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.
Senior judges are screened by legislatures, by representatives that are elected by the people. The composition of those legislatures change when the people believe a change is needed, and any judges appointed and screened will reflect the viewpoints at that point in time.
You'd dispute it if I said that I think ice feels cold.
If it isn't an issue...why are SCOTUS nominations always (and it is right now) such a big deal?
There is no better way to "reflect the viewpoints at that point in time" than to let the people vote on it, and have THAT make the determination. That way...things are how most people prefer them to be. You can never please all...so the most fair is to always please as many as possible.
Vote...and let the chips fall where they may.
IMO...high Court decisions have resulted in the legal sanction of the most evil and heinous stuff in the history of mankind. Rulings that would have never been enacted by referendum...so, viewpoints at the time, be damned.
It would be better for Christians if the authority to marry people together was taken away , then the courts would have to marry every one
As usual, our government shows how messed up it is...and we have the Judiciary conducting itself as the Legislature.
With the current system, the way it now works...if you don't take out a "Marriage License"...that is then officially endorsed to become a "Marriage Certificate"...there is no recognition (except for the limited recognition of "common law marriage") for any legal purpose.
Personally, I would prefer the government not be involved in "marriage" at all...I believe that should be strictly a religious or spiritual thing between the people involved.
If people want a religious ceremony like a "wedding", they could have that...but without it having any secular legal standing.
From a legal standpoint...just file civil unions, that spell out everything.
General estate/probate/survivorship laws and other "spousal rights" under law probably don't conform exactly to ones wishes anyway. Create a document that is filed that customizes it so there is no questions about what each wants in all possible situations.
No one wouldn't be eligible. Let anyone "union" with anyone else (of age) they want, even multiples.
And no laws that favor or disfavor those that are unioned compared to those that are not...any benefits or privileges would be spelled out in the terms of the "union documents" that are filed. The only government involvement would be the courts, to sort out any disputes...like with any other contract or agreement. No proprietary tax status, no inheritance or estate regulations based upon it, no laws giving rights based upon it, etc.
This method solves the whole thing. It also has the ability for any "union" to spell out its own specific and unique terms. And puts "marriage" within the religious sector...with government completely separate and having nothing to do with it.
Considering the failure rate of "marriage"...this would be a better way to go. As it is now...it's just a windfall for divorce attorneys, and a "make-work" set-up for the government personnel.
Leave "marriage" as a religious/sacred/spiritual thing...that has no legal effect. Get the government out of it.
Then, you could forget about the government passing stuff like DOMA, or overreaching judges creating laws on SSM. They wouldn't have any say about "marriage" whatsoever since it would be strictly a religious affair.
Agree, but also want to add, when a person who says he is a woman, but is genetically a full grown adult, wants to use a toilet facility or locker room for woman and girls...his rights end when they conflict with the rights of the woman. So it works both ways. Give them separate rooms..no problem. But because someone decides that day they are of the other sex is BS. Get a sex change operation, and no problem.
Just remember, Bruce Jenner, states he is a woman, but he still has full MALE genitalia. So, do people with daughters want him walking into a ladies locker room and dropping his drawers?
Kaitlyn Jenner would be in the stall with the door closed. My daughters would see nothing. By the time Kaitlyn Jenner was finished going to the bathroom, she would stand up, and pull up her drawers just like the rest of us.
Hopefully, she would wash her hands. Not washing her hands is far more dangerous to our daughters than being in the next stall.
Why do these clearly illegal bills crop up in the South?
It's a combination of religious bigotry and terrible educational systems. In many parts of the south, people are too stupid to understand that this country's laws derive from the Constitution, not the bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
I spend half my time in the South. Depending on where you go, (Northern Florida, Georgia, parts of Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi for sure) yes, the backwater applies, and people living there are proud of it. The Carolinas, especially North Carolina are rapidly changing, as are parts of Alabama. Can't speak for Kentucky, but I have my suspicions they would be part of that perspective, especially seeing that the Kim Davis's have an audience there.
I can speak for Kentucky, and I can tell you unequivocally that there is a reason for every single stereotype about the South. Every single one.
I spend a lot of time up in Kim Davis country, and I can tell you that most people up there don't even comprehend that the civilized world has different values than they do. I'm not saying they don't agree with the rest of the world's values, or even that they don't understand them - they literally do not even comprehend that the modern world has different values. And they don't particularly care, either.
The Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear the baker's case because the baker had no law to protect him. Really? The court refused to hear the case, telling the baker that, because baking was not a religious based business, that he had no reason to deny service based on his religious beliefs. The appeals court let the lower court ruling stand.
As you said, that was the Colorado Supreme Court. The Mississippi case is in the federal system, not the state.
There are 94 U.S. District Courts and 13 Courts of Appeal.
Well, seeing the Republican AG considers the law extra-constitutional, I suspect there will be no appeal, and it will stand. He warned the legislative branch that it would be struct down, as was his duty. Your interpretation of the Constitution is what you want it to say; the Courts are the arbitrator of what it really does say, and that has been the case since the very early 1800's. I can dig up the reference if you question that fact.
Who are you talking about?
Jim Hood, Mississippi Attorney General, is a Dem.
Loretta Lynch, US Attorney General is a Dem.
Quote:
“Our attorneys will evaluate this decision to determine whether or not to appeal all or parts of Thursday’s ruling. We do intend to appeal the Court's decision earlier in the week to extend the injunction to cover circuit clerks, who were never parties to the case.
Kaitlyn Jenner would be in the stall with the door closed. My daughters would see nothing. By the time Kaitlyn Jenner was finished going to the bathroom, she would stand up, and pull up her drawers just like the rest of us.
Hopefully, she would wash her hands. Not washing her hands is far more dangerous to our daughters than being in the next stall.
This argument of "in the stall with the door closed...and nobody sees anything" has been used as a defense on this before. It is completely bogus.
It goes way beyond just using the toilet in a "lavatory". It would necessarily extend to "locker rooms" as well, with people completely naked next to each other for extended time showering and changing.
Some of the stuff that has been deemed legal in this country based upon "Constitutional Rights" to "equality" and "privacy", is indicative of how messed up the people that have been running things really are. IMO.
All these society changing matters should only be enacted based upon a referendum of the society. And THAT'S what the Law should be.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
Who are you talking about?
Jim Hood, Mississippi Attorney General, is a Dem.
If that is the case I stand corrected. I made the mistake I often lambaste others over; I assumed that since this is Mississippi, that all State executive were Republicans. I should have checked. My mistake.
If that is the case I stand corrected. I made the mistake I often lambaste others over; I assumed that since this is Mississippi, that all State executive were Republicans. I should have checked. My mistake.
The rest of the comments stand.
In many parts of the south, it's a distinction without a genuine difference. I know a lot of lifelong Democrats up in the Kentucky mountains who hate gay marriage (and gays in general) with a white-hot passion. They practically froth at the mouth when you get them talking about it, which of course is fun to do, but that's neither here nor there. Point is, some of the most socially conservative people I've ever met are some Southern Democrats. In fact, even Kim Davis is a Democrat.
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.
