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.
If the anti same sex marriage crowd continue with their argument that marriage is only meant for couples who can "produce" biological children, it might not go down too well with Justice Kennedy who has 2 adopted children.
Oops, I meant Justice Roberts, not Justice Kennedy
The people of California voted that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. Period. It's "unconstitutional" for the judge to reverse what the people have decided.
The people of California voted that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. Period. It's "unconstitutional" for the judge to reverse what the people have decided.
How is it "Unconstitutional"?
The Constitution, and especially The Bill of Rights, are not just about the will of the people, but about balancing the will of the people with the rights of the individual. The courts are often charged with overruling the will of the majority to protect the minority. Which is to all our benefits. Will of the majority is too often tyranny of the majority. Mobs aren't noted for their contemplative moments, but in determining right from wrong, it often requires prolonged thought and contemplation.
The people of California voted that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. Period. It's "unconstitutional" for the judge to reverse what the people have decided.
Not particuarly.
It's part of the system to overturn oppressing laws such as Prop. 8.
The people of California voted that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. Period. It's "unconstitutional" for the judge to reverse what the people have decided.
The people of California voted that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. Period. It's "unconstitutional" for the judge to reverse what the people have decided.
Someone who thinks the very concept of judicial review is unconstitutional...
The people of California voted that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. Period. It's "unconstitutional" for the judge to reverse what the people have decided.
One of the biggest reasons for a constitution is to protect the individual against the tyranny of the majority, which is highly volatile and subject to fear mongering.
Mob rule is what tears civilizations apart, check your history.
The biggest reason our society is in such deep trouble is because of its citizens' tragic ignorance
One of the biggest reasons for a constitution is to protect the individual against the tyranny of the majority, which is highly volatile and subject to fear mongering.
Mob rule is what tears civilizations apart, check your history.
The biggest reason our society is in such deep trouble is because of its citizens' tragic ignorance
The biggest reason our society is in such deep trouble is because of its idiotic government.
That ban on same-sex marriage was so, well, un-Californian in the first place
When conservative people support such a ban, could it be they rely on many of those catholic Hispanics living in California that they bash in other threads?
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.
