Maybe the judges "went along" as you put it because there is no legal reason to prevent gay marriages.
Statue law in most cases doesn't allow for it.
So what........statue law can be unconstitutional.
The constitution doesn't even mention it. If not having gay marriage is an injustice then it would be one that should be handled by legislation. If instead its an issue that shouldn't be fought now, then neither side should fight it.
What do you mean an issue that 'shouldn't' be fought now? Issues aren't fought on yours or my time, they are fought when the effected people are ready to fight.
I understand that concept but the right has a habit of fighting for things that dramatically effect the behaviors of others which have little bearing on their own lives.
No more so then the left.
Yes, the left tries to expand personal freedoms; the right tries to restrict them.
On this specific case there was no attempt from the right to impose a change of behavior on the left. We aren't talking about anti-sodomy laws being used against gays (which I have been against, and which have been struck down by the supreme court). Its the left in this case that is trying to effect the behaviors of others.
First from what I understand, sodomy laws still exist in the states that have a rightie bent. Secondly, the left isn't trying to make straight people marry gay people. Gay people simply want to marry each other. How does that effect anyone but the gay people in question?
What I am saying is that in the matter of weeks the right went from objecting to gay marriage to starting legislation in order to establish a constitutional amendment. That'a big step in a short period of time. How do we know it wasn't premeditated?
It wasn't a matter of weeks, more like many months.
Nonetheless, it was a huge leap in a relatively short period of time.
I find that an extreme response to something that doesn't effect the complainants at all. And their response is a bit unusual....since I believe this constitutional amendment would have been the first to restrict the freedoms of Americans rather than expand them.
The ammendment isn't imposing a restriction on the behavior of individuals. It is proposing rather that the state will not be required to give any special recognition to this behavior.
No, its is saying that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. That's a restriction on the rights of gays.
They may not be "ramming it down" your throat for the hell of it. It may be that the law allows gay marriage whether the majority agrees or does not agree. If so, it will not be the first time in this country that the majority do not agree with what the law allows. Its why we have judges!
The law allows for nothing of the sort. The judges take their duty to interpret law beyond its bounds and instead try to create law.
No, the judges determine whether a law is constitutional or not. When it is unconstitutional, new laws are created.
You guys really hate the basic tenets of a democracy.........it really screws up the social order you want imposed on the rest of us.
And you call yourself a libertarian..............more BS.
Huh? It restricts gays from the rights enjoyed by straight people. There is a definite restriction.
Gays can have sex, they can live together, and do all sorts of other things.
But they can't marry and marriage carries all kinds of benefits in terms of the work invironment and taxes. Its a restriction of their rights.
ted |
