Page 60 of 61 FirstFirst ... 105058596061 LastLast
Results 591 to 600 of 602

Thread: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

  1. #591
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    Gay relationships are part of your culture, as are gay families. It is only recently that these minorities have been seeking legal acknowledgement, hence the gay rights movement. However, until the 70's, the medical community would not back this up. Now there is plenty of research which shows that gays are normal people, and their families are also normal. ("Normal" meaning capable of fruitful stability.) There is no reason to deny them this right at this point.
    We'rte talking about gay mrriage. The fact New labour very recently allowed civil unions does not mean it is our culture.

    No... I am tired of explaining to people how the law works versus their idea of how tradition works. Most people cannot even make this separation, and you are one of them. I will state the facts and if you don't understand them, then I'm not going to take the time to educate another person.
    You have not attempted to "educate" me or debunk what I'm saying. I'm not saying tradition and law are same thing, simply that law like most things in gov't requires the use of some convetions including how the words are intepreted..


    The constitution doesn't tell governments or judges what they can do, but what they can't do. It is a document of affirmations. There is nothing in the documents that affirm marriage is between a man and a woman. That is how law works. Say it with me now: this is the wording of the law.
    The constitutions limit the gov'ts power to the power they grant or did originally and need to for them to have any real meaning beyond guidelines. Even Alexander Hamilton argued against the bill of rights because he didn't think things like fredom of speech needed protecting because the constitution did not grant the feds the power with which to take free speech away.

    Sure you could interpret a constitution in other ways but it looses much of its pont and power then. But that is a different argument anyway.


    I admit that the language of the time probably didn't consider gays, but I don't admit that this is a reason to deny gays the right to marry now.
    We aren't talking about that. We are talking means not ends, I wish liberals could remember to separate the two.


    The values of tradition, while important, are subjective. Whose tradition are you referring to?
    not really and you mean social. There are concrete ways in which these traditions manifest themselves such as how words are interpreted.

    Additionally... whether or not the judges are being activists is irrelevant. There are two other branches that can weigh in on this matter. They either do, or they don't. If they don't, then you'll have to accept the ruling and move on.
    Nope, if the branches are allowed to take over the roles of over branches it is detrimental to the rule of law and separation of powers even if other branches allow it/do little, or can do little, to fight it. America and other nations are awash with judicial activism and arbitrary power because of that reasoning.



    This is impossible, unless you can resurrect the authors and have them sit on a permanent court. They are the only ones who can tell you its original intent. Until then, the body of the law is interpretive which is why we have judges and juries in the first place.
    Umm we can go on what they say they meant and what precedent and tradition tells us.


    The wording takes on new meaning given the context of law. This is why there are judges and supreme courts in the first place. They have to weigh modern needs with constitutional law and see if the modern needs conflict with the wording of existing law. .
    Ie they have to decide whether liberal social policy conflicts with the rule of law and if it does then the rule of law should be abandoned.

    The judges don't rule based on a history book or some obscure term such as "as they were originally intended"... they look at the WORDING of the law. Say it with me now: the WORDING.
    Again you're not getting this. Phrases and words have different interpretations and even change meanings. If we want the rule of law, if we want the laws to stay the same for everyone and not to be changed by the judicary whenever they feel like it, including at the behest of the executive, then we certainly need to retain the original or traditional meaning of terms and phrases until such time as the legislature decides a change is needed.


    They can't presume or insert traditional values where none exist in the wording.
    Whois saying this? I'm simply saying wording usually needs interpreting and the original and traditional interpretation must hold for constitutions, the rule of law and the speration of powers not to suffer greatly.


    The separation of powers has not in any way been violated. The Supreme Court ruled, now the legislative body can rule if it decides, and so can the public if enough people petition for a referendum.
    The supreme court embarked on judicial activism, it went beyond its alloted branch and made law, that is the sphere of legsilature.



    The idea of gay marriage never even existed when the document was made,
    So when marriage was talked about in it, if it is, then it meant between a man and woman. For a judge to change this is for them to remake the law or constitution.


    This same interpretation is why blacks were able to be freed and the women's suffrage movement was successful. The document was applied to situations outside of the scope of its original creation. That is precisely what the judges are supposed to do.
    Woman's suffrage came through an amendment I believe.




    It's entertaining to see you struggle to define judical activism, but I won't feed this fire.

    They interpreted the letter of the constitution according to the simple formula I stated above. If you can't accept that, then oh well.
    You mean how they bloody well like. Well hello tyranny and arbitrary power, you know there is nothing saying this must be used for only liberal social causes if it had slipped your mind.

