# Latest from NJ



## Joz (Oct 25, 2006)

(AP) TRENTON New Jersey's Supreme Court opened the door to gay marriage Wednesday, ruling that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but leaving it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions......
http://cbs3.com/local/local_story_297212127.html


Needs Adobe to read
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf


----------



## glockmail (Oct 25, 2006)

I didn't know that marriage was a right.


----------



## Mr. P (Oct 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> I didn't know that marriage was a right.



I don't think that's what they mean. It's more like 





> The ruling is similar to the 1999 decision in Vermont that led to civil unions there, *which offer the benefits of marriage, but not the name.*


----------



## glockmail (Oct 25, 2006)

Mr. P said:


> I don't think that's what they mean. It's more like



The main benefits of marriage are the Blessing of children from my own flesh and blood, and a spouse of the opposite sex to assist in their upbringing, both moot points in a gay relationship.


----------



## Mr. P (Oct 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> The main benefits of marriage are the Blessing of children from my own flesh and blood, and a spouse of the opposite sex to assist in their upbringing, both moot points in a gay relationship.



You can do that and never be married. It's much more, but this is not about marriage.


----------



## KarlMarx (Oct 25, 2006)

This is the most brazen, most egregious abuse of judicial powers that I can imagine! This is the same shit that the Massachusetts Supreme Court pulled a couple of years ago.

Judges do not have the right to order the legislature to write laws and pass laws. They are only supposed to be interpreting the ones on the books.

What if the New Jersey State Legislature can't come to an agreement on the terms of gay marriage? What then? Is the judge going to have the entire New Jersey State Legislature thrown in jail for contempt of court?

I can think of an example.

Someone is brought into court for stealing. Judge says, "you broke the law because the law says you can't steal". The defendant says "I stole because I was hungry", then the judge says "OK, State Legislature, you have 180 days to amend the state constitution to make theft by hungry persons legal".

What? It sounds stupid? It sounds insane? Well, it is! And this ruling is nothing better.

And speaking of rights that are in the Constitution. What about the voters of New Jersey? Has the judiciary of that state suddenly taken away their right to decide on this issue? I thought voting on rights not enumerated in the US Constitution was a right, per the 10th amendment.


----------



## Mr. P (Oct 25, 2006)

KarlMarx said:


> This is the most brazen, most egregious abuse of judicial powers that I can imagine! This is the same shit that the Massachusetts Supreme Court pulled a couple of years ago.
> 
> Judges do not have the right to order the legislature to write laws and pass laws. They are only supposed to be interpreting the ones on the books.
> 
> ....



The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled based on the Massachusetts Constitution. That is hardly an abuse of judicial powers. The court simply sent it to those who make the laws for correction based on the Massachusetts Constitution.


----------



## KarlMarx (Oct 25, 2006)

Mr. P said:


> The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled based on the Massachusetts Constitution. That is hardly an abuse of judicial powers. The court simply sent it to those who make the laws for correction based on the Massachusetts Constitution.



I have to wonder, how gay marriage is in the Constitution of any state? 

I believe that the Massachusetts Supreme Court *told*the Legislature to pass gay marriage. They also gave them a deadline (6 months)... what is that? It sounds like an order to me. Like a court order... "do it or else" kind of order.

Sorry guy, this isn't about gay vs. straight, this is about an overstepping of powers. The court could have ordered the Legislature to outlaw peanut butter or mandate that Urdu be taught in public schools, it wouldn't make any difference.

I wonder what people's reaction would be if George W Bush told the Supreme Court to rule on decisions a certain way? Or if the President ordered the Congress to pass certain laws? Would people call him a dictator? Yes, and he would be, too. This is no different.


----------



## dmp (Oct 25, 2006)

KarlMarx said:


> I have to wonder, how gay marriage is in the Constitution of any state?
> 
> I believe that the Massachusetts Supreme Court *told*the Legislature to pass gay marriage. They also gave them a deadline (6 months)... what is that? It sounds like an order to me. Like a court order... "do it or else" kind of order.
> 
> ...



You nailed it.  Well done.


----------



## Mr. P (Oct 25, 2006)

KarlMarx said:


> I have to wonder, how gay marriage is in the Constitution of any state?
> 
> I believe that the Massachusetts Supreme Court *told*the Legislature to pass gay marriage. They also gave them a deadline (6 months)... what is that? It sounds like an order to me. Like a court order... "do it or else" kind of order.
> 
> ...




I don't see it that way. 



> "Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the four-member majority.
> 
> The court said the Legislature "must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or* create a parallel statutory structure" that gives gays all the privileges and obligations married couples have.*


That's how I see it too.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 25, 2006)

Mr. P said:


> You can do that and never be married. It's much more, but this is not about marriage.



You can have a spouse and not be married? Explain.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 25, 2006)

KarlMarx said:


> .....
> 
> Judges do not have the right to order the legislature to write laws and pass laws. They are only supposed to be interpreting the ones on the books......





> New Jersey's highest court opened the door Wednesday to making the state the second in the nation to allow gay marriage, ruling that *lawmakers must* offer homosexuals either marriage or something like it, such as civil unions.
> 
> In a ruling that fell short of what either side wanted or feared, the state Supreme Court declared 4-3 that homosexual couples are entitled to the *same rights *as heterosexual ones. The *justices gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite the laws*.


 [from post 1 link, emphasis mine]

You are right Karl, this is egregious! Id have to check the NJ State constitution, but I cant see how the Judicial branch would have the authority to force the Legislative branch to write a new law. All they have the authority to do is to void existing laws if they are unconstitutional. 

With regards to the right of homosexuals to have the same benefits of marriage, thats like saying a blind man should have the right to drive a car. Its preposterous!


----------



## Mr. P (Oct 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> You can have a spouse and not be married? Explain.





> Originally Posted by glockmail  View Post
> The main benefits of marriage are the Blessing of children from my own flesh and blood,



You can do that and never be married. Get it?


----------



## jillian (Oct 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> [from post 1 link, emphasis mine]
> 
> You are right Karl, this is egregious! Id have to check the NJ State constitution,



Because you have what education in the area of Constitutional Construction which would allow you to determine the issue definitively when great jurists are divided on many of these issues?



> but I cant see how the Judicial branch would have the authority to force the Legislative branch to write a new law. All they have the authority to do is to void existing laws if they are unconstitutional.



Courts have often directed the legislature to remedy a situation which they feel violates the equal protection clause. I'd draw your attention to Brown v. The Board of Ed. and Bakke v. Regents of California.



> With regards to the right of homosexuals to have the same benefits of marriage, thats like saying a blind man should have the right to drive a car. Its preposterous!



And that analogy works for you because????


----------



## Mr. P (Oct 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> *All they have the authority to do is to void existing laws if they are unconstitutional. *



This is what they did, and said fix it. If they don't, I have no doubt it will move to the USSC.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 25, 2006)

Mr. P said:


> You can do that and never be married. Get it?


I must be missing something: Main Entry: 1spouse 
Pronunciation: 'spaus also 'spauz
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French espus (masculine) & espuse (feminine), from Latin sponsus betrothed man, groom & sponsa betrothed woman, bride, both from sponsus, past participle of spondEre to promise, betroth; akin to Greek spendein to pour a libation, Hittite sipant-
: married person : HUSBAND, WIFE 

[m-w-com]


----------



## glockmail (Oct 25, 2006)

jillian said:


> Because you have what education ..... because????



Sorry missy. You don't get to ignore my specific questions on most other threads and then get answers to your questions from me.


----------



## jillian (Oct 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Sorry missy. You don't get to ignore my specific questions on most other threads and then get answers to your questions from me.



Have you ever asked anything that made sense? Musta missed it. :
:talk2:


----------



## Annie (Oct 25, 2006)

Links:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_10_22-2006_10_28.shtml#1161812027



> [Eugene Volokh, October 25, 2006 at 5:33pm] 5 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
> Gay Rights Laws, Slippery Slopes, and a Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Civil Unions:
> 
> The New Jersey Supreme Court has just held that the New Jersey Constitution's equal protection principles require the legislature to recognize at least same-sex civil unions. (Whether the legislature must recognize outright same-sex marriage is left open.) I'm not sure I'll have much to add on the big picture questions this raises, but *I did want to note one thing -- this decision, whether you like it or not, seems to be an illustration that the slippery slope is a real phenomenon.* Even when there are conceptually quite clear distinctions that could be used to distinguish the first step A from the final step B, A may nonetheless help bring B about.
> ...


