CNN: California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

[NavyDave]

Beat me to it TSF. I guess some of these folks whining about the will of the people being ignored don't understand the concept of avoiding the tyranny of the majority. Democracy doesn't mean anything goes as long as the majority of the voters approve of it. Were that the case we could put reinstating slavery or revoking women's sufferage on a referendum and abide by whatever the result is....right? :no:

Yawn.. Liberals like Judges read what isn't there. Not many people are more proud of my country than I am even when its screwed up by left wingers or socialist leaning beauracrats.

Al jazeera and other outlets will run with this news and spin it to point out how the Great white Satan does not have the values or moral base that they have in their world.

Stop pretending to be a duh head.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Yawn.. Liberals like Judges read what isn't there. Not many people are more proud of my country than I am even when its screwed up by left wingers or socialist leaning beauracrats.

Al jazeera and other outlets will run with this news and spin it to point out how the Great white Satan does not have the values or moral base that they have in their world.

Stop pretending to be a duh head.

I guess the point is if you really want a country that doesn't allow gay marriage, or even have any gay people in it, which applies religious values to everyone regardless of what religion you are. And has a justice system which doesn't maintain any checks or balances on what the legislature and/or executive branch can do, you can always move to Iran. And probably be perfectly happy.

[NavyDave]

I guess the point is if you really want a country that doesn't allow gay marriage, or even have any gay people in it, which applies religious values to everyone regardless of what religion you are. And has a justice system which doesn't maintain any checks or balances on what the legislature and/or executive branch can do, you can always move to Iran. And probably be perfectly happy.

Yes you can.

However since I'm in the majority and love my country its moot.

Judges are supposed to interpret laws not write them while the Congress continues to write laws and not try to spin it like the President has absolute power or people are stupid when they can't pass liberal legislation like Gay marriage or Amnesty for illegals

[Fergasun]

Beat me to it TSF. I guess some of these folks whining about the will of the people being ignored don't understand the concept of avoiding the tyranny of the majority. Democracy doesn't mean anything goes as long as the majority of the voters approve of it. Were that the case we could put reinstating slavery or revoking women's sufferage on a referendum and abide by whatever the result is....right? :no:

Tyranny? People who are celebrating this should be worried... since one day your vote will be suppressed by a small number of judges who view themselves as those who make the law rather than interpret it. California recalled the Governor, if enough people are upset about this I think we could recall the judges...

[NavyDave]

I guess the point is if you really want a country that doesn't allow gay marriage, or even have any gay people in it, which applies religious values to everyone regardless of what religion you are. And has a justice system which doesn't maintain any checks or balances on what the legislature and/or executive branch can do, you can always move to Iran. And probably be perfectly happy.

If you want a country that promotes deviant behaviour, places it on the same level as something sacred as marriage, and makes a mockery out of religious values.

A pushes an agenda that ignores the checks and balances which Judicial activism does you can always move to ultra liberal Euro trash countries where the results are less than desirable.

[Henry]

I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other, but I strongly disagree with those of you who think we should only have two branches of government.

[NavyDave]

I don't care what TSF and Yusuf does with their domestic partners in those bath houses.

However when the will of the people is overruled by 4 judges to push an agenda that is universally seen as deviant, morally corrupt, people have a right to be outraged.

[headexplode]

well, we always hear in issues like this that the federal gov shouldn't get involved and it should be left up to the individual states to choose. Than when we do, it gets trumped.

I was unaware that my vote counted so little and was just public opinion.

This was a decision by the California State Supreme Court.

Your vote counts. But your state Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The judicial branch is there to determine whether legislation violates that Constitution. That's what they did. What is so hard to understand about that?

[headexplode]

However when the will of the people is overruled by 4 judges to push an agenda that is universally seen as deviant, morally corrupt, people have a right to be outraged.

No, they don't.

If California chooses to amend its Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, then so be it. If not, maybe they should amend the Constitution to disband the judicial branch, thereby appeasing conservative extremists.

[headexplode]

I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other, but I strongly disagree with those of you who think we should only have two branches of government.

nevermind

[Larry]

Yawn.. Liberals like Judges read what isn't there.

Shouls I point out that, IIR, the OP states that 8 of the 9 judges on the California Supreme Court are Republicans?

Al jazeera and other outlets will run with this news and spin it to point out how the Great white Satan does not have the values or moral base that they have in their world.

Stop pretending to be a duh head.

They'll also use the fact that we're occupying a mideast, Muslim country for PR and recruiting purposes.

You in favor of withdrawal, you being all concerned with denying them any PR ammo?

[NavyDave]

Shouls I point out that, IIR, the OP states that 8 of the 9 judges on the California Supreme Court are Republicans?