    Bottom line:Words and phrases can have many interpretations, if the original/traditional one is not retained by the judiciary, unless the legsilature changes it, then every time they change it they are effectively changing the constitution. This is what you don't seem to understand or at least ignore because your liberal agenda. This goes erodes the rule of law which is reliant of laws being interpreted consistently and arbitrarily, it undermines the constitution turning it into guidelines for any judge to try and fit their agenda into and undermines the seperation of powers by giving the judiciary legsilative powers.

    But most importantluy it increases the risk of executive tryanny because the executive has a lot of power over the judiciary and if they work in concert using this form of arbitrary power the risk of them underming the entire framework of a free constitution greatly increases
    The wording will always be interpreted differently according to the times,
    Then each time that is done the constitution is rewritten in that area. You are admitting my point.
    Equal protection means equal protection, you can't spin it to mean something else.
    Equality is often vague. An equal right to own property could be interpreted as anyone can equally own property if they buy it according to laws equal for all individuals or it can be interpreted as saying all people should own an equal amount of property.
    The judiciary does not have legislative power, they have judical power. They form the law


    Seriously did you not proof-read what you wrote. You say don't have legsilative power and then say they form the law.

    The legislature can debate the moral ethics of this law if they so choose, but the judiciary has no such luxury. They can look at the morals but ultimately the judiciary is bound by the wording of the constitution.
    I agree, though that wording must be interpreted the same unless the legsilature intervenes or the constitution is remade by the judiciary.
    It is the legislature, voted in by their constituents, who are bound to their audience. The judges are not appointed by the public, so they are not bound by what "tradition" means to the public... their job is to look at the letter of the law and make sure it is being followed.
    I agree, tradition and precedent are vital in this.

    Now, I will only say this one more time: what the judiciary did was fair in accordance with the constitution.
    And I'll say it was unconstitutional and an example of the arbitrary power of judicial activism.

    If there are moral reservations over "tradition" being violated, then it is the job of the legislature or a public referendum to change things.
    You confusing the role I give to tradition here. It is simply to interpret what words and phrases in the law and constitution mean. These must stay constant unless the legsilature wants to change them.


    Please cite which laws were undermined according to Iowa's State Constitution. Do this in your next post.
    Do you know what the rule of law means?

    It undermines the rule of law because it means that they can be aribtrarily redefined. as they have been in this case. The judiciary needs to uphold the constantcy of the law, including the all important interpretation.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  2. #592
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    You have not attempted to "educate" me or debunk what I'm saying. I'm not saying tradition and law are same thing, simply that law like most things in gov't requires the use of some convetions including how the words are intepreted..
    The rules are in the laws themselves. There is no law to tell judges how to interpret law. They go to law school and have careers that last decades which gives them the wisdom to interpret the wording. If you don't like the way they do things, then that can't be helped.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    We aren't talking about that. We are talking means not ends, I wish liberals could remember to separate the two.
    Starting to dish out the partisan remarks are we... I see your true colours are about to show.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    not really and you mean social. There are concrete ways in which these traditions manifest themselves such as how words are interpreted.
    This sentence is essentially meaningless drivel when it comes to deciding what the bill of rights means. If the words are not there, then there is nothing to manifest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Nope, if the branches are allowed to take over the roles of over branches it is detrimental to the rule of law and separation of powers even if other branches allow it/do little, or can do little, to fight it. America and other nations are awash with judicial activism and arbitrary power because of that reasoning.
    Prove, beyond your specious opinion, that the supreme court of Iowa went beyond its legal capacity in this matter. I'll spare you the time, you can't. It sounds like you simply can't accept that the supreme court has these powers. Good thing you don't live in the U.S. then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Umm we can go on what they say they meant and what precedent and tradition tells us.
    Rinse, lather, repeat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Ie they have to decide whether liberal social policy conflicts with the rule of law and if it does then the rule of law should be abandoned.
    The Constitution cannot be abandoned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Again you're not getting this. Phrases and words have different interpretations and even change meanings. If we want the rule of law, if we want the laws to stay the same for everyone and not to be changed by the judicary whenever they feel like it, including at the behest of the executive, then we certainly need to retain the original or traditional meaning of terms and phrases until such time as the legislature decides a change is needed.
    No, I get it perfectly. What you don't seem to get is that they didn't change the law, they upheld the law. They upheld the fact that two people can get married, period. That is what the Iowa constitution says. Accept it, and move on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Whois saying this? I'm simply saying wording usually needs interpreting and the original and traditional interpretation must hold for constitutions, the rule of law and the speration of powers not to suffer greatly.
    It's not the fault of modern times that the authors of the constitutions didn't forsee gay marriage. The wording of the constitution permits gay couples to get married. Again, I'm sorry you can't accept that according to your traditional values, but it is what it is, unless the legislature or a public referendum overrides it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    The supreme court embarked on judicial activism, it went beyond its alloted branch and made law, that is the sphere of legsilature.
    Again, please cite a document which demonstrates the duties of the supreme court and prove that the court went beyond its powers. I would really like to see this claim in writing.

    Oh, and the legislature still has the right to intervene, as I've said a million times now. That's why there are three branches of government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    So when marriage was talked about in it, if it is, then it meant between a man and woman. For a judge to change this is for them to remake the law or constitution.
    Again, no judge changed the wording of the constitution. This is an error that you continue to make.

    In fact, every single state supreme court case in the United States regarding state constitutions and gay marriage has been upheld in this identical regard, unless those cases were pre-empted by public votes to amend the constitutions with heterosexual marriage clauses. You clearly don't understand the way the documents are interpreted.

    "Marriage is between two people."

    It doesn't take a genius to interpret that. I don't care what your traditional spin on things is... that is the wording and that is how every court, when challenged with gay marriage, has seen it. That's why the religious right has been active in amending state constitutions the nation over, because if they don't then there is no legal wording to support their discrimination.

    If the wording is not there, then the law does not exist. Period. You can dance around historical interpretations and traditionalism all you want, but that is not the way the law works. The document must say it or there is no justification to deny it. Period. This is LAW 101.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Woman's suffrage came through an amendment I believe.
    Cite this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    You mean how they bloody well like. Well hello tyranny and arbitrary power, you know there is nothing saying this must be used for only liberal social causes if it had slipped your mind.
    Now you've truly lost this debate. Your own partisan bias is preventing you from seeing the role that the judges serve as one of the three branches in balancing power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Bottom line:Words and phrases can have many interpretations, if the original/traditional one is not retained by the judiciary, unless the legsilature changes it, then every time they change it they are effectively changing the constitution.
    If I am to assume that your claim that there are "many interpretations" is correct, then why should the judges be obligated to defer to the traditional one? Just because you say so, and if they don't then gosh darn they are activists?

    Why is tradition best in this case?

    Once again... the constitution was not changed, its wording was simply acknowledged.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    This is what you don't seem to understand or at least ignore because your liberal agenda. This goes erodes the rule of law which is reliant of laws being interpreted consistently and arbitrarily, it undermines the constitution turning it into guidelines for any judge to try and fit their agenda into and undermines the seperation of powers by giving the judiciary legsilative powers.
    What I read from this is...

    Interpreting it "consistently" = interpreting it in a way that supports tradition
    Interpreting it inconsistently and tyrannically = "liberal activism" a.k.a something you don't agree with.

    Wow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    But most importantluy it increases the risk of executive tryanny because the executive has a lot of power over the judiciary and if they work in concert using this form of arbitrary power the risk of them underming the entire framework of a free constitution greatly increases
    This is a lot of bull, considering there is still the legislature and a public referendum as fallbacks. There are so many checks and balances of power in the United States, it's a wonder that anything gets passed in the first place. But because of that, you know that the final decision is usually the most appropriate one for the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Then each time that is done the constitution is rewritten in that area.
    Please provide evidence that the constitution was "rewritten" in this decision. I don't want to hear you make claims about it being "effectively" rewritten because that is a load of crap. I want to see hard evidence that these judges added amendments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    You are admitting my point.
    Non-sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Equality is often vague. An equal right to own property could be interpreted as anyone can equally own property if they buy it according to laws equal for all individuals or it can be interpreted as saying all people should own an equal amount of property.
    We're not talking about property, but marriage. In this case the written law did not specify gender, simply two people... added to this was the equal protection clause. Given that homosexuals are a protected social class in the United States, they are afforded equal protection. This is why the ruling was fair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Seriously did you not proof-read what you wrote. You say don't have legsilative power and then say they form the law.
    What I meant was that the supreme court does not take the place of the legislature if the legislature decides to weigh in on a matter. The way you are talking, you'd swear that the judges are the be all and end all of law. They aren't. They make intermediary rulings on issues and give the other branches of power an opportunity to form a view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    I agree, though that wording must be interpreted the same unless the legsilature intervenes or the constitution is remade by the judiciary.
    There is no rule or law which says a constitution must be interpreted according to traditional values. That is your number one flawed assumption in this debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    I agree, tradition and precedent are vital in this.
    Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    And I'll say it was unconstitutional and an example of the arbitrary power of judicial activism.
    Rinse, lather, repeat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    You confusing the role I give to tradition here. It is simply to interpret what words and phrases in the law and constitution mean. These must stay constant unless the legsilature wants to change them.
    I trust the ability of experts who have been in law their whole lives to interpret it more than I do your opinion that traditionalism is the be all and end all of what law means.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    It undermines the rule of law because it means that they can be aribtrarily redefined.
    No, it means the law itself was loosely defined in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    as they have been in this case.
    Wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    The judiciary needs to uphold the constantcy of the law, including the all important interpretation.
    The law, in this case, was upheld consistently. You're just in denial about it. It's becoming quite entertaining, actually.

  3. #593
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    04-24-17 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    The bottom line seems to me that some people arguing against gay marriage only have the argument - it's been that way for a long time -. Considering that many things have changed that, have been that way for a long time, the argument has no standing. State recognized "marriage" is rather new in the USA by historical standards and things like mandatory blood tests are no longer required which tells you that as society changes so do things like marriage.

    Some xians like to claim that they don't follow the OT laws because they are no longer relevant to modern society yet they refuse to apply this same idea to gay marriage.

    So without the "tradition" argument, which is not valid, what other argument can you make against gay marriage?

  4. #594
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    The rules are in the laws themselves. There is no law to tell judges how to interpret law. They go to law school and have careers that last decades which gives them the wisdom to interpret the wording. If you don't like the way they do things, then that can't be helped.
    Nope there are different thoeires about interpretation. They only safe one is the strict and original method.



    Starting to dish out the partisan remarks are we... I see your true colours are about to show.
    I'm not the one being needly hostile or the one who trolls and insults in other threads when disagreed with.



    This sentence is essentially meaningless drivel when it comes to deciding what the bill of rights means. If the words are not there, then there is nothing to manifest.
    Words and phrases needed to be interpreted, you don't seem to understand this. The above passage is not an argument.



    Prove, beyond your specious opinion, that the supreme court of Iowa went beyond its legal capacity in this matter. I'll spare you the time, you can't. It sounds like you simply can't accept that the supreme court has these powers. Good thing you don't live in the U.S. then.
    What are you talking about? We are talking about what is good not what they will be permitted to do. The very fact they won't be immediately reproached and put in place proves my point and rules out this strange idea that they can do what they like because the other branches can "put it right". I suppose the police can do what they like as the rest of the gov't can "put it right".


    Rinse, lather, repeat.
    Not an argument angain.




    No, I get it perfectly. What you don't seem to get is that they didn't change the law, they upheld the law. They upheld the fact that two people can get married, period. That is what the Iowa constitution says. Accept it, and move on.
    Sure they upheld, reinterpratation is the same thing, if the meaning of the words and phrases are changed then it is as good as changing the law.



    It's not the fault of modern times that the authors of the constitutions didn't forsee gay marriage. The wording of the constitution permits gay couples to get married. Again, I'm sorry you can't accept that according to your traditional values, but it is what it is, unless the legislature or a public referendum overrides it.
    You're not even making sense.

    Again, please cite a document which demonstrates the duties of the supreme court and prove that the court went beyond its powers. I would really like to see this claim in writing.
    We are talking about good goverance, we are talking about theoiry not specific powers. I know the Soviet judges went beyond what was good goverance, I don't need to cite Soviet documents for that.
    Oh, and the legislature still has the right to intervene, as I've said a million times now. That's why there are three branches of government.
    That is not always good enough, the US is awash with judicial activism where the legislature can or won't intervene. You argument again is like saying the cops can do what they like because other branches can intervene. What is needed is some kind of better vetting process for activism judges and an internal tribunal to weed it out like the police have.


    Again, no judge changed the wording of the constitution. This is an error that you continue to make.
    How can you not understand reinterpretation is the same?





    If the wording is not there, then the law does not exist. Period. You can dance around historical interpretations and traditionalism all you want, but that is not the way the law works. The document must say it or there is no justification to deny it. Period. This is LAW 101.
    You are talking bollocks. All phrases and words have to be interpretated, if they are changed by the judges then it is judicial activism and undermines the constitution and rule of law. You are not actually giving argument against this.



    Cite this?
    Why? If it didn't I don't care. I'm not a liberal, I don't put ends before means.



    Now you've truly lost this debate. Your own partisan bias is preventing you from seeing the role that the judges serve as one of the three branches in balancing power.
    They have gone beyond their sphere as Thomas jefferson warned they would.


    If I am to assume that your claim that there are "many interpretations" is correct, then why should the judges be obligated to defer to the traditional one?
    To keep it constant of course so they don't change the law or constitution which is not their role.


    Just because you say so, and if they don't then gosh darn they are activists?
    You really don't understand this at all do you.

    Why is tradition best in this case?
    To keep the original, constant meaning and leave changing the law to the judiciary.





    What I read from this is...

    Interpreting it "consistently" = interpreting it in a way that supports tradition
    Interpreting it inconsistently and tyrannically = "liberal activism" a.k.a something you don't agree with.

    Wow.
    The mind oif liberalism=scary. How can you not understand that if the judges reinterpret it then it is changing the law or constitutio. I fear for the world with liberals around I really do.



    Please provide evidence that the constitution was "rewritten" in this decision.
    It was reinterpreted, that is the same thing.








    There is no rule or law which says a constitution must be interpreted according to traditional values. That is your number one flawed assumption in this debate.
    You don't understand this do you.You do not understand freedom or gov't. We are doomed, we really are.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  5. #595
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Nope there are different thoeires about interpretation. They only safe one is the strict and original method.



    I'm not the one being needly hostile or the one who trolls and insults in other threads when disagreed with.



    Words and phrases needed to be interpreted, you don't seem to understand this. The above passage is not an argument.



    What are you talking about? We are talking about what is good not what they will be permitted to do. The very fact they won't be immediately reproached and put in place proves my point and rules out this strange idea that they can do what they like because the other branches can "put it right". I suppose the police can do what they like as the rest of the gov't can "put it right".


    Not an argument angain.




    Sure they upheld, reinterpratation is the same thing, if the meaning of the words and phrases are changed then it is as good as changing the law.




    You're not even making sense.

    We are talking about good goverance, we are talking about theoiry not specific powers. I know the Soviet judges went beyond what was good goverance, I don't need to cite Soviet documents for that.

    That is not always good enough, the US is awash with judicial activism where the legislature can or won't intervene. You argument again is like saying the cops can do what they like because other branches can intervene. What is needed is some kind of better vetting process for activism judges and an internal tribunal to weed it out like the police have.


    How can you not understand reinterpretation is the same?




    You are talking bollocks. All phrases and words have to be interpretated, if they are changed by the judges then it is judicial activism and undermines the constitution and rule of law. You are not actually giving argument against this.



    Why? If it didn't I don't care. I'm not a liberal, I don't put ends before means.



    They have gone beyond their sphere as Thomas jefferson warned they would.


    To keep it constant of course so they don't change the law or constitution which is not their role.


    You really don't understand this at all do you.

    To keep the original, constant meaning and leave changing the law to the judiciary.






    The mind oif liberalism=scary. How can you not understand that if the judges reinterpret it then it is changing the law or constitutio. I fear for the world with liberals around I really do.


    It was reinterpreted, that is the same thing.






    You don't understand this do you.You do not understand freedom or gov't. We are doomed, we really are.
    You didn't cite anything I asked you to.

    Please do some research on the function of the Supreme Court and in the future I will be happy to take up this debate with you again.

    Until then, I refuse to run in circles due to your intentional obtuseness.

    Later.

  6. #596
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    You didn't cite anything I asked you to.

    Please do some research on the function of the Supreme Court and in the future I will be happy to take up this debate with you again.

    Until then, I refuse to run in circles due to your intentional obtuseness.

    Later.
    So you have no argument?

    The citations you want to made little sense, som what is an activist judiciary thinks it is doing a good job, besides being completely irrelevant, I'm not here to jump through hoops I'm afraid. You did not debunk my argument or put forward one of your own really.

    The bottomline is that the rule of law and a written constitution requries that the laws not be changed by judiciary and changing the interpretation is doing exactly that. Separation of powers requires not only that the branches balance each other but they have some restriant and try and keep to their set functions. If all branches decided to do what they want and let the others decide what to do about it then chaos would still ensue.

    I'm sorry you had to get so hostile and partisan, I'm not even arguing against GM, and pretty much ruin what could have been an interesting debate.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  7. #597
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    You didn't cite anything I asked you to.

