Federal Judge Strikes Down Arizona's Ban on Gay Marriage (condo, to live)

[Clark Park]

Originally Posted by infocyde

The definition of marriage being changed that stood for hundreds of years by the courts when the majority of the people opposed the change is the definition of judicial activism, right or wrong.

Defenders of human slavery in the South made exactly the same argument in this country.

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by infocyde

The definition of marriage being changed that stood for hundreds of years by the courts when the majority of the people opposed the change is the definition of judicial activism, right or wrong.

What the majority wants is 100% irrelevant when talking about minority rights.

The judges 'act'ed in accordance with the Constitution. Calling them 'activists' makes it seem like you're suggesting that they took action based on nothing but their own views.

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by saffordpastor

I also feel that as popular opinion becomes even more weighted toward Gay rights, the pressure from all sides, (societal, religious, legislative, etc) to conform to the new norm will increase tremendously.

Before long if you take a stand against the Gay lifestyle because of your religious convictions, you will be labeled a bigot, demonized as a threat to society, and laws will be passed to try to force you to line up.......


Wait a second...

Already happening.

How about just minding one's own business and not meddling into others'? That has to be in your rule book somewhere. No?

[sandy6879]

Am I the only one wondering, what if what you believe is wrong? Don't get your back up over it but what happens if at the end of the day, the beliefs people are stating are the reason for being against SSM aren't accurate? And it comes out that whoever you believe in really doesn't care about this? Then people have been against it, blaming their view on something incorrect, and what then? Would people still consider it wrong if their religious views are incorrect?

If they do, then yes, bigot is an appropriate term to use. If not, then I would go with hypocrisy. Not calling it one way or the other, but honestly, not everyone believes the same views. And since they don't, if your views don't match up, it doesn't really matter what 1 person thinks. Rights are rights.

I don't particularly believe we should be calling our elected officials half the names I see them called. Doesn't matter if I agree with them or not, I believe we should treat fellow human beings better than that. But people have the right to say it in this country. I'm not advocating to take away your right to say anything you want, but you don't get to take away the rights of other human beings either. And rights are what this comes down to. Not beliefs.

[okie1962]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

How about just minding one's own business and not meddling into others'? That has to be in your rule book somewhere. No?

That is their problem, They can't. They always have to have their nose up somebody else's business 24 7.

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by infocyde

The definition of marriage being changed that stood for hundreds of years by the courts when the majority of the people opposed the change is the definition of judicial activism, right or wrong.

The majority of the US population, somewhat over 70%, were against inerracial marriage in 1967 when Loving v. Virginia abolished those bans and redefined marriage to include mixed races, was that judicial activism, right or wrong?

[9162]

Originally Posted by infocyde

The definition of marriage being changed that stood for hundreds of years by the courts when the majority of the people opposed the change is the definition of judicial activism, right or wrong.

States cannot pass laws that deny equal protection of the law without first showing how doing so would further a compelling state interest. Marriage has legal protections. By denying same sex couples those protections of marriage the states are in fact denying equal protection of the laws without compelling interest in doing so. "Because somebody doesn't like it" and "tradition" are not compelling state interest.

The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any slight conviction is, that same-sex couples don't need marriage because same sex couples can't produce children, intended or unintended, which is so ridiculous, and so full of holes it can't be taken seriously. Other than that, homophobes have never been able to provide a single good, logical, rational reason to oppose SSM.

It is our country's proud history to protect the rights of the individual, the rights of the unpopular and the rights of the powerless, even at the cost of majority. Losers will whine about the will of the people not being followed, but it is not the job of the justices to just affirm the will of the people all the time regardless, that's not how it works. There was a time when the will of the people was Jim Crowe laws, not letting women or blacks vote, etc. The real name for the will of the people was actually "tyranny of the majority" which has long been over-ruled case after case. Upholding the Constitution is NOT a popularity contest for voters to decide, nor do states get to violate the constitution principle of equal treatment.

As far as the Loving decision that was issued in 1967, the precedent was there for those decisions being issued. But the courts, being loathe to move so dramatically against public opinion, have waited for almost half a century to really begin to apply the legal precedence set in Loving. If there's any such things as judicial activism, that is it. This irony is, of course, lost on those who go on and on about 'judicial activism' - which really is defined as "decisions I don't like!".

[lurtsman]

Congratulations to Arizona. May all people, gay people, friends of gay people, and homophobic [snip] rejoice together

[bgray9]

Originally Posted by saffordpastor

I also feel that as popular opinion becomes even more weighted toward Gay rights, the pressure from all sides, (societal, religious, legislative, etc) to conform to the new norm will increase tremendously.

Before long if you take a stand against the Gay lifestyle because of your religious convictions, you will be labeled a bigot, demonized as a threat to society, and laws will be passed to try to force you to line up.......


Wait a second...

Already happening.

Sadly very true.

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by bgray9

Sadly very true.

Except that without hypothetical situations and fear-mongering it's not true at all.