All they'll need is New Hampshire and Rhode Island, and they gayfecta will be complete! I imagine that New York and Dirty Jersey will follow suit, as well. The gay marriage upswing will probably stop with Maryland, though, as I believe all states further south and west of that (except Iowa, of course) have constitutional gay marriage bans, or at least statutes banning it. Still, it's terrific that at least some states have gotten their acts together, and more should follow soon.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Blindy obviously shouldn't have said:
Some guy was on the radio yesterday talking about how kids are going to be confused. Because, you know, their parents would never explain gay people to them. That might lead them to not hating gays.
But if we make it a law, children might be taught that such a law exists. Imagine your horror if:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Zair who doth quote:
It is a really good sign that the last couple states legalized it through the legislature rather than having to rely on the courts.
Just imagine if the courts couldn't pass legislation!
quote:
Maradon! wrote this stupid crap:
Just imagine if the courts couldn't pass legislation!
Did you bother to read the Iowa court's ruling?
It is a well reasoned argument of exactly why the Iowa ban on gay marriage violated the Iowa Constitution.
You do know that finding laws unconstitutional is a power and responsibility of the judicial branch, right? Zair fucked around with this message on 05-09-2009 at 01:11 AM.
quote:
I bet you never expected Zair to say:
Did you bother to read the Iowa court's ruling?It is a well reasoned argument of exactly why the Iowa ban on gay marriage violated the Iowa Constitution.
You do know that finding laws unconstitutional is a power and responsibility of the judicial branch, right?
Only in the constitution. Pfth.
quote:
Zairing:
Did you bother to read the Iowa court's ruling?It is a well reasoned argument of exactly why the Iowa ban on gay marriage violated the Iowa Constitution.
You do know that finding laws unconstitutional is a power and responsibility of the judicial branch, right?
Iowa courts can overrule Iowa laws that violate the Iowa constitution, but states like California, where the gay marriage ban is a part of the constitution, can't "rely" on the courts as you seemed to be implying.
The courts aren't a legislature of last resort, they can't legalize anything.
Obviously, the anti-gay people will wait until 2011, but by then, I'd wager that they'll already have lost. Gay marriage will have been around for 2 years, and, having not seen a vengeful God smite them Old Testament style, most people won't care enough to vote. People might even discover that gay people are (gasp!) actual human beings. It's harder to vote to deny someone rights when they're your neighbors/friends.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Maradon! screamed this from the crapper:
All this to protect an unnecessary, restrictive, and obsolete certification process!
Whatever gets ya through the day, pal. Don't worry, though. The gay marriage is only a statute in PA; the legislature can overturn the ban as easily as it enacted it, procedurally speaking.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Maradon! thought about the meaning of life:
Iowa courts can overrule Iowa laws that violate the Iowa constitution, but states like California, where the gay marriage ban is a part of the constitution, can't "rely" on the courts as you seemed to be implying.
.
Huh? No, I just meant that initially, in California and Mass. (I think), gay marriage was driven by the courts. This in no way reflected general public opinion in those states. As we saw in California, that meant that it didn't last.
The fact that state legislatures are actually voting (in some cases with supermajorities) in favor of it is a good sign that supporting gay rights is becoming mainstream (and not political suicide).
Then when I responded to your post, I thought you were calling the Iowa decision "legislating from the bench", which would have been dumb. But I guess that's not what you meant.
There is a law saying that Men and Women can get married.
The Supreme Court of whatever state is presented with a case where some gay people want to get married but are not permitted to because of this law and rules that limiting marriages to men and women is discriminatory against men and men and women and women who want to get married. It is against the constitution to have laws that are discriminatory.
This is the proper function of the Supreme Court of any state. To decide on cases and to decide if laws or statutes are enforceable or unconstitutional. The concept that this is "legislating from the bench" ignores the founders intent that the courts serve as a check to the legislative and executive branches to keep them from ignoring the constitution and passing whatever laws they feel like passing.
