I am not a legal scholar, so I am confused about something...........

How is it NOW that all these courts are allowing gay marriage, when it wasn't allowed before?

This is not a new legal issue.  Oh yes, society is "evolving," but what is the legal evolution here?

Has the Constitution changed, or have I missed something?  I don't get the "equal rights" argument.  They can still marry, but not someone of the same sex.  There are many stipulations to marriage.  I don't get why this one is really different.

I have nothing against gays, but I will never in my heart believe what their relationship is is MARRIAGE. 

DaisyJane

Quote from: DaisyJane on December 21, 2013, 12:43:08 PM
I am not a legal scholar, so I am confused about something...........

How is it NOW that all these courts are allowing gay marriage, when it wasn't allowed before?

It wasn't litigated before.

Quote from: DaisyJane on December 21, 2013, 12:43:08 PMThis is not a new legal issue.  Oh yes, society is "evolving," but what is the legal evolution here?

Has the Constitution changed, or have I missed something?  I don't get the "equal rights" argument.  They can still marry, but not someone of the same sex.  There are many stipulations to marriage.  I don't get why this one is really different.

I have nothing against gays, but I will never in my heart believe what their relationship is is MARRIAGE. 

DaisyJane

The Constitution is a living orgasm, er, organism.  Don't you know how liberal democracies operate?

Liberals argue that the 14th Amendment is a well of rights just waiting to be discovered. It is a judicial philosophy.

You can thank the good folks of CA for that.  No, not the one's that voted the initiative down in a state wide, legal ballot process, but the leftist pack courts (including the USSC) who ignore the will of the people. 

Quote from: LIAMD on December 21, 2013, 01:06:00 PM
You can thank the good folks of CA for that.  No, not the one's that voted the initiative down in a state wide, legal ballot process, but the leftist pack courts (including the USSC) who ignore the will of the people. 

It wasn't even supposed to be a federal question the Supreme Court said in 1972, and indeed it wasn't even until 2010 that another federal court tried to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction precedent set by Baker v. Nelson.

Good point.  Regrettably, I think we're in for a ton more of this legislation/governing by the bench... there's little to stop it. 

Quote from: LIAMD on December 21, 2013, 01:29:14 PM
Good point.  Regrettably, I think we're in for a ton more of this legislation/governing by the bench... there's little to stop it.

That's an easy prediction.  Liberalism is like a snowball.

This is still sick behavior that has been forced down our throats.
Why? I don't understand liberals at all.

Quote from: LIAMD on December 21, 2013, 01:29:14 PM
Good point.  Regrettably, I think we're in for a ton more of this legislation/governing by the bench... there's little to stop it.

There still hasn't been a Supreme Court verdict on same sex marriage in regards to states' rights, and it's doubtful that even Ginsburg wants to make it final at this point given recent comments.

Quote from: darroll on December 21, 2013, 02:29:31 PM
This is still sick behavior that has been forced down our throats.
Why? I don't understand liberals at all.

If it's of any consolation... the scientific community still does not completely understand this mental disorder either.  There does seem to be some connection with saltwater and ocean breezes north of the 40th parallel however.

Quote from: LIAMD on December 21, 2013, 05:02:54 PM
If it's of any consolation... the scientific community still does not completely understand this mental disorder either.  There does seem to be some connection with saltwater and ocean breezes north of the 40th parallel however.

  Have you really look around Seattle lately.

Legislatures need to take more of a role in regards to appellate court decisions when controversial judgments are handed down. Congress has seemingly been terrified to enact comprehensive federal abortion laws since 1973 and it seems like we're just entirely accepting the role of judicial activism in legislation.

Quote from: Elephant In The Room on December 21, 2013, 06:01:26 PM
Legislatures need to take more of a role in regards to appellate court decisions when controversial judgments are handed down. Congress has seemingly been terrified to enact comprehensive federal abortion laws since 1973 and it seems like we're just entirely accepting the role of judicial activism in legislation.

If the court keep going we will not need Congress. 

Quote from: walkstall on December 21, 2013, 05:48:34 PM

  Have you really look around Seattle lately.

You mean The Land of Oz... try to forget it's a mere 25 miles from me to be honest.  Sounds like you are close to Portland -- another stellar example of the west coast.

Quote from: LIAMD on December 21, 2013, 07:11:35 PM
You mean The Land of Oz... try to forget it's a mere 25 miles from me to be honest.  Sounds like you are close to Portland -- another stellar example of the west coast.

No    I am at the other end of the state in Conservative land.  I don't have to hold my nose on this side of the state when I go into town.