Federal Judge Strikes Down Arizona's Ban on Gay Marriage (sale, health)

[okie1962]

Originally Posted by BeerGeek40

Be careful, all those who are defending the constitution as the 'be all and end all'. As George Carlin pointed out, these early documents that specified that all men are created equal, were written by slave owners! So give me a break.

The Constitution is important but it's not the final and forever last word, nor should it be. It is what it is....a document written by men. And I'll take the systems in place in England and some other European countries (parliamentary democracy) over the chaos we have here in this country. Over there, a disaster like B.H. Obama would have been removed by his own political party. Heck, Winston Churchill was! For those of you who don't know history--- look it up.

I would have serious concerns about a vote being put before the people and then invalidated by some judge. The people spoke, and the judge overruled. Now try to get that judge removed. Good luck with that.

Oh do I taste sour grapes! First I was Obama, and then Obama again and now this gay nonsense! Don't worry, you will soon get over it.

[Clark Park]

Originally Posted by BeerGeek40

Be careful, all those who are defending the constitution as the 'be all and end all'. As George Carlin pointed out, these early documents that specified that all men are created equal, were written by slave owners! So give me a break.

The Constitution is important but it's not the final and forever last word, nor should it be. It is what it is....a document written by men. And I'll take the systems in place in England and some other European countries (parliamentary democracy) over the chaos we have here in this country. Over there, a disaster like B.H. Obama would have been removed by his own political party. Heck, Winston Churchill was! For those of you who don't know history--- look it up.

I would have serious concerns about a vote being put before the people and then invalidated by some judge. The people spoke, and the judge overruled. Now try to get that judge removed. Good luck with that.

Not only was the US Constitution written by privileged white men - many who were owners of slaves - but their own mothers, wives, and daughters were considered chattel who could not vote, hold public office, practice medicine or law, or participate in any meaningful way in society. However, we need to give credit to the Framers of the Constitution as intelligent men well grounded in history, law, and philosophy.

Let's not forget these wealthy white Protestant men wore wigs (powdered wigs on formal occasions) on their heads, velvet knee-breeches, embroidered silk waistcoats, lace around their necks and on their cuffs.

While we look to the Constitution for guidance on the rights of citizens and the structure of government, we do not set it up on an alter of gold and silver and worship it. It is designed to not only be amended and changed, but to be interpreted (by the higher courts and Supreme Court) in the light of increasing and evolving human knowledge and understanding.

[okie1962]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Nah, it is not that cut and dried. 30 years ago, maybe less, no court in the country would have found that gays have a right to marry that is embodied in the 14th Amendment. We did not have state bans on same sex marriage because the concept was inconceivable. The reason it changed is because public attitudes changed. The Constitution, unlike many conservatives would like us to believe, is a living document that is interpreted in the context of the times.

Don't worry, you will get over.

[Clark Park]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

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).

It does not happen that often, but sometimes the majority of voters pass a law that tramples on the rights of a minority. That is why the courts have to step in and defend the rights of the aggrieved members of the minority group.

Then why should citizens vote on anything at all? Well, to elect candidates is one reason. Another reason is to enact amendments and laws that almost always passes constitutional muster ... but there are exceptions ... and the federal courts, the circuit courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court (as in the cases of Windsor v. The United States and Hollingsworth v. Perry) determined this was one of those rare exceptions andhas overwhelmingly ruled in favor of gay folks having the right to marry the partner they love.

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by Clark Park

It does not happen that often, but sometimes the majority of voters pass a law that tramples on the rights of a minority. That is why the courts have to step in and defend the rights of the aggrieved members of the minority group.

Then why should citizens vote on anything at all? Well, to elect candidates is one reason. Another reason is to enact amendments and laws that almost always passes constitutional muster ... but there are exceptions ... and the federal courts, the circuit courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court (as in the cases of Windsor v. The United States and Hollingsworth v. Perry) determined this was one of those rare exceptions andhas overwhelmingly ruled in favor of gay folks having the right to marry the partner they love.

Yeah, the number of voter-enacted laws that are overturned by the courts is a very small percentage. For the most part the courts don't challenge them - but every once and while a REALLY BAD law is passed which (as in the cases in question) trample civil rights. In those cases the courts are RIGHT to overturned them (as they have been granted the power to do by the U.S. Constitution).

Ken

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by Clark Park

Not only was the US Constitution written by privileged white men - many who were owners of slaves - but their own mothers, wives, and daughters were considered chattel who could not vote, hold public office, practice medicine or law, or participate in any meaningful way in society. However, we need to give credit to the Framers of the Constitution as intelligent men well grounded in history, law, and philosophy.

Let's not forget these wealthy white Protestant men wore wigs (powdered wigs on formal occasions) on their heads, velvet knee-breeches, embroidered silk waistcoats, lace around their necks and on their cuffs.

While we look to the Constitution for guidance on the rights of citizens and the structure of government, we do not set it up on an alter of gold and silver and worship it. It is designed to not only be amended and changed, but to be interpreted (by the higher courts and Supreme Court) in the light of increasing and evolving human knowledge and understanding.

Yeah, the Founding Fathers were GREAT MEN (especially for their day - and represent a big reason that era is known as "The Enlightenment") - but they were STILL products of their time and as a result had views that were pretty repugnant today. What can I say - they were human. As you mention, many of them were slave-owners. Some actually believed it was right to do so, while others (such as Washington and Jefferson) actually KNEW it was wrong but didn't want to make the economic sacrifices necessary to free their slaves (Washington freed his slaves - through his will - only when he and Martha would be dead and thus no longer "need" them).

Still, they were great men - folks who were in many ways ahead of their time (though not as far "ahead" as us today) and they understood the fact that no government is created total perfect and that all governments need to evolve with the times - and they made provisions for all that - allowing the Constitution to change as the times change and for judges to interpret the laws as defined by that changing Constitution.
That's a pretty remarkable thing.

Ken

[BeerGeek40]

Originally Posted by Kimballette

I'm sorry. I simply cannot decipher your statements - they don't make any sense to me. I can't begin to follow your line of thinking. The discussion here is the federal judge striking down our state's ban on gay marriage, not every other issue under the sun.

As observer53 stated earlier in this thread:


Arizona voters can pass laws, but they have to hold up to challenges in court that those laws haven't violated fundamental civil rights, as set forth in our Constitution. And the AZ same sex marriage ban has been ruled unconstitutional.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Just an FYI -- the will of the people DOES matter when it comes to the constitution. That is why it is possible to add an amendment. It's not easy, but it is possible. I admit I'm rusty on the specifics but an amendment COULD be added that would outlaw gay marriage, nation-wide. And there would not be a damn thing that the courts could do about it. Or an other topic..... see "prohibition" and 'repeal of prohibition". Both were the will of the people.

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by BeerGeek40

---------------------------------------------------------------
Just an FYI -- the will of the people DOES matter when it comes to the constitution. That is why it is possible to add an amendment. It's not easy, but it is possible. I admit I'm rusty on the specifics but an amendment COULD be added that would outlaw gay marriage, nation-wide. And there would not be a damn thing that the courts could do about it. Or an other topic..... see "prohibition" and 'repeal of prohibition". Both were the will of the people.

You're right - then courts couldn't do anything about it.
Good luck with THAT strategy though.


Ken

[okie1962]

Originally Posted by BeerGeek40

---------------------------------------------------------------
Just an FYI -- the will of the people DOES matter when it comes to the constitution. That is why it is possible to add an amendment. It's not easy, but it is possible. I admit I'm rusty on the specifics but an amendment COULD be added that would outlaw gay marriage, nation-wide. And there would not be a damn thing that the courts could do about it. Or an other topic..... see "prohibition" and 'repeal of prohibition". Both were the will of the people.

this whole SSM thing really bugs you don't it?

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by BeerGeek40

---------------------------------------------------------------
Just an FYI -- the will of the people DOES matter when it comes to the constitution. That is why it is possible to add an amendment. It's not easy, but it is possible. I admit I'm rusty on the specifics but an amendment COULD be added that would outlaw gay marriage, nation-wide. And there would not be a damn thing that the courts could do about it. Or an other topic..... see "prohibition" and 'repeal of prohibition". Both were the will of the people.

You should quit while you're behind. Seeing that state-level marriage amendments have already been thrown out, what you're proposing is simply a bigot's wish with no footing in reality. Either way, it would be a completely wasteful exercise.

Prohibition is yet another irrelevant bit, not even remotely related to the topic at hand. For starters, it impacted EVERYONE and didn't single out one particular group.