----------



## Mr. P (Oct 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Sorry missy. You don't get to ignore my specific questions on most other threads and then get answers to your questions from me.



Sheeewwww I'll keep that in mind, still waiting for some answers from you myself. It seems you only twist and ask though. Oh well.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Sorry missy. You don't get to ignore my specific questions on most other threads and then get answers to your questions from me.



She has a point, Jillian.  You abandon/ignore at will.  You shouldn't expect any better.


----------



## jillian (Oct 25, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> She has a point, Jillian.  You abandon/ignore at will.  You shouldn't expect any better.



You seem to be one of the few who thinks she has any points. Most of us know she's useless. 

And I don't bother answering people who can't follow a conversation and then twist responses to suit their whim like she does.

And why are you interjecting yourself on behalf of her once again?


----------



## Gunny (Oct 25, 2006)

KarlMarx said:


> This is the most brazen, most egregious abuse of judicial powers that I can imagine! This is the same shit that the Massachusetts Supreme Court pulled a couple of years ago.
> 
> Judges do not have the right to order the legislature to write laws and pass laws. They are only supposed to be interpreting the ones on the books.
> 
> ...



ITA.  This country's going to Hell in a handbasket, one ruling at a time.  When the law does not reflect the will, beliefs and morals of the majority, then what do you have?

Tyranny of the minority.  I somehow don't see the intent of precluding tyranny of the majority meaning the majority must suffer every nutjob with a perverted gimmick that comes along.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 25, 2006)

jillian said:


> You seem to be one of the few who thinks she has any points. Most of us know she's useless.
> 
> And I don't bother answering people who can't follow a conversation and then twist responses to suit their whim like she does.
> 
> And why are you interjecting yourself on behalf of her once again?



First off, Miss Frack, who keeps Mr Frick in constant tow, you have nerve questioning ANYONE interjecting themselves on behalf of another.  You and Grump are like Teedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.

Second, she DOES have a point.  You do the same to me and others, and try hiding behind that "can't follow a conversation and twist responses" garbage.  You post outright lies as truth, so WHO is twisting?

Calling you on that has nothing to do with interjecting myself on anyone's behalf.  I merely agreed with her point because she's quite simply spot on with her comment.

Let me know if I can help you out with anything else you need to know.


----------



## jillian (Oct 25, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> First off, Miss Frack, who keeps Mr Frick in constant tow, you have nerve questioning ANYONE interjecting themselves on behalf of another.  You and Grump are like Teedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.
> 
> Second, she DOES have a point.  You do the same to me and others, and try hiding behind that "can't follow a conversation and twist responses" garbage.  You post outright lies as truth, so WHO is twisting?
> 
> ...




The girl's a nutter, dude. Glad you found each other


----------



## T-Bor (Oct 25, 2006)

So ??  Do you actually care if gay people get married and dont have kids ? I dont understand why people give a rats ass what other people do behind closed doors that doesnt affect them.  




glockmail said:


> The main benefits of marriage are the Blessing of children from my own flesh and blood, and a spouse of the opposite sex to assist in their upbringing, both moot points in a gay relationship.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 25, 2006)

jillian said:


> The girl's a nutter, dude. Glad you found each other



Piss-poor attempt at deflection, completely ignoring what was actually stated in my response.

The Artful Dodger has NOTHING on you.


----------



## jillian (Oct 25, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Piss-poor attempt at deflection, completely ignoring what was actually stated in my response.
> 
> The Artful Dodger has NOTHING on you.



I don't engage in that type of "conversation".  Hence my "bowing out" when the convo goes to rants like the one you just went on.

Old lesson I learned from my husband.... and I've said this before and I figure it's apt...

Don't try to teach a pig to talk. It won't work and will just annoy the pig.

Have a good night.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 25, 2006)

jillian said:


> I don't engage in that type of "conversation".  Hence my "bowing out" when the convo goes to rants like the one you just went on.
> 
> Old lesson I learned from my husband.... and I've said this before and I figure it's apt...
> 
> ...



Sure.  That's your excuse EVERY TIME you decide to dodge.  There's no rant.  A valid point was made, and you've been tapdancing in an attempt to deflect ever since.  

You tried going on the attack, that didn't work.

Now you're trying to play the "high road" routine, and it isn't working either.

The accusation is just, and none of your little diddies that "Daddy" taught you change that fact one bit.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Oct 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> I didn't know that marriage was a right.



marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental right. gay marriage is not, atleast federally, which is why the NJ supreme court made the decision based on New Jersey state laws. Apparently they are telling the legislature that they have to make it a right. I hate judicial activism like this. What the heck is the point of self government if a bunch of guys in Robes are going to turn around and tell you what to do?


----------



## Gunny (Oct 25, 2006)

Avatar4321 said:


> marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental right. gay marriage is not, atleast federally, which is why the NJ supreme court made the decision based on New Jersey state laws. Apparently they are telling the legislature that they have to make it a right. I hate judicial activism like this. What the heck is the point of self government if a bunch of guys in Robes are going to turn around and tell you what to do?



Kind of screws that whole "democracy" thing, doesn't it?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Oct 25, 2006)

T-Bor said:


> So ??  Do you actually care if gay people get married and dont have kids ? I dont understand why people give a rats ass what other people do behind closed doors that doesnt affect them.



The breakdown of the family has huge reprocussions throughout society and generations of time. You cant abuse the powers to create life and not get burned by it. And uncontrolled fire always destroys everything in touches.

Not to mention the judicial overreach of these issues specifically underminds the intergrity of our government structure. If the courts continue to overstep its bounds, people will be unable to rely on them for any justice. 

Thats the truly scary thing about liberalism. its actions in the Courts, and its actions in claiming every election they lose is stolen is underminding the system. This will firment discord in society and it will eventually lead to bloodshed. Its not a coicidence that there was so much vandalism involved with the 2004 election. The fact is we are in a very precarious position, a powder keg ready to explode. And with the foundations of our government and our families being destroyed there will be serious consequences for _all_ society.

So you better believe I am going to speak out on the direction society is going. Id rather not see the suffering and destruction I know is coming if we keep on this road.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 25, 2006)

Avatar4321 said:


> marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental right. gay marriage is not, atleast federally, which is why the NJ supreme court made the decision based on New Jersey state laws. Apparently they are telling the legislature that they have to make it a right. I hate judicial activism like this. What the heck is the point of self government if a bunch of guys in Robes are going to turn around and tell you what to do?



It seems to me like the system is working like it's supposed to.  A court finds a law unconstituional, and advises the legislature they need to craft a law that isn't unconstitutional.  That's not activism, that's the court doing its job.  You and a few others in here have your panties in a twist because you disagree on what's unconstitutional.  If you don't like it, start a campaign to change the constitution.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 25, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Kind of screws that whole "democracy" thing, doesn't it?



Another person confused on the roles of the three branches of government.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 25, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> It seems to me like the system is working like it's supposed to.  A court finds a law unconstituional, and advises the legislature they need to craft a law that isn't unconstitutional.  That's not activism, that's the court doing its job.  You and a few others in here have your panties in a twist because you disagree on what's unconstitutional.  If you don't like it, start a campaign to change the constitution.



So that's the answer?  Every time some screwball with a gimmick comes along and demands special rights that cater only to that gimmick, "change the Constitution" is the answer?

I disagree.  I think the Constitution should be interpreted with some common sense and logic rather than moral relativism and dishonest literalism.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 25, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> Another person confused on the roles of the three branches of government.



Not at all.  You seem however to be confused on the difference between right and wrong.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 25, 2006)

But what's right and wrong may be different for a group of peole than another group, etc.

I think abortion is immoral/unethical, but it's around.  I think murder and stealing is also immoral/unethical.  Murder in self-defense is moral/ethical.  I think stem cell research (on a whole) is moral/ethical.

However, only two of those things others view differently than me (the first and last).


----------



## Gunny (Oct 25, 2006)

Kagom said:


> But what's right and wrong may be different for a group of peole than another group, etc.
> 
> I think abortion is immoral/unethical, but it's around.  I think murder and stealing is also immoral/unethical.  Murder in self-defense is moral/ethical.  I think stem cell research (on a whole) is moral/ethical.
> 
> However, only two of those things others view differently than me (the first and last).




Right and wrong are right and wrong dude.  Your response is the favorite argument of those who usually want to live outside the bounds of what is acceptable to society, and or those that support such.