    Please do some research on the function of the Supreme Court and in the future I will be happy to take up this debate with you again.
    The function of the Supreme Court -- or indeed any court -- is not to make policy. That is exclusively the purview of the political branches.

    If you aren't aware of that, you have no business challenging anyone to a debate on the matter.

    I really don't care how society decides to adjust to play this issue out. I *do* care that the rule of law, the democratic process, and constitutional principles not be turned on end because of it -- and no matter what side of the issue you're on, YOU should, too.

    The end does not justify the means.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #598
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    The citations you want to made little sense, som what is an activist judiciary thinks it is doing a good job, besides being completely irrelevant, I'm not here to jump through hoops I'm afraid. You did not debunk my argument or put forward one of your own really.
    You made several claims that the constitution was being ignored or rewritten, but provided no evidence when asked. Please do so, or my debate with you will not continue.

    I put forward several sound counter arguments, but you simply dismissed them by saying they make "no sense". They make perfect sense if you understand law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    The bottomline is that the rule of law and a written constitution requries that the laws not be changed by judiciary and changing the interpretation is doing exactly that. Separation of powers requires not only that the branches balance each other but they have some restriant and try and keep to their set functions. If all branches decided to do what they want and let the others decide what to do about it then chaos would still ensue.
    I won't continue arguing this with you because you have decided not to listen. Please research the function of the courts and then get back to me on your findings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    I'm sorry you had to get so hostile and partisan, I'm not even arguing against GM, and pretty much ruin what could have been an interesting debate.
    I never made any partisan remarks, unlike you who labelled me a liberal that wants to alter social policy. You just can't debate the facts without bringing partisan crap into it.

    Disagreeing with you does not make me hostile. I'm sorry you lack the intellectual honesty to see that.

  9. #599
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    The function of the Supreme Court -- or indeed any court -- is not to make policy. That is exclusively the purview of the political branches.
    The Supreme Court was not making policy. They were upholding the wording of the Constitution which says marriage is between two people. If they were to strike down gay marriage, it would be based on gendered wording that does not exist. The Constitution makes no mention of gender, therefore the law shouldn't either. Either the people or the legislature need to weigh in on the matter now, or the ruling will stand. That is the function of the court.

    Why I keep having to remind people of this continues to baffle me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    If you aren't aware of that, you have no business challenging anyone to a debate on the matter.
    This has to be some kind of joke.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I really don't care how society decides to adjust to play this issue out. I *do* care that the rule of law, the democratic process, and constitutional principles not be turned on end because of it -- and no matter what side of the issue you're on, YOU should, too.
    Opponents of gay marriage continue to kick and scream because the constitution offers them nothing to support their discriminatory campaign against homosexuals. When the judges acknowledge this absence, opponents accuse them of being activists, of rewriting the constitution, or violating the rule of law. These people are not in touch with what the supreme court's job is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    The end does not justify the means.
    The law is the means:

    1) Equal protection clause
    +
    2) No mention that marriage must be between heterosexuals only.
    +
    3) Gays are a protected class in the United States
    =
    Gays are allowed to marry.

    The ruling is pretty self-explanatory for anyone who would care to look at it with a shred of honesty.

    That's all I have left to say. Opponents in this thread can continue to mull about their opinions on activist judges. I've said all I need to.


  10. #600
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    You made several claims that the constitution was being ignored or rewritten, but provided no evidence when asked. Please do so, or my debate with you will not continue.

    I put forward several sound counter arguments, but you simply dismissed them by saying they make "no sense". They make perfect sense if you understand law.
    Not true but what is the point of arguing about this when you won't actually take poart in a constructive discussion.


    I won't continue arguing this with you because you have decided not to listen. Please research the function of the courts and then get back to me on your findings.


    Please research good gov't and the rule of law and get back to me.

    I never made any partisan remarks, unlike you who labelled me a liberal that wants to alter social policy. You just can't debate the facts without bringing partisan crap into it.
    Umm you did talk about the right and you got hostile, You are a liberal in principles.

    Disagreeing with you does not make me hostile. I'm sorry you lack the intellectual honesty to see that.
    That is why you insult me and come to other threads to spam and insult me? You have done this before as well.

    I don't think you are a bad poster but I wish you'd grow up a bit.

    Anyway we are done here, I have proved this action was judicial acitvism and is greatly detrimental, you stopped actually discussing the moment your argument were shoit down.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

Page 60 of 61 FirstFirst ... 105058596061 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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