Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 101718192021 LastLast
Results 172 to 180 of 181

Thread: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

  1. #172
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Parker, Az
    Posts
    3,388

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    Obviously I am not asserting that we have a literal democracy, but to assert that judicial activism subverts the republican process would invite the kind or mindless derision that Im not particularly interested in dealing with so I used the more popular generally used term of democracy.

    As to what ever recourse I have, you fail to acknowledge my right and obligation to insist that my elected officials appoint and ratify ONLY those judges who respect the Constitution and to demand that they do what ever is within their power to stop those who do not.
    Which I have no problem with, as it is also part of the process. But it still doesn't change the reality that whatever they rule, with those who are on the court now (usually narrowly these days), has teeth, and is how the Constitution is ruled on in our Constitutionally Democratic Republic. Basically I am describing the system. The rest is fair and often fun to debate, but it doesn't really change the reality of the system as it is constituted.
    I am 49, bald, ugly, and don't own a single cool thing. Kids like me though.

  2. #173
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Parker, Az
    Posts
    3,388

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    Oh I see! And now I suppose you are an advocate of abolishing all bigamy laws too.... (ohhh there I go again with that consistency thing! When will I EVER stop??)
    A comment on this...... you are an avowed conservative. That's fine. But I don't see you as a real conservative. Just a partisan party type person. That isn't bad or good. It just is. But here is my rub; the thing that always strikes me about so-called conservatives is they want as much control over human behavior that liberals do. They just want a difference emphasis. Things like bigamy, prostitution, drug laws, and so forth (I am purposely leaving gay marraige out of the equation), illustrate this. They are not conservative in the rights of individuals, and of keeping government off the peoples backs. They are just like the liberals and the only difference is in "how" they want control of the people. Both sides want control - just different kinds of control.

    The only true conservatives are libertarians. All the rest of the party politicians, and especially those on the left or right, are just the same.... wanting to control people and behaviors, with the only differences being in the emphasis of control.
    I am 49, bald, ugly, and don't own a single cool thing. Kids like me though.

  3. #174

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by sgallan View Post
    The only true conservatives are libertarians. All the rest of the party politicians, and especially those on the left or right, are just the same.... wanting to control people and behaviors, with the only differences being in the emphasis of control.
    True, true, true. Absolutely correct in my opinion.

  4. #175
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,962

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    You asked TWO questions.
    Why should someone have to leave their home to get what they see as a basic human right?
    I understand Zapp's point that gays are not a protected class but personally, I don't get why anyone would oppose gay marriage. What is in it for them to not allow two people to marry?


    I was specifically responding to the first.

    As to the second. Most I imagine object on religious and moral grounds and feel that it contributes to breakdown of the nuclear family which in turn contributes to disintegration of society as a whole. THAT IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND THEIR ARGUMENT TO BE. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY MINE WHICH IS MORE OF A LEGALISTIC VIEWPOINT...so dont bytch at me for how they feel.
    I have read your posts and understand your positions so I am not attacking you. I am just saying that I don't get how people can feel that strongly about trying to deny gays marriage.

    The whole breakdown of the nuclear family seems preposterous. I have a traditional family and now that gay marriage in legal in New Hampshire, am I going to be tempted to run off with some guy? Do fundamentalists (or any of the other people opposed to gay marriage) think that heterosexuality is that tough of a choice that if the option to settle down with a man with official recognition from the state was available, men are going to be leaving their wives in droves? Would they be tempted to a give homosexuality a chance if gay marriage was an option?

    The logic escapes me.
    Last edited by ODH; 01-13-2010 at 11:16 PM.

  5. #176

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    What ODH says.

    I get the outrage over abortion, capital punishment, gun control, climate change laws, and other hot button issues. I don't get the uproar over gay marriage (from the "anti" side). Is it simply religious opposition? Seems to me that opposing gay marriage isn't going to make gay people stop being gay or having sex. So why fight this battle to the death?

  6. #177

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by ODH View Post
    I have read your posts and understand your positions so I am not attacking you. I am just saying that I don't get how people can feel that strongly about trying to deny gays marriage.

    The whole breakdown of the nuclear family seems preposterous. I have a traditional family and now that gay marriage in legal in New Hampshire, am I going to be tempted to run off with some guy? Do fundamentalists (or any of the other people opposed to gay marriage) think that heterosexuality is that tough of a choice that if the option to settle down with a man with official recognition from the state was available, men are going to be leaving their wives in droves? Would they be tempted to a give homosexuality a chance if gay marriage was an option?

    The logic escapes me.
    The logic escapes you because there is no logic to it odh, it is an irrational fear which is why it is called homophobia. Generally the ones displaying it are not 100% comfortable with their own sexuality.

