• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

You said it. But that's the way our republic has gone. The difference is that our ayatollahs aren't necessarily religious.

Is amusing that you think the constitution grants you the right to vote against someone else's freedom.
 
Constitutions exist in large measure to protect people from the vicissitudes and opinions of the majority. By establishing universal rights you are shielding people from the... people. You could get 90% of a state to vote for an infringement on speech but it would be void because of my constitutional rights. The voters perspectives are irrelevant in the face of that.

That's not true. A majority of the people may amend the constitution. Constitutions exist to grant and restrict governmental power.
 
When a judge can legislate from the bench against the will of the people, the Constitution has been trashed regardless.

They aren't legislating from the bench. People like you were oppressing from the ballot box, and the judges stopped you. Sorry if this offends you.
 
Is amusing that you think the constitution grants you the right to vote against someone else's freedom.


It's amusing that you've never heard of the initiative process and seemingly in your universe state and local elections never occur.
 
They aren't legislating from the bench. People like you were oppressing from the ballot box, and the judges stopped you. Sorry if this offends you.

Oh yes great slave to the alter of huge government. May it bestow on you your every fantasy.
 
That's not true. A majority of the people may amend the constitution. Constitutions exist to grant and restrict governmental power.

Then try to pass a constitutional amendment. Voters don't get to override constitutional protections without one.
 
They aren't legislating from the bench. People like you were oppressing from the ballot box, and the judges stopped you. Sorry if this offends you.

Care to explain why judges are just noticing now that these laws are unconstitutional. For a couple centuries they weren't.
 
Indeed..

An openly Gay judge ruled on the Oregon law yesterday. (should have recused himself)

Should heterosexual judges recuse themselves every time a case involving heterosexual marriage comes up? I'd bet that you would say "no". It's hypocritical to say that a gay judge should recuse themselves regarding a gay case while allowing a heterosexual judge to rule on heterosexual marraiges.

Besides, AFAIK there have only been two homosexual judges that have ruled on this issue and they have agreed each time with rulings made by far more heterosexual judges when it comes to the right to marriage.
 
This redefining of a social construct that transcends millennium old cultural and religious standards will not end well.
 
Then try to pass a constitutional amendment. Voters don't get to override constitutional protections without one.

No need, the "protections" you claim are not there to amend.
 
Is amusing that you think the constitution grants you the right to vote against someone else's freedom.

That's how conservatives roll. More laws, more government interference, less freedom, mob rule, it's a nasty vision of society that their agenda serves.
 
Should heterosexual judges recuse themselves every time a case involving heterosexual marriage comes up? I'd bet that you would say "no". It's hypocritical to say that a gay judge should recuse themselves regarding a gay case while allowing a heterosexual judge to rule on heterosexual marraiges.

Besides, AFAIK there have only been two homosexual judges that have ruled on this issue and they have agreed each time with rulings made by far more heterosexual judges when it comes to the right to marriage.

If they have a horse in the race, yes.
 
That's how conservatives roll. More laws, more government interference, less freedom, mob rule, it's a nasty vision of society that their agenda serves.

Actually conservatives, real ones, advocate the opposite of what you posted here.
 
Care to explain why judges are just noticing now that these laws are unconstitutional. For a couple centuries they weren't.

And for a couple of centuries homosexuals were treated as criminals and they dared not come out...much less demand that they be treated with equal rights. As such it was never brought before the courts before. Now that they have the security to come out they are bringing their case before the courts. As is proper.

BTW: It took a couple of centuries before Loving v. Virginia to happen also. ;) Are you going to try and use your excuse on that case as well? It would at least be consistant.....
 
Should heterosexual judges recuse themselves every time a case involving heterosexual marriage comes up? I'd bet that you would say "no". It's hypocritical to say that a gay judge should recuse themselves regarding a gay case while allowing a heterosexual judge to rule on heterosexual marraiges.

Besides, AFAIK there have only been two homosexual judges that have ruled on this issue and they have agreed each time with rulings made by far more heterosexual judges when it comes to the right to marriage.

In the case of something as controversial as SSM and given the fact he made it known that he was Gay for all to hear, I suspect bias and conflict of interest. Therefor yes I do think he should have recused himself. Other judges do it for far lesser reasons.
 
I'm pro-gay marriage but I am curious when the freedoms of polygamists are going to be taken up as a cause, and the cause for people who want to marry their siblings?

Marriage should be open to everyone who is of legal age.
 
In the case of something as controversial as SSM and given the fact he made it known that he was Gay for all to hear, I suspect bias and conflict of interest. Therefor yes I do think he should have recused himself. Other judges do it for far lesser reasons.

Refer to post #43
 
That's how conservatives roll. More laws, more government interference, less freedom, mob rule, it's a nasty vision of society that their agenda serves.

As person described as 'very Liberal" should have no problem with bigger government. As a matter of fact, that's one of the basic and most common definitions of a modern Liberal.
 
Actually conservatives, real ones, advocate the opposite of what you posted here.

Maybe, in theory, but not in specifics. Conservatives generally favour the war on drugs, mandatory sentences, anti-abortion laws, anti-gay laws, stronger police powers (if anyone ever said to you, "What are you afraid of if you have nothing to hide?", it was a conservative).
I'd venture to say that nearly every advance in personal liberties was pushed forward by liberals and resisted by conservatives.
 
And for a couple of centuries homosexuals were treated as criminals and they dared not come out...much less demand that they be treated with equal rights. As such it was never brought before the courts before. Now that they have the security to come out they are bringing their case before the courts. As is proper.

BTW: It took a couple of centuries before Loving v. Virginia to happen also. ;) Are you going to try and use your excuse on that case as well? It would at least be consistant.....

Actually, no on that last. It took less than four years. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the constitution and federal law was silent on the issue of interracial marriage. The Loving decision came in 1967.
 
I'm pro-gay marriage but I am curious when the freedoms of polygamists are going to be taken up as a cause, and the cause for people who want to marry their siblings?

Marriage should be open to everyone who is of legal age.

I'd have no problem with allowing polygamy. Incest however, no thanks. For the simple fact that genetics don't like it and its too easy for the dominate sibling to "persuade" the non-dominate sibling into such things.
 
As person described as 'very Liberal" should have no problem with bigger government. As a matter of fact, that's one of the basic and most common definitions of a modern Liberal.

Don't tell me what I believe. I've been liberal all my life and all I ask of the government is for it to stay as far out of my life as it can get. Some conservative politician is always trying to give the government more power to interfere where it doesn't belong.
 
Back
Top Bottom