US Supreme Court likely to decide the gay marriage issue for states

If they want to self-implode and retard human progress like the people of Lot, that is fine as long as they don't export it to the Muslim world.

 

Ughh... more with the homophobia... What's up with that? Did you finally see Awin naked?

 

I have to agree. I have no problem with Gay marriage. But I do have a problem with a Federal judge overturning the will of the electorate. What is the point of voting on something or having representation when the Judicial branch is going to overturn the outcome?

 

Well... legally we shouldn't be able to pass laws that are unconstitutional, without a constitutional amendment.

But even then... the purpose of constitutionally limited government is to protect the minority from the majority. Even though a constitutional amendment would be legal, it still would not be moral.

 

We tread on people's so called rights on a daily basis. We discriminate based on gender, disabilities, etc, etc. Try joining the US Military, any active combat role, as a woman. Try joining the NBA as a paraplegic. Try joining the catholic church as a homosexual. Try getting a teaching position at a primary school as a pedophile. Try joining the NAACP or the National Black Caucus as a white guy. Try joining the Democratic party while still sane. Try having sex with your dog or goat. Try having sex with your wife or girlfriend in your own house with all the windows open to the street. Try getting equal treatment in a court of law once you already have a felony arrest under your belt.

We have discrimination against minorities by the majority. We just had the minority discriminate against the majority by shoving socialized health care and associated taxes down our throats.

If the government is going to get out of the business of legislating morality because it is "unconstitutional", then we have a VERY LONG LIST of morality crimes to be wiped from our law books.

 

1. That doesn't make it right.
2. The differences between government discrimination and private discrimination are greater than their similarities. As a private individual, I have the right to discriminate. The government is owned by the public as a whole and doesn't have the same moral rights to discrimination.

 

And yet it does, as indicated by many of my examples above.

 

That doesn't make it right.

What would Thomas Jefferson say?

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others.”

“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. …the idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights.”

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

Personally, it seems to me that the homosexuals are being completely retarded. Marriage will just get them higher income taxes and the hassle and expense of divorce. They want to participate in an institution in which no truly sensible person would wish to participate. But, it's their right to be just as screwed up as the rest of us.

 

I don't disagree, but you cant tell me the state doesn't currently discriminate against sexually deviant behavior, regardless of whether or not it is injurious to someone else. Are you telling me you would really favor declaring all current morality laws on the books unconstitutional today?

 

I can't think of one "morality law" that I would try to save from deletion. Of course, this could get us into a rabbit-hole discussion of which laws are "morality laws."

Perhaps this slogan is more clear: No consensual crimes in a free society.

 

But how do we know the sheep consents?

 

I don't think that having sex with animals should be illegal.

It's legal to slaughter animals, but not to have sex with them. It's not legal to slaughter people, but it is legal to have sex with them. This is seriously silly.

If a sheep doesn't have to consent to being slaughtered, it doesn't have to consent to sex.

I don't want the government involved in the sex lives of sheep; that is not one of the legitimate roles of government.

 

Are you that bored with your wife?

 

I was waiting for the retarded contingent to make an appearance.

 

You make a good case, and I cant say I disagree. I suppose I should wrap up by repeating what I've said numerous times throughout this post. Sex with sheep is illegal. Polygamy is illegal. These are morality issues, not legal issues, yet our voters made laws with respect to them and the court has not taken the time to call them "unconstitutional".

It is quite likely that pot smoking, another morality issue, will be made legal in California this election cycle. How is it that the voters can be entrusted to decide what is or is not legal with respect to morality on some issues(even issues pertaining to marriage), and the court needs to weigh in with respect to other issues? I know I'm going to get the "discrimination" speech again, but again, aren't we discriminating against polygamists and zoophiliacs? We either entrust these issues to the voters (the majority) to trample the rights of the minority(zoophiliacs, polygamists, homosexuals, Republicans, Democrats, WASPs, etc,etc,etc) or we don't. The case for equal protection seems very unequally applied. Perhaps we should just get the voters out of the mix and let the judiciary make the laws....

 

This is what happens when an establishment makes it an objective to create equality. I've never understood why a government would take the 'long way around' by spending so much time and money arbitrating equality through legislation in order to obtain this impossible concept, when like many things, society could achieve something that more closely resembles it by doing less.

Then again, if government behaved logically and efficiently it would quickly become apparent that it is barely needed, shattering the illusion big government needs in order to exist.

 

Under the current system, the voters get to decide, as long as their decisions do not violate the current Constitution. If they want to violate the current Constitution, there is a process for Constitutional amendments.

It is the task of the courts to decide whether the decisions of the voters are Constitutionally compliant. The court, of course, is far from perfect. The courts have contradicted themselves many times and at other times have issued rulings which are clearly wrong in the name of political expediency. Thomas Jefferson foresaw this risk of judicial activism. He wrote "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." and "The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone."

Yes, we are making immoral decisions due to a lack of moral education.

At the current time, we have a split system where we do trust the voters -- to a limited extent. The founding fathers were not excited about the possibility of unbridled democracy. Quoting Jefferson again, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

This would work... if a perfect being wrote the laws. We're still short on that.