I support SSM because I believe adults have the right to marry whomever they choose. I'm not an expert on the Constitution nor pretend to be. I have my opinions based on my opinions. There is no other reason for them.
Judge Walker came to his decision by solid fact finding, it has not been faulted, nor will it. To question it is to not understand it......and to question it while saying you support SSM.....is VERY strange indeed.
That fact that they ignored individual liberties is an apriori probability. They didn't vote as to whether THEY should or should not join in marriage to someone of the same sex, that would be a statement of their beliefs in terms of their own conduct. They did vote as to whether OTHERS should or should not join in marriage to someone of the same sex, that is enacting a law to restrict the freedoms of others.
There "intent" isn't relevant at the point they expand their belief when enacting laws that require the government to discriminate against others. That isn't about personal belief, it's an action to restrict others.
Your opinions are based on your opinions? Tautology at its finest along with circular logic. Thanks for confirming that there is little or no reasoning going on, that was the point I have been making about your opinions for quite a while here.I support SSM because I believe adults have the right to marry whomever they choose. I'm not an expert on the Constitution nor pretend to be. I have my opinions based on my opinions. There is no other reason for them.
Alabama placed a vote on their ballot to amend their Constitution to bar interracial marriage. That Alabama Constitutional amendment was invalided by the Loving decision in 1967.
Was Alabama's vote to ban interracial marriage Constitutionally sound?
(BTW & FYI - When a law is found unconstitutional, that law is not stricken from the statutes or State Constitution, it remains in the printing until removed later by legislative action or a new Amendment. In 2000 Alabama finally got around to removing the discriminatory language from their Constitution. 33-years after the Loving decision. The really sad thing is that 40% of the people voted to retain the language even though it was void.)
Yes, I have my opinions. I'm not an expert on the Constitution. I don't care who marries whom. Sorry if that bothers you. I don't pretend to be a Constitutional expert, not even on message boards. I'll leave that to the rest of you.
When you are a citizen of Oregon, you file in Oregon courts. When a federal suit is filed in Oregon federal courts (as they are in all federal courts) there is a random assignment of Judges.
There is no "judge shopping" in federal courts you are limited to the district you can file in based on residency and the judge is assigned randomly by computer program.
Most of those in CA who voted for Prop 8 were religious people, so I suspect that it was based on their religious beliefs and not an intent to be mean to their fellow citizens. JMO.