If tomorrow Congress decided to pass a law saying they were all congress for life now, you'd be damn glad that the Supreme Court was able to overturn unconstitutional laws. Its also laughable that the concept of "legislating from the bench" seems to only get brought up when the Court overturns laws that republicans liked. If they overturn laws that liberals like or that they don't care about they're pretty nonchalant about it. Blindy fucked around with this message on 05-14-2009 at 08:24 AM.
quote:
Blindy had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Its also laughable that the concept of "legislating from the bench" seems to only get brought up when the Court overturns laws that republicans liked. If they overturn laws that liberals like or that they don't care about they're pretty nonchalant about it.
That's because liberals are a bunch of spineless pussies who don't believe in anything or care about OUR GREAT COUNTRY so nobody makes any noise when their laws get overturned.
Duh. Bricktop fucked around with this message on 05-14-2009 at 12:39 PM.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Maradon! absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
The courts aren't a legislature of last resort, they can't legalize anything.
Jiminy freakin' Christmas, this is scary! 
You make it sound like everything is illegal unless there's a law somewhere that says otherwise; I'm pretty sure the entire foundation of our society is exactly the opposite.
So, as a matter of fact, the courts can indeed legalize things by striking down the laws that wrongly ban them.
How's your manifesto coming?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Bloodsage who doth quote:
Jiminy freakin' Christmas, this is scary!
You make it sound like everything is illegal unless there's a law somewhere that says otherwise; I'm pretty sure the entire foundation of our society is exactly the opposite.
So, as a matter of fact, the courts can indeed legalize things by striking down the laws that wrongly ban them.
How's your manifesto coming?
That actually isn't anything even remotely close to what I meant, although I suppose if you take what I said completely out of the context of the discussion going on in the thread I guess it might seem that way!
The comment "The courts can't legalize anything" was made in reference to states with constitutional bans on gay marriage, in which case the legislature must amend the constitution and the courts are powerless to "legalize" anything. If you look carefully, you may see that this was pretty much the overall theme of that post.
quote:
x--BlindyO-('-'Q) :
This is the proper function of the Supreme Court of any state.
I never suggested that it wasn't, once again I was referring to states in which there is a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Courts can clarify the rules, they can't write new ones.
quote:
Its also laughable that the concept of "legislating from the bench" seems to only get brought up when the Court overturns laws that republicans liked.
Funny, then, how I'm neither a republican nor do I agree with gay marriage bans! It's almost like the things I'm saying are based in "reason" and "principle" or something like that. Not like, say, demonizing Bush's trillion dollar bailout then turning around and explaining away Obama's.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Zair who doth quote:
Huh? No, I just meant that initially, in California and Mass. (I think), gay marriage was driven by the courts. This in no way reflected general public opinion in those states. As we saw in California, that meant that it didn't last.The fact that state legislatures are actually voting (in some cases with supermajorities) in favor of it is a good sign that supporting gay rights is becoming mainstream (and not political suicide).
Then when I responded to your post, I thought you were calling the Iowa decision "legislating from the bench", which would have been dumb. But I guess that's not what you meant.
Ok then we cool 
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Verily, Steven Steve doth proclaim:
Who gives a fuck about marriage? Who?
almost gave a real answer
(REASON. and PRINCIPLES.) Blindy fucked around with this message on 05-15-2009 at 08:22 AM.
quote:
Steven Steve startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
Who gives a fuck about marriage? Who?
That's actually the answer to this whole stupid flap. "Marriage" should be a strictly religious thing with no legal standing. Whatever we want to call the thing with legal standing shouldn't arbitrarily discriminate.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage must read alot of poetry:
That's actually the answer to this whole stupid flap. "Marriage" should be a strictly religious thing with no legal standing. Whatever we want to call the thing with legal standing shouldn't arbitrarily discriminate.
This is the solution I prefer as well.
