Why Is It Okay For A Rat In A Black Robe To Tell 7 Million Voters To Fuk Off?

[Brock Landers]

if same sex people want to marry, why should i care?

Fuk off telling people who/what/how they can live their lives.

[mr. leisure]

The mormon family that lives across the street from me are going to be pissed .Their yard was filled with yes on prop 8 signs before that election .

[GELATINOUS CUBE]

The-fags-still-can't-marry

[GELATINOUS CUBE]

The-county-isn't-granting-licences-just-gays-dancing-in-the-streets-over-the-'victory-

[stingray14]

so what is next, highschool boys wanting to play on the girls teams, or how about heterosexual men can now use the womans bathroom. Same sex marriges are not natural. But as always the squeeky wheel in this country gets the grease.

[DrStale]

so what is next, highschool boys wanting to play on the girls teams, or how about heterosexual men can now use the womans bathroom. Same sex marriges are not natural. But as always the squeeky wheel in this country gets the grease.

Homosexual relationships between animals have been observed in nature. Know what's not natural? Getting your artery-clogging dinner from a drive-thru window or keeping your body alive with a machine when it's supposed to be dead.

[Extra Innings]

This is actually a very interesting debate that has developed here.

Some of thr hypothetical votes mentioned by some of the posters have merrit to them but the point Coug's is trying to make about democracy is a valid one.

The problem with being a idealist in things such as denocracy is it's just a concept. A true democracy hasn't, doesn't and can't work. A true democracy would create as mentioned mob rule.

The problem with a true democracy is that too many people are too easily swayed. They can't formulate a real opinion and find it too easy to be a part of the popular choice.

Coug's I agree with the point you are trying to make but at the same time don't you think that if we lived in a society that was a true democracy that there is a very real possibility that we would still have slavery or still have segregated schools?

What the hell are you talking about? Do you just make this shit up along the way?

[BrentCrude]

What's love got to do with it?

It's all about collecting bennefits.Most gays and lesbians are big government liberal democrat people who work in some capacity for federal,state,county or local government. All forms of government are not the free market and they willy nilly just give their employees whatever they ask for.They make alot more than people in the privatre sector do.So that being the case,gays want the tax payer to pay for their mates medical,pension,social security,death benefits,you name it if the breadwinner dies.That's why all branches of government are so deep in debt and want the tax payer to bail them out.

Hell,if I were boss of everything I would start stripping heterosexual marriage couple of bennefits that they abuse.I know a guy that works for the city I live in who was a bachelor till he was 40.All of a sudden he marries someone with a checkered past with a bunch of kids.The kids are either all in trouble and in juvenile lockup or they are getting brain tumors removed.It's costing the city-taxpayer a fortune just to pay for te upkeep of this one family.Do you think this abuse of bennefits crap goes on in China where they produce stuff and exports stuff to us?hell no!If they were like us,that nice $1 pair of rubber coated plyers they sell at the dollar store made in China would cost $5 and they couldn's afford to make them there anymore.

[BadNina]

You have to go back into the history of this issue. I believe a gay couple sued a state because they could not get a marriage license. (Please note that I prefaced with "I believe") and the court ruling was that each state has various marriage requirements, as is their right, and has the right to legislate such. So various states started voting whether to ban gay marriage. California was told it was not against their laws so an admendment to their state constitution was voted upon. And the majority voted and the losers whined and bitched. I don't care what the subject is. It is inheritently wrong for judges to go against the will of the people. In this case, it has previously been stated that this is a state issue. Now this one judge said it is a federal one. Which means if the SCOTUS upholds this ruling, at some point we will have to vote on a national admendment for a state issue.

[minet123]

Nina wasn't the will of the people to keep The America South in the 60's segregated
Wasn't it the will of the people to have prohibition in the 20's
Wasn't the will of the Germans in the 30's to forcibly remove your neighbors because they didn't believe that the messiah had come
etc etc etc
My view on marriage as a business contract with the state is posted above
but people are stupid that why we have laws and don't follow their whims

[BadNina]

But it is a state issue. All 50 states have their own regulations as to marriage. Some states require waiting periods. Some states require blood test. Some states have a limit on how many times you can get married. The people of California voted to change their state constitution to add this in there. They changed their state constitution to reflect what they wanted. Prohibition was repealed later on. Who is to say that the people of CA wouldn't do the same at some point in time? Here in AL a few years back we had a vote on a tax hike. I was against it and my side lost. I didn't whine and try to go to court to force the majority of stupid people to do things my way.

[Andy117]

so what is next, highschool boys wanting to play on the girls teams, or how about heterosexual men can now use the womans bathroom. Same sex marriges are not natural. But as always the squeeky wheel in this country gets the grease.

Technically marriage isn't natural.

[eidolon]

This judge needs to step down. He does not have the best interest of the people, but he has made a decision based on his personal life. He is an openly gay individual incase some people didn't know.

[DrStale]

But it is a state issue. All 50 states have their own regulations as to marriage. Some states require waiting periods. Some states require blood test. Some states have a limit on how many times you can get married. The people of California voted to change their state constitution to add this in there. They changed their state constitution to reflect what they wanted. Prohibition was repealed later on. Who is to say that the people of CA wouldn't do the same at some point in time? Here in AL a few years back we had a vote on a tax hike. I was against it and my side lost. I didn't whine and try to go to court to force the majority of stupid people to do things my way.

Slavery was a state issue too.

[pavyracer]

So if the people without knowledge of the constitution want to pass a law and they succeed in the voting polls then no judge can review it. Then why do we need a Supreme Court?

[DwightShrute]

Marriage can only be with a man and woman. End of story.

if 2 men or 2 woman want to "hook up" and make a ceremony to make it office then fine. I don't care. Good for them. Just call it something else other than marriage.

[JoeVig]

It's pretty obvious there is little or no respect for state sovereignty any longer - the ridiculous expansions of the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause in justifying any federal law deemed necessary. I am afraid people are right when they say that the states' rights argument was lost in the Civil War.

It will probably take another one to either put the federal governemnt in its rightfully smaller place, or be forever condemned to European-style social democracy and mediocrity.

[ronjon619]

I didn't whine and try to go to court to force the majority of stupid people to do things my way.

but you had the RIGHT to do that.

[curious]

Your country was founded on the belief that Democracy should prevail above all else. Democracy in its most basic form equates to protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Its up the courts to ensure that, and that is what they have done today.
Imagine 10 years from now, 80% of Americans vote to make any form of gambling a crime punishable by death. At that point, you will scream for everyone to **** off, and ask the courts to stand up for you.

Wrong. The United States is not a democracy. It is a Republic. The Constitution gave sovereignty to the states, not the federal government. The federal government should have NOTHING to say about this issue since the Constitution does not give the federal government authority over marriage. But, of course our federal government has been in violation of the Constitution since the War of Northern Aggression (what you Yankees call the Civil War). Policy decisions are to be made by those elected by the people. Since the Constitution reserved most powers to the states except for those SPECIFICALLY granted to the federal government, most policy decisions are supposed to be made by state legislatures, not the federal legislature.

Of course the federal government is totally out of control and will be until the revolution comes, VIVA THE REVOLUTION!!!