Arizona's Gay Marriage Ban Likely to be Struck Down (road, apply)

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

First of all, the notion that we would still have slavery if left up to the voters is asinine. When the majority of the people have had enough of something, they will rightfully overturn it with their votes. Arizona wouldn't have the MLK day if not for voters having the final say. Steel jaw traps and cockfighting would still be legal in this state if not for the voters outlawing them. And do you think the current Legislature would even remotely approve the legalization of medicinal marijuana? The voters did two years ago. Those are just a few of many examples of why the final decision should always rest with voters, and no legislative or judicial involvement after that.

I don't personally favor same sex marriage, but I don't think we need to protect something that married couples could easily protect themselves. Even so, the majority of the voters obviously believed that marriage should be defined as the union between one man and one woman, so that's how they voted, and that's why we have the law. Power to the people prevails.

Simpy put (again) there is no valid state interest in banning marriage between consenting adults of the same sex. There is no need for a vote of the people so that they can impose religious biases on a minority of gay people. And yes, we would live in a terrible society devoid of our most basic of freedoms if the public, not the courts, were the final arbiter of what freedoms minorities should have. When a majority removes or denies certain rights accorded a minority, the minority may appeal to the courts. I would not have it any other way. An independent judiciary, not a majority, is our defense against tyranny.

[kdog]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Simpy put (again) there is no valid state interest in banning marriage between consenting adults of the same sex. There is no need for a vote of the people so that they can impose religious biases on a minority of gay people. And yes, we would live in a terrible society devoid of our most basic of freedoms if the public, not the courts, were the final arbiter of what freedoms minorities should have. When a majority removes or denies certain rights accorded a minority, the minority may appeal to the courts. I would not have it any other way. An independent judiciary, not a majority, is our defense against tyranny.

Bravo! Very well said.

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

First of all, the notion that we would still have slavery if left up to the voters is asinine. When the majority of the people have had enough of something, they will rightfully overturn it with their votes. Arizona wouldn't have the MLK day if not for voters having the final say. Steel jaw traps and cockfighting would still be legal in this state if not for the voters outlawing them. And do you think the current Legislature would even remotely approve the legalization of medicinal marijuana? The voters did two years ago. Those are just a few of many examples of why the final decision should always rest with voters, and no legislative or judicial involvement after that.

I don't personally favor same sex marriage, but I don't think we need to protect something that married couples could easily protect themselves. Even so, the majority of the voters obviously believed that marriage should be defined as the union between one man and one woman, so that's how they voted, and that's why we have the law. Power to the people prevails.

If it were up to voters, slavery would have lasted much longer. So would segregation.

Left to voters and legislatures, gay marriage nationwide isn't very far off. I think 53% of Americans now support it. I think a big part of that is that libertarianism is now fashionable.
BTW same sex civil unions became legal here in HI on January 1st and all hell didn't break loose. I haven't seen any straight marriages falling apart as a result. Being straight there is no effect on me.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

If it were up to voters, slavery would have lasted much longer. So would segregation.

Left to voters and legislatures, gay marriage nationwide isn't very far off. I think 53% of Americans now support it. I think a big part of that is that libertarianism is now fashionable.
BTW same sex civil unions became legal here in HI on January 1st and all hell didn't break loose. I haven't seen any straight marriages falling apart as a result. Being straight there is no effect on me.

Not from the history I've been reading as of late. If it were up to only some of the south then maybe but comparing slavery and this topic is apples and oranges (unless you're a married man, then it can be same/same. ).

[tickyul]

Just my prediction.

The gay marriage issue will EVENTUALLY make its way to the Supreme Court. A favorable, broad based ruling will EVENTUALLY be issued..............THEN.....gay marriage will quickly become the law of the land.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Simpy put (again) there is no valid state interest in banning marriage between consenting adults of the same sex. There is no need for a vote of the people so that they can impose religious biases on a minority of gay people. And yes, we would live in a terrible society devoid of our most basic of freedoms if the public, not the courts, were the final arbiter of what freedoms minorities should have. When a majority removes or denies certain rights accorded a minority, the minority may appeal to the courts. I would not have it any other way. An independent judiciary, not a majority, is our defense against tyranny.

The hypocrisy bothers me. Conservatives criticize government intervention but too readily embrace it when it comes to issues they support. It's a doublt standard. True conservatives support gay marriage; they don't have to embrace the concept of homosexuality but they would honor the right of another person to engage in a consensual relationship and call it whatever they want.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

The hypocrisy bothers me. Conservatives criticize government intervention but too readily embrace it when it comes to issues they support. It's a doublt standard. True conservatives support gay marriage; they don't have to embrace the concept of homosexuality but they would honor the right of another person to engage in a consensual relationship and call it whatever they want.

Absolutely right! Unfortunately, what we think of as a true conservative is no longer considered mainstream by today's GOP. True conservatives like Barry Goldwater (who not only preached less government, but demonstrated it in his actions) are now classified as Libertarians. Today's Republican party (with the exception of Ron Paul) has steered further away from the Libertarian principles of the past. In fact, some Republicans are so adamantly against same sex marriage that they even go as far as to call for an amendment in the U.S. Constitution banning the practice.

Issues like this should definitely be left to the states, but only if registered voters have the final say. It should never be in the hands of a legislative or judicial body. If we continue to let judges & legislatures overrule what the majority of citizens vote for, we might as well just forget about voting completely and let them pick our elected officials, right up to (and including) the President. Welcome to dictatorship (and heaven help us) if that happens!

[mhouse2001]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Issues like this should definitely be left to the states, but only if registered voters have the final say. It should never be in the hands of a legislative or judicial body. If we continue to let judges & legislatures overrule what the majority of citizens vote for, we might as well just forget about voting completely and let them pick our elected officials, right up to (and including) the President. Welcome to dictatorship (and heaven help us) if that happens!

My view is that states rights should only be applicable to those issues that actually vary from state to state. Human rights are universal and so a gay marriage ruling (allow/disallow) should be federal while the actual details, paperwork, licensing, etc. for getting married may vary from state to state. I personally prefer a strong federal government because we are such a mobile society. Why have so many differences where they are not necessary? Even the rules of the road should be the same from coast to coast.

I'm glad about today's ruling and predict gay marriage will become the law of the land in every state within the next 10 years, perhaps sooner. There is no justifiable reason to oppose it and the courts are clearly proving that.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by mhouse2001

I personally prefer a strong federal government because we are such a mobile society. Why have so many differences where they are not necessary? Even the rules of the road should be the same from coast to coast.

You're going against what our founding fathers envisioned. States' rights is part of the Constitution ... and besides, what's so wrong with each state having their own laws, rights, and privileges? That's one of the reasons WHY people are mobile: if they dislike the laws or political atmosphere in one state, they can move to another where they might be more comfortable.

Originally Posted by mhouse2001

I'm glad about today's ruling and predict gay marriage will become the law of the land in every state within the next 10 years, perhaps sooner. There is no justifiable reason to oppose it and the courts are clearly proving that.

I don't like the idea of government protecting "traditional" marraige. The way I see it, the only ones who should protect marriage are married couples themselves ... as in protecting their OWN marriages! At the same time, I don't like the way a lot of judges legislate from the bench and overrule what the majority of people voted for. I personally believe that same sex marriage will become law of the land as well, but it will be because of societal changes in attitudes toward gays ... not because of what some arrogant judge says.

[phxgreenfire]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Issues like this should definitely be left to the states, but only if registered voters have the final say. It should never be in the hands of a legislative or judicial body. If we continue to let judges & legislatures overrule what the majority of citizens vote for, we might as well just forget about voting completely and let them pick our elected officials, right up to (and including) the President. Welcome to dictatorship (and heaven help us) if that happens!

And by that, you are including issues like Jim Crow laws and women's suffrage... right?