dead on --- they want equivalence. If it were the exact opposite, they would want tolerance, not equivalence. That is the exact opposite. Who taught you to frame an argument?
Gays want to be recognized having a marriage being the moral equivalent of a male and female. Sorry, it is not. I am not misinforming anybody. If gays want insurance together, a policy is available.
It is amazing when people "want" something just to satisfy themselves. Society and what is best for the propagation of the species be damned. There is going to be someone, as I said earlier, who is going to demand the right to marry a barnyard friend. Why can't he do that? Once you change the definition of an institution that has stood the test of time for centuries, that institution will be on a downward spiral.
It is the death of our civilization when a gay couple will get affirmative action for the adoption of children. It is beyond idiotic to think that children do not benefit from having a mom and a dad. I have heard the argument that it doesn't make any difference. That is unbelievable.
Then you need to review the Lochner era supreme court. Obviously you support such extra-constitutional activism.
You can tell folks that until you're blue in the face and they will just slough it off Longterm. It's pretty frustrating to keep arguing the same irrefutable points. They just don't care about the facts, the law, the Constitution or the notion of rule by the people.
The act of this judge shows the need to outlaw domestic partner/civil unions equally with homosexual marriage.
It is worth noting that ALL marriage amendments and the proposed federal marriage amendments are positive. They say what marriage IS. The do not limit any rights any more than the voting age law limits the rights of voters.
OK, under the 14th and 15th amendments, it has a limited obligation to guarantee that no state infringes upon the rights of a US citizen, assuming Congress has passed legislation specifying the remedies to be enforced, as the amendments clearly state.
Those amendments do not so much empower the courts to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states as much as the Congress, and the courts derived much more effective authority for enforcement after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than anything they managed to do in period from the 1954 Brown decision until that time.
The notion of the 'heroic' Supreme Court taking on segregation is a bunch of self-serving twaddle-- without the Civil Rights Act and an Executive willing to enforce the law, the Court wouldn't have been able to do much.
The Myth of Marbury persists with a new twist. Judicial review has now become judicial supremacy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.