Con_Alma;1559909 wrote:I'm not defining anything.

The courts may have went way beyond whatever you want to define their role as in the Loving case and have still fallen short and are behind with respect to gay marriages. The people are not permitted to recognize gay marriages legally in Ohio almost 50 years later.

The courts are hardly leading the change with regard to gay marriage. They have not intervened and forced the legality of it.

It will take additional legal suits and legislative pressure by the people to make it happen. The people will determine the change with their actions and desires.

gosh they seem to be ahead of the curve in California where prop 8 was passed by majority then overturned by the Supreme Court, the Ohio death certificate decision and how about Utah, Federal Court decision allowed gay marriage there. I think most people would expected that state to be one the last to allow it, but now at least for awhile Gay Marriage in UTAH because of the Federal Court.

We have 50 States and the majority of them do not provide licenses for homosexuals to marry even after some 50 years ago a precedent was set for the Supreme court to intervene in State constitution regarding such issues.

You're going to have to come up with more than Utah and California to suggest the courats are "ahead of the curve". Courts interpret law. They are, by the nature of their role, reactive.

Con_Alma;1559921 wrote:We have 50 States and the majority of them do not provide licenses for homosexuals to marry even after some 50 years ago a precedent was set for the Supreme court to intervene in State constitution regarding such issues.

You're going to have to come up with more than Utah and California to suggest the courats are "ahead of the curve". Courts interpret law. They are, by the nature of their role, reactive.

Gosh a ruddies their decisions bring gay marriage to the most populated state in the union where the majority opposed it, and what many consider to be the most socially conservative state in the union, that is a head of the curve.

...and yet the rest of the population can't do a thing when the court could have already acted. Here we sit, decades later, and gay marriage isn't legal.

The only way it will become legal is with more challenges by the people and pressure on legislators from the people. The courts can only react.

GoPens;1559856 wrote:Exhibit B to my earlier argument

Technically, this has nothing to do with church (which I thought was your earlier argument, but correct me if I'm wrong). And actually, it's sound, logically.

The letter of the law doesn't speak to "love" and never has. You can currently marry someone you do not love. The law doesn't consider "love" in part of the equation (nor should it).

As such, the current law, regardless of the state, applies to all citizens equally. Of the states where homosexual marriages are still not legally recognized, any consenting adult of sound mind is allowed to marry any other consenting adult of sound mind and opposite gender. That law applies to everyone, and does so equally.

Now, the same applies of states that are recognizing homosexual marriages. The law applies to all equally. Any consenting adult of sound mind can marry any other consenting adult of sound mind. It applies to all equally.

In the former instance, while the law, applying to all, is what some want and what others do not want, this does not mean that those who dislike the restriction of the law are being persecuted or denied equal rights. They're granted equal rights. Just not one they wish to exercise based on their preference.

Rest assured, there are plenty of social ills that DO stand as persecution of homosexual individuals, and they are quite unjust and need to be dealt with. Moreover, I don't think any governing body ought to deny a person's right to enter into a contractual agreement based on his or her gender (sounds like gender discrimination to me). I just don't think there can be built a logical defense to suggest that denying legally recognized homosexual marriages is equitable to denying those who would exercise it equal rights.

Con_Alma;1559926 wrote:...and yet the rest of the population can't do a thing when the court could have already acted. Here we sit, decades later, and gay marriage isn't legal.

The only way it will become legal is with more challenges by the people and pressure on legislators from the people. The courts can only react.

gosh it has only been a decade since a state legalized gay marriage. Massachusetts did it by court action. It

isadore;1559940 wrote:gosh it has only been a decade since a state legalized gay marriage. Massachusetts did it by court action. It

Why did the courts wait so long?

Oh wait, I'll answer myself.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was reacting to a suit brought against the Department of Public Health.

It took a person to force the issue and make the court react. The courts are by nature reactive to the people.

Con_Alma;1559942 wrote:Why did the courts wait so long?

Oh wait, I'll answer myself.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was reacting to a suit brought against the Department of Public Health.

It took a person to force the issue and make the court react. The courts are by nature reactive to the people.

luckily the Supreme Court decided to set precedent by throwing out state marriage laws. And today federal courts break down barriers allowing the gays their basic right to marry.

Phil Robertson is a racist homophobe.

isadore;1559946 wrote:luckily the Supreme Court decided to set precedent by throwing out state marriage laws. And today federal courts break down barriers allowing the gays their basic right to marry.

If that's luck then it's a sad state of affairs. We should be very intentional about forcing courts to interpret our laws.

The fact that after decades people are forcing the courts to react to such inquires is a clear indication that the power is in the people's hands and always has been.

Con_Alma;1559949 wrote:If that's luck then it's a sad state of affairs. We should be very intentional about forcing courts to interpret our laws.

The fact that after decades people are forcing the courts to react to such inquires is a clear indication that the power is in the people's hands and always has been.

the federal judiciary is independent with life time appointments. it is the court's function to interpret the law. they have the power of judicial review. using that power they overthrew laws against mixed race marriages, prop 8 in California, Utah law against gay marriage and some Ohio rules opposing the rights of people in gay marriages.

isadore;1559968 wrote:the federal judiciary is independent with life time appointments. it is the court's function to interpret the law. they have the power of judicial review. using that power they overthrew laws against mixed race marriages, prop 8 in California, Utah law against gay marriage and some Ohio rules opposing the rights of people in gay marriages.

...and yet they haven't across the nation. The only indication that they will act is when people first file suit forcing the courts make a ruling. They courts continue to be reactive.

Con_Alma;1559969 wrote:...and yet they haven't across the nation. The only indication that they will act is when people first file suit forcing the courts make a ruling. They courts continue to be reactive.

and we have them bringing the Loving decision into their DOMA decision. Leading the way to ending this injustice.

isadore;1559976 wrote:and we have them bringing the Loving decision into their DOMA decision. Leading the way to ending this injustice.

It isn't leading if they wait some 50 years and they only bring the Loving decision in when a suit is brought before them forcing them to react.

What are they waiting for regarding making all gay marriages legal across the land?

Con_Alma;1559978 wrote:It isn't leading if they wait some 50 years and they only bring the Loving decision in when a suit is brought before them forcing them to react.

What are they waiting for regarding making all gay marriages legal across the land?

46 years ago the Supreme Court set a precedent. Now in California and Utah they lead the way again in expanding the rights of American citizens. In California and Utah the Federal Courts lead the way.

just wow

This thread is the perfect example of - 'how to turn virtually nothing into something'.

To understand how we can accomplish this, follow these simple steps:

1) Ostentatiously assert yourself

The End

JD413;1560004 wrote:This thread is the perfect example of - 'how to turn virtually nothing into something'.

To understand how we can accomplish this, follow these simple steps:

1) Ostentatiously assert yourself

The End

look, ok, I understand you're new here, but you should know....nobody on this site knows what ostentatiously means...

GoPens;1560005 wrote:look, ok, I understand you're new here, but you should know....nobody on this site knows what ostentatiously means...

If you ask them, EVERYONE knows what it means. Otherwise, they wouldn't have gotten a 36 on their ACT, graduated from Harvard, or be making $1.5MM a year.

Also, their penises being 14 inches long is somehow connected as well.

/irony

JD413;1560004 wrote: 1) Ostentatiously assert yourself

Fuck you...I don't have to prove myself and, quite honestly, I'm offended you'd ask.

O-Trap;1560031 wrote:If you ask them, EVERYONE knows what it means. Otherwise, they wouldn't have gotten a 36 on their ACT, graduated from Harvard, or be making $1.5MM a year.

Also, their penises being 14 inches long is somehow connected as well.

/irony

i know now what it means and I never took the ACT, graduated from BGSU, not even close to 1.5m per year and don't need to measure my penis, however my spelling, grammar is getting better and I make more than a IT dickhead.

Lets keep this dumbass thread going at least til it hits a 1,000 posts! C'mon I know we are stupid enough to do it.

isadore;1559993 wrote:46 years ago the Supreme Court set a precedent. Now in California and Utah they lead the way again in expanding the rights of American citizens. In California and Utah the Federal Courts lead the way.

What are they waiting for regarding making all gay marriages legal across the land?

Con_Alma;1560056 wrote:What are they waiting for regarding making all gay marriages legal across the land?

when Kennedy or Roberts are ready.

isadore;1560094 wrote:when Kennedy or Roberts are ready.

That doesn't answer the question of what are they waiting for.