Originally posted by Cyner
It's stupid that the court can just dismiss something because the state is too lazy to defend it. Prop 8 was voted on twice, with the same result.
the ruling was that the plaintiffs weren't harmed by the prop being deemed unconstitutional by a lower court, and thus had no reason to have their appeal heard
http://billmoyers.com/content/in-one-map-heres-what-the-supreme-court-just-did/
it had nothing to do with people being willing to support it, the courts heard the appeal in the first place because that is how they determine if the appeal is valid, and even if something is successful by referendum it doesn't mean that it isn't unconstitutional. If left to a referendum, flag burning would be outlawed and civil rights would have never passed.
Originally posted by Cyner
I don't care if gays get married as long as it doesn't intrude on religious liberties, such as being able to choose to not marry gay couples in a church.
that has never been the issue and you know it
Originally posted by Cyner
I still greatly dislike homosexuality and the propaganda associated, but those are still people, people who deserve justice. Even if I don't like them.
well, bless your heart then, I remember Jesus saying something like that too, or was it MLK...
man, no, it could have been Ghandi... I mean, all of those paragons of moral philosophy have said similar things about hating people that are different, it is so hard to remember sometimes.
[also, I don't really believe gay people are different in a way more meaningful that people who like to eat cheese, which I don't; but hey, my best friends eat cheese!]
Originally posted by Cyner
(meanwhile my best friend is gay, lel)
right, because that means anything...
Polls taken in California have shown that support for same sex marriage in the state has increased while opposition has decreased since 2008, according to one poll* the percentage in favor is as high as 61%--if that's accurate then I doubt that California would have been representing the majority of its citizens in challenging the ruling.
*source: http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2443.pdf
Edit: And to look to a historical parallel, in states with sizable black minorities (but clear white majorities) where there were laws discriminating against blacks, would you have said that it would have been proper for the states to "represent their citizens" against court rulings that overturned Jim Crow Laws and other such laws?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Based on his previous positions, I'm inclined to think it's the former.
that was my assumption also, I didn't want to jump to conclusions though. Sometimes people who believe terrible things have persuasive reasons for doing so, and if there was a legal precedence issue here, I'd be happy to entertain that debate.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I suspect its based on the "originalist" view that conservatives have been taking in the last twenty years, since the power of judicial review is not in the constitution. Of course, neither are check-and-balances.
Of the implied powers, I think Judicial Review is the least "implied". It is almost directly stated in the constitution:
"...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
And still, to this day, the SC (lol, your initials, too!!! WEEEE!) cannot arbitrarily decide to "interpret the law" and make a ruling. It has to end up at the SC level through appeals (the appellate process) so it is still very similar to the system that the Framers had in mind, imo. Marbury v. Madison happened when almost all of the original Framers were still alive (1803) and I don't remember them have a shit rage fest about Marshall's interpretation.
But "check and balances" is definitely in the constitution but not directly as a name. I don't even think the more appropriate name of "Separation of Powers" is listed in the constitution. I could be wrong.
Originally posted by Cyner
It's stupid that the court can just dismiss something because the state is too lazy to defend it. Prop 8 was voted on twice, with the same result.I don't care if gays get married as long as it doesn't intrude on religious liberties, such as being able to choose to not marry gay couples in a church. I still greatly dislike homosexuality and the propaganda associated, but those are still people, people who deserve justice. Even if I don't like them.
(meanwhile my best friend is gay, lel)
Is this a picture of you?
😖hifty:
My point about the system, earlier: the system was setup to prevent the majority from making laws that oppress the minority. The SC is right in striking down laws that oppress the minority IF they can justify (with a majority) that the law voted in by the people DOES infringe upon those protected rights (i.e. unconstitutional).
not sure if you guys follow RightWingWatch.org, but they have some good pundit reactions to the SC's ruling:
YouTube video
YouTube video
YouTube video
not a whole lot to say about them other than they make me chuckle and felt like passing them on
Originally posted by Oliver North
the ruling was that the plaintiffs weren't harmed by the prop being deemed unconstitutional by a lower court, and thus had no reason to have their appeal heardhttp://billmoyers.com/content/in-one-map-heres-what-the-supreme-court-just-did/
it had nothing to do with people being willing to support it, the courts heard the appeal in the first place because that is how they determine if the appeal is valid, and even if something is successful by referendum it doesn't mean that it isn't unconstitutional. If left to a referendum, flag burning would be outlawed and civil rights would have never passed.
Ah, that makes sense. Anger has vanished.
that has never been the issue and you know it
This has been the major issue for many, many people. While not very religious myself, I know a lot of people who are and it is a major concern to them. Especially seeing a good number of news stories where a private business or church gets sued and loses because a gay person's feelings were hurt when they weren't served by someone who believes homosexuality is against their religion.
well, bless your heart then, I remember Jesus saying something like that too, or was it MLK...man, no, it could have been Ghandi... I mean, all of those paragons of moral philosophy have said similar things about hating people that are different, it is so hard to remember sometimes.
There's no need to be passive aggressive about things.
[also, I don't really believe gay people are different in a way more meaningful that people who like to eat cheese, which I don't; but hey, my best friends eat cheese!]
Well I'm going to disagree with you on this. It seems there are definite psychological differences caused by hormone imbalance or trauma lead many to say "I've always been gay". There are however plenty of people who just choose it. The meaningful way they are different is the much higher drug use, and STD infection rates among gays in the US.
right, because that means anything...
Just means that me and this friend have come to an understanding and can exchange different ideas and opinions on the matter.
Originally posted by Cyner
This has been the major issue for many, many people. While not very religious myself, I know a lot of people who are and it is a major concern to them. Especially seeing a good number of news stories where a private business or church gets sued and loses because a gay person's feelings were hurt when they weren't served by someone who believes homosexuality is against their religion.
Can you cite one instance of a church successfully being sued for refusing to marry two same sex individuals?
Originally posted by Cyner
There's no need to be passive aggressive about things.
You would like me to be more aggressive in calling you immoral and bigoted?
Originally posted by Cyner
Well I'm going to disagree with you on this. It seems there are definite psychological differences caused by hormone imbalance or trauma lead many to say "I've always been gay". There are however plenty of people who just choose it. The meaningful way they are different is the much higher drug use, and STD infection rates among gays in the US.
wow... I'm actually totally happy to let those be the closing arguments of our debate as there is nothing I could ever say that would demonstrate how laughable I find your position that comes near to that.
Originally posted by Robtard
Can't watch vids right now, but the titles alone are entertaining.God's judgement.
Hurts children.
Gays will crush Christians. <--- Think this is my favorite of the 3
the last one is also the best of the 3, though the first one is also good. Expect terrible things, America, GOD IS PISSED!
Originally posted by Cyner
Just means that me and this friend have come to an understanding and can exchange different ideas and opinions on the matter.
I still greatly dislike black culture and the propaganda associated, but those are still people, people who deserve justice. Even if I don't like them.
(meanwhile my best friend is black, lel)
Would you buy it?
Originally posted by Robtard
I still greatly dislike black culture and the propaganda associated, but those are still people, people who deserve justice. Even if I don't like them.(meanwhile my best friend is black, lel)
Would you buy it?
That seems like a legit complaint. 😐
I see no problem with that. 😐
Though I would add "...majority of [blank] culture..." to that comparison you made because you cannot rule out all of any culture because it can get quite diverse.
Originally posted by Robtard
I do love how people take upon themselves to know the thoughts and feelings of God. Pretty arrogant, imo.
As though mere mortals are even capable of coming close to comprehending a supposedly infinitely complex being. 313
Originally posted by Oliver North
are you Paula Deen?hey-o!
hey-o!
Add some mayo!
Discover deez nuts like Galileo!