No sale.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 25, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> So that's the answer?  Every time some screwball with a gimmick comes along and demands special rights that cater only to that gimmick, "change the Constitution" is the answer?
> 
> I disagree.  I think the Constitution should be interpreted with some common sense and logic rather than moral relativism and dishonest literalism.



As I said, you are entitled to disagree with the judges decision, but that doesn't make an accusation of judicial activism appropriate.  

The recognition of a gay civil union isn't a "special" right as you suggest.  A special right would be one that straight couples aren't entitled to, like for instance, if gays wanted a civil union that gave them tax-free status.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 25, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Not at all.  You seem however to be confused on the difference between right and wrong.



What does my sense of right and wrong have to do with your ignorance of how our government works?


----------



## Gunny (Oct 25, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> What does my sense of right and wrong have to do with your ignorance of how our government works?



Why is it that whenever someone says something that doesn't fall in line with how you think the government works you have to call them ignorant?  I'm every bit as educated as to how the government and law is supposed to work.  Matter of fact, probably moreso since I went to school back when we actually had to learn it to pass.

The judiciary dictating to the legislature is judicial activism.  It is the judiciary stepping outside the bounds of interpretting and enforcing the law.  Anything beyond declaring a law constitutional/unconstitutional, IF it is in the purview of that particular court, is judicial activisim.  

It is not the place of the judiciary to dictate to the legislature what they should do with the law, or how the passing of the law should or should not be affected, nor to place time limits on it.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 25, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Why is it that whenever someone says something that doesn't fall in line with how you think the government works you have to call them ignorant?  I'm every bit as educated as to how the government and law is supposed to work.  Matter of fact, probably moreso since I went to school back when we actually had to learn it to pass.



Where'd ya go to school grandpa...Kansas?  This post is a prime example of how much *you* don't know about the people *you* like to make assumptions about.  I'll wager that you and I are approximately the same age, so any reference to your high school education and mine is moot.  




GunnyL said:


> The judiciary dictating to the legislature is judicial activism.  It is the judiciary stepping outside the bounds of interpretting and enforcing the law.  Anything beyond *declaring a law constitutional/unconstitutional*, IF it is in the purview of that particular court, is judicial activisim.
> 
> It is not the place of the judiciary to dictate to the legislature what they should do with the law, or how the passing of the law should or should not be affected, nor to place time limits on it.



So when a court finds a law unconstitutional, in your opinion, they're supposed to do nothing?  The court was doing its job...get over it.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 26, 2006)

jillian said:


> Have you ever asked anything that made sense? Musta missed it. :
> :talk2:


  Made sense to others who had commented to me privately. I thought you had me on ignore, sweet cheeks.:whip3:


----------



## glockmail (Oct 26, 2006)

Mr. P said:


> Sheeewwww I'll keep that in mind, still waiting for some answers from you myself. It seems you only twist and ask though. Oh well.



**(Points to my signature yet again.)**


----------



## glockmail (Oct 26, 2006)

T-Bor said:


> So ??  Do you actually care if gay people get married and dont have kids ? I dont understand why people give a rats ass what other people do behind closed doors that doesnt affect them.



Marriage is a sacrement between one man and one woman, so yes I care if gays corrupt that covenant with God.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 26, 2006)

Avatar4321 said:


> marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental right. gay marriage is not, atleast federally, which is why the NJ supreme court made the decision based on New Jersey state laws. Apparently they are telling the legislature that they have to make it a right. I hate judicial activism like this. What the heck is the point of self government if a bunch of guys in Robes are going to turn around and tell you what to do?


 I don't consider it a right; legally I consider it a privledge, analogous to a professional or driver's license. I also think these activist judges should be impeached.

*Where you aware that all of the judges that voted for this were appointed by the ex govenor, who was gay? That queer filled the Bench with gay activists- "The Queer Mafia". So this ruling is the result of years of careful planning to inflict the Gay Agenda on the People of New Jersey.*


----------



## glockmail (Oct 26, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Why is it that whenever someone says something that doesn't fall in line with how you think the government works you have to call them ignorant?  .....


  That's the Standard Liberal Template. Everyone is dumb who disagrees with them.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 26, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> Where'd ya go to school grandpa...Kansas?  .....


  Another Liberal Template- hatred of America's Heartland. Damn elitists. Why not go to Kansas and say that? You'd get your ass kicked.:moon4:


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Another Liberal Template- hatred of America's Heartland. Damn elitists. Why not go to Kansas and say that? You'd get your ass kicked.:moon4:



You can shut your pie hole toots!  I was born and raised in a rural community, my comment wasn't motivated by elitism.  Were you sleeping when the Kansas Board of Education recently redefined science so they could claim creationism as one?  For all I know they also redefined the role of judges from interpreting the law to upholding the Ten Commandments.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 26, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> You can shut your pie hole toots!  I was born and raised in a rural community, my comment wasn't motivated by elitism. .....



Toots? Pie hole?:fu2: 

I've found many "rural borns" who ran off to the cities are the worst elitists.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 26, 2006)

Kagom said:


> But what's right and wrong may be different for a group of peole than another group, etc.....


  Moral relativism: the Hallmark of Liberalism.


----------



## 90K (Oct 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> I don't consider it a right; legally I consider it a privledge, analogous to a professional or driver's license. I also think these activist judges should be impeached.
> 
> *Where you aware that all of the judges that voted for this were appointed by the ex govenor, who was gay? That queer filled the Bench with gay activists- "The Queer Mafia". So this ruling is the result of years of careful planning to inflict the Gay Agenda on the People of New Jersey.*



Well said Glock, damn these elected judges.  You know influence with the likes of endless money can have an effect on the system.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 26, 2006)

In August 2004, Governor James E. McGreevey of New Jersey made history when he stepped before microphones, declared "My truth is that I am a gay American," and announced his resignation. [amazon.com]



> All the McGreevy appointees voted for the gay marriage ruling.
> 
> Justice John E. Wallace, Jr (Voted for gay marriage ruling)
>  Nominated by Governor James E. McGreevey on April 12, 2003. ..
> ...




http://www.savage-productions.com/njgaymarriage.html


----------



## 90K (Oct 26, 2006)

You know when I went to Rehobeth Beach in Delaware I saw all these homo flags flying.  Then when you'd go into a business you'd see these men mostly with there squeeze and the ring on the right hand.  I guess my complaint is don't shove your lifestyle in my face. You want respect earn it and quit trying to intimidate my lifestyle and reasoning of my way of life and and my marriage which is excepted throughout the world.  Even geese ----->dumb flying things have a life long soul mate that is female. I've yet to see dumb flying things wear mate bands on their left leg. 
So when I use harsh words about a member of the human race it is more about the motivation and agenda more than anything else.  I've met some salt of the earth gay and straight folks in my life time and I've met some real prick bastards on both side. But when gays have issues with me not being tolerant to this whole sham called diversity....forget about it!  this is more about them making a statement or forced exceptance in a society than anything else. It is been proven that once these groups get what they set out for they actually abandon much of the hype. What a waste of time.  You know if both sides would just worry about being good neighbors in this world instead of a fixed agenda we'd all be much better off. See the thing with me is I don't care it you take it up the bung....good for you I think it sucks to be you , but more over what I care most about is a reasonable relationship about humanity and not about sexual preferance.  Call me weak, but I could give a damn about that . I try and like people for being people and what they have to offer. When folks are treated decent you receive decent dialog.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 26, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> Where'd ya go to school grandpa...Kansas?  This post is a prime example of how much *you* don't know about the people *you* like to make assumptions about.  I'll wager that you and I are approximately the same age, so any reference to your high school education and mine is moot.
> 
> Y'think?  I can only assume based on the level of education you show on the board.
> 
> ...



Is that what I said?  Thought not.  The court was doing its job in deciding the constitutionality of a law.  That is ALL it is supposed to do.  It is up to the legislature to either amend, or throw out the law.

Clearly your opinion of where the line is drawn between the legislature and judiciary does not agree with mine.  I'll refrain from calling you ignorant/uneducated, since that's your deal.  "Misguided" will do.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Moral relativism: the Hallmark of Liberalism.


Madam, I am no Liberal.


----------



## Annie (Oct 26, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Madam, I am no Liberal.



I've seen little 'moral relativism' from you.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 26, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> I've seen little 'moral relativism' from you.


I didn't think I've displayed much moral relativism either.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 27, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Madam, I am no Liberal.


