Federal Judge Strikes Down Arizona's Ban on Gay Marriage (how much, high school)

[BeerGeek40]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

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.

-----------------------
You missed my point. I'm not saying I would even be in favor of an amendment to ban SSM. I'm simply pointing out that if an amendment was passed, the courts would have zero further say in the matter.
And I used the example of prohibition -- once that amendment was in the constitution, there was nothing that any court in the country could do to allow the sale of alcohol. It was unconstitutional. Period.

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by BeerGeek40

-----------------------
You missed my point. I'm not saying I would even be in favor of an amendment to ban SSM. I'm simply pointing out that if an amendment was passed, the courts would have zero further say in the matter.
And I used the example of prohibition -- once that amendment was in the constitution, there was nothing that any court in the country could do to allow the sale of alcohol. It was unconstitutional. Period.

It's not just a hypothetical, it's an impossibility. Marriage is a state issue which is why these bans are falling state by state. To that point, there HAVE been constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage and they are being thrown out left and right. I'm still not sure what your point is. You're talking about something that cannot happen. Why, I'm not sure.

[saffordpastor]

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.

And it is a minority....a veeeery small minority.

About 1.6% of adults, Gay and 0.7% bisexual. In other words 2.3% of the population is either Gay or Bisexual.

96.6% are straight and 1.1% didnt have an answer.

So congratulations to all you Gay folk....no other group of people with such a tiny percentage of the population has been able to wield change, influence public policy, and change public opinion like you have.

Boggles the mind.

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by saffordpastor

And it is a minority....a veeeery small minority.

About 1.6% of adults, Gay and 0.7% bisexual. In other words 2.3% of the population is either Gay or Bisexual.

96.6% are straight and 1.1% didnt have an answer.

So congratulations to all you Gay folk....no other group of people with such a tiny percentage of the population has been able to wield change, influence public policy, and change public opinion like you have.

Boggles the mind.

It matters not how small the minority is, Dude, the majority does not have the right to vote on their rights. You are dead wrong on percentages, more than 2% are gay and of the straight folk, a lot more of them are bi then let on. I believe that in some states, Asians are fewer than gays, you do not get to vote on their rights either. Understand how that works? No majority has the right to vote on any minority, no matter how small that minority is, that would be tyranny of the majority.

[saffordpastor]

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

It matters not how small the minority is, Dude, the majority does not have the right to vote on their rights. You are dead wrong on percentages, more than 2% are gay and of the straight folk, a lot more of them are bi then let on. I believe that in some states, Asians are fewer than gays, you do not get to vote on their rights either. Understand how that works? No majority has the right to vote on any minority, no matter how small that minority is, that would be tyranny of the majority.

Health survey gives government its first large-scale data on gay, bisexual population - The Washington Post

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by saffordpastor

And it is a minority....a veeeery small minority.

About 1.6% of adults, Gay and 0.7% bisexual. In other words 2.3% of the population is either Gay or Bisexual.

96.6% are straight and 1.1% didnt have an answer.

So congratulations to all you Gay folk....no other group of people with such a tiny percentage of the population has been able to wield change, influence public policy, and change public opinion like you have.

Boggles the mind.

Even if we assume your numbers are accurate, that's about 9,000,000 people in this country. Are you saying since it's 'only' 9 million people that it's ok to discriminate against them? I don't see what's mind boggling about extending equal rights to 9 million Americans.

[observer53]

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.

The problem with state constitutional amendments is that they can, as here, violate the federal constitution. Determining that lies in the hands of the federal judiciary. So, Judge Sedwick, like federal judges for centuries before him, did his job. Federal constitutional amendment is outside the scope of this thread.

[saffordpastor]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

Even if we assume your numbers are accurate, that's about 9,000,000 people in this country. Are you saying since it's 'only' 9 million people that it's ok to discriminate against them? I don't see what's mind boggling about extending equal rights to 9 million Americans.

At what point did I even remotely suggest that?

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by saffordpastor

At what point did I even remotely suggest that?

What other reason did you have for pointing out the implied small number of gays? Based on the passive aggressive "boggled mind" comment as well as previous posts where you've referred to homosexuality as a perversion among other derogatory terms, it wasn't particularly difficult to read between the lines.

[saffordpastor]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

What other reason did you have for pointing out the implied small number of gays? Based on the passive aggressive "boggled mind" comment as well as previous posts where you've referred to homosexuality as a perversion among other derogatory terms, it wasn't particularly difficult to read between the lines.

At no point in this conversation have I said that discrimination is ever ok...you are reading between the lines.

And it does boggle the mind that such a small group can have such a huge impact on public policy.