Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My only point is it's a damn dangerous situation when JUDGES are making the laws and overriding the voter's will. But again, it is what it is. It's all a bunch of BS -- people on every side of the political spectrum will use whatever method (legislature, judges, president's executive order, voter referendum, etc) or justification they can to get their agenda passed. People on the left and the right do the same thing. Whatever means necessary.
There's nothing dangerous about it. The courts did the very job that they are supposed to do. You're suggesting that rights be subject to popular opinion, which shows a complete ignorance of our legal system.
So then you would also agree that the courts did the right thing in 2000 --- a case called Bush vs. Gore, correct?
You're implying that we're trying to say that courts always get it right. That's not the case at all. The point that you're failing to acknowledge is that voters cannot decide the rights of minorities. When that happens it's the courts' responsibility to step in and take corrective action. That's a fairly simple concept. I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand about it.
You said.....and I quote....."the courts did the very job they were supposed to do".
And that is what I said also. In 2000, they did the job they were supposed to do which was make sure that the votes got counted the WAY THE LAW (and the constitution) said they were to get counted. In other words by the law, Bush won the electoral vote and the presidency. Gore won the popular vote, but guess what -- it didn't matter.
So in this case, the right wing LOVES the courts and you hate them. The reverse of the AZ gay marriage situation.
I still don't know what point you're trying to prove related to the topic of this thread. What is it? Are you trying to say that voters should decide the rights of minorities regardless of constitutionality?
I've got to tell you, I'm gloating over this ruling. I was beginning to fear that AZ would be the last state to come around. I enjoy seeing all the photos and videos of all the smiling same-sex couples in the local media. Yeah AZ.
My points are:
1) It's dangerous when an issue is sent to the voters, the voters speak, and then a few years later a judge steps in and invalidates the vote. If this would have happened 15 years ago, no judge would have ever invalidated the vote. But now, with liberalism sweeping the land, all of a sudden, gay marriage is the in thing and it's good to go, wherever. Whether the people want it or not. And Arizona didn't want it.
2) Both sides of the political spectrum use whatever means they deem necessary to get their agenda passed. So when it's convenient to cite the constitution, the left does it. When it's not (Bush vs Gore), then you hear stuff like this: "The illegitimate supreme court stole the election for the republicans" Remember that line? But I'm at least honest enough to admit that the republicans do the same thing.
My points are:
1) It's dangerous when an issue is sent to the voters, the voters speak, and then a few years later a judge steps in and invalidates the vote. If this would have happened 15 years ago, no judge would have ever invalidated the vote. But now, with liberalism sweeping the land, all of a sudden, gay marriage is the in thing and it's good to go, wherever. Whether the people want it or not. And Arizona didn't want it.
2) Both sides of the political spectrum use whatever means they deem necessary to get their agenda passed. So when it's convenient to cite the constitution, the left does it. When it's not (Bush vs Gore), then you hear stuff like this: "The illegitimate supreme court stole the election for the republicans" Remember that line? But I'm at least honest enough to admit that the republicans do the same thing.
Time for football. Over and out.
Sorry but you clearly lack knowledge of our legal system. What "the people want" is irrelevant when it comes to rights other than their own. Anything can be put in front of the voters via referendum. Just because it makes it to the ballot and then is passed doesn't mean it meets the guideline of constitutionality. Based on your (il)logic, we could vote to legalize slavery or to remove women's suffrage. Hey, "the will of the people", right? That's (of one the reasons) why we have a judicial system. This has nothing to do with an "agenda" but rather simply removing laws that clearly violate the Constitution.
This also isn't a left versus right issue as you're trying to make it out to be. Anyone that believes in freedom and liberty should be celebrating the protection of the Constitution.
My points are:
1) It's dangerous when an issue is sent to the voters, the voters speak, and then a few years later a judge steps in and invalidates the vote. If this would have happened 15 years ago, no judge would have ever invalidated the vote. But now, with liberalism sweeping the land, all of a sudden, gay marriage is the in thing and it's good to go, wherever. Whether the people want it or not. And Arizona didn't want it.
2) Both sides of the political spectrum use whatever means they deem necessary to get their agenda passed. So when it's convenient to cite the constitution, the left does it. When it's not (Bush vs Gore), then you hear stuff like this: "The illegitimate supreme court stole the election for the republicans" Remember that line? But I'm at least honest enough to admit that the republicans do the same thing.
Time for football. Over and out.
You do not seem to understand that what is at hand is the discrimination of gays, the denial of certain rights that should not be put up to a vote of the majority. Is that difficult to relate to? Would the importance of the rights be different if we were a true theocracy and say Catholic Christians were the power and determined that only marriages performed in their church was legal, that all people must obey their tenets? You do realize that most of the early colonizers of America were leaving Europe to leave just that kind of power being wielded by the church behind them? Why did the states choose to instate discriminating laws into their constitutions that banned marriage to ONLY gays, not other minorities? I keep asking this, why gays? Come on you anti same sex marriage, defamers of gay people, why just gays? Why not other minorities? Why should the states have any position in allowing discrimination? How does it behoove them?
My points are:
1) It's dangerous when an issue is sent to the voters, the voters speak, and then a few years later a judge steps in and invalidates the vote. If this would have happened 15 years ago, no judge would have ever invalidated the vote. But now, with liberalism sweeping the land, all of a sudden, gay marriage is the in thing and it's good to go, wherever. Whether the people want it or not. And Arizona didn't want it.
2) Both sides of the political spectrum use whatever means they deem necessary to get their agenda passed. So when it's convenient to cite the constitution, the left does it. When it's not (Bush vs Gore), then you hear stuff like this: "The illegitimate supreme court stole the election for the republicans" Remember that line? But I'm at least honest enough to admit that the republicans do the same thing.
Time for football. Over and out.
Arizona is not the south. We evolve with the times. There has been a huge change in sentiments in AZ and the rest of the country as you acknowledge and then dismiss as gay marriage being the "in thing". If the vote were held today, the voters of Arizona would OK same sex marriage. Every survey taken shows that to be true. Only a minority of die-hard righties and religious zealots still cling to the notion that the state has any interest in preventing gay people from marrying.
As mentioned by sandy6879, the "will of the voters" doesn't insure that something is either constitutional OR right. Slavery was the "will of the voters" in states of the South prior to the Civil War, that didn't make it right. The Federal Court system is there to protect us from ourselves - to ensure that we don't violate the basic principles upon which the nation is founded. Those courts have told us time and again now that the anti-gay marriage laws are violating the basic principle or equal protection under the law.
Ken
The issue is: I don't want anything or anybody to protect me from myself. I'm able to do that just fine on my own ... and I vote for what I believe is right & against what I believe is wrong. The nation was founded on freedom, individualism, and the notion of limited government. Slavery might have been the will of the voters in the South at one time, but it eventually became unacceptable among the majority of citizens. Same with racial segregation. I'm pretty certain that a vast majority of people in the South today would not approve of either slavery or segregation ... and if the voters were allowed to decide, those things would be overwhelmingly rejected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by observer53
The will of the voters doesn't determine constitutionality. The Governor doesn't get that concept, either. Federal courts get to determine that. It's how our government has worked for centuries. They've stepped on marriage issues before, too, although the governor or whoever wrote her statement seems to have forgotten that.
Then why even bother to vote if people's decisions are overridden by judges, legislative bodies, executive orders, etc.? You know, I don't have much respect for the ones who don't vote at all, but in a way I can understand why they don't. In the end, a citizen's vote really doesn't count for much, and that's really sad (and unconstitutional I might add).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitN8V
Why? Are you trying to say that we should have the ability to vote on the rights of minorities, regardless of constitutionality? Maybe we should get push for a referendum to get slavery reinstated.
This statement is asinine. See above.
If I recall, you stated earlier that you'd like to see gov't out of the institution of marriage, which I strongly agree with. Then you turn around and believe that an authority of gov't (a judge) making a decision about marriage was the right thing to do. This is being hypocritical. Either you want the government involved, or you don't. I don't have any problem with gays getting married if they want to, but it should be a personal issue no matter what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer
In that case, interracial marriage bans should be reinstated in many states where the majority are still opposed to it, Yes? And if there is another race in any state, should the voters have the right to abridge that minorities rights? Again I am asking this question. Why is it that so many feel that discrimination against homosexuals is okay, but not against blacks, Asians, women or any other minority?
I believe discrimination against any group of people (including gays) is wrong, but that's beside the point. What I find to be somewhat peculiar is how many people are rejoicing over this decision, and calling it "progress". I don't think any kind of authoritative judicial, legislative, or executive mandate is progress ... in fact, I think that's a little on the regressive side.
What would be REAL progress is to let the voters decide on this matter like they did before. Recent surveys indicate that people are becoming more accepting of gays as well as same sex marriage ... and if we were to let the public decide on this again, I have a strong feeling that same sex marriage would become legal by the will of the voters. People progress, evolve, and change their views over a period time, just like they did with slavery, racial segregation, women's rights, etc. That's human nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
Arizona is not the south. We evolve with the times. There has been a huge change in sentiments in AZ and the rest of the country as you acknowledge and then dismiss as gay marriage being the "in thing". If the vote were held today, the voters of Arizona would OK same sex marriage. Every survey taken shows that to be true. Only a minority of die-hard righties and religious zealots still cling to the notion that the state has any interest in preventing gay people from marrying.
Absolutely true!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