 You are on this issue, dear.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 27, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Is that what I said?  Thought not.  The court was doing its job in deciding the constitutionality of a law.  That is ALL it is supposed to do.  It is up to the legislature to either amend, or throw out the law.



Did I misread the story or isn't that exactly what happened here?  The court found the law unconstitutional and told the legislature to fix it.


----------



## roadhouse158 (Oct 28, 2006)

Oh well. The next thing that will be challenged is polygamy. The argument will be "It's against my civil liberties to say I can only fall in love with one person, or marry only one woman(man)". I swear IMO that is what is going to come next. I guarantee you that if homosexuals are legally able to marry then; they will be as much in an uproar over that as the majority of America is now about homosexual marriage. How do you fix this? Well...It's not going to be fixed. IMO the only way to fix this is to leave marriage to your religious institution. It needs to be dropped altogether. Marriage has it's roots in a covenant with God between a Man and a Woman. There was no ceremony, no clergy man to wed you. It was like a prayer. You just made a promise to God. That was it. The reason "Marriage" was invented was to protect women from their men commiting adultry and such. The woman had to be protected. That's the historical aspect. The Government should just drop it completely. It's un-fixable now. This country is in a whole lot of trouble. All we do is second guess the Bill of Rights, which doesn't mention marriage by the way. It wasn't a civil liberty, and our Constitution. American History should just be dropped altogether; because tomorrow you will just have to come out with a new edition of the book. Constantly changing. The majority of Americans are traditional. We mainly just express our views on Election Day. Well, if they(we) don't wake up and learn what the "changers" are doing and trully start to protest, then change will come. Traditionalist may be the majority, but they are the ritchest and most seen on the TV. Start with protesting the ACLU. Their not for the "A" in their abbreviation. Christians and traditionalist are Americans too. I don't see them standing with them. More like against. 
One more thing.....If your one that want's change, don't say you love America. You don't. You don't change things that you love. You may love the scenery, and the friends you have here, but you don't love AMERICA. Sounds more like you love Denmark.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 28, 2006)

Your prediction is full of hot air.


----------



## roadhouse158 (Oct 28, 2006)

If someone back in the 1980's told you that gay marriage would be truly considered in the near future you would have probably had the same reaction.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 28, 2006)

roadhouse158 said:


> If someone back in the 1980's told you that gay marriage would be truly considered in the near future you would have probably had the same reaction.




No probably to it.  The whole idea would have been considered preposterous, even by all but the most extreme lefties.

Oh .....that's who drives their train now.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 28, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> Did I misread the story or isn't that exactly what happened here?  The court found the law unconstitutional and told the legislature to fix it.



And I said that the judiciary telling the legislature to do ANYTHING is overstepping its bounds.  

The judiciary's role ends with its ruling.  It is the legislature's role to decide whether or not it wishes to strike, amend, or completely rewrite a law.  Which of course, should be based on the wishes of the majority of its constituency.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 28, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> And I said that the judiciary telling the legislature to do ANYTHING is overstepping its bounds.
> 
> The judiciary's role ends with its ruling.  It is the legislature's role to decide whether or not it wishes to strike, amend, or completely rewrite a law.  Which of course, should be based on the wishes of the majority of its constituency.



I disagree.  If the law is unconstitutional, the legislature HAS to fix it.  That's THEIR job.  You're making this huge fuss because a judge told the lawmakers to do their job?  That doesn't sound much like a conservative, IMO.  For the record, I agree the law should be in accordance with the wishes of the majority *as long as it doesn't violate the constitution*.


----------



## roadhouse158 (Oct 28, 2006)

Not allowing same sex marriage isn't unconstitutional. Since marriage was "invented" it has been a union between and a man and a woman. How is it unconstitutional to not allow it? The majority of the worlds country's, and people are against it. Only 4 Country's allow it. Talk about unconstitutional, A gay couple can get same sex benefits, but a Grandmother raising her grandchild can't get the same priviledge unless she adopts this said grandchild. What I really can't wait to see is if Homosexual marriage is legalized, and a church refuses to marry them, if this Church can get sued for discrimination....I mean if people can buy cigarettes knowing they are dangerous and addictive and still sue and win, then this is a foreseeable action.


----------



## roadhouse158 (Oct 28, 2006)

oh yeah..Just thought of a good argument for Polygamy. What about the civil liberties of Bisexuals???? I mean if a historical definition of marriage isn't good enough, then lets not stop at just same sex marriage


----------



## Gunny (Oct 29, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> I disagree.  If the law is unconstitutional, the legislature HAS to fix it.  That's THEIR job.  You're making this huge fuss because a judge told the lawmakers to do their job?  That doesn't sound much like a conservative, IMO.  For the record, I agree the law should be in accordance with the wishes of the majority *as long as it doesn't violate the constitution*.



The judiciary ruling that a law is unconstitutional pretty much "fixes it."  The judiciary is saying with its ruling it is not going to enforce a particular law.  If the judiciary can legally justify not enforcing a law, end of story.

I'm not making a "big fuss," as you say.  I am merely making the point that the legislature is not subservient to the judiciary, and the judiciary is overstepping its bounds attempting to dictate to the legislature.

This would be a basic tenet of the division of power between two of the three branches of government and have NOTHING to do with my political ideology.


----------



## Annie (Oct 29, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> The judiciary ruling that a law is unconstitutional pretty much "fixes it."  The judiciary is saying with its ruling it is not going to enforce a particular law.  If the judiciary can legally justify not enforcing a law, end of story.
> 
> I'm not making a "big fuss," as you say.  I am merely making the point that the legislature is not subservient to the judiciary, and the judiciary is overstepping its bounds attempting to dictate to the legislature.
> 
> This would be a basic tenet of the division of power between two of the three branches of government and have NOTHING to do with my political ideology.



Actually I'm confused about this whole issue. The court said the legislature has 180 days to 'create' what they've ordered. Problem is, the court cannot 'make' law, only declare the law was improper to begin with-thus either voiding the law or the legislature would have to 'fix' the law.

Now the courts cannot 'enforce' or not anything, that falls to the executive branch. 

Bottom line, what is the court going to 'do' if the legislature fails to act? Order contempt charge? "make law or we're going to incarcerate/fine" exactly whom?


----------



## Gunny (Oct 29, 2006)

roadhouse158 said:


> Not allowing same sex marriage isn't unconstitutional. Since marriage was "invented" it has been a union between and a man and a woman. How is it unconstitutional to not allow it? The majority of the worlds country's, and people are against it. Only 4 Country's allow it. Talk about unconstitutional, A gay couple can get same sex benefits, but a Grandmother raising her grandchild can't get the same priviledge unless she adopts this said grandchild. What I really can't wait to see is if Homosexual marriage is legalized, and a church refuses to marry them, if this Church can get sued for discrimination....I mean if people can buy cigarettes knowing they are dangerous and addictive and still sue and win, then this is a foreseeable action.



The gay agenda attempting to impose its will on churches is inevitable.  IIRC, a church was challenged in such a manner a year or so ago.

I don't see it going anywhere.  Churches are by their very nature discriminatory.  They are also private organizations.  If a church loses a discrimination lawsuit for refusing to marry two homosexuals, then what's next?   Losing a discrimination lawsuit for not giving Satanists equal time in the pulpit?


----------



## Gunny (Oct 29, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> Actually I'm confused about this whole issue. The court said the legislature has 180 days to 'create' what they've ordered. Problem is, the court cannot 'make' law, only declare the law was improper to begin with-thus either voiding the law or the legislature would have to 'fix' the law.
> 
> Now the courts cannot 'enforce' or not anything, that falls to the executive branch.
> 
> Bottom line, what is the court going to 'do' if the legislature fails to act? Order contempt charge? "make law or we're going to incarcerate/fine" exactly whom?



That just goes more toward the point I have been trying to make.  The judiciary has stepped over the line ordering the legislature to meet its arbitrary timeline.  

And you have a good point .... what's the judiciary going to do?  If I was in the legislature, I'd turn around and appeal the ruling based on the unconstitutionality of the judiciary attempting to dictate to the legislature.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 29, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> I disagree.  If the law is unconstitutional, the legislature HAS to fix it.  That's THEIR job.  You're making this huge fuss because a judge told the lawmakers to do their job?  That doesn't sound much like a conservative, IMO.  For the record, I agree the law should be in accordance with the wishes of the majority *as long as it doesn't violate the constitution*.



