- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Messages
- 11,963
- Reaction score
- 3,543
- Location
- Naperville, IL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
One day, gay people are going to realize that they are their own worst enemy.
I am confused since SSM is now LEGAL in six states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and in DC. Are you saying that the courts CREATED (via judicial activism) a SSM law in Iowa?
It's not a stretch to say that a lot of those who went out yesterday were doing so specifically to support their anti-SSM stance.
I only stretch things to reasonable lengths which is to say, I don't stretch them at all.stretch it a bit more and you can probably surmise that ALL of us are anti SSM......:2razz:
Why is any of that a problem?
Because laws can only be made by legislation or constitutional amendment, not merely by the current "feelings" of the SCOTUS. What is the use of haovng laws if they may chage without any legislative acton? If the courts and the executive are free to "interpret" them AS THEY PLEASE then they have no real weight at all. There are defined prodecures for making laws and amending the constitution for good reasons and those prcedures/laws should be respected as well.
Your Star answered you pretty well. It wasn't judicial activism. It was proper judicial review. You can't break laws because you don't like something. If the Constitution says you can't discriminate, then you can't. Frankly, it's none of your buisness who I marry. And only I can define and honor my marriage. The majority has no role in it.
So, in other words, SSM was legal for a long, long time in Iowa, they just did not know it. If the U.S. Constitution says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" then it means UNLESS the state wants to make you take a class, pass a test and charge you a fee. Is it not amazing that laws, that we thought were quite clear, must be "interpreted", possibly many decades later, to say what they REALLY meant to say? ;-)
Your Star answered you pretty well. It wasn't judicial activism. It was proper judicial review. You can't break laws because you don't like something. If the Constitution says you can't discriminate, then you can't. Frankly, it's none of your buisness who I marry. And only I can define and honor my marriage. The majority has no role in it.
They looked at the law and not feelings.
I'm pretty sure that hardly anyone cares what the owner of a fast food chain believes in which is the mayors of Boston and Chicago were supported by hardly anyone.It boggles my mind that so many people give a rat's ass what causes the owner of a fast food chain believes in. That is so far down the list of reasons why I would or wouldn't go to a restaurant that it has never once come into consideration.
Great post!!
Meanwhile droves of people are patting themselves on the back because they went out for chicken yesterday. Do they really understand what they are supporting?
It boggles my mind that so many people give a rat's ass what causes the owner of a fast food chain believes in. That is so far down the list of reasons why I would or wouldn't go to a restaurant that it has never once come into consideration.
Since the SAME words were used to justify BOTH SCOTUS decisions on "separate but equal", as no change to the Constitution occurred between the two OPPOSITE rulings, then what, other than feelings, made the difference?
It should have been, and likely would have been had it been brought before the court. Both sides look at the law and make arguments. The court listens, looks at the alw and decides. You lose, make a better argument. Don't whine. Don't pretend that it was activism.
Um, that was an Iowa constitional decision, not the SCOTUS and the U.S. Constitution. Eat mor chick'n!
God forbid a CEO states he/she supports the unborn's/fetus's right to live.
There'd probably be violence. :roll:
Great post!!
Meanwhile droves of people are patting themselves on the back because they went out for chicken yesterday. Do they really understand what they are supporting?
LOL. As I have pointed out in another thread branch, that simply means that the NEXT group of judges may decide the exact oppostie or that the constitution of Iowa must be amended to clarify a different position on SSM. I have no interest either way what the fine folks in Iowa decide to do. If the Iowa legisalture was unaware of the meaning of the Iowa state constitution that is of no concern to me, perhaps not even to the voters in Iowa. Striking down a law as unconstitutional is not "activism" yet I do find it strange when a court makes a ruling in the exact opposite direction based on the same laws. ;-)
I don't know, but you're really making me want to eat there. And I don't even necessarily like the place.
I don't know, but you're really making me want to eat there. And I don't even necessarily like the place.
The profits from the business go to negative bigoted lobby groups that further a twisted and anti-American version of Christianity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?