They were appointed by republicans and duh Republicans can be liberals

They'll also use the fact that we're occupying a mideast, Muslim country for PR and recruiting purposes.

You in favor of withdrawal, you being all concerned with denying them any PR ammo?

Not concerned about PR at all, the truth is the truth and who said anything about withdrawing.

[Henry]

I don't care what TSF and Yusuf does with their domestic partners in those bath houses.

However when the will of the people is overruled by 4 judges to push an agenda that is universally seen as deviant, morally corrupt, people have a right to be outraged.

Are you under the impression that our system of government is a Democracy?

There's this concept the people who wrote our Constitution came up with. I believe it's often referred to as Checks and Balances.

It might behoove you to read up on it sometime.

[rincewind]

I don't care what TSF and Yusuf does with their domestic partners in those bath houses.

However when the will of the people is overruled by 4 judges to push an agenda that is universally seen as deviant, morally corrupt, people have a right to be outraged.

I think you may need to look up the definition of 'universally'. If it was viewed as universally deviant, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[NavyDave]

I think you may need to look up the definition of 'universally'. If it was viewed as universally deviant, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yes we would because the media would still push it as it has incrementality the past two decades.

[Larry]

Not concerned about PR at all

You did, with your attempt to justify your bigotry by claiming that this decision helps terrorists.

Nobody else in this thread thinks that AQ has a vote in this decision. You're the only one trying to pull them into this thread. (On your side.)

[NavyDave]

You did, with your attempt to justify your bigotry by claiming that this decision helps terrorists.

Nobody else in this thread thinks that AQ has a vote in this decision. You're the only one trying to pull them into this thread. (On your side.)

Bigotry??? WTF

Even clueless liberals have to know that this was already aired this morning well afternoon there time on the TV, radio and blogs and the spin I talked about already happened.

Its not that it helps terrorist it allows them to give their captive audience a viewpoint that is difficult to counter.

By the way, son, disagreeing with judicial activism does not make me a bigot but if thats what u think what can I say about hatemongers who think they can shut up people they disagree using the played out technique of calling people racists, bigots, etc.

[Henry]

Yes we would because the media would still push it as it has incrementality the past two decades.

The media isn't part of our universe?

[NavyDave]

The media isn't part of our universe?

Lately its the blackhole in the universe

[NavyDave]

This decision probably will have grassroots move quickly to have ballot initiatives that strengthen traditional marriages laws/ rulings in their states

[chiefhogskin48]

This is simply a decision that upholds basic civil rights. A striking down of the idea "separate but equal." Like it or not, and whether you agree with it or not, it is our country's modern days civil rights debate. And remember less than 100 yrs ago, women were not allowed to vote, and half the country was up in arms about it...

[Predicto]

A few points.

First, as has been pointed out twice now, 6 of the 7 justices of the California Supreme Court are Republican appointees. They are not "socialist-leaning leftists."

Second, this court is not known as crazy "judicial activists," not in the least. It is the most respected and most widely followed (by other courts) state court in the nation. However, these judges are required to interpret the California Constitution and enforce it. That is their job.

Third, Ferguson may have THOUGHT he was voting to amend the Constitution in 2000, but he wasn't - and lots of people pointed this out at the time of the vote. He voted for a change in a statute only, but statutes still have to follow the Constitution until it is amended.

Fourth, the California Constitution can be amended, and there is a proposition in the works to do it. If it is amended, this case will be negated, and this court will not say boo about it.

Last point. The most important example of so-called "judicial activism" ever was Brown v. Board of Education. The case which destroyed "separate but equal" racial segregation in the 1950s. Was that a bad thing they did there, Navy Dave?

Maybe courts still have trouble with "separate but equal" in other contexts.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This decision probably will have grassroots move quickly to have ballot initiatives that strengthen traditional marriages laws/ rulings in their states

yea, they should write a law in california to define marriage as "traditional." that works well. :laugh: good call.

btw, I like how you go back and edit your posts to say I hang out in bath houses. what a joke.

[Larry]

Last point. The most important example of so-called "judicial activism" ever was Brown v. Board of Education. The case which destroyed "separate but equal" racial segregation in the 1950s. Was that a bad thing they did there, Navy Dave?

Uh, I'll confess that, when I think of judicial activism, that one doesn't even make the first cut, to me.

For what I think of as a better example, I'd point to the recent USSC ruling that if California grows marijuana for the purpose of giving it to someone in California, then they're engaging in "interstate commerce".

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Uh, I'll confess that, when I think of judicial activism, that one doesn't even make the first cut, to me.

For what I think of as a better example, I'd point to the recent USSC ruling that if California grows marijuana for the purpose of giving it to someone in California, then they're engaging in "interstate commerce".

More honestly... I think of Roe v. Wade and Casey... which is why "activist" judges get slammed these days.