The judiciary ruling that a law is unconstitutional pretty much "fixes it."  The judiciary is saying with its ruling it is not going to enforce a particular law.  If the judiciary can legally justify not enforcing a law, end of story.

I'm not making a "big fuss," as you say.  I am merely making the point that the legislature is not subservient to the judiciary, and the judiciary is overstepping its bounds attempting to dictate to the legislature.

This would be a basic tenet of the division of power between two of the three branches of government and have NOTHING to do with my political ideology.


----------



## Annie (Oct 29, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> That just goes more toward the point I have been trying to make.  The judiciary has stepped over the line ordering the legislature to meet its arbitrary timeline.
> 
> And you have a good point .... what's the judiciary going to do?  If I was in the legislature, I'd turn around and appeal the ruling based on the unconstitutionality of the judiciary attempting to dictate to the legislature.




I could be wrong, it's happened once or twice, but from what I can see, the court is in fact ordering the legislature to pass a law the justices want. Regardless of their time constraint, I fail to see their having the power to do that.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 29, 2006)

roadhouse158 said:


> oh yeah..Just thought of a good argument for Polygamy. What about the civil liberties of Bisexuals???? I mean if a historical definition of marriage isn't good enough, then lets not stop at just same sex marriage


That is, again, a crock.  Bisexuals will usually want to marry the one partner they're with.  Being bisexual doesn't insinuate polygamy or polyamory will ensue.


----------



## roadhouse158 (Oct 29, 2006)

Again I disagree. This gay marriage issue is just the beginning of the opening of Pandoras' Box. You know why there is nothing in the constitution about marriage? Because marriage is between a man and a woman. Why is that so hard to understand? I keep hearing that gay rightS are an issue...What do you mean rightS....Gay people can vote, bare arms, have freedom of speech, have freedom of press. What rightS exactly do they mean? The right to marriage is one topic....Not rightS. I can't go into a womans bathroom because I am man. How can I be banned from a room in a government building that I pay taxes for? See what I mean. If the door gets open it will spiral totally out of control. You have to take a stand. It's not against the law for two gay men or women to live together. Their rights are not being witheld. A lot of people just go along with whatever anymore. Just whatever...It doesn't affect me.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 29, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> I disagree.  If the law is unconstitutional, the legislature HAS to fix it.  That's THEIR job.  ...


  It is their job to be politicians, and such, they can choose to ignore the ruling, making the law in question moot. Or they can re-write it to avoid the constitutional issue altogether. They can also tell the judges to pound sand.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 29, 2006)

Kagom said:


> That is, again, a crock.  Bisexuals will *usually* want to marry the one partner they're with.....


Anyone else see the irony?


----------



## jillian (Oct 29, 2006)

glockmail said:


> It is their job to be politicians, and such, they can choose to ignore the ruling, making the law in question moot. Or they can re-write it to avoid the constitutional issue altogether. They can also tell the judges to pound sand.



It is their job to uphold the Constitution. It is the job of the Courts to construe that Constitution. They cannot ignore the ruling. Nor does ignoring a ruling render it moot. A ruling is rendered moot only when the facts being adjudicated no longer exist _prior_ to a decision being rendered. The legislature also cannot avoid the Constitutional issue because they were told to make the law Constitutional. They have to bow to the Court unless there is a Constitutional Amendment.... Fat chance of that happening.

As for telling the judges to "pound sand".... what planet do you live on?


----------



## Annie (Oct 29, 2006)

jillian said:


> It is their job to uphold the Constitution. It is the job of the Courts to construe that Constitution. They cannot ignore the ruling. Nor does ignoring a ruling render it moot. A ruling is rendered moot only when the facts being adjudicated no longer exist _prior_ to a decision being rendered. The legislature also cannot avoid the Constitutional issue because they were told to make the law Constitutional. They have to bow to the Court unless there is a Constitutional Amendment.... Fat chance of that happening.
> 
> As for telling the judges to "pound sand".... what planet do you live on?



Ok, what is it that the legislature is supposed to 'rewrite' within the 6 months? Emphasis on 're'...


----------



## Kagom (Oct 29, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Anyone else see the irony?


The same can be said of heterosexuals, Glock.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 29, 2006)

jillian said:


> ..... what planet do you live on?



Earth, USA, the Big Red Island.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 29, 2006)

Kagom said:


> The same can be said of heterosexuals, Glock.


 Polygamy is already banned in marriage. Change the definition and see what happens. Some bi will marry both a man and a woman, just like Roadhouse said.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 29, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Polygamy is already banned in marriage. Change the definition and see what happens. Some bi will marry both a man and a woman, just like Roadhouse said.


That's a fallacy.  There's no evidence for that, merely speculation.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 29, 2006)

Kagom said:


> That's a fallacy.  There's no evidence for that, merely speculation.


 So what do you suppose we do about that? Throw out 5000 years of tradition, just to prove that YOU are wrong?:duh3:


----------



## jillian (Oct 29, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Earth, USA, the Big Red Island.



Well, it sure isn't here. That, or maybe you should refrain from making pronouncements about things you know nothing about.
Hint: law isn't your strong suit.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 29, 2006)

glockmail said:


> So what do you suppose we do about that? Throw out 5000 years of tradition, just to prove that YOU are wrong?:duh3:


What's that have to do with me pointing out the bisexual/polygamy point is fallacy?


----------



## glockmail (Oct 30, 2006)

jillian said:


> Well, it sure isn't here. That, or maybe you should refrain from making pronouncements about things you know nothing about.
> Hint: law isn't your strong suit.



Not in the liberal fringe area that you live? Too bad.

Freedom of speech only applies to those who you agree with?


----------



## glockmail (Oct 30, 2006)

Kagom said:


> What's that have to do with me pointing out the bisexual/polygamy point is fallacy?


 It is your theory that the point is a fallacy, and the only way to prove you right or wrong is to undo 5000 years of tradition. To a liberal, that may be a nice experiment, but to a conservative, it is an extremely bad idea.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 30, 2006)

glockmail said:


> It is your theory that the point is a fallacy, and the only way to prove you right or wrong is to undo 5000 years of tradition. To a liberal, that may be a nice experiment, but to a conservative, it is an extremely bad idea.


Does Canada have polygamist marriages?  What about Sweden?  The UK?  Germany?  Spain?


----------



## jillian (Oct 30, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Not in the liberal fringe area that you live? Too bad.
> 
> Freedom of speech only applies to those who you agree with?




Who said you can't speak? 

I simply said don't make pronouncements about law... "conservative" or not since you don't have a clue what you're talking about.... which brings me back to the point I was making.... legislators can't tell judges to "pound sand". Do try to address the point at hand occasionally.

BTW, anyone to the right of Rush Limbaugh has no standing to talk about "fringe areas".

Try again.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 30, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Does Canada have polygamist marriages?  What about Sweden?  The UK?  Germany?  Spain?


 Time will tell. It hasn't been all that long since they went gay.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 30, 2006)

jillian said:


> Who said you can't speak?
> 
> I simply said don't make pronouncements about law... "conservative" or not since you don't have a clue what you're talking about.... which brings me back to the point I was making.... legislators can't tell judges to "pound sand". Do try to address the point at hand occasionally.
> 
> ...



Now my opinion is a "pronouncement"?

Pound sand = flip the bird, ignore, etc.

BTW I am proudly in the conservative fringe- not afraid to admit being an extermist like y'all on the left.


----------



## jillian (Oct 30, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Now my opinion is a "pronouncement"?
> 
> Pound sand = flip the bird, ignore, etc.
> 
> BTW I am proudly in the conservative fringe- not afraid to admit being an extermist like y'all on the left.




You cannot hold an "opinion" on the law which does not comport with the law. 

Legislatures cannot ignore the Courts. Period.


----------



## roadhouse158 (Oct 30, 2006)

http://www.pro-polygamy.com/

Need I say more....Your actually OK with this? People have on blinders today. I just don't get it. I agree with Glockmail..Only time will tell. I'm sure they will try here first.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 30, 2006)

jillian said:


> You cannot hold an "opinion" on the law which does not comport with the law.
> 
> Legislatures cannot ignore the Courts. Period.



I can hold any opinion that I want. Here, I'll use the old lawyers trick: "In my legal opinion, blah, blah, blah..

Legislatures can ignore the courts as I stated in the past. If effect, the law in question becomes moot.

BTW, post 17, baby cakes!


----------



## glockmail (Oct 30, 2006)

roadhouse158 said:


> http://www.pro-polygamy.com/
> 
> Need I say more....Your actually OK with this? People have on blinders today. I just don't get it. I agree with Glockmail..Only time will tell. *I'm sure they will try here first*.


 Lets not give them the chance. :chains:


----------



## jillian (Oct 30, 2006)

glockmail said:


> I can hold any opinion that I want. Here, I'll use the old lawyers trick: "In my legal opinion, blah, blah, blah..
> 
> Legislatures can ignore the courts as I stated in the past. If effect, the law in question becomes moot.
> 
> BTW, post 17, baby cakes!



Do please site the legal precedent proving that legislatures ignore the Courts. 
I await the results of your legal research.
And I explained what "moot" means, lambie pie... and you're using the word incorrectly.

Gotta give you credit for tenacity, though, sugar cheeks. No matter how ignorant you appear or how wrong you're proven to be, you keep on going like the Everready Bunny.

As for post 17, you don't like it, stop saying really dumb stuff about things you know nothing about.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 30, 2006)

roadhouse158 said:


> http://www.pro-polygamy.com/
> 
> Need I say more....Your actually OK with this? People have on blinders today. I just don't get it. I agree with Glockmail..Only time will tell. I'm sure they will try here first.


I'm okay with polygamy if it's a religious thing like it is for the Mormons and Muslims.  However, Sweden's had gay marriage/civil unions for some time now and I've yet to hear of any endeavors to get polygamy in.  And I know quite a few people into polygamy.  I had an ex try to force me into a polygamic relationship and I wouldn't go along with it.  You're only making speculations and assumptions based on nothing other than your own fears.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 30, 2006)

jillian said:


> Do please site the legal precedent proving that legislatures ignore the Courts. ....



**(points to signature line)**

 Nice straw man though.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 30, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I'm okay with polygamy .....


  Hey, why not? Polygymy, gay marriage. How about this- marry your dog! Put out a life insurance policy and when it dies you'd be rich!


----------



## roadhouse158 (Oct 30, 2006)

Your OK with polygamy when it comes to religion???? Marriage is a religous ceremony. It wasn't invinted by the U.S. Government. All religions are against homosexual marriage. Yes there are liberal churches in America that conduct same-sex marriages, But I have no idea what Bible they are reading. They claim to be Christian, but they have already created a false God by saying their God is ok with homosexuality. Not members in the church....The whole Church has already broken one of the 10 commadments. Yes you are right..I am scared to death that polygamy will follow suit. I don't want to live in that country. I sure as hell don't want my kids to.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 30, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Hey, why not? Polygymy, gay marriage. How about this- marry your dog! Put out a life insurance policy and when it dies you'd be rich!


Nice fucking job.  You deliberately cut out the part where I said "if it's a religious thing."  On a personal level, I'm not okay with polygamy.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 30, 2006)

roadhouse158 said:


> Your OK with polygamy when it comes to religion???? Marriage is a religous ceremony. It wasn't invinted by the U.S. Government. All religions are against homosexual marriage. Yes there are liberal churches in America that conduct same-sex marriages, But I have no idea what Bible they are reading. They claim to be Christian, but they have already created a false God by saying their God is ok with homosexuality. Not members in the church....The whole Church has already broken one of the 10 commadments. Yes you are right..I am scared to death that polygamy will follow suit. I don't want to live in that country. I sure as hell don't want my kids to.


I'm quite aware about the religious value behind marriage.  I personally don't care if gays are "married" or "joined in civil union."  I say Christians now have a false God, but that's personal belief.

Here's my thing with gay marriage.  I just want to be entitled to the benefits and breaks that married heterosexual couples do.  I don't care if a church condemns or condones it.  I don't care if you want to call it something else just so you can keep your religious marriage.  I'll call it what I want to and you can call it what you want to.  I'm not going to have a marriage ceremony in a church, so that particularly gets into why I don't care if it's called marriage or not.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 30, 2006)

glockmail said:


> **(points to signature line)**
> 
> Nice straw man though.





			
				glockmail said:
			
		

> Legislatures can ignore the courts as I stated in the past. If effect, the law in question becomes moot.



How in hell can you forget that you wrote this in less than 40 minutes?  Are you a schizo?


----------



## glockmail (Oct 30, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Nice f[--] job.  You deliberately cut out the part where I said "if it's a religious thing."  On a personal level, I'm not okay with polygamy.


 Anyone can call anything they want as their personal religion. So are you OK with it or not?

Such is the twisting road of moral relativism.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 30, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> How in hell can you forget that you wrote this in less than 40 minutes?  Are you a schizo?



Temper, temper. I've had to warn you about that in the past.

It is proven difficult for me to remember things that I have not said.

All you have to do is a simple search and prove me wrong, but I realize that the truth is not your goal.


----------



## roadhouse158 (Oct 30, 2006)

> Here's my thing with gay marriage. I just want to be entitled to the benefits and breaks that married heterosexual couples do. I don't care if a church condemns or condones it. I don't care if you want to call it something else just so you can keep your religious marriage. I'll call it what I want to and you can call it what you want to. I'm not going to have a marriage ceremony in a church, so that particularly gets into why I don't care if it's called marriage or not.



That's fine. I personally could care less if someone is homosexual. Doesn't bother me. And sure...I think the government should give everyone that lives together the same rights as Married couples. Like I said earlier in this forum, I think it's ridicoulous that a Grandmother rasing her grandchild can't carry them on their insurance unless adopted. If two people live together, and depend on one another for living, then they should be covered the same...I am all for equality. But equality doesn't mean a MIRROR image of something. I am just so sick of all the changes that people want to make in this country. Like the churches coming out speaking bad about Halloween. Give me a break. It's a night about kids getting candy. Not about worshiping Satan


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 30, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Temper, temper. I've had to warn you about that in the past.
> 
> It is proven difficult for me to remember things that I have not said.
> 
> All you have to do is a simple search and prove me wrong, but I realize that the truth is not your goal.



I included your quote.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 30, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Anyone can call anything they want as their personal religion. So are you OK with it or not?
> 
> Such is the twisting road of moral relativism.


Not really.  I'm talking about recognized organized religions.  I'm okay with it under religious circumstances, but otherwise I"m not.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 30, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> I included your quote.


 Which you misinterpreted, apparently on purpose, to build your straw man.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 30, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Not really.  I'm talking about recognized organized religions.  I'm okay with it under religious circumstances, but otherwise I"m not.


 I'm not OK with it under religious grounds, and I think that an Abrahamic religion that condones it is making an incorrect interpretation of The Word. It is so bad for society, and as such, could never be part of God's plan.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 30, 2006)

glockmail said:


> I'm not OK with it under religious grounds, and I think that an Abrahamic religion that condones it is making an incorrect interpretation of The Word. It is so bad for society, and as such, could never be part of God's plan.


That's your view.  Under religious contexts, I see nothing wrong with it.


----------



## archangel (Oct 30, 2006)

jillian said:


> You cannot hold an "opinion" on the law which does not comport with the law.
> 
> Legislatures cannot ignore the Courts. Period.




"Legislatures" Write the Laws that Judges enforce and interpret...they also created the Law that appoints Supreme Court Justices...with the stroke of a pen(and a vote) they could abolish the position...!



I say abolish the fools...:tdown2:


----------



## glockmail (Oct 30, 2006)

Kagom said:


> That's your view.  Under religious contexts, I see nothing wrong with it.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't called for in the Jewish or Christian texts, right?


----------



## glockmail (Oct 30, 2006)

archangel said:


> "Legislatures" Write the Laws that Judges enforce and interpret...they also created the Law that appoints Supreme Court Justices...with the stroke of a pen(and a vote) they could abolish the position...!
> 
> 
> 
> I say abolish the fools...:tdown2:



Amen. Impeach 'em too.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 30, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> I could be wrong, it's happened once or twice, but from what I can see, the court is in fact ordering the legislature to pass a law the justices want. Regardless of their time constraint, I fail to see their having the power to do that.



In contradiction to a certain know-it-all who posted otherwise, the power of the court to order the legislature to do anything is assumed.  If the legislature answers to the court, the entire ideal of separation of powers between the three branches of government is smoke.  

I find it rather amusing myself that the very same individuals who rant and wail lile little babies that Bush has usurped the power of the legislature think it's okay for the judiciary to dictate to the legislature when the ruling favors their liberal agenda.

