• 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!

California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Status
Not open for further replies.
I could give a ****, either way, if gays get married. But, at what point can't a judge over-rule the will of the people?

When the constitution says the people are wrong, the judge has a duty to overrule them.
 
The people opposed to GM have consistently demonstrated in this thread that they don't really understand the nature of this ruling, or U.S. law in general. They just want their morality to reign supreme but they cannot really tell us why today's ruling was wrong or "activism" anymore than they can tell us why GM itself should not be allowed.

More emotional appeals, more argument ad populum. It's really pedantic. I actually encourage them to keep it up... their reasoning is so faulty that they will be easily defeated in SCOTUS.
 
When the constitution says the people are wrong, the judge has a duty to overrule them.



There's a place in the Constitution where it says that people are wrong? Care to point that out for me?
 
One unelected judge can overturn the will of the people. A flaw in our system? I think so.
 
I could give a ****, either way, if gays get married. But, at what point can't a judge over-rule the will of the people?

When the federal Constitution says otherwise. The federal Constitution is the will of the people.
 
There's a place in the Constitution where it says that people are wrong? Care to point that out for me?

It depends on what people say. In this case, the constitution's due process and equal protection clauses said the people where wrong.
 
There's a place in the Constitution where it says that people are wrong? Care to point that out for me?

In this case, Walker argued that California was violating the Equal Protections Clause and Due Process of the Constitution by passing Proposition 8. Walker had a duty to defend the rights inherent in the federal Constitution. What you fail to understand is that this is not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic, and as such, our federal Constitution is the will of the people. The judge was defending the will of the people.
 
Last edited:
When the federal Constitution says otherwise. The federal Constitution is the will of the people.

Where does the Constitution even address marriage?

Alls they have to do is re-word it and run it on the next ballot. That's all Obama did with his drilling moratorium, right?
 
Last edited:
The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and due process. That applies to the legality of marriage.
 
In this case, the constitution's due process and equal protection clauses said the people where wrong.
You're anthropomorphizing. The Constitution said nothing of the sort. The judge said "the people" were wrong. The earlier question is a good one... "at what point can't a judge over-rule the will of the people?"

I suppose the answer is... when you're a SC justice and a majority of your very small circle of peers disagree with you on what the law should be.
 
Last edited:
You're anthropomorphizing. The Constitution said nothing of the sort. The judge said "the people" were wrong.

I was continuing a phrase some one else used in rebutting them. That is what these quote boxes are for, so you can see what people are referencing.
 
I was continuing a phrase some one else used in rebutting them. That is what these quote boxes are for, so you can see what people are referencing.
A piece of advice - don't "continue phrases" you don't understand.
 
A piece of advice - don't "continue phrases" you don't understand.

If I ever run into that situation, I will remember your advice.
 
You're anthropomorphizing. The Constitution said nothing of the sort. The judge said "the people" were wrong. The earlier question is a good one... "at what point can't a judge over-rule the will of the people?"

I suppose the answer is... when you're a SC justice and a majority of your very small circle of peers disagree with you on what the law should be.

The will of the people was not overturned. This country is a Constitutional Republic. The will of the people is the Constitution of the United States of America, not a ballot measure passed by a slim majority of California voters. The judge determined that the will of those voters violated the rights of a minority guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Those rights were equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause and the right to Due Process. The judge defended the will of the people, the federal Constitution; he did not overturn it.
 
If I ever run into that situation, I will remember your advice.
Of course... if you don't understand the phrase, you won't know not to continue it... silly me. ;)
 
The will of the people was not overturned. This country is a Constitutional Republic. The will of the people is the Constitution of the United States of America.
Oh good god, please. Do you know how stupid that sounds? The Consitution is a document. The "will of the people" is public opinion. The Constitution can certainly be shaped by "the will of the people" but the two aren't the same thing.
 
Oh good god, please. Do you know how stupid that sounds? The Consitution is a document. The "will of the people" is public opinion. The Constitution can certainly be shaped by "the will of the people" but the two aren't the same thing.

Oh, you're right. The will of just over half of Californians should overrule the document that our nation was founded upon.
 
Oh good god, please. Do you know how stupid that sounds? The Consitution is a document. The "will of the people" is public opinion. The Constitution can certainly be shaped by "the will of the people" but the two aren't the same thing.

Like it or not, the Constituion of the United States is the will of the people. It is the law of the land. The founding fathers understood how easily public opinion could be swayed by rhetoric and so they sought to make this country a Constitutional Repubic rather than a democracy. As such, everyone who is sworn into service of this country is sworn to protect the Constitution. It is no mere document, but the very social contract by which our government is legitmized through its duty to protect our individual rights and liberty. If you can't understand that much, then you may be in the wrong country.
 
I'm wondering why the hell the gubberment has it's nose in it in the first place. Marriage, and issues as such, should be left up to the churches, and in the secular arena, two consenting adults.

Today's whackos might think it's a liberal victory but I think Goldwater is probably doing handstands as true conservatism has risen again. Government has no place mandating in matters of the heart and morals of the masses.
 
Oh good god, please. Do you know how stupid that sounds? The Consitution is a document. The "will of the people" is public opinion. The Constitution can certainly be shaped by "the will of the people" but the two aren't the same thing.

What was that you were saying about not understanding things?
 
Oh, you're right. The will of just over half of Californians should overrule the document that our nation was founded upon.
Yes, I am right. Just not for the reasons in your delusions.
 
I'm wondering why the hell the gubberment has it's nose in it in the first place. Marriage, and issues as such, should be left up to the churches, and in the secular arena, two consenting adults.

Today's whackos might think it's a liberal victory but I think Goldwater is probably doing handstands as true conservatism has risen again. Government has no place mandating in matters of the heart and morals of the masses.

The government has an interest in promoting stable relationships which provide stable homes for children. It is beneficial to the welfare and structure of society. Marriage is not a mandate, it is a chosen contract. Couples can choose to abstain from it if they wish.
 
Yes, I am right. Just not for the reasons in your delusions.

Interesting. So you think the public opinion of a slim majority in California should override the rights guranteed by the federal Constituion?
 
Interesting. So you think the public opinion of a slim majority in California should override the rights guranteed by the federal Constituion?
I don't know of anyone making that claim. Pity for you and FFG! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom