Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Pop23]

There is nothing wrong with legal marriage between two men or between 2 women. Marriage doesn't require procreation- the intent to procreate- or even the ability to procreate.

The only thing wrong is the attempt by homophobes to discriminate against homosexuals.

Wow, so siblings should be allowed to marry as long as they are of the same sex?

Why do you believe siblings should be allowed to marry?

What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.

Why do you think that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, and not treated equally?

I do not think they should dimwit, give me the compelling state interest in denying the right to same sex heterosexual sibling from entering into a marriage.

No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?

But there are physiological reasons to deny marrying anything other than a non-sibling hetero partner. Procreation for anything beyond hetero and birth defects among siblings.
Next ridiculous question that the originators of marriage didn't think would need to asked...

Yet sex is not a requirement of marriage. You presume two people would break a law without probable cause? That doesn't withstand judicial muster.

My neighbor put 4 kids through college, he doesn't make enough money to do so, so I guess he should be jailed for bank robbery because........

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Horseshit! I said no such thing. The Obergefell ruling SPECIFICALLY states that same sex couples are granted the same rights-and only the same rights-as opposite sex couples. It does not negate laws against incest or anything else. To say it does is just a dishonest red herring and slippery slope logical fallacy. But, I understand why you have to resort to such low life tactics, since you have nothing else.

If true, and not bullshit as you just said it was, you obviously can state a compelling state reason to deny two heterosexual sisters the rights and benefits to a marriage license.

I await your answer.

Obviously you don't understand things very well. It would be up to the state to come up with a reason why two sisters could not marry, if in fact they petitioned the court to do so. I have no interest in , or obligation to litigate that issue. If you think that Obergefell, open some door to other variations on marriage, take your mother down to the court house and try to get a marriage license with her. Then come back here and tell me what they said.

You do understand that laws do change without court challenge right? States have every right to take a look at court rulings and create just law.

Since the current law excluded the need for the couple be of opposite genders, then the rest of the requirements are arbitrary. They have every right, and actually an obligation to the citizens, to rectify this to insure this civil right is afforded all.

Or are you denying this is a civil right?

Wow, that would be a complete disaster for your side, wouldn't it.

Of course I know that laws can be changed in other ways. You could also ask your assemblyman or senator to introduce legislation to allow you to marry your mother, or your dog, or both. But all of this other stuff carries with it different issues and consequences for society and each must be assessed on their own merits.

The question of whether sibling marriage can be seen as a civil rights issue is an open one. Civil rights are violated when one group is treated different and suffers as the result of capricious and arbitrary discrimination for no purpose other than to disparage and marginalize them. Gay have proven that was exactly what was happening to them. You and your mother, or those sisters would have to do the same thing. Good like bubba.

Aren't you getting tired of this? You are not proving your slippery slope nonsense at all. Not even close. Same sex marriage is here to stay. End of story

I've never tired of discussing civil rights.

This is not a slippery slope discussion but I can see why you would like it to be.

Prior to the exclusion of the need for opposite gender requirement in marriage, I had zero argument as the equal protection clause would not have come into play. Excluding siblings, or for that matter, all family members from marriage was indeed constitutional. Now , I don't see the argument that this kind exclusion can meet constitutional muster unless you can find where sexual contact, between the partners is a requirement of marriage. Now you would need the presumption that the partners intended to break the law without any probable cause.

And that my friend is why the OP may indeed be correct that homosexual, and indeed all marriage could cease to exist.

If not a slippery slope fallacy what is it. Its is either a slippery slope to other forms of marriage, or it's a slippery slope to the demise of marriage. In any case it is indeed a slippery slop argument.

Excluding siblings and other family members from marriage has not been challenged on constitutional ( or any other ) grounds so no one can say whether or not it is constitutional or not. And, that has not changed as a result of Obergefell.

Furthermore, marriage is about much more than sexual contact. Of course it is not a requirement. Marriage is about family and what constitutes family and the purpose of marriage. As I said, there are a host of different issues and consequences when you are talking about people marrying within an existing family.

Tell you what, go away and come back when there is either a movement advocating sibling marriage, or, when there is a viable effort to get government out of marriage. In the mean time leave me alone.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Wow, so siblings should be allowed to marry as long as they are of the same sex?

Why do you believe siblings should be allowed to marry?

What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.

Why do you think that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, and not treated equally?

I do not think they should dimwit, give me the compelling state interest in denying the right to same sex heterosexual sibling from entering into a marriage.

No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?

But there are physiological reasons to deny marrying anything other than a non-sibling hetero partner. Procreation for anything beyond hetero and birth defects among siblings.
Next ridiculous question that the originators of marriage didn't think would need to asked...

Yet sex is not a requirement of marriage. You presume two people would break a law without probable cause? That doesn't withstand judicial muster.

My neighbor put 4 kids through college, he doesn't make enough money to do so, so I guess he should be jailed for bank robbery because........

Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.

Now it is a tool for deconstructing the family as an institution.

 

[Pop23]

If true, and not bullshit as you just said it was, you obviously can state a compelling state reason to deny two heterosexual sisters the rights and benefits to a marriage license.

I await your answer.

Obviously you don't understand things very well. It would be up to the state to come up with a reason why two sisters could not marry, if in fact they petitioned the court to do so. I have no interest in , or obligation to litigate that issue. If you think that Obergefell, open some door to other variations on marriage, take your mother down to the court house and try to get a marriage license with her. Then come back here and tell me what they said.

You do understand that laws do change without court challenge right? States have every right to take a look at court rulings and create just law.

Since the current law excluded the need for the couple be of opposite genders, then the rest of the requirements are arbitrary. They have every right, and actually an obligation to the citizens, to rectify this to insure this civil right is afforded all.

Or are you denying this is a civil right?

Wow, that would be a complete disaster for your side, wouldn't it.

Of course I know that laws can be changed in other ways. You could also ask your assemblyman or senator to introduce legislation to allow you to marry your mother, or your dog, or both. But all of this other stuff carries with it different issues and consequences for society and each must be assessed on their own merits.

The question of whether sibling marriage can be seen as a civil rights issue is an open one. Civil rights are violated when one group is treated different and suffers as the result of capricious and arbitrary discrimination for no purpose other than to disparage and marginalize them. Gay have proven that was exactly what was happening to them. You and your mother, or those sisters would have to do the same thing. Good like bubba.

Aren't you getting tired of this? You are not proving your slippery slope nonsense at all. Not even close. Same sex marriage is here to stay. End of story

I've never tired of discussing civil rights.

This is not a slippery slope discussion but I can see why you would like it to be.

Prior to the exclusion of the need for opposite gender requirement in marriage, I had zero argument as the equal protection clause would not have come into play. Excluding siblings, or for that matter, all family members from marriage was indeed constitutional. Now , I don't see the argument that this kind exclusion can meet constitutional muster unless you can find where sexual contact, between the partners is a requirement of marriage. Now you would need the presumption that the partners intended to break the law without any probable cause.

And that my friend is why the OP may indeed be correct that homosexual, and indeed all marriage could cease to exist.

If not a slippery slope fallacy what is it. Its is either a slippery slope to other forms of marriage, or it's a slippery slope to the demise of marriage. In any case it is indeed a slippery slop argument.

Excluding siblings and other family members from marriage has not been challenged on constitutional ( or any other ) grounds so no one can say whether or not it is constitutional or not. And, that has not changed as a result of Obergefell.

Furthermore, marriage is about much more than sexual contact. Of course it is not a requirement. Marriage is about family and what constitutes family and the purpose of marriage. As I said, there are a host of different issues and consequences when you are talking about people marrying within an existing family.

Tell you what, go away and come back when there is either a movement advocating sibling marriage, or, when there is a viable effort to get government out of marriage. In the mean time leave me alone.

Thanks for the invite but I think I'll stick around and talk about how, when you modify a law, something best left to the legislative bodies, how you sometimes create a worse situation.

As for constitutionality. Due process has met that challenge, equal protection and its application has met that challenge. The States responsibilty to provide a compelling reason to deny citizens their rights have met judicial challenge as has probable cause.

So, your claim to a slippery slope falicy seems without merit.

Thanks

 

[Pop23]

Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.

Now it is a tool for deconstructing the family as an institution.

Likely, but in reality the current law seems to make it simply a financial arrangement, not much different to an LLC or an S-Corp.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.

Now it is a tool for deconstructing the family as an institution.

Likely, but in reality the current law seems to make it simply a financial arrangement, not much different to an LLC or an S-Corp.

The abuse of the current law results in that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.

Now it is a tool for deconstructing the family as an institution.

Common boys!! Get the fuck over it. Who the hell is deconstructing the family? Gay families are families. Other families are still families just as they always were, for better or worse. You really have to stop getting all of your information from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. It's rotting your brain, dude.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.

Now it is a tool for deconstructing the family as an institution.

Common boys!! Get the fuck over it. Who the hell is deconstructing the family? Gay families are families. Other families are still families just as they always were, for better or worse. You really have to stop getting all of your information from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. It's rotting your brain, dude.

You need desperately to progress. Move forward already. Get out of the 1960's. Family de-structuring is an effective way to erode the culture and generate social demise.
Too many are still brainwashed or are too insulated to recognize or are in denial of that reality.

 

[Pop23]

Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.

Now it is a tool for deconstructing the family as an institution.

Common boys!! Get the fuck over it. Who the hell is deconstructing the family? Gay families are families. Other families are still families just as they always were, for better or worse. You really have to stop getting all of your information from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. It's rotting your brain, dude.

Gays always had families. You made sexuality a part of this. Not us. Get used to this, it will not stop. The removal of opposite sex genders as a marriage requirement has opened the door to some highly suspect, yet under current legal application, legal additional "families" a distinct possibility.

The "Loving v Virginia decision did not do this, it was the recent USSC decision on SSM that did, what a few years ago would have been impossible.

Pat yourself on the back for a job well (cough cough) done.

 

[the_human_being]

The thing the gay and lesbian community most wanted and wished for is slipping from their grasp. They so wanted and wished for acceptance from the Christian community. They thought they could take Christian pastors and ministers to court and have the courts force these pastors and ministers to perform marriage ceremonies for them, thus garnering some form of religious acceptance of their depraved unions. Not going to happen.

All they have gained is a legal win, not a social or religious win. Once the states begin to issue these little paper forms for those who wish a legal marriage and receive the probate fees for the little forms, there will be no avenue available for lawsuits against the clergy, county clerks, justices of the peace, judges, or anyone else. They can even go to Walmart and pick up a Little Debbie for their wedding cake.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.

Now it is a tool for deconstructing the family as an institution.

Common boys!! Get the fuck over it. Who the hell is deconstructing the family? Gay families are families. Other families are still families just as they always were, for better or worse. You really have to stop getting all of your information from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. It's rotting your brain, dude.

Gays always had families. You made sexuality a part of this. Not us. Get used to this, it will not stop. The removal of opposite sex genders as a marriage requirement has opened the door to some highly suspect, yet under current legal application, legal additional "families" a distinct possibility.

The "Loving v Virginia decision did not do this, it was the recent USSC decision on SSM that did, what a few years ago would have been impossible.

Pat yourself on the back for a job well (cough cough) done.

Yeah, the fags supposedly wanted to be married for the respect of the institution, but everyone knows that they are really trying to destroy not only the family but the notion of even normality itself.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The thing the gay and lesbian community most wanted and wished for is slipping from their grasp. They so wanted and wished for acceptance from the Christian community. They thought they could take Christian pastors and ministers to court and have the courts force these pastors and ministers to perform marriage ceremonies for them, thus garnering some form of religious acceptance of their depraved unions. Not going to happen.

All they have gained is a legal win, not a social or religious win. Once the states begin to issue these little paper forms for those who wish a legal marriage and receive the probate fees for the little forms, there will be no avenue available for lawsuits against the clergy, county clerks, justices of the peace, judges, or anyone else. They can even go to Walmart and pick up a Little Debbie for their wedding cake.

Where the fuck do you get this bizarre bovine excrement from??!! Why the hell do you think that they are especially interested in acceptance from Christians.? They do in fact want acceptance from everyone, but they are realistic enough to know that won't happen. They did however achieve legal equality, at least with respect to marriage equality. But know this ....there are decent Christian, true Christians who support gat rights. There are Christians who are gay. It is not about gays vs. Christians . If you think that it is, it's just more evidence of your mental illness and cognitive limitations.

In addition, it is only the voices in your diseased mind that are telling you that they want to sue clergy. Why the fuck would anybody want to be married by someone who is hostile to them? Clerks and other government officials who would refuse to do their jobs in the name of "religious freedom" is another story. Toiugh shit! Can you say "Kim Davis"

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.

Now it is a tool for deconstructing the family as an institution.

Common boys!! Get the fuck over it. Who the hell is deconstructing the family? Gay families are families. Other families are still families just as they always were, for better or worse. You really have to stop getting all of your information from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. It's rotting your brain, dude.

Gays always had families. You made sexuality a part of this. Not us. Get used to this, it will not stop. The removal of opposite sex genders as a marriage requirement has opened the door to some highly suspect, yet under current legal application, legal additional "families" a distinct possibility.

The "Loving v Virginia decision did not do this, it was the recent USSC decision on SSM that did, what a few years ago would have been impossible.

Pat yourself on the back for a job well (cough cough) done.

Yeah, the fags supposedly wanted to be married for the respect of the institution, but everyone knows that they are really trying to destroy not only the family but the notion of even normality itself.

Right bubba. Keep blathering senselessly. Now all that you have to do is provide some evidence that gays want to, or are actually destroying the family and the institution of marriage, and maybe we wont think that you are a delusional, paranoid schizophrenic. Good luck

 

[the_human_being]

The thing the gay and lesbian community most wanted and wished for is slipping from their grasp. They so wanted and wished for acceptance from the Christian community. They thought they could take Christian pastors and ministers to court and have the courts force these pastors and ministers to perform marriage ceremonies for them, thus garnering some form of religious acceptance of their depraved unions. Not going to happen.

All they have gained is a legal win, not a social or religious win. Once the states begin to issue these little paper forms for those who wish a legal marriage and receive the probate fees for the little forms, there will be no avenue available for lawsuits against the clergy, county clerks, justices of the peace, judges, or anyone else. They can even go to Walmart and pick up a Little Debbie for their wedding cake.

Where the fuck do you get this bizarre bovine excrement from??!! Why the hell do you think that they are especially interested in acceptance from Christians.? They do in fact want acceptance from everyone, but they are realistic enough to know that won't happen. They did however achieve legal equality, at least with respect to marriage equality. But know this ....there are decent Christian, true Christians who support gat rights. There are Christians who are gay. It is not about gays vs. Christians . If you think that it is, it's just more evidence of your mental illness and cognitive limitations.

In addition, it is only the voices in your diseased mind that are telling you that they want to sue clergy. Why the fuck would anybody want to be married by someone who is hostile to them? Clerks and other government officials who would refuse to do their jobs in the name of "religious freedom" is another story. Toiugh shit! Can you say "Kim Davis"

There are no gay Christians. That ain't gonna happen. Yes, it is the dream of the gays to get acceptance from the Christian community but that ain't gonna happen either. The only ones besides yourself with diseased minds are gays and lesbians.

 

[the_human_being]

Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.

Now it is a tool for deconstructing the family as an institution.

Common boys!! Get the fuck over it. Who the hell is deconstructing the family? Gay families are families. Other families are still families just as they always were, for better or worse. You really have to stop getting all of your information from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. It's rotting your brain, dude.

Gays always had families. You made sexuality a part of this. Not us. Get used to this, it will not stop. The removal of opposite sex genders as a marriage requirement has opened the door to some highly suspect, yet under current legal application, legal additional "families" a distinct possibility.

The "Loving v Virginia decision did not do this, it was the recent USSC decision on SSM that did, what a few years ago would have been impossible.

Pat yourself on the back for a job well (cough cough) done.

Yeah, the fags supposedly wanted to be married for the respect of the institution, but everyone knows that they are really trying to destroy not only the family but the notion of even normality itself.

Yeah. They're freaks and belong in a carnival side show.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Yeah. They're freaks and belong in a carnival side show.

AKA, a gay pride parade.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.

Now it is a tool for deconstructing the family as an institution.

Common boys!! Get the fuck over it. Who the hell is deconstructing the family? Gay families are families. Other families are still families just as they always were, for better or worse. You really have to stop getting all of your information from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. It's rotting your brain, dude.

Gays always had families. You made sexuality a part of this. Not us. Get used to this, it will not stop. The removal of opposite sex genders as a marriage requirement has opened the door to some highly suspect, yet under current legal application, legal additional "families" a distinct possibility.

The "Loving v Virginia decision did not do this, it was the recent USSC decision on SSM that did, what a few years ago would have been impossible.

Pat yourself on the back for a job well (cough cough) done.

Yeah, the fags supposedly wanted to be married for the respect of the institution, but everyone knows that they are really trying to destroy not only the family but the notion of even normality itself.

Right bubba. Keep blathering senselessly. Now all that you have to do is provide some evidence that gays want to, or are actually destroying the family and the institution of marriage, and maybe we wont think that you are a delusional, paranoid schizophrenic. Good luck

By legally forcing the equal opportunity to adopt children they contribute to the problem of unstructured families.
It's a post-1960's thing. You wouldn't understand.

 

[Boss]

So if you aren't advocating getting rid of civil marriages, what exactly are you saying? You've said something about states no longer sanctioning marriage.....but you've had multiple posters telling you that the sited Alabama law would not get rid of state-sanctioned marriage, it would merely change the way people entered into such a union.

It certainly sounded like you were saying states would get out of marriages altogether, but now you are saying civil marriage will remain? What does it matter if states issue a marriage license or if couples file a form?

Well first of all, I don't care what people here have said, that doesn't really mean anything to me. We can sit here and "say" anything we please. If there is no more marriage license being issued by the state, there is no more sanctioning of marriage by the state. Would people still fill out forms? Sure... people fill out forms all the time for all kinds of things, no one is opposed to form filling out. As long as the state isn't sanctioning marriages, that's all that matters.

I've not argued that this would result in marriage ending. Only state sponsoring of marriage. Again, no one is opposed to people having whatever kind of relationship and calling it whatever they please, they just don't want to be forced to recognize it or have it ordained by the state. If you want to fuck people in the ass and call that marriage, the SCOTUS says you can do that. I don't have to condone it or recognize it as such. And guess what? You're never going to make me accept it as such. You can have all the 5-4 SCOTUS rulings you like, I'm not accepting it.

 

[Boss]

You don't think that the majority of the court was aware of, or was influenced by the opinion polls?

Dear Lord! ...The function of the supreme court is NOT to base opinions and rulings on polls! If that's the case, we don't need a fucking SCOTUS! We can let Gallup and Pew Research determine what is or isn't "Constitutional" based on a fucking poll! Why do we need a court?

This is the dumbest thing I've read from a liberal today. Really? You were serious?

Get real Boss Man. I didn't say that the decision was based on opinion, now did I? However, they, unlike you, are not living in a bubble. They had to have asked themselves if the American people were ready for it. They had to consider how it would play out. They are actually human beings you know. And yes, the applied constitutional law to the matter.

And I disagree that they applied the Constitution as they should have. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the basis of what is in the Constitution without regard for what they personally believe is right or wrong or what public perception of right and wrong is. They are not moral judges, they are justices charged with applying the Constitution as it is written. The Constitution does not grant the Federal government authority over the domain of marriage. That is strictly a State right reserved for the state and the people. They have no authority to change that.

It seems that you are jubilantly proud of the fact that we have an activist Supreme Court. But I wonder if you would feel this way if the court were being activist the other way? Maybe in the future a more Christian-Conservative SCOTUS will "interpret" their own morality into law and you'll have to live with that being crammed down your throat against your will? Because that is what happens when you have activist courts... the power of the people is gone... you gave it to the courts. Or... maybe you're a young mush-brain who has never seen the progressive pendulum swing the other way, as it has done throughout history? Yes, it can happen... it has happened before. It will happen again.

The fact that you have a faulty, antebellum understanding of Federalism is your problem and yours alone. The fourteenth amendment provides for equal protection under the law in all actions taken by the state in any matter that involves civil rights. As far as marriage goes, case law solidly establishes the limits of states right:

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Make that 15 times with Obergefell. You will see that one of those prior case is Loving V. Virginia. Do you think that the Court was engaging in inappropriate activism in that case too? The answer has to either be “yes” to both Loving and Obergefell or “no” to both. And don’t tell me that race is different that sexuality. Of course it is different. However, the legal principles are the same.

As far as activism goes, I don’t agree with everything that the court does. Funny thing is though, you guys only scream activism when a decision supports a liberal cause. I am well aware of the fact that that activism can go the other way, but when it does, you guys don’t have a problem with it.

Actually, the issue of judicial activism or "legislating from the bench" is rather complicated, but you wouldn't know that from the way conservatives like to dumb it down.

“Legislating from the bench” implies a justice system comprised of two types of judges: those who merely interpret law and those with political agendas who create law…………

This distinction, however, covers up the fact that vague language and political and societal change necessitate that law be created through legal interpretation. A.E. Dick Howard, professor of Constitutional law at the University of Virginia, told the HPR that ambiguous phrases found in the Constitution such as “due process of law, equal protection of law, and cruel and unusual punishment” require interpretation to be applied. The interpretations of these phrases must change as unforeseeable circumstances arise, making the courts an avenue for interpretation to substantially affect law. Accordingly, the phrase “legislating from the bench” is at best misleading, and analysis of its historical application reveals its necessity. Legislating from the Bench - Harvard Political Review

It would appear that the term is most often used by those who wish to deride decisions that the court has made. And both liberals and conservatives do it.

As Sen. McCain’s comment indicates, popular belief suggests only liberals are guilty of supporting politically active judges. However, both Democrats and Republicans have accused judges of over-stepping their boundaries in the past. As Howard explained, “In the 1930s, during the New Deal, it was liberals complaining that the courts were making social and economic judgments that the legislature should make.” Later, conservatives took up the cry as the infamously liberal Warren Court took on similar political activism; it is this court that is remembered by conservatives and from whom many of the negative connotations of “legislating from the bench” are derived. More recently, it was the conservative Rehnquist court that, according to Howard, “struck down acts of Congress at a greater rate than did the more liberal Warren Court.” Liberals are consequently not the only judges who have a habit of correcting the law. http://harvardpolitics.com/online/legislating-from-the-bench/

I have no problem with marriage being a 'fundamental right' but marriage is the union of a man and woman. It's not something else just because you (or an activist court) says so.

If I wanted to show up at polling precincts with my sniper rifle and start capping liberals as they arrive to vote, then claim that I am "exercising my right to vote"... I can run around on my high horse with all the previous SCOTUS rulings protecting voting rights and proclaiming this as justification for why my practice is constitutionally protected... it doesn't change the fact that what I am doing is simply not voting and not what the law protects my right to do. Maybe I can even get an activist SCOTUS to make a 5-4 ruling that what I am doing is constitutional... still doesn't make it voting and it doesn't make it acceptable to others. I can go on long-winded rants here at USMB, citing all the previous SCOTUS cases protecting my voting rights... calling people horrible names who disagree... still doesn't change what I am doing into voting. Maybe I can even convince 47% of some really stupid people into believing that I am only trying to obtain my right to vote, it doesn't change what I am doing.

So you can talk about marriage rights all you like, two homosexuals of the same gender can't get married because that's not marriage. Maybe it warrants the same consideration? I don't have an argument with that but that's not the argument being presented.