The legislature is under no obligation to meet an arbitrary timeline set by the court, and/or pass legislation dictated by the court.  

The legislature is obligated to ensure the law(s) are in compliance with the US and State Constitutions, in whatever manner and time constraints imposed by one or both of them.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 30, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't called for in the Jewish or Christian texts, right?


Polygamy was practiced for the majority of the Old Testament.  Normally Christians don't advocate it, but then again, Mormons aren't really Christian if you look at things regarding mainstream beliefs.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 30, 2006)

roadhouse158 said:


> That's fine. I personally could care less if someone is homosexual. Doesn't bother me. And sure...I think the government should give everyone that lives together the same rights as Married couples. Like I said earlier in this forum, I think it's ridicoulous that a Grandmother rasing her grandchild can't carry them on their insurance unless adopted. If two people live together, and depend on one another for living, then they should be covered the same...I am all for equality. But equality doesn't mean a MIRROR image of something. I am just so sick of all the changes that people want to make in this country. Like the churches coming out speaking bad about Halloween. Give me a break. It's a night about kids getting candy. Not about worshiping Satan



I pretty-much agree, but read the ruling.  The outspoken gay rights jackasses want full marriage or nothing.  They demand to be accepted as socially normal equals to heterosexuals, and are demanding laws be enacted that apply solely to their behavior.

I have NO problem with everyone having equal rights under the law.  But I see that as a separate issue, and so do most gays/gay sympathizers because whenever I mention it all you hear are crickets chirping.  

It isn't just the legal rights they want.  They want their aberrant behavior legitimized by law.   Next we'll be seeing farmer Brown and his favorite sheep outside the courthouse.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 30, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Polygamy was practiced for the majority of the Old Testament.  .....


 I'm not so sure about that.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 30, 2006)

glockmail said:


> I'm not so sure about that.


Up to Solomon, at least.  And that's about half way into the Bible.  http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 30, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Which you misinterpreted, apparently on purpose, to build your straw man.



Please demonstrate how I misinterpreted your statement.  You said, "Legislatures can ignore the courts as I stated in the past. If effect, the law in question becomes moot."

How does this mean anything other than you believe that the legislature can ignore the courts if they wish?  And based on that meaning, you were asked to provide a case where the legislature has ignored the court.  Your reply to that request was your typical "I never said that".


----------



## glockmail (Oct 31, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Up to Solomon, at least.  And that's about half way into the Bible.  http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html



"The Bible says that *Gods original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman*, For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife (not wives); and they shall become one flesh (not multiple fleshes) (Genesis 2:24). We see in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives. This most definitely puts Solomon in direct disobedience against the Lord." [your link]

Therefore polygamy is wrong and against God's plan.


----------



## roadhouse158 (Oct 31, 2006)

That's right. The Bible is against Polygamy. Yes polygamy was going on back then. So was murder, stealing, and adultry, and a hundred more things that were against God. Just because the Bible mentions something, doesn't mean it condones it.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 31, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> Please demonstrate how I misinterpreted your statement.  You said, "Legislatures can ignore the courts as I stated in the past. If effect, the law in question becomes moot."
> 
> How does this mean anything other than you believe that the legislature can ignore the courts if they wish?  And based on that meaning, you were asked to provide a case where the legislature has ignored the court.  Your reply to that request was your typical "I never said that".



BACKGROUND

Missleman said: If the law is unconstitutional, the legislature HAS to fix it. That's THEIR job. ...  

In response, Glockmail said: It is their job to be politicians, and such, they can choose to ignore the ruling, making the law in question moot. Or they can re-write it to avoid the constitutional issue altogether. They can also tell the judges to pound sand.

POSSIBLE TO IGNORE THE COURT RULING? YES.



> The State's highest court has determined that our State Constitution requires adequate funding for schools, yet the Governor and the Legislature continue to ignore the constitution and the courts," said Karen Scharff, AQE co-chair.  http://www.eisinc.com/release/storiesh/AQUAED.058.html





> he signed the letter because he is worried that the government's basic principle of the separation of powers is at stake in the gay marriage ruling. If the Legislature chooses to ignore the decision, http://www.boston.com/news/local/ar..._ags_urge_passage_of_gay_marriage_law/?page=2





> A simple solution would be for the Florida State Legislature to move ahead, ignore the courts, and approve the States Electors for one candidate or the other before the 12 December deadline. http://www.freeflorida.org/articles/florida-legislature.htm


----------



## Kagom (Oct 31, 2006)

glockmail said:


> "The Bible says that *Gods original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman*, For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife (not wives); and they shall become one flesh (not multiple fleshes) (Genesis 2:24). We see in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives. This most definitely puts Solomon in direct disobedience against the Lord." [your link]
> 
> Therefore polygamy is wrong and against God's plan.


I didn't claim it was sanctioned by God, I claimed that it was practiced in the Old Testament.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 31, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I didn't claim it was sanctioned by God, I claimed that it was practiced in the Old Testament.


 Yes, I agree. That's exactly what you said.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 31, 2006)

glockmail said:


> BACKGROUND
> 
> Missleman said: If the law is unconstitutional, the legislature HAS to fix it. That's THEIR job. ...
> 
> ...



Thanks for answering a question...finally.  

In your first example, the state budget was found by the court to be in violation of the constitution and the court ordered for the budget to be fixed.  

In neither of your other two examples were the courts actually ignored, the possibility was raised.  That carries the same weight as "Bush should ignore the constitution and run for a 3rd term".

I see a difference between a law being found unconstitutional (my original premise), and a party or parties violating a constitutional principle (as in your first example).  

Do you know of any occurrences of a legislature telling a court to "pound sand" when a law was found unconstitutional?  To my knowledge, in those types of cases, there are only two remedies, either change the law or change the constitution.  I don't believe that "pound sand" is a viable alternative.


----------



## Annie (Oct 31, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> Thanks for answering a question...finally.
> 
> In your first example, the state budget was found by the court to be in violation of the constitution and the court ordered for the budget to be fixed.
> 
> ...



Let me say, I've yet to read anything but snippets of this 'ruling', but the snippets I've read have come from law blogs, not right or left blogs. With that said, based on what you posted above, how did the courts get involved with ordering 'parity' to marriage from a budget? How did they 'take' the budget to review? What was illegal that brought funding, I'm assuming, of the state budget to the court?


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 31, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> Let me say, I've yet to read anything but snippets of this 'ruling', but the snippets I've read have come from law blogs, not right or left blogs. With that said, based on what you posted above, how did the courts get involved with ordering 'parity' to marriage from a budget? How did they 'take' the budget to review? What was illegal that brought funding, I'm assuming, of the state budget to the court?



The case about the budget is totally unrelated to the case involving marital rights.  Glockmail posted the case about the budget as evidence that court rulings can be ignored.


----------



## jillian (Oct 31, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> Let me say, I've yet to read anything but snippets of this 'ruling', but the snippets I've read have come from law blogs, not right or left blogs. With that said, based on what you posted above, how did the courts get involved with ordering 'parity' to marriage from a budget? How did they 'take' the budget to review? What was illegal that brought funding, I'm assuming, of the state budget to the court?



The Court ordered that homosexual couples be given the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but did not specify that the relationship be called "marriage".

You can liken this to the Court's Order in Brown that schools be desegregated or its Order in Bakke directing that schools create policies which affirmatively correct for past discrimination in their admission policies. (A bad policy, btw.. .but I didn't create it).


----------



## Annie (Oct 31, 2006)

jillian said:


> The Court ordered that homosexual couples be given the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but did not specify that the relationship be called "marriage".
> 
> You can liken this to the Court's Order in Brown that schools be desegregated or its Order in Bakke directing that schools create policies which affirmatively correct for past discrimination in their admission policies. (A bad policy, btw.. .but I didn't create it).



Brown was brought to the courts to challenge the seperate but equal rulings. They won, as they should. I fail to see the analogy. How did the court end up with this? From everything I've seen, seems the court is ordering the legislature to enact law. That's very different than interpreting law?


----------



## jillian (Oct 31, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> Brown was brought to the courts to challenge the seperate but equal rulings. They won, as they should. I fail to see the analogy. How did the court end up with this? From everything I've seen, seems the court is ordering the legislature to enact law. That's very different than interpreting law?



Again, you're ignoring Bakke, in which the Court directed that _policies_ be created that would lead to fairer admissions practices. The Court can absolutely direct that a legislature act to solve a problem.


----------



## Annie (Oct 31, 2006)

jillian said:


> Again, you're ignoring Bakke, in which the Court directed that _policies_ be created that would lead to fairer admissions practices. The Court can absolutely direct that a legislature act to solve a problem.



So you are saying that Bakke was good law? 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=438&invol=265

OMG!


----------



## jillian (Oct 31, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> So you are saying that Bakke was good law?
> 
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=438&invol=265
> 
> OMG!



Go back a couple of posts, Kathianne. I said Bakke was a bad policy.  

That wasn't your question, though.


----------



## Annie (Oct 31, 2006)

jillian said:


> Go back a couple of posts, Kathianne. I said Bakke was a bad policy.
> 
> That wasn't your question, though.



I went back a few, but came across my own, asking, "Brown was brought to the courts to challenge the seperate but equal rulings. They won, as they should. I fail to see the analogy. How did the court end up with this? From everything I've seen, seems the court is ordering the legislature to enact law. That's very different than interpreting law?"

Maybe I'm missing something?


----------



## glockmail (Oct 31, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> Thanks for answering a question...finally.
> 
> In your first example, the state budget was found by the court to be in violation of the constitution and the court ordered for the budget to be fixed.
> 
> ...



Th NY legislature told the NY Supremes to "pound sand" by ignoring them.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 31, 2006)

jillian said:


> .....The Court can absolutely direct that a legislature act to solve a problem.


 They can _direct _all they want, but Separation of Powers dictates that the Legislature can tell them damn judges to _pound sand._


----------



## jillian (Oct 31, 2006)

glockmail said:


> They can _direct _all they want, but Separation of Powers dictates that the Legislature can tell them damn judges to _pound sand._



You've made the same statement three times and each time, you've been told your wrong and asked to substantiate your position. So, I'll try this one last time, cause you're gettin truly boring, babe.... and the trolling is getting kinda long in the tooth.

But here goes...

No.... it can't.... see if you can't follow... separation of powers means each branch has it's own job....

Executive...administers
Legislature... enacts laws
Courts.... decide if laws are constitutional and adjudicates disputes.

The legislature can no more tell the judges to "pound sand" than you can tell the legislature you won't obey the law (at least w/o accepting the consequences).

Once again... thank you for pontificating about legal issues about which you clearly have no understanding.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 31, 2006)

jillian said:


> .....
> 
> The legislature can no more tell the judges to "pound sand" than you can tell the legislature you won't obey the law (at least w/o accepting the consequences).
> 
> .....



And the consequences are that the law becomes moot.

Once again, thanks for another neg rep for pointing out the truth about liberals, and about you.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 31, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> I went back a few, but came across my own, asking, "Brown was brought to the courts to challenge the seperate but equal rulings. They won, as they should. I fail to see the analogy. How did the court end up with this? From everything I've seen, seems the court is ordering the legislature to enact law. That's very different than interpreting law?"
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something?



You are arguing with someone who obviously does not believe in the division of powers as they are spelled out.  Leftist judicial activism is almost sport nowadays in this country. completely ignoring the fact that the court does not posess the power to legislate, nor to order the legislature to legislate.  The power is assumed by the judiciary, and all too often left unchallenged by the legislature.

The court can declare law invalid, unconstitutional or whatever, but it has no jurisdiction in dictating how it should be fixed.  The court can offer suggestions in its findings, nothing more.  All the legislature has to do is let a ruling stand, and that in fact becomes law.

In this case, the court is CLEARLY out of bounds ordering he legislature to create law based on judicial whim.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 31, 2006)

jillian said:


> You've made the same statement three times and each time, you've been told your wrong and asked to substantiate your position. So, I'll try this one last time, cause you're gettin truly boring, babe.... and the trolling is getting kinda long in the tooth.
> 
> But here goes...
> 
> ...



The legislature has just as much right to tell the judiciary to "pound sand" as the judiciary has to order the legislature to create law to support its findings.


----------



## Annie (Oct 31, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> The legislature has just as much right to tell the judiciary to "pound sand" as the judiciary has to order the legislature to create law to support its findings.



That's what I've been insinuating for two pages now, but it's not been addressed. All I get is, "Don't impose your values..." Which I haven't. They really don't know MY values.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 31, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> The legislature has just as much right to tell the judiciary to "pound sand" as the judiciary has to order the legislature to create law to support its findings.


  Thank you, Gunny. I trust that you also noticed Jillian's elitist attitude that I was "pontificating about legal issues about which _ clearly have no understanding".

Man, I got a back itch. Back itch, Back itch, Back itch. Ba- itch!_


----------



## glockmail (Oct 31, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> That's what I've been insinuating for two pages now, but it's not been addressed. All I get is, "Don't impose your values..." Which I haven't. They really don't know MY values.


  You go, sista!


----------



## Annie (Oct 31, 2006)

glockmail said:


> You go, sista!



I am, brother.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 31, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> I am, brother.


 Oh, brother.... :rotflmao:


----------



## Gunny (Oct 31, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> That's what I've been insinuating for two pages now, but it's not been addressed. All I get is, "Don't impose your values..." Which I haven't. They really don't know MY values.



It's called "deflection."  The ruling supports their agenda.  The end is allowed to justify the means for leftist agenda.  Conservatives just aren't allowed to use that rule.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 31, 2006)

glockmail said:


> And the consequences are that the law becomes moot.



Are you implying that the legislature is under no obligation at all to correct a law that a court has deemed unconstitutional?


----------



## Annie (Oct 31, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> Are you implying that the legislature is under no obligation at all to correct a law that a court has deemed unconstitutional?



My take, is the legislature cannot be forced to correct a law that is not there. Now maybe I'm missing something, but last I knew, the courts are not allowed to make law?


----------



## Gunny (Oct 31, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> Are you implying that the legislature is under no obligation at all to correct a law that a court has deemed unconstitutional?



Depends on whether action is required, does it not?  In many cases, the legislature just lets the ruling stand, and it becomes _de facto _law.

If a change to the law is required by the Constitution, then the legislature is duty-bound to make the correction(s) to the law.  But they are duty bound to the Constitution, not the whims of the judiciary.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 31, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> I went back a few, but came across my own, asking, "Brown was brought to the courts to challenge the seperate but equal rulings. They won, as they should. I fail to see the analogy. How did the court end up with this? From everything I've seen, seems the court is ordering the legislature to enact law. That's very different than interpreting law?"
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something?



From what I read of the ruling, the court found a disparity in the rights/privileges/benefits given to straight couples that aren't afforded to gay couples.  IMO, the court gave the legislature the "lesser of two evils" to rectify the problem.  The alternative would be to remove the rights/privileges/benefits bestowed on married couples by the state.  Can you imagine the rats nest that would create?  The legislature does have another relief at its disposal too...they can change the constitution so that a disparity is NOT unconstitutional.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 31, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Depends on whether action is required, does it not?  In many cases, the legislature just lets the ruling stand, and it becomes _de facto _law.


And in this case the court made no ruling that could be turned into de facto law, but appropriately kicked it back to the legislature for crafting.


----------



## Annie (Oct 31, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> From what I read of the ruling, the court found a disparity in the rights/privileges/benefits given to straight couples that aren't afforded to gay couples.  IMO, the court gave the legislature the "lesser of two evils" to rectify the problem.  The alternative would be to remove the rights/privileges/benefits bestowed on married couples by the state.  Can you imagine the rats nest that would create?  The legislature does have another relief at its disposal too...they can change the constitution so that a disparity is NOT unconstitutional.


I don't think that is imcumbent on me or the state. Seems the court overreached, so far it's not in their realm. Granted it was unanimous, but I've a feeling the SCOTUS is going to be involved in this?


----------



## glockmail (Nov 1, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> Are you implying that the legislature is under no obligation at all to correct a law that a court has deemed unconstitutional?


 I'm implying exactly what I've stated; nothing more.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 1, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> And in this case the court made no ruling that could be turned into de facto law, but appropriately kicked it back to the legislature for crafting.



And again, it is not the judiciary's place to "kick" anything back.  It can recommendations in its findings.

If the judiciary finds a law unconstitutional, that law is unenforceable by judicial decree; which, pretty-much renders it null and void.  No action is required UNLESS the legislature chooses to take action.

The judiciary and legislature are separate but equal branches of government, but your opinion that the legislature is subservient to the judiciary is a BIG problem in this country nowadays.  Judicial activism is wrong, and just to clarify ... wrong on BOTH sides of the aisle.


----------

