Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mhking
After 22 different judges have agonized over this,

Ahh, Michael. This is where I disagree. I don't think they did.

You had one arrogant incompentent with most of the rest seeking to duck the issue to avoid unpleasant at the club. At least that's my view.

120 posted on 03/25/2005 6:10:04 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Tribune7

I agree, I disagree with that part of the initial post. I think we should be careful not to over the top, but the judicial system in this situation was a otal stacked mess.


123 posted on 03/25/2005 6:11:15 AM PST by RightMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]

To: Tribune7
Ahh, Michael. This is where I disagree. I don't think they did.

I'll grant you one incompetant or corrupt judge. Heck, I'll toss in a couple more to keep it honest! But that still leaves 19 other judges -- are you saying that that many judges would look the other way? Are you saying that the entire judicial branch of our government is that out of whack? And if so, what does that say for the state of our republic?

The incident that caused me to cross over to the conservative side of the coin was one that was tied to the changing of rules in mid-stream, simply because those in power didn't "win." The Atlanta School Board tossed out a blind bid simply because a large Jewish-owned business won the bid, and awarded the contract to a smaller, minority-owned firm. Simply because that firm didn't win in the first place.

Legally, this is no different. Laws were changed in mid-stream in order to try to upset the apple cart. The checks and balances that the founding fathers put in place were circumvented (or at least an attempt was made in that direction).

This is not a dictatorship. Ironically, those who compare this to Nazi Germany would rather have a Hitlerian hand from the Governor's office or the Oval Office reach in and take charge by decree.

The legal checks and balances worked. But if the government steps in now, the institution of marriage is for naught. After all, if you didn't like the man your daughter married (or the woman your son married for that matter), you would be able to get the rules changed by the government if you think his decision-making is wrong. Is that what we want?

The damage would be as deep as the notion of gay marriage that many of those who are upset here oppose.

This is not a situation that can be decided over a beer at the corner bar. It is far, far deeper than that.

156 posted on 03/25/2005 6:20:45 AM PST by mhking (If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson