Chris Christie Chooses to Drop Opposition to Marriage Equality

[Seawytch]

.
By Becky Bratu, Staff Writer, NBC News

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie announced Monday he is abandoning the legal challenge to same-sex marriage, saying last week's court decision giving gays and lesbians the right to wed "left no ambiguity."

.

he didn't drop it ... he was forced legally, to drop it .. other wise he would be turning them down ...

Not really forced...he was just told he had no chance in hell of winning.

 

[rightwinger]

So basically you want to create rights you like, and destroy ones I like.

Expect blowback if that is the case.

I lack the power to create anything

Gay marriage is now available to a third of the population. Major issues will be created as gay couples visit and move to states that do not recognize their marriage. Those issues will be resolved in the courts.

The cultural tide on gay marriage has already turned. It is only a matter of time until the courts recognize it

and along with that will come destruction of the 2nd amendment, more restrictions on business and the economy, bullshit environmental cases, and everything else your statist progressive asshole justices can come up with.

If that happens, prepare for dissent, and not the paper mache liberal dissent your side puts up.

Don't worry, your beloved second amendment is safe. If the massacre of 26 schoolchildren did not shock our nation into making changes....nothing will

 

[martybegan]

Hmmm, except that's not why DOMA was struck down. It wasn't struck down because the federal government "overstepped its bounds". It was struck down because it treated a group of people differently under the law.

This is going back to the SCOTUS. One of the "no" states are going back to the Supreme Court, probably soon, and the anti-gay states are going to be ruled unconstitutional as well.

This analysis begs to differ.

Kennedy's decision to strike down a central part of DOMA cited the principles of state autonomy, equal protection and liberty,[44] but the constitutional basis for striking down the law was not entirely clear, as it had elements of federalism, equal protection and due process.[2] The Court wrote:[4

Only as it applies to the "yes" states. The "no" states haven't been ruled upon yet by the SCOTUS. (But they do keep losing in lower courts...an indication of things to come)

Once again relying on the courts to overstep their bounds to achive your goals. How facist of you.

 

[Seawytch]

This analysis begs to differ.

Only as it applies to the "yes" states. The "no" states haven't been ruled upon yet by the SCOTUS. (But they do keep losing in lower courts...an indication of things to come)

Once again relying on the courts to overstep their bounds to achive your goals. How facist of you.

It's not fascist to trust the system of government the Founders set up to work as it is supposed to. Unconstitutional laws go to the SCOTUS.

 

[martybegan]

Only as it applies to the "yes" states. The "no" states haven't been ruled upon yet by the SCOTUS. (But they do keep losing in lower courts...an indication of things to come)

Once again relying on the courts to overstep their bounds to achive your goals. How facist of you.

It's not fascist to trust the system of government the Founders set up to work as it is supposed to. Unconstitutional laws go to the SCOTUS.

The founders never expected the court to legislate from the bench, which is what we are seeing now in cases like this. They are creating new governmental recognized rights from thin air, instead of from the amendment process, and at the same time allowing the limiting of others again without the amendment process. If we see more progressive statists on the bench this will get much worse.

But you will get what you want, so the destruction of the republic is a bearable side effect.

 

[Seawytch]

Once again relying on the courts to overstep their bounds to achive your goals. How facist of you.

It's not fascist to trust the system of government the Founders set up to work as it is supposed to. Unconstitutional laws go to the SCOTUS.

The founders never expected the court to legislate from the bench, which is what we are seeing now in cases like this. They are creating new governmental recognized rights from thin air, instead of from the amendment process, and at the same time allowing the limiting of others again without the amendment process. If we see more progressive statists on the bench this will get much worse.

But you will get what you want, so the destruction of the republic is a bearable side effect.

They aren't legislating from the bench, they're finding unconstitutional laws unconstitutional...like they're supposed to.

 

[Edgetho]

Once again relying on the courts to overstep their bounds to achive your goals. How facist of you.

It's not fascist to trust the system of government the Founders set up to work as it is supposed to. Unconstitutional laws go to the SCOTUS.

The founders never expected the court to legislate from the bench, which is what we are seeing now in cases like this. They are creating new governmental recognized rights from thin air, instead of from the amendment process, and at the same time allowing the limiting of others again without the amendment process. If we see more progressive statists on the bench this will get much worse.

But you will get what you want, so the destruction of the republic is a bearable side effect.

To be fair, in the absence of Legislators and Chief Executives having the guts to do their jobs, it often falls to the Judicial Branch to do it for them. And it frankly irritates the Judicial Branch that they often have to take the heat for legislators and chief executives.

There are, however, notable exceptions to my little stab at gutless elected officials.

Too many. Way too many Judges really do "Legislate From The Bench"

But it's no big deal to overturn or find a 'work-around' to their decisions.

 

[Edgetho]

It's not fascist to trust the system of government the Founders set up to work as it is supposed to. Unconstitutional laws go to the SCOTUS.

The founders never expected the court to legislate from the bench, which is what we are seeing now in cases like this. They are creating new governmental recognized rights from thin air, instead of from the amendment process, and at the same time allowing the limiting of others again without the amendment process. If we see more progressive statists on the bench this will get much worse.

But you will get what you want, so the destruction of the republic is a bearable side effect.

They aren't legislating from the bench, they're finding unconstitutional laws unconstitutional...like they're supposed to.

Find me a "Right To Privacy" in the US Constitution

 

[martybegan]

It's not fascist to trust the system of government the Founders set up to work as it is supposed to. Unconstitutional laws go to the SCOTUS.

The founders never expected the court to legislate from the bench, which is what we are seeing now in cases like this. They are creating new governmental recognized rights from thin air, instead of from the amendment process, and at the same time allowing the limiting of others again without the amendment process. If we see more progressive statists on the bench this will get much worse.

But you will get what you want, so the destruction of the republic is a bearable side effect.

To be fair, in the absence of Legislators and Chief Executives having the guts to do their jobs, it often falls to the Judicial Branch to do it for them. And it frankly irritates the Judicial Branch that they often have to take the heat for legislators and chief executives.

There are, however, notable exceptions to my little stab at gutless elected officials.

Too many. Way too many Judges really do "Legislate From The Bench"

But it's no big deal to overturn or find a 'work-around' to their decisions.

Overstepping ones consitutional role even for noble purposes is till overstepping ones role. And I question the ability to overturn said decsions, in particular if we get a truly liberal court and our 2nd amendment rights, especially in states like NY where they already have unconsitutional limits on my rights, and the courts here seem just fine with that.

 

[rightwinger]

The founders never expected the court to legislate from the bench, which is what we are seeing now in cases like this. They are creating new governmental recognized rights from thin air, instead of from the amendment process, and at the same time allowing the limiting of others again without the amendment process. If we see more progressive statists on the bench this will get much worse.

But you will get what you want, so the destruction of the republic is a bearable side effect.

They aren't legislating from the bench, they're finding unconstitutional laws unconstitutional...like they're supposed to.

Find me a "Right To Privacy" in the US Constitution

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[martybegan]

They aren't legislating from the bench, they're finding unconstitutional laws unconstitutional...like they're supposed to.

Find me a "Right To Privacy" in the US Constitution

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And the stretching commences.

 

[rightwinger]

Find me a "Right To Privacy" in the US Constitution

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And the stretching commences.

The courts don't think so

 

[martybegan]

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And the stretching commences.

The courts don't think so

One again deferring to unelected lawyers, how democratic of you.

 

[Edgetho]

They aren't legislating from the bench, they're finding unconstitutional laws unconstitutional...like they're supposed to.

Find me a "Right To Privacy" in the US Constitution

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

<sigh>

Clearly, the 4th Amendment applies to criminal search and seizure. Even citing the 9th would have been a better reach than that

hopeless children.... all of you.

Be nice to have an adult to debate with in here once in a while.

The SCOTUS stepped in because politicians wouldn't do their jobs.

That simple. And it was an over-reach

 

[martybegan]

Find me a "Right To Privacy" in the US Constitution

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

<sigh>

Clearly, the 4th Amendment applies to criminal search and seizure. Even citing the 9th would have been a better reach than that

hopeless children.... all of you.

Be nice to have an adult to debate with in here once in a while.

The SCOTUS stepped in because politicians wouldn't do their jobs.

That simple. And it was an over-reach

What job would that be? I don't see why the states cannot regulate abortion as they see fit legislatively.

 

[bodecea]

This analysis begs to differ.

Only as it applies to the "yes" states. The "no" states haven't been ruled upon yet by the SCOTUS. (But they do keep losing in lower courts...an indication of things to come)

Once again relying on the courts to overstep their bounds to achive your goals. How facist of you.

Yeah...like in Brown v Board of Ed

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just wait until we start hearing the ugly homosexual divorce stories and suits for custody and support.

Already happened, not really any different then the ugly heterosexual divorce stories and suits for custody and support.



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Only as it applies to the "yes" states. The "no" states haven't been ruled upon yet by the SCOTUS. (But they do keep losing in lower courts...an indication of things to come)

Once again relying on the courts to overstep their bounds to achive your goals. How facist of you.

Yeah...like in Brown v Board of Ed

Which was a correction of Plessey V. Fergueson, which was a direct violation of the Equal protection clause. The Equal protection clause was specifically set up to prevent governments of states as well as federal from discriminating against the new freedmen.

So brown followed the intent of the amendment to the letter. The amendment was in place, and used for its explicit purpose.

Please explain to me how the 4th amendment was intended to apply to abortions.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Here's the problem. You think marriage is a lollipop instead of the fundamental building block of society designed as the best way to procreate and raise the next generation. Something same sex couples cannot ever do.

Could you name any state in the union where procreation is a requirement of Civil Marriage?

I can tell you at least one state where the inability to procreate is a requirement for certain Civil Marriages.


**************************************

Secondly you confuse being homosexual with infertile, in general homosexuals are no more infertile then any other segment of the population and have children the same way that infertile couples (together) have children - IVF, sperm donation, surrogacy, and adoption.


**************************************

Thirdly, yes homosexuals have children and raise them. IIRC the last census showed that 25% of same-sex couples in a long term relationship were raising children.



>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

And the stretching commences.

The courts don't think so

One again deferring to unelected lawyers, how democratic of you.

More like deferring to the US Constitution

Its a bitch when it works against you isn't it?