Michigan's gay marriage ban struck down

[TheOldSchool]

Gun bans run afoul of the 2A.
Nothing unconstitutional about Jim Crow.

Gotta love republicans

 

[The Rabbi]

Gun bans run afoul of the 2A.
Nothing unconstitutional about Jim Crow.

Gotta love republicans

Just an inconvenient truth.

 

[Luissa]

Another win for smaller government and freedom!

No, idiot. People voted for that ban. People in the state voted to establish a state standard of marriage. The 10th Amendment allows them to do just that. Now we have unelected judges defying the clear will of the people. That is not freedom but tyranny. But in good news many of those gays will get to work on research, infreastructure and education.

Tyranny? This is tyranny but letting people vote to not allow someone a right isn't?


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, idiot. People voted for that ban. People in the state voted to establish a state standard of marriage. The 10th Amendment allows them to do just that. Now we have unelected judges defying the clear will of the people. That is not freedom but tyranny. But in good news many of those gays will get to work on research, infreastructure and education.

People voted for gun bans in the past too. People voted for Jim Crow laws in the past too. Doesn't make them any more Constitutional.

Gun bans run afoul of the 2A.
Nothing unconstitutional about Jim Crow.

Reminds me of how
"prochoice" arguments apply to abortion
(where protecting individual freedom trumps laws defending life)

but when it comes to health care mandates
"prochoice" argument do not apply
(where "right to health care" trumps defending "freedom to choose" how to do so)

Sure, political agenda will affect if people will argue for or against Constitutionality.
But for liberals who don't cite Constitutionality authority to back arguments anyway,
you can demonstrate similar using "prochoice" principles that are mysteriously abandoned.

 

[The Rabbi]

Another win for smaller government and freedom!

No, idiot. People voted for that ban. People in the state voted to establish a state standard of marriage. The 10th Amendment allows them to do just that. Now we have unelected judges defying the clear will of the people. That is not freedom but tyranny. But in good news many of those gays will get to work on research, infreastructure and education.

Tyranny? This is tyranny but letting people vote to not allow someone a right isn't?


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

An unelected unaccountable judge dictating to people what they must accept, against their known expressed wishes is tyranny. Yes. It is the very definition of it.

 

[emilynghiem]

The court may impose it but they can't make the people accept it. They will just take more direct action.

Ridiculous.

The court isn’t ‘imposing’ anything on anyone.

The 14th Amendment applies only to the states and local jurisdictions, not private persons or organizations; you and others on the right remain at liberty to hate gay Americans.

Yes but the Civil Rights Act expanded this to all public institutions.

And by the laws of reciprocity, the Golden Rule that applies to all people,
if you want equal freedom, you must respect the same of others.
If you impose on others, they will impose back on you.

By natural laws, people will defend their free will and beliefs, and will protest, resist, and petition against anything that oppresses their consent or free will.

This is just natural law, which our Constitutional principles were drawn from.

Regardless if we do or do not follow the Constitution literally,
all human beings are operating under natural laws that govern our behavior.
If you impose something against someone's free will, they will object and fight to correct or reform it.
I've never met a human being who didn't react that way.

 

[emilynghiem]

Another win for smaller government and freedom!

No, idiot. People voted for that ban. People in the state voted to establish a state standard of marriage. The 10th Amendment allows them to do just that. Now we have unelected judges defying the clear will of the people. That is not freedom but tyranny. But in good news many of those gays will get to work on research, infreastructure and education.

Dear Rabbi:
The problem is that imposing a BAN by the state also went too far in the other direction.
If all people in that state AGREED to a BAN, yes you would have a uniform policy.
But they didn't all agree, nor do they all agree to IMPOSE gay marriage.

The solution, to include all views without discrimination against any,
would be to agree on a policy by consensus.
Either word it in such a way that neither imposes nor bans gay marriage
but leaves it open to private interpretation for which the public and state are not
responsible for.

Or separate the policies and keep this out of the state altogether so
nobody is forced to be responsible for views they do not believe in.

Either agree on a policy and how to word it, or separate. But either imposing OR banning gay marriage, where it excludes or discriminates against citizens of opposing views,
would violate the equal constitutional rights of the people of the dissenting viewpoint not equally represented due to their creed.

Only a CONSENSUS would make it equally fair and inclusive of all beliefs and views.
Anything else, and you are looking at a Constitutional fight to defend the views left out.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage

DETROIT — In a historic ruling that provided a huge morale boost to the gay-rights movement, a federal judge Friday struck down Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, making it the 18th state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to join in matrimony just like their heterosexual counterparts.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Another win for smaller government and freedom!

No, idiot. People voted for that ban. People in the state voted to establish a state standard of marriage. The 10th Amendment allows them to do just that. Now we have unelected judges defying the clear will of the people. That is not freedom but tyranny. But in good news many of those gays will get to work on research, infreastructure and education.

The government isn't allowed to discriminate, even if the majority of the people want it to.

 

[SillyWabbit]

The court may impose it but they can't make the people accept it. They will just take more direct action.

Ridiculous.

The court isn’t ‘imposing’ anything on anyone.

The 14th Amendment applies only to the states and local jurisdictions, not private persons or organizations; you and others on the right remain at liberty to hate gay Americans.

Yes but the Civil Rights Act expanded this to all public institutions.

And by the laws of reciprocity, the Golden Rule that applies to all people,
if you want equal freedom, you must respect the same of others.
If you impose on others, they will impose back on you.

By natural laws, people will defend their free will and beliefs, and will protest, resist, and petition against anything that oppresses their consent or free will.

This is just natural law, which our Constitutional principles were drawn from.

Regardless if we do or do not follow the Constitution literally,
all human beings are operating under natural laws that govern our behavior.
If you impose something against someone's free will, they will object and fight to correct or reform it.
I've never met a human being who didn't react that way.

The interesting thing about natural law and free will is that many times you'll find variation of will in opposition to each other. Whose will is more important: yours or theirs?

 

[Luissa]

No, idiot. People voted for that ban. People in the state voted to establish a state standard of marriage. The 10th Amendment allows them to do just that. Now we have unelected judges defying the clear will of the people. That is not freedom but tyranny. But in good news many of those gays will get to work on research, infreastructure and education.

Tyranny? This is tyranny but letting people vote to not allow someone a right isn't?





Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

An unelected unaccountable judge dictating to people what they must accept, against their known expressed wishes is tyranny. Yes. It is the very definition of it.

Must accept?
They are not taking away their rights, the judge is not allowing them to take away someone else's. It isn't tyranny at all. And not the very definition. Sorry.
Someone being allowed to marry isn't
Hurting anyone or their rights. Get a clue. Plus there is the Whole 14th amendment. And allowing the majorities religion to dictate our lives.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because religious beliefs are involved...

Incorrect.

No religious beliefs are involved – this is purely a secular matter.

Again, 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to the states and local jurisdictions, where those government entities may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage (contract) law, marriage law that same-sex couples are currently eligible to participate in.

This and similar rulings have nothing to do with private citizens, churches, private schools, or private organizations; it has no impact whatsoever on religious doctrine and dogma concerning marriage, including religious dogma that prohibits homosexuals from participating in the marriage rituals of a given faith.

 

[Luissa]

Michigan State also has equal protection in their state constitution. Pretty sure defining marriage based on sexual orientation is not equal protection.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, idiot. People voted for that ban. People in the state voted to establish a state standard of marriage. The 10th Amendment allows them to do just that. Now we have unelected judges defying the clear will of the people. That is not freedom but tyranny. But in good news many of those gays will get to work on research, infreastructure and education.

Tyranny? This is tyranny but letting people vote to not allow someone a right isn't?


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

An unelected unaccountable judge dictating to people what they must accept, against their known expressed wishes is tyranny. Yes. It is the very definition of it.

Wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with an ‘unelected judge,’ where a judge isn’t ‘dictating’ anything to anyone. In fact, the issue has little to do with the judge.

The judge in this case, as with the other cases, is merely acting as a neutral judicial conduit through which accepted and settled Constitutional case law is being applied to this specific case; indeed, it would have been an act of ‘tyranny’ and ‘judicial activism’ for the judge to uphold the amendment as Constitutional, disregarding established precedent.

Consider abandoning your crippling ignorance and read the cited ruling, it clearly explains why the amendment is un-Constitutional.

 

[Plasmaball]

People voted for gun bans in the past too. People voted for Jim Crow laws in the past too. Doesn't make them any more Constitutional.

Gun bans run afoul of the 2A.
Nothing unconstitutional about Jim Crow.

