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.
Why not just a judge that was up to date on the law and the constitution and neutral? I don't care what political belief you have you are supposed to follow the constitution he didn't and this is what happens of course if government would get the hell out of marriage this straight marriage/gay marriage crap would have never been an issue so once again we have government where it does not belong.
So please draw the line for me. Equal rights meaning that anyone can marry anyone means anyone? Or just homosexuals now? What about relatives? There's nothing in the constitution saying we can't, unless some judge with an agenda just added it in there.
As someone else said, why not make all marriages civil unions and have the religious ceremony be a separate issue? Those religions that would be okay with gay marriage can perform ceremonies and those religions that dislike gay marriage aren't forced to perform gay ceremonies.
I am a straight, married person and I have no problem with gay marriage being made legal. It won't change the relationship that I have with my spouse in any way. It can be a cold world that we're living in, so if a person manages to find someone who wants to stand beside them in this life, then more power to them.
People can be free to believe that gay marriage is wrong, but their beliefs should not be allowed to dictate the lives of others who don't share in those beliefs.
As far as gay marriage leading to marrying animals or inanimate objects: An animal or a lawn chair is not a consenting adult. Plus that argument is as silly as saying that freedom of religion will lead to human sacrifice.
Courts have moved trials out of cities where a crime was committed because they didn't think the jury would be unbiased. Why wasn't more consideration taken to find a judge that would be unbiased.
Why not just a judge that was up to date on the law and the constitution and neutral?
But what constitutes as neutral in a case like this? AFAIK, the plaintiffs were gay and the defendants were straight. So, unless he was bisexual, somebody was going to find bias and problems with his ruling.
With the ruling he made, he could be straight and people would still look for a "gay connection". We would be reading comments like, "Oh, his best friend is gay" or something. Or, like in the case of the Supreme Court Justice, he would be called a "closet gay".
Or if he made the opposite ruling, he would be called a "Self-hater". If he wasn't gay, people would look for ways to show that he was bias against gays.
In any possible scenario, people were going to kvetch over the ruling and Judge Walker. That's the problem with hot-button emotional concepts and topics - there becomes an abundance of logical fallacies no matter what decision is made. Again, I implore anyone who finds fault in the ruling to read through the court transcripts and the entirety of the ruling.
BAN or elimminate all marriages........just have legal contracts, to settle any type of payment or justification of who can have that power of attorney
if two people love each other (doesnt matter the orientation) why do you need a piece of paper from the government giving you permission (marriage LICENSE)(at a cost of a FEE(tax)) to be with that person that you love...............
how many times have I mentioned tax benefits in this thread? Do you think you're so special that only you can get them? And you say with a straight (pun intended) face you're NOT an Obama supporter with that elitism showing?
Just who are you to think that you have the right to push your particular preferences onto anyone?
The peoples will? your will?
Can't you just be happy that some people are in love and wanting to get married and live their life without instilling their beliefs to you?
What the heck is this "day of the rope liberal judges" stuff?
Obviously you are a far far right winger who wants Government out of our lives but, conveniently wants to control those who beliefs differ from yours.
When you say things like the "citizens taking the law into their own hands" I don't mind tellin ya that it's people like you that I find dangerous & appalling!
It's shouldn't be anybody's darn business what people choose to do. Get out of somebody else's bedroom!
I will do the bolded when they get out of my schools and other areas that they have access to children in.
The best person to judge any case is one who will rely on the law and the facts at hand.
White judges should exclude themselves when a white plaintiff has a claim against an hispanic, AAm or Asian?
Conversely an AA judge should recuse herself when an AA is plaintiff and defendant is white?
No female should hear facts where one party is female?
Straight judges shouldn't hear cases with one hetero party?
We could go on ad nauseum on the possibilities, but I think you get the picture.
Judges should rely on facts and the merits of a case. There is no evidence this wasn't the case here.
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.
