Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
So you think only unmarried judges should hear the case?
They must also be asexual.... :doh
So you think only unmarried judges should hear the case?
They must also be asexual.... :doh
What I have been hearing(and I have been waiting for this decision all day...) is that most likely it will be held, as allowing marriages to go forward would create legal and ethical problems until a final verdict is reached in the last appeal. No one knows for sure yet, but I would bet on a stay.
Activist judge: One who rules not on the law or the will of the people but on personal politics.
Because the people say so
I know right, if people wouldn't ignorantly be against legal gay marriage, we could be done with it already.
I will post this again
Judge overturns Calif. gay marriage ban - Yahoo! News
Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume immediately. Judge Walker said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents of the ban pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Romer v. Evans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Read up: A state constitutional amendment can't violate the Federal Constitution. Period. 6-3. And that 6 included Kennedy.
Nuns. Only Nuns should hear this case. Do we have any judges who also happen to be nuns?
Oh, wait - married to Jesus.
Spinster elementary school teachers with clasp sweaters and glasses on the tips of their noses? Do we have any of those?
Quit trying to force your morality on the rest of us and this wouldn't happen.
Quit trying to force your morality on the rest of us and this wouldn't happen.
Quit trying to force your morality on the rest of us and this wouldn't happen.
Why would they object?
Quit trying to force your morality on the rest of us and this wouldn't happen.
Quit trying to force your morality on the rest of us and this wouldn't happen.
You missed my point. You don't agree with it, so your calling him an activist judge. Have you read the ruling? Do you see anything in there that is a blatant example of "activism"? He used the Constitution as his basis for his ruling, you know the whole equal rights, and freedom thing.
It goes against what marriage stand for. Marriage is a covenant with God not a legal issue. A marriage license is a tax on marriage
Can you please read the ruling and then respond point by point to it as to where you find this ruling to be "activist" vs. logical based on the presented arguments.
If you can do that for me, then you can say "activist judge". Until that point, the only thing you're doing is saying that gays can't be reasonable people (and with your later post - can't be as reasonable as heterosexual married people).
It goes against what marriage stand for. Marriage is a covenant with God not a legal issue. A marriage license is a tax on marriage
No...We're just trying to force the 14th Amendment out you.
If you don't like it, move.
You mean like strait people trying to enforce their morality on gay people?
You do not have to be gay.
You do not have to like it.
You shouldn't be forcing your religious beliefs onto everyone else, it's unconstitutional.
It goes against the state constitutional amendment process. He used federal constitution for a state constitution issue. What does the state constitution say.
Um isn't that what your doing? I mean, its not like heterosexual marriage would be outlawed. Stop trying to push your morality on LGBT people.