[nmnita]

Just read: ACLU filed a law suit against the State to overturn Act 1. I guess we knew that was coming...

Nit

[USAwanderer]

What bothers me the most about these groups is why wait until after the election? If you thought the measure was illegal, then file the suit BEFORE people voted!

My wife has only voted these past 25 years because I FORCE her to. She claims - my vote doesn't count.

When the voice of the people is heard, yet the courts decide the people's voice does not matter, well.... I guess she was right!

[DC at the Ridge]

They can't sue to have a piece of legislation reversed until the legislation is passed. The legislature refused to pass this Act because it was clearly problematic, so it was pushed by a small group of activists to be put to the people in a popular vote. The courts aren't going to decide that the people's voice don't matter, they're going to decide if this poorly-conceived piece of legislation is lawful and Constitutional. Plenty of people were pointing out that the Act would be challenged on this basis before people went to the polls, and there's been a lot of people who claim that the way it was presented on the ballot was confusing, but it passed anyway. It was obvious from the get-go that this would be challenged in the courts.

[strumpeace]

Originally Posted by USAwanderer

What bothers me the most about these groups is why wait until after the election? If you thought the measure was illegal, then file the suit BEFORE people voted!

You can't challenge a measure until the measure has actually caused damage. Analogy: Would you challenge a traffic ticket when one hasn't even been issued to you? Answer: You can't. You can't challenge a traffic ticket until the police officer has written you the ticket.

That's how the law works.

And btw, the "people's voice" is not always sensible. And sometimes it's discriminatory. That's why we have a Constitution and a court system. The "people's voice" allowed slavery -- Just one example of how the "people's voice" is not always right.

[NOEM1226]

I am thankful, the fact that this legislation passed appalled me.

[Bail_Khan]

Well as long as people are being distracted from the lottery now being legal.

[NOEM1226]

Originally Posted by Bail_Khan

Well as long as people are being distracted from the lottery now being legal.

Amen to that too!

[bchris02]

Originally Posted by NOEM1226

I am thankful, the fact that this legislation passed appalled me.

Most people probably voted for it when they saw same-sex in the wording without giving much thought into what they were voting for.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by USAwanderer

What bothers me the most about these groups is why wait until after the election? If you thought the measure was illegal, then file the suit BEFORE people voted!

My wife has only voted these past 25 years because I FORCE her to. She claims - my vote doesn't count.

When the voice of the people is heard, yet the courts decide the people's voice does not matter, well.... I guess she was right!

I do get upset when people think their vote does not count, of course it does, especially in local and state elections. I am not judging this particular proposition, I happen to have voted against the act. I beleive a child has a right to a home regardless of whether a couple is married or not. Having foster and adopted kids of our own I know how much this means to a child. The only thing about the law suit that upsets me is what you are saying: why didn't they challenge the law back when, plus, according to the paper it is being played as a gay versus straight issue, not a married versus unmarried couples issue. Well, I have said all I am going to about this..We will see what the courts do..
I also feel many people didn't understand what they were voted for or against. This was one of those bills that if you voted Yes, you were voting NO.
Nita

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

They can't sue to have a piece of legislation reversed until the legislation is passed. The legislature refused to pass this Act because it was clearly problematic, so it was pushed by a small group of activists to be put to the people in a popular vote. The courts aren't going to decide that the people's voice don't matter, they're going to decide if this poorly-conceived piece of legislation is lawful and Constitutional. Plenty of people were pointing out that the Act would be challenged on this basis before people went to the polls, and there's been a lot of people who claim that the way it was presented on the ballot was confusing, but it passed anyway. It was obvious from the get-go that this would be challenged in the courts.

thanks DC , I take back my comments, I thought it could have been challenged sooner.

Nita