niiiiiiceFun fact:
This tyrannical, liberal activist judge was appointed by Ronald Reagan.
Thanks for proving you have not studied much of our history, at least not beyond surface scratching.You're cherry picking a phrase and doing it wrong. It has never been in anyone's tradition for the states to violate equal protection. Every judge since Windsor has ruled that same-sex marriage bans violate equal protection. Yours is the side wanting to restrict freedom, on no basis other than your personal disapproval. That is not an argument you are going to win in a constitutional challenge, and I'm thankful to God that America works that way.
Keep fighting, if stopping two men from marrying each other is really that important to you. If it has such a profound impact on your life that you must spend energy to stop it, keep spending that energy. Keep fighting. Just know that you've already lost. The precedent is already set, the arguments made, and the "will of the people" is abandoning your side faster than anyone expected.
Your rebuttal is that sometimes equal protection has not been followed? That violation of equal protection actually is a tradition... and, what, therefore should be upheld!?Thanks for proving you have not studied much of our history, at least not beyond surface scratching.
The 14th was passed right after our Civil War here in the states...nearly 150 ago now... and you are saying that there was no tradition of not strictly nor truly following the spirit of "equal protection"? You know that not to be true, so why would you use something known to be false?
There is an entire region of the country that was known for the intransigence of its democrats on certain such issues, traditionally.
Our side is trying to keep some semblance of order, to have some solid foundations for future generations to use to get their footing. We inherited this solidity, this innate strength from preceding generations. Your side wants what you want, right now, doesn't matter whose rights or traditions you have to step on to get it, you think its right... and apparently so be it. Well there are a number of us others out here with very different views.
And thanks for the encouragement. So yes, I will keep fighting these and other battles against the forces, the crafty, and the just following, termites undermining, trying to gnaw away at all the good wood, to weaken us and the great structure our forefathers built.
We've "expanded" it to give more people rights. If the vast majority disagrees, they are free to change the Constitution via Amendment.
Sorry, it's specifically designed to work the other way. You want to expand it, amend the Constitution.
The framers of the constitution didn't create the 14th amendment. I respect them as great men, but I draw the line at them being able to literally see the future.
Also, "speech" doesn't mean today what it did to the Framers, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find any conservative that thinks the government can infringe upon what you type on the internet anymore than they can infringe upon what you can physically say audibly.
Don't need to. It's already going where I want it to go. eace
Don't need to. It's already going where I want it to go. eace
My "rebuttal" was simply proving your summary of history woefully imprecise.Your rebuttal is that sometimes equal protection has not been followed? That violation of equal protection actually is a tradition... and, what, therefore should be upheld!?
Which right of yours, exactly, is being stepped on when a man marries a man? And why is your tradition enshrined in the law and used to bar other people from action, but mine isn't? Do you also want to make eating shrimp illegal? Some people have that tradition. Why are you trampling on that tradition, you shrimp eater?
1.)My "rebuttal" was simply proving your summary of history woefully imprecise.
2.)The right that is being denied is the majority's free will to have, to create the society which they, we, have freely desired to live in, that we have freely chosen. Not to have a different one forced down upon us from on high.
3.)We do have that right and all your side's cunning little strategies to circumvent the will of the people will end up alongside the cemeteries of other adventurous utopian experiments here in America.
4.)Have all the Hawthornesque Blithedale Romance you want...just get a room and don't try to force your numbers challenged minority views upon the rest of us please.
5.) Gain the majority and then we have to listen.
6.) Reasons? We are the majority and we rule, rock and roll and will decide to eat lobster and crab legs if shrimp simply must be banned by OoooOOOooo tooooo too hipsters. Besides, those wanting shrimp, too, can eat their shrimp in the privacy of their own mouths... supposed to close the mouth while eating anyhow.
And there we have the answer. Your don't care one bit about constitutionality. It's all about winning. The ends justifying the means.
The constitution overrules the will of the people. It is set this way so that the majority cannot impose their tyranny on the minority. Or, shall I say, your tyranny on the minority.My "rebuttal" was simply proving your summary of history woefully imprecise.