Reminds me of how
"prochoice" arguments apply to abortion
(where protecting individual freedom trumps laws defending life)

but when it comes to health care mandates
"prochoice" argument do not apply
(where "right to health care" trumps defending "freedom to choose" how to do so)

Sure, political agenda will affect if people will argue for or against Constitutionality.
But for liberals who don't cite Constitutionality authority to back arguments anyway,
you can demonstrate similar using "prochoice" principles that are mysteriously abandoned.

Look you stupid fuck. You can't vote away people's rights.that would be unconstitutional. scotus recently ruled that some marriage benefits where denied to a same sex couple.
Furthermore your points are irrelevant stupidity.

 

[Plasmaball]

No, idiot. People voted for that ban. People in the state voted to establish a state standard of marriage. The 10th Amendment allows them to do just that. Now we have unelected judges defying the clear will of the people. That is not freedom but tyranny. But in good news many of those gays will get to work on research, infreastructure and education.

Tyranny? This is tyranny but letting people vote to not allow someone a right isn't?


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

An unelected unaccountable judge dictating to people what they must accept, against their known expressed wishes is tyranny. Yes. It is the very definition of it.

Judges strike down unconstitutional laws. Elected or not is irrelevant. That is part of the 3 Branches of balance we have. You know this already and are just trolling

 

[Plasmaball]

The court may impose it but they can't make the people accept it. They will just take more direct action.

Ridiculous.

The court isn’t ‘imposing’ anything on anyone.

The 14th Amendment applies only to the states and local jurisdictions, not private persons or organizations; you and others on the right remain at liberty to hate gay Americans.

Yes but the Civil Rights Act expanded this to all public institutions.

And by the laws of reciprocity, the Golden Rule that applies to all people,
if you want equal freedom, you must respect the same of others.
If you impose on others, they will impose back on you.

By natural laws, people will defend their free will and beliefs, and will protest, resist, and petition against anything that oppresses their consent or free will.

This is just natural law, which our Constitutional principles were drawn from.

Regardless if we do or do not follow the Constitution literally,
all human beings are operating under natural laws that govern our behavior.
If you impose something against someone's free will, they will object and fight to correct or reform it.
I've never met a human being who didn't react that way.

The only natural law that matters is hoping that the universe doesn't kill you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ridiculous.

The court isn’t ‘imposing’ anything on anyone.

The 14th Amendment applies only to the states and local jurisdictions, not private persons or organizations; you and others on the right remain at liberty to hate gay Americans.

Yes but the Civil Rights Act expanded this to all public institutions.

And by the laws of reciprocity, the Golden Rule that applies to all people,
if you want equal freedom, you must respect the same of others.
If you impose on others, they will impose back on you.

By natural laws, people will defend their free will and beliefs, and will protest, resist, and petition against anything that oppresses their consent or free will.

This is just natural law, which our Constitutional principles were drawn from.

Regardless if we do or do not follow the Constitution literally,
all human beings are operating under natural laws that govern our behavior.
If you impose something against someone's free will, they will object and fight to correct or reform it.
I've never met a human being who didn't react that way.

The only natural law that matters is hoping that the universe doesn't kill you.

The Universe doesn't give a damn either way. You are of no importance.

 

[Clementine]

I have an issue with judges overturning the will of the people. This has happened a lot over the years and I think too many judges legislate from the bench rather than uphold existing laws.

I have no issue with gay marriage and I think couples who plan to stay together should be supported. That means monogamy, tax breaks and putting spouses on insurance and such.

My only issue is with a judge who comes in and decides that the majority of people in a state are wrong and dismisses the whole process.

The focus should be on debate and changing people's minds. It shouldn't be about a single judge forcing their will on everyone. I don't know why people vote on things when the outcome will be dismissed when a judge decides differently. If you say nothing and accept that on one issue, just because you agree, you must realize that it may happen on an issue you care about. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

There is a reason judges are appointed and, sadly, it's often due to their political leanings when that shouldn't matter one bit. Upholding the law is their only duty, not injecting their opinions and seeking to change existing laws. That goes for both sides.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Michigan State also has equal protection in their state constitution. Pretty sure defining marriage based on sexual orientation is not equal protection.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Technically they didn't define it based on sexual orientation, they defined it based on gender. (i.e. one man and one woman)


>>>>