• 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!

Six: New Hampshire will legalize same sex marriage

How personal is it exactly if you have to force on 36,756,666 other people?

About as personal as when the all the other people force themselves on the 36,756,666.
 
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? :cool:

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.

Cool...I wanna see a minichrist!
 
How personal is it exactly if you have to force on 36,756,666 other people?

Wow...somebody was really gettin' busy if that's what they did. Has it hit the internet yet?
 
Oh sweet Jesus, I'm over 10K posts...I have to cancel my account.
 
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.

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, Checks and Balances... any of this sound familiar?

Wait, hold on, the phone is ringing...

Celtic, that was your high school Civics teacher on the phone and he's changing that B- to a C. Sorry. :( Didn't mean to get in trouble.


The state appellate courts and federal circuit courts act as a check and balance for the other two branches of government.


Also, Controversy is not a bad thing. It makes people think.
 
I am just curious if any of the states that allow same sex marriage had a drop in tax revenue? I am wondering how many people use it to gain tax breaks.
 
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

Good for them. I hope more protests break out against those who would demand that the government bar citizens from equal access to and enjoyment of an institution and the added benefits and rights it grants.
 
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.
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.

Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances... any of this sound familiar?
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.

The state appellate courts and federal circuit courts act as a check and balance for the other two branches of government.
And they should only do so by applying the fixed and original meaning of the laws and constitutions. That is the point.
 
Last edited:
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.
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:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
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.
 
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

Blocking traffic? How about picketing and bombing abortion clinics and killing abortion doctors? Compared to that, I don't think gay rights marches are doing any harm.
 
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.

NJ already allows civil unions, so it's pretty close.
 
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.

The supreme and organic law of this land is the Constitution. If any law is contrary to it, that law in question must be struck down, and that responsibility is in the hands of the courts.

I prefer that issues are settled by the legislative route, but some things are too important to let a simple 50% +1 decide. Our Founders knew this and provided for the courts to play a role in our legal system, they are the intermediaries between the legislative branch and the people. They are given the task to make sure the the legislative branch is abiding by the Constitution.

We do not live in a simple Democracy, we live in a Constitutional Democracy where restrictions on majority rule are in place.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

I dunno, I am not all that opposed to eugenics, myself.
 
What is certain is that your understanding is nonexistent.

Judicial Review is not found in "democratic theory".

First off, once again, you are talking out of your hindquarters. And have demostrated to DP at large that you don't know that which emanates from your hindquarter from a bottle of Shinola...:spank:

I would suggest you read up on democratic theory, starting with this informative article. Or this Syllabus from a Political Science Class entitled Democratic Theory.

Moving on...
It is a legal theory, the foundations of which within American jurisprudence are found in

Yes, genius, it is a legal theory, too. :roll: You want a cookie?

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.

Thank you for the History lesson and expanding on what I already said. Have another cookie.:prof

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.


:bravo: for demonstrating a somewhat limited but adequate understanding of Judicial Review.

Again your understanding of the process does seem to leave out the concept of the 'check and balance' function that the courts play.

The state legislature does indeed pass laws. Once on the books however (Prop 22, Prop 8), citizens can file briefs asking for, among other things, a ruling on the constitutionality of the law.

Since the Californian State Constitution has now been legally amended via our state's ballot initiative process, Olson and Boies are taking the matter to federal courts. This is part of the process. Clear so far?

In other words, although the constitution was amended via legal means, that does not end the conversation. The will of the majority must not trample on the rights the minority, and, in order ensure that, the federal courts can at times review state laws. Got it?

Exactly what is it that you have a problem with? Moderate conservatives coming around to accept gay marriage? Freedom means freedom for everyone, right?
 
Exactly what is it that you have a problem with? Moderate conservatives coming around to accept gay marriage? Freedom means freedom for everyone, right?
Until you put this bit of bloviation, the point to your rantings was quite unclear.

However, this bit of bloviation merely demolishes your own credibility. You have participated in most if not all of the other threads on this topic, wherein I have outlined my stance on gay marriage itself. I have articulated why I consider the legislature to be the proper venue for resolving this issue. Pretending that I have some visceral opposition to the concept of gay marriage or the proper role of the judiciary is both dishonest and disingenuous. Worse, it is a poor argument.

My commentary in this thread merely provides a capstone to my earlier arguments, by illuminating the relative calm and overall acceptance the legislative solutions enjoy which the judicial solutions do not.

Continue to manufacture prejudice from my stance, as that is your wont. I have no doubt I will give you much to satisfy your desire for animus.
 
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.

If it's non of your business then why did you make this thread?
 
Congratulations NH! Logic prevails i see :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom