Official Thread: Federal judge rules California ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. (Reagan, Hispanics)
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.
No, most conservatives, or at least the ones I know and talk too, want to shrink the size of government from the local level all the way to the top.
Are you saying conservatives have a favorable view of big government at the state level?
I'm saying that most of the conservatives I know support states determining the proper size of their own government, without the federal government regulating/mandating programs upon them. There are some things government need to do, but the federal government has no need to get involved. Local roads for example, but I doubt there is a road built in the nation that doesnt have federal funding its construction.
In order for that road to be built and the federal governments involment shrunk, obviously the state would have to increase, or a better analysis would need to be determined if the road is really needed. A politician is more willing to build a road in Ohio if the taxpayers in Florida are paying for it, but if they have to raise taxes at a local/state level to fund it, then maybe the road wasnt needed.
I am also so sick of this being just directed at conservatives or republicans when there is many democrats that also dont support gay marriage yet many wants to only single out republicans.
Well then convince more Republicans to accept it. The numbers are very lopsided. Same-sex marriage faces a lot more opposition among Republicans than it does among Democrats.
Ahh yes that s exactly the same thing.... Why don't we ban women from ruling in cases that deal with women's rights while we are at it.....
Well, hell, according to "traditional marriage" and Biblical principles, those women shouldn't be judges anyway. They should be at home in the kitchen keeping their mouths shut, serving their husbands and popping out babies.
I don't know how you voted on the law involved here but since when does the majority vote mean nothing? Actually this is just another nail in the coffin of me ever considering living in California. The people vote for a thing with a good majority and one single judge overturns that vote with nothing more than a grouping of words and his signature? I just can't handle that kind of thing because I see judicial activism involved. I don't care about the sexual lean of the judge who does a thing like this on his own authority.
If this guy can do that when will some judge proclaim the need to sterilize certain individuals?
Do you consider Loving V Virginia Judicial Activism??
You know what thrills me? What thrills me is this...
About 5 years ago, I was visiting my grandmother-in-law. I adored her. When my husband and I first started dating, I met his gram 6 days after our first date. She and I hit it off immediately and she right away started referring to me as her granddaughter. One of my very most favorite pictures in the world is a photo of me sitting beside her, my husband squatting on the floor in front of her, on the day of our wedding. I have copies of it all over my house... all three of us are positively glowing. She passed in November 2008 at the age of 99. So at the time we had this conversation, she was about 96.
She was living in an assisted living center. We were having lunch in her little "apartment" when a lady from the staff knocked on the door. I let her in, we chatted for a few - she just wanted to make sure gram was having something to eat since she hadn't seen her in the dining room. She left shortly thereafter, and gram turned to me and said:
"I remember when I thought blacks weren't really people. That they were dirty, or that they were bad. I remember being disgusted by the idea of white people marrying them. I remember being afraid of them. I remember my father being enraged when the laws changed, and I remember agreeing with him. I look back now and wonder 'who was that woman? Could that really have been me?' I just didn't understand... I'm glad I lived long enough to learn better."
What thrills me is knowing that in about 40 years, that same conversation is going to be repeated about homosexuals. That before I die, we'll get to a point in this country where so many of the ignorant, bigoted and horrifying comments being made in threads like this all over the land will be looked back upon with disgust and shame... where it will be abnormal to consider homosexuals to be somehow less-worthy, or less-deserving, than heterosexuals.
I'm going to enjoy the heck out of that. And knowing it is coming makes a lot of this garbage a whole lot easier to swallow.
gay marriage is not the same as interracial marriage
Indeed they are, in that they are both rights won from the clutches of Christian theocrats - much the same as every other right and freedom we enjoy in this country (see slavery, women's suffrage, desegregation, prohibition etc etc etc).
The Constitution and all the rights therein is at its very core the antithesis to Biblical and Christian laws and principles.
oh, we all know where he stands. So what does it matter. that's the real point of that question.
He like all religious conservative fundies are grasping at straws, and falling short.
This thread shows that, the court ruling PROVED that.
yes that is right who cares what he says hes against gay marriage. only gays have the right to force thier beliefs down everyones throat including innocent children of straight people using the school system, and we all have to accept it or else we are all bigots and rightwinged and bible thumper and conservatives and everything else that is bad and evil in this world screw religion screw morals we dont need them!
sorry, I disagree. I don't know if his actions have anything to do with his sexual orientation, but in a case like this, just to be certain there is no conflict of interest, he should have been removed. He should have removed himself to be honest about it.
Nita
If a case came to the court about women's rights, do you think a judge should have accused herself if she was female??
In a case like Loving V Virginia do you think we should have inspected the relationships of the Judges to see if they were either in or ever were in an inter-racial relationship??
Yes it very much is on this case it is. Hence this thread.
The judge is openly gay... not a secret.
Why didn't the pro prop 8 legal team ask to have him removed?
Because they knew it was not a basis for removal?
Because they were incompetent?
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.