  7. #178

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    No.... its not what I "feel" its WHAT THE WORDS SAY!
    And who interpretts what the words say? Judges. There is lots of debate about what the constitution says/means. The supreme court (who are, at least in theory, 7 of the best legal minds in the country) were pretty evenly split on a recent gun control case that you seem to think is completely obvious. In Loving vs Virginia they ruled that it's unconsitutional to ban people from marrying based on their race even though, as you keep pointing out, the right to marry is not guaranteed anywhere in the constitution, was Loving vs. Virginia a case of activist judges overruling the will of the people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    WHAT part of THIS do you not understand? The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    I understand it just fine, the problem is that lots of people seem to feel that the rights of same sex couples to marry is guaranteed by the constitution (the same way the rights of interracial couples to marry is) and someone needs to rule on that, you seem to think you should be the one to make that decision, others think the supreme court is more qualified.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    YES a right DOES have to be clearly guaranteed. And they ARE. Many people think there is a "right" to free healthcare, others a "right" to free medicine. Do you want the courts deciding THOSE rights too? What about MY "right" to walk about naked? Should that be left to Constitutional interpretation as well. (Trust me... you DONT want me to have this "right".)
    If someone thinks they have the consitutional right to free health care, or free medicine, or to walk around naked then yes the courts should decide whether or not those rights are guaranteed by the consitution, who else would make that decision?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    And lets NOT forget there IS a way to make those LEGAL rights. It's called the Constitutional Amendment Process. There are 27 so far, so DONT tell me its impossible.
    I don't think anyone is saying that an amendment isn't possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    WHY have Legislatures Sully? or even referendums? Seriously?
    Unless something has changed since I took civics in high school, the legislatures make laws, the courts interpret those laws (the supreme court is the final authority on the constitutionality of laws) if the legislatures create a law that violates the constitution, the courts are supposed to overturn it (even if that overrules the 'will of the people') you seem to think that it's OK for the court to overrule laws that you don't like but if you agree with the law that's overturned it's a bunch of 'judicial activism'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    It appears to me that you want to hand over all decisions (that you dont like how your fellow citizens or elected officials vote on anyway) to men who have NO accountability to ANYONE but a higher judge and in the case of the Supreme Court then THEY would be ultimate dictators deciding for themselves what's good for us NOT ourselves or our elected officials.
    I want all decisions about the constitutionality of laws to be handled by the courts, yes. They should not decide what is good or not good for us, they should decide what is legal and what isn't. There are good legal arguments about the legality of denying people the right to marry because of their gender. The 'will of the people' says one thing, the constitution may or may not say something else the court get's to decide, that's how our system works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    Why not let some judge decide who gets a plumbing license? Or what a teacher should be paid or what the fine should be for speeding. After all if I get caught for speeding in one state, I may have to pay more than in another? Is that FAIR? Shouldnt some court make that fair TOO???????
    If there'a a law about who get's a plumbing license or what teachers should get paid that may be unconstitutional, then judges should rule on that. If the 'will of the people' is that catholics can't get plumbing licenses, or that blonde teachers get paid less and the constitutionality is challenged, then the court should make the decision.

    The point I've been trying to make is that you claimed that you disagree with the courts overruling the will of the people, but it seems like you are OK with the court overruling the will of the people in cases where you agree with their constitutional argument but it's wrong and they're 'activist judges' when you disagree with their argument which leads me to believe that you think you know more than the supreme court.
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

  8. #179

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Quote Originally Posted by FloggingSully View Post
    And who interpretts what the words say? Judges. There is lots of debate about what the constitution says/means. The supreme court (who are, at least in theory, 7 of the best legal minds in the country) were pretty evenly split on a recent gun control case that you seem to think is completely obvious. In Loving vs Virginia they ruled that it's unconsitutional to ban people from marrying based on their race even though, as you keep pointing out, the right to marry is not guaranteed anywhere in the constitution, was Loving vs. Virginia a case of activist judges overruling the will of the people?


    I understand it just fine, the problem is that lots of people seem to feel that the rights of same sex couples to marry is guaranteed by the constitution (the same way the rights of interracial couples to marry is) and someone needs to rule on that, you seem to think you should be the one to make that decision, others think the supreme court is more qualified.


    If someone thinks they have the consitutional right to free health care, or free medicine, or to walk around naked then yes the courts should decide whether or not those rights are guaranteed by the consitution, who else would make that decision?


    I don't think anyone is saying that an amendment isn't possible.


    Unless something has changed since I took civics in high school, the legislatures make laws, the courts interpret those laws (the supreme court is the final authority on the constitutionality of laws) if the legislatures create a law that violates the constitution, the courts are supposed to overturn it (even if that overrules the 'will of the people') you seem to think that it's OK for the court to overrule laws that you don't like but if you agree with the law that's overturned it's a bunch of 'judicial activism'.


    I want all decisions about the constitutionality of laws to be handled by the courts, yes. They should not decide what is good or not good for us, they should decide what is legal and what isn't. There are good legal arguments about the legality of denying people the right to marry because of their gender. The 'will of the people' says one thing, the constitution may or may not say something else the court get's to decide, that's how our system works.


    If there'a a law about who get's a plumbing license or what teachers should get paid that may be unconstitutional, then judges should rule on that. If the 'will of the people' is that catholics can't get plumbing licenses, or that blonde teachers get paid less and the constitutionality is challenged, then the court should make the decision.

    The point I've been trying to make is that you claimed that you disagree with the courts overruling the will of the people, but it seems like you are OK with the court overruling the will of the people in cases where you agree with their constitutional argument but it's wrong and they're 'activist judges' when you disagree with their argument which leads me to believe that you think you know more than the supreme court.
    That is some serious PWNAGE there. Wow, I can see Tight_a$$ tucking his tail between his legs, putting his head and ears down and slithering away as I type. OUCH!

  9. #180

    Default Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

    Cindy McCain posing to support Gay Marriage

    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...ot/?test=faces

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •