- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 10,356
- Reaction score
- 2,437
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Public approval - that's what this has always been about.
Geez. That only works for Obama.
Public approval - that's what this has always been about.
I am for freedoms and who you marry is personal business.
How personal is it exactly if you have to force on 36,756,666 other people?
Yet another sign that the Free State Project is already having an effect, with only a few early movers there so far. Good things take time. Expect more "victimless crimes" to be legalized in the short term, and in the long term - can you say American Hong Kong?
American Hong Kong.
Yes, libertarianism is a wide-tent movement that includes people who are only slightly more libertarian than the mainstream, as well as principled Minarchists (including Objectivists) and Anarcho-Capitalists like me.
The Free State Project is defined as being for people who "will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property" - so it's not just for radicals.
How personal is it exactly if you have to force on 36,756,666 other people?
He said "say" not "type", retard. :2wave:
About as personal as when the all the other people force themselves on the 36,756,666.
Has anyone noticed that when these matters are settled properly (meaning by the legislatures and not the courts), that there is hardly any controversy?
It is not a coincidence, and should be instructive to any who feel the judiciary is the proper place to address this type of issue.
If gay marriage is to be the law of the states, let the states pass the law the way states are meant to pass law--through their legislatures and not the courts.
Thats just it. No one is stopping anyone of age from declaring their devotion to each other. Has anyone EVER been arrested for being gaily married?
As opposed to blocking traffic and being a general nuisance
175 arrested at California gay marriage ban protest
Judicial review does not require the judiciary be able to redetermine the fixed and original meanings of laws and the constitution only to see if a situation is covered by them or very, very close. It certainly does not require complete reinterpretation of fixed laws and clauses of the constitution based on the ideological viewpoints of the judges, that is more suited to Jacobin committees than a state under the rule of law, the separation of powers and a proper constitution.I'm not sure you understand the concept of Judicial Review--the doctrine in democratic theory under which state action should be subject to invalidation by judges.
Separation of powers does not necessitate the judiciary be completely independent and the basic arbiters of the constitution. They have never had such a position in Britain. The highest court is the house of lords and the legislature can direct the judiciary how to interpret the constitution and laws.You are applying a liberal, American view of it as well, viewpoint to all democratic states where it does not belong.Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances... any of this sound familiar?
And they should only do so by applying the fixed and original meaning of the laws and constitutions. That is the point.The state appellate courts and federal circuit courts act as a check and balance for the other two branches of government.
What is certain is that your understanding is nonexistent.I'm not sure you understand the concept of Judicial Review--the doctrine in democratic theory under which state action should be subject to invalidation by judges.
From Marbury, we can see that Judicial Review does not invalidate any state action--it identifies which acts of the legislative or executive branch of government are invalid by reason of identifiable conflict with a higher corpus of law (i.e., either state or US constitution). Whatever invalidity may be ascribed to a particular act is present in the act long before a judge rules on such invalidity.It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Thats just it. No one is stopping anyone of age from declaring their devotion to each other. Has anyone EVER been arrested for being gaily married?
As opposed to blocking traffic and being a general nuisance
175 arrested at California gay marriage ban protest
That depends on what you are considering northeast? Do you mean all of New England? Rhode Island has not passed it yet. Or if you're expanding beyond N.E. then you've still got New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey to go.
What is certain is that your understanding is nonexistent.
Judicial Review is not found in "democratic theory". It is a legal theory, the foundations of which within American jurisprudence are found in Marbury v Madison, and is succinctly stated by Chief Justice John Marshall in the body of that case:
From Marbury, we can see that Judicial Review does not invalidate any state action--it identifies which acts of the legislative or executive branch of government are invalid by reason of identifiable conflict with a higher corpus of law (i.e., either state or US constitution). Whatever invalidity may be ascribed to a particular act is present in the act long before a judge rules on such invalidity.
Equally important, and the only aspect where your pretentious ponderation on the Separation of Powers holds any relevance to this thread, is that while it is the province of judges to say what the law is, it is not the province of judges to say what the law should be. Where law has not been established by the legislative branch, the courts are not charged with filling that void--and their attempts to do so have never resulted in any lasting good for this nation.
Thus, the best outcome is achieved when a state resolves its stance on gay marriage via the legislature rather than the courts. The legislature is the branch charged with declaring what the law should be; if the declaration is to be made for gay marriage, for it to be justice that declaration must emanate from the legislative branch and not the judiciary.
Congrats NH.
That said, I oppose government sanctioned marriage. It's discriminatory. Consenting adults should be allowed to form any marriage relationship they wish - be it opposite sex partners, same sex partners, or multiple partners of any sex.
I agree. When our forefathers got married, they got married. They did not seek the permission of the government by way of a "license". They just did it.
Marriage licenses only came about because the South wanted to ban mixed marriages, and the North was in the middle of their eugenics movement. So, marriage licenses are essentially a relic of racism and eugenics, two of the worst philosophies to ever exist on American soil.
What is certain is that your understanding is nonexistent.
Judicial Review is not found in "democratic theory".
It is a legal theory, the foundations of which within American jurisprudence are found in
Marbury v Madison, and is succinctly stated by Chief Justice John Marshall in the body of that case:
From Marbury, we can see that Judicial Review does not invalidate any state action--it identifies which acts of the legislative or executive branch of government are invalid by reason of identifiable conflict with a higher corpus of law (i.e., either state or US constitution). Whatever invalidity may be ascribed to a particular act is present in the act long before a judge rules on such invalidity.
Equally important, and the only aspect where your pretentious ponderation on the Separation of Powers holds any relevance to this thread, is that while it is the province of judges to say what the law is, it is not the province of judges to say what the law should be. Where law has not been established by the legislative branch, the courts are not charged with filling that void--and their attempts to do so have never resulted in any lasting good for this nation.
Thus, the best outcome is achieved when a state resolves its stance on gay marriage via the legislature rather than the courts. The legislature is the branch charged with declaring what the law should be; if the declaration is to be made for gay marriage, for it to be justice that declaration must emanate from the legislative branch and not the judiciary.
Until you put this bit of bloviation, the point to your rantings was quite unclear.Exactly what is it that you have a problem with? Moderate conservatives coming around to accept gay marriage? Freedom means freedom for everyone, right?
New Hampshire has just become the sixth state to allow same sex marriage. The governor is about to sign it into law.
Although I might not agree that sexual orientation is always something you have no choice over, I still respect this decision. If gays want to marry, it is none of my damn business. I wish them happiness.
Article is here.