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.
Dosen't really matter. Thanks to the conservative, the CA ban on same sex marriage will go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. EVen Fox News said that there's a great chance that the judges will rule in favor of same-sex marriage.
So you might want to hunker down and stock up on food. The bad gay people come
Who would have thought that conservatives could be responsibile for legalization of same sex marriage? They just couldn't help themselves but challenge CA. LOL
A while back... when the first ruling cmae down. They said it's because of the way the judge reasoned his judgement. It's hard to argue against it.
i think that the only impartial one on the SCOTUS is Kennedy. The rest of them only vote their personal beliefs. I wish that one of the other 4 conservative justices would pass away or retire.
To the OP.......Hey MO.....who cares......STOP HATING!!!!!!(nice nic by the way). :-)
Is that the only defense you have for judicial activism?
I'm a hater?
That's pretty tired at this point.
Go ahead...try it again.
I'll give you a little help to get you started. Some of the other statists claimed the justices had a right to interpret the Iowa State Constitution as they saw fit. Even others said same-sex marriage was a fundamental right gays were entitled to because heterosexual marriage was not restricted to straits.
And since they have "interpeted" the Iowa Constitution to mean something the people have already decided it does not, they get to go get new jobs now.
Why do voters get to decide on who is worthy of civil rights? If a law is contrary to the Constitution, then it should be thrown out. Would we be better served as a nation if only white male landowners were still the only ones allowed to vote? Thank God that the Constitution was interpreted in a way that made freedom and individual liberties a reality for ALL.
Normally I would read all the posts before responding to one, but this one makes about the least sense of any that I have read on C-D yet.
It's not a special right. Check it out:
Gays can marry someone of the opposite gender, but why would we want to?
Gays cannot marry someone of the same gender, though we would want to.
Straights can marry someone of the opposite gender, and want to, and do.
Straights cannot marry someone of the opposite gender, but why would they want to?
The inequity should be pretty easy to understand. If marriage equality was allowed, straights could marry someone of the same gender, but why would they want to? Doesn't matter, they don't have to.
Gays and straights would still have equal rights, though, whereas now they do not.
"Gays can marry someone of the opposite gender, but why would we want to?"
Since marriage is a social, religious and legal union defined in all cases by the natural biological relationship between a man and a woman, and that relationship requires mutual sexual exclusivity to preserve the rights of each of the partners and the children their sexual relationship creates, why would a homosexual who is incapable of conceiving a child outside of the marriage be a party to a contract which enforces sexual exclusivity as though gay sex made babies the way strait sex does.
You don't need a commercial pilot's license to operate a golf cart.
Dosen't really matter. Thanks to the conservative, the CA ban on same sex marriage will go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. EVen Fox News said that there's a great chance that the judges will rule in favor of same-sex marriage.
So you might want to hunker down and stock up on food. The bad gay people come
Who would have thought that conservatives could be responsibile for legalization of same sex marriage? They just couldn't help themselves but challenge CA. LOL
It may never get to the United States Supreme Court.
Legislating from the bench is not representative democracy.
The people spoke tonight and that is very encouraging.
so you don't believe that judges should follow the constitution? banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. it's not 'legislating from the bench' it's called following the constitution.
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.
