Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It idnt require a court decision. Federal law is clear on the point.Kind of like Colorado and marijuana? Yeah.Is it really surprising that Alabama is on the trailing edge of offering equal rights to ANYONE?
Who cares what this backwoods peckerwood thinks. Marriage equality is happening. And honestly, it is happening faster than I thought it would.
No, it's not surprising that Alabama is once again behind the times when it comes to Civil Rights, but what the backwoods peckerwood will DO when marriage equality comes to his state should concern everyone who recalls Alabama's history.
If history repeats itself, Alabama will try to defy the courts. They will hurt a lot of innocent people and will eventually be forced into it.
Roll, Tide Roll.
What federal court order forbid Colorado from selling marajuana?
You can ignore this and pretend it never happened. But its not like the USSC is going to ignore itself because you imagine a 'false analogy'
. The Supreme Court has proven it is not worthy of respect.
Well thanks for your opinion- which essentially means nothing.
which federal law is that?It idnt require a court decision. Federal law is clear on the point.Kind of like Colorado and marijuana? Yeah.Is it really surprising that Alabama is on the trailing edge of offering equal rights to ANYONE?
Who cares what this backwoods peckerwood thinks. Marriage equality is happening. And honestly, it is happening faster than I thought it would.
No, it's not surprising that Alabama is once again behind the times when it comes to Civil Rights, but what the backwoods peckerwood will DO when marriage equality comes to his state should concern everyone who recalls Alabama's history.
If history repeats itself, Alabama will try to defy the courts. They will hurt a lot of innocent people and will eventually be forced into it.
Roll, Tide Roll.
What federal court order forbid Colorado from selling marajuana?
blah blah blahJudicial activism is in the eyes of the beholder
No, judicial activism is when judges do not rule based on the Constitution and the law.....
Judicial activism is whatever anyone who doesn't agree with a decision says it is- on both the right and the left.
The following are cited as examples of judicial activism- by people who disagree with the rulings either on the left or the right
This is why the whole argument of 'judicial activism' is just spurious- nobody ever argues that the Court was being activist when the Court rules the way the person wants it to rule.
- Brown v. Board of Education – 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.[16]
- Roe v. Wade – 1973 Supreme Court ruling decriminalizing abortion.[17]
- Bush v. Gore – The United States Supreme Court case between the major-party candidates in the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush and Al Gore. The judges voted 5-4 to halt the recount of ballots in Florida and, as a result, George Bush was elected President.[18]
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – 2010 Supreme Court decision declaring Congressionally enacted limitations on corporate political spending and transparency as unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.[19][20]
- Hollingsworth v. Perry – 2013 decision by federal judge Vaughn R. Walker overturning California's constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.[21]
. Do you like it because gays like words that sound like anus?Yes, she is a militant queer. She chastised me for a post ... I agreed with her ...Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.
You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.
Offering you a cookie is chastising? I'll bake from scratch.
Yes, we agree that sodomy laws were based on animus. We diverge when speaking of civil marriage. You don't think anti gay marriage laws are based on animus and I disagree. Of course, I still remember all the vile things people said when these anti gay laws were being debated...being compared to barn animals by state legislators and such.
Again you characterizing other people as hostile is just laughable.
Because you are clearly not hostile to gays when you said 'gays like words that sound like anus'.........
blah blah blahJudicial activism is in the eyes of the beholder
No, judicial activism is when judges do not rule based on the Constitution and the law.....
Judicial activism is whatever anyone who doesn't agree with a decision says it is- on both the right and the left.
The following are cited as examples of judicial activism- by people who disagree with the rulings either on the left or the right
This is why the whole argument of 'judicial activism' is just spurious- nobody ever argues that the Court was being activist when the Court rules the way the person wants it to rule.
- Brown v. Board of Education – 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.[16]
- Roe v. Wade – 1973 Supreme Court ruling decriminalizing abortion.[17]
- Bush v. Gore – The United States Supreme Court case between the major-party candidates in the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush and Al Gore. The judges voted 5-4 to halt the recount of ballots in Florida and, as a result, George Bush was elected President.[18]
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – 2010 Supreme Court decision declaring Congressionally enacted limitations on corporate political spending and transparency as unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.[19][20]
- Hollingsworth v. Perry – 2013 decision by federal judge Vaughn R. Walker overturning California's constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.[21]
No, it's when they don't follow the law but make law
I'm saying exactly what I said. That the constitutional amendments and statutory restrictions that declared marriage marriage was only one man and one woman were almost universally created after Hawaiian civil union recognition. And such were explicit attempts to prevent gays from entering into the union of marriage.
Prop 8 being in 2008 wasn't some random coincidence. Gays being excluded from marriage wasn't some mysterious unintended consequence. It was the purpose of the amendment.
Of course they have. Dont be silly.blah blah blahJudicial activism is in the eyes of the beholder
No, judicial activism is when judges do not rule based on the Constitution and the law.....
Judicial activism is whatever anyone who doesn't agree with a decision says it is- on both the right and the left.
The following are cited as examples of judicial activism- by people who disagree with the rulings either on the left or the right
This is why the whole argument of 'judicial activism' is just spurious- nobody ever argues that the Court was being activist when the Court rules the way the person wants it to rule.
- Brown v. Board of Education – 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.[16]
- Roe v. Wade – 1973 Supreme Court ruling decriminalizing abortion.[17]
- Bush v. Gore – The United States Supreme Court case between the major-party candidates in the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush and Al Gore. The judges voted 5-4 to halt the recount of ballots in Florida and, as a result, George Bush was elected President.[18]
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – 2010 Supreme Court decision declaring Congressionally enacted limitations on corporate political spending and transparency as unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.[19][20]
- Hollingsworth v. Perry – 2013 decision by federal judge Vaughn R. Walker overturning California's constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.[21]
No, it's when they don't follow the law but make law
Well there's nothing to bitch about in this thread since judges haven't been making law when it come to gays and lesbians being able to civilly marry each other.
Isn't it funny that Kaz is continually accusing others of reading comprehension problems...
Is it time to go to work yet? You know, work, what you call running to the mailbox for your government check...
No, not for another few minutes. Kids lunches are already made, but your concern is touching, truly. Government checks are directed deposited and they come on the 1st of the month, by the way. I'll be heading off soon to earn my other government direct deposit...serving the voters of my county.
So you don't think serving in the military for 20 years was work and that I earned that check?
Strawman
Wow, dug deep in the bag for that one.
I'm on my break, BTW...since you're so concerned with when I work. I'll have an hour for lunch later...just so we're clear on my schedule.
Only the right complains about modern "Jim Crow" being repealed.blah blah blahJudicial activism is in the eyes of the beholder
No, judicial activism is when judges do not rule based on the Constitution and the law.....
Judicial activism is whatever anyone who doesn't agree with a decision says it is- on both the right and the left.
The following are cited as examples of judicial activism- by people who disagree with the rulings either on the left or the right
This is why the whole argument of 'judicial activism' is just spurious- nobody ever argues that the Court was being activist when the Court rules the way the person wants it to rule.
- Brown v. Board of Education – 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.[16]
- Roe v. Wade – 1973 Supreme Court ruling decriminalizing abortion.[17]
- Bush v. Gore – The United States Supreme Court case between the major-party candidates in the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush and Al Gore. The judges voted 5-4 to halt the recount of ballots in Florida and, as a result, George Bush was elected President.[18]
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – 2010 Supreme Court decision declaring Congressionally enacted limitations on corporate political spending and transparency as unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.[19][20]
- Hollingsworth v. Perry – 2013 decision by federal judge Vaughn R. Walker overturning California's constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.[21]
No, it's when they don't follow the law but make law
Well there's nothing to bitch about in this thread since judges haven't been making law when it come to gays and lesbians being able to civilly marry each other.
blah blah blahJudicial activism is in the eyes of the beholder
No, judicial activism is when judges do not rule based on the Constitution and the law.....
Judicial activism is whatever anyone who doesn't agree with a decision says it is- on both the right and the left.
The following are cited as examples of judicial activism- by people who disagree with the rulings either on the left or the right
This is why the whole argument of 'judicial activism' is just spurious- nobody ever argues that the Court was being activist when the Court rules the way the person wants it to rule.
- Brown v. Board of Education – 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.[16]
- Roe v. Wade – 1973 Supreme Court ruling decriminalizing abortion.[17]
- Bush v. Gore – The United States Supreme Court case between the major-party candidates in the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush and Al Gore. The judges voted 5-4 to halt the recount of ballots in Florida and, as a result, George Bush was elected President.[18]
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – 2010 Supreme Court decision declaring Congressionally enacted limitations on corporate political spending and transparency as unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.[19][20]
- Hollingsworth v. Perry – 2013 decision by federal judge Vaughn R. Walker overturning California's constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.[21]
No, it's when they don't follow the law but make law
Well there's nothing to bitch about in this thread since judges haven't been making law when it come to gays and lesbians being able to civilly marry each other.
You can ignore this and pretend it never happened. But its not like the USSC is going to ignore itself because you imagine a 'false analogy'
. The Supreme Court has proven it is not worthy of respect.
Well thanks for your opinion- which essentially means nothing.
I didn't just give you an opinion, I gave you a list of reasons, which you cut
blah blah blahJudicial activism is in the eyes of the beholder
No, judicial activism is when judges do not rule based on the Constitution and the law.....
Judicial activism is whatever anyone who doesn't agree with a decision says it is- on both the right and the left.
The following are cited as examples of judicial activism- by people who disagree with the rulings either on the left or the right
This is why the whole argument of 'judicial activism' is just spurious- nobody ever argues that the Court was being activist when the Court rules the way the person wants it to rule.
- Brown v. Board of Education – 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.[16]
- Roe v. Wade – 1973 Supreme Court ruling decriminalizing abortion.[17]
- Bush v. Gore – The United States Supreme Court case between the major-party candidates in the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush and Al Gore. The judges voted 5-4 to halt the recount of ballots in Florida and, as a result, George Bush was elected President.[18]
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – 2010 Supreme Court decision declaring Congressionally enacted limitations on corporate political spending and transparency as unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.[19][20]
- Hollingsworth v. Perry – 2013 decision by federal judge Vaughn R. Walker overturning California's constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.[21]
No, it's when they don't follow the law but make law
. Do you like it because gays like words that sound like anus?Yes, she is a militant queer. She chastised me for a post ... I agreed with her ...Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.
You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.
Offering you a cookie is chastising? I'll bake from scratch.
Yes, we agree that sodomy laws were based on animus. We diverge when speaking of civil marriage. You don't think anti gay marriage laws are based on animus and I disagree. Of course, I still remember all the vile things people said when these anti gay laws were being debated...being compared to barn animals by state legislators and such.
Again you characterizing other people as hostile is just laughable.
Because you are clearly not hostile to gays when you said 'gays like words that sound like anus'.........
You must just be a joy to know.
I'm saying exactly what I said. That the constitutional amendments and statutory restrictions that declared marriage marriage was only one man and one woman were almost universally created after Hawaiian civil union recognition. And such were explicit attempts to prevent gays from entering into the union of marriage.
Prop 8 being in 2008 wasn't some random coincidence. Gays being excluded from marriage wasn't some mysterious unintended consequence. It was the purpose of the amendment.
I didn't say you didn't mean what you said, I said you were playing word games with what I said. I talked about the people who created marriage, they were not thinking about gay marriage at all. Wasn't in their mind. Never occurred to them government would recognize that as marriage. I agreed gay sodomy laws were directed at gays.
You came back with that wasn't true and you started with Hawaii in 1991. So, you either think government marriage did not exist before 1991 or you are playing word games. You tell me...
BTW, I got a government marriage in 1988, so I'm pretty sure government marriage was pre-1991...
Of course they have. Dont be silly.blah blah blahJudicial activism is in the eyes of the beholder
No, judicial activism is when judges do not rule based on the Constitution and the law.....
Judicial activism is whatever anyone who doesn't agree with a decision says it is- on both the right and the left.
The following are cited as examples of judicial activism- by people who disagree with the rulings either on the left or the right
This is why the whole argument of 'judicial activism' is just spurious- nobody ever argues that the Court was being activist when the Court rules the way the person wants it to rule.
- Brown v. Board of Education – 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.[16]
- Roe v. Wade – 1973 Supreme Court ruling decriminalizing abortion.[17]
- Bush v. Gore – The United States Supreme Court case between the major-party candidates in the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush and Al Gore. The judges voted 5-4 to halt the recount of ballots in Florida and, as a result, George Bush was elected President.[18]
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – 2010 Supreme Court decision declaring Congressionally enacted limitations on corporate political spending and transparency as unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.[19][20]
- Hollingsworth v. Perry – 2013 decision by federal judge Vaughn R. Walker overturning California's constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.[21]
No, it's when they don't follow the law but make law
Well there's nothing to bitch about in this thread since judges haven't been making law when it come to gays and lesbians being able to civilly marry each other.
I'm saying exactly what I said. That the constitutional amendments and statutory restrictions that declared marriage marriage was only one man and one woman were almost universally created after Hawaiian civil union recognition. And such were explicit attempts to prevent gays from entering into the union of marriage.
Prop 8 being in 2008 wasn't some random coincidence. Gays being excluded from marriage wasn't some mysterious unintended consequence. It was the purpose of the amendment.
I didn't say you didn't mean what you said, I said you were playing word games with what I said. I talked about the people who created marriage, they were not thinking about gay marriage at all. Wasn't in their mind. Never occurred to them government would recognize that as marriage. I agreed gay sodomy laws were directed at gays.
You came back with that wasn't true and you started with Hawaii in 1991. So, you either think government marriage did not exist before 1991 or you are playing word games. You tell me...
BTW, I got a government marriage in 1988, so I'm pretty sure government marriage was pre-1991...
People may have not been thinking about the possibility of homosexuals marrying when marriage was legally created in California, but people were specifically excluding the possibility of homosexuals marrying when they passed laws against same gender marriage:
On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict scrutiny and same-sex couples' access to marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution. The court found that two statutes barring same-sex marriage in California, one enacted in 1977 by the legislature and the other in 2000 by state voters (Proposition 22), were unconstitutional. The decision was the first in the United States to establish sexual orientation as asuspect classification.[2] On June 4, 2008, the court denied a request for rehearing and a request to put a hold on the ruling, affirming that the decision would take effect as scheduled.[3] The writ of mandate directing the state government to comply with the ruling and grant same-sex marriages was issued by the Superior Court of California on June 19, 2008.[4]
And then my fellow citizen's changed our Constitution specifically to ensure that homosexuals could not legally marry.
Californians passed 2 laws, and one Amendment from 1977 on to prevent homosexuals from marrying- those laws were directed specifically at homosexuals.
Of course they have. Dont be silly.blah blah blahNo, judicial activism is when judges do not rule based on the Constitution and the law.....
Judicial activism is whatever anyone who doesn't agree with a decision says it is- on both the right and the left.
The following are cited as examples of judicial activism- by people who disagree with the rulings either on the left or the right
This is why the whole argument of 'judicial activism' is just spurious- nobody ever argues that the Court was being activist when the Court rules the way the person wants it to rule.
- Brown v. Board of Education – 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.[16]
- Roe v. Wade – 1973 Supreme Court ruling decriminalizing abortion.[17]
- Bush v. Gore – The United States Supreme Court case between the major-party candidates in the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush and Al Gore. The judges voted 5-4 to halt the recount of ballots in Florida and, as a result, George Bush was elected President.[18]
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – 2010 Supreme Court decision declaring Congressionally enacted limitations on corporate political spending and transparency as unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.[19][20]
- Hollingsworth v. Perry – 2013 decision by federal judge Vaughn R. Walker overturning California's constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.[21]
No, it's when they don't follow the law but make law
Well there's nothing to bitch about in this thread since judges haven't been making law when it come to gays and lesbians being able to civilly marry each other.
Please give us the name of one of those laws.