The right that is being denied is the majority's free will to have, to create the society which they, we, have freely desired to live in, that we have freely chosen. Not to have a different one forced down upon us from on high. We do have that right and all your side's cunning little strategies to circumvent the will of the people will end up alongside the cemeteries of other adventurous utopian experiments here in America.
Have all the Hawthornesque Blithedale Romance you want...just get a room and don't try to force your numbers challenged minority views upon the rest of us please. Gain the majority and then we have to listen.
Reasons? We are the majority and we rule, rock and roll and will decide to eat lobster and crab legs if shrimp simply must be banned by OoooOOOooo tooooo too hipsters. Besides, those wanting shrimp, too, can eat their shrimp in the privacy of their own mouths... supposed to close the mouth while eating anyhow.
You haven't studied your history properly or thoroughly. Sure we can, in reality we the people can do as we want... but we agree to abide by the rules as long as those rules are ours, as a whole. You saw what happened in the Revolution when the tyranny of the minority, King and Parliament, overstepped their boundaries.
Freedom hardly means that everyone just gets to do whatever they want, or whatever they can try to compel a majority to do when that majority finally says no.
Thread title said:Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage
Who cares anymore? I mean honestly, the moment this issue comes up now, people tune out....
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/21/michigan-gay-marriage-ban/671022
Another one bites the dust. It is noteworthy that not a single judge at any level has upheld a same-sex marriage ban since Windsor.
This is what you call a slippery slope to an authoritarian government.
and this is what you call your brain on right wing extremism...
The idea that striking down a ban on something (that's completely harmless by the way) = authoritarian, is absolutely laughable.
That is called a Tenth Amendment violation....
Funny how states can sell pot and it allegedly violates Federal Law, but states cannot ban gay marriage which is not EVEN CLOSE to federal law - just individual interpretation.
This is what you call a slippery slope to an authoritarian government.
IMO, I could care less about either ideas but my concern is that both ideas are federal laws, one of which is blatantly and bluntly illegal (which pot should be legal) and the other issue - gay marriage is vague at best...
I think it's time for the states to go tell the feds to go **** off...
This republic and the separation of states from the federal government is falling apart
1.)That is called a Tenth Amendment violation....
2.)Funny how states can sell pot and it allegedly violates Federal Law, but states cannot ban gay marriage which is not EVEN CLOSE to federal law - just individual interpretation.
3.)This is what you call a slippery slope to an authoritarian government.
4.)IMO, I could care less about either ideas but my concern is that both ideas are federal laws, one of which is blatantly and bluntly illegal (which pot should be legal) and the other issue - gay marriage is vague at best...
5.)I think it's time for the states to go tell the feds to go **** off...
6.)This republic and the separation of states from the federal government is falling apart
No I call this defending the Tenth Amendment - not an individuals utopia.
You want anarchy?
You want a utopia?
What is the ****ing difference?
Oh yeah the Bill of Rights.
The state has the right to regulate domestic relations as they wish, but that power is not unlimited. Laws defining and regulating marriage must respect the constitutional rights of persons within the state. In this case the marriage ban is clearly a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment as it deprives same sex couples of the family stabilizing benefits of marriage and advances no legitimate state interest.
And neither is weed......
You see - you're just interpreting words that are vague, just because it suits your politics.
I have a serious problem with our federal government (SCOTUS) picking and choosing HOW they chose to interpret and how they chose to discard.
I could care less about gay marriage, however I do care how our SCOTUS chooses to interpret our constitution and Bill of Rights. If one is blatantly illegal via federal law (or at least needs a stamp) and the other is vague yet is enforced via interpretation - how do you feel about your other civil liberties and the Bill of Rights in general?
I suppose you don't see it...... You just want a utopia....
1.)And neither is weed......
2.)You see - you're just interpreting words that are vague, just because it suits your politics.
3.)I have a serious problem with our federal government (SCOTUS) picking and choosing HOW they chose to interpret and how they chose to discard.
4.)I could care less about gay marriage, however I do care how our SCOTUS chooses to interpret our constitution and Bill of Rights. If one is blatantly illegal via federal law (or at least needs a stamp) and the other is vague yet is enforced via interpretation - how do you feel about your other civil liberties and the Bill of Rights in general?
5.)I suppose you don't see it...... You just want a utopia....