Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Duck Dynasty, will Phil's interview doom the show?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ Duck Dynasty, will Phil's interview doom the show?
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 31, 2013 3:27 PM
If that's what you a relying on it's been horribly inefficient.

Cultural change and pressure on elected officials are what's making the difference.

Your example speaks of "planting seeds for the future". I'm speaking of what is today.
Dec 31, 2013 3:27pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Dec 31, 2013 3:44 PM
Well lets look at the last time we forced the states to accept change in their marriage law. The courts did it 1967 long before there was cultural change or electoral pressure. The courts chipped it away.
PRINCETON, NJ -- Continuing to represent one of the largest shifts of public opinion in Gallup history, 87% of Americans now favor marriage between blacks and whites, up from 4% in 1958.
Dec 31, 2013 3:44pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 31, 2013 3:48 PM
You're making my point. The federal courts haven't forced the States to grant homosexual marriages. States continue to define marriage as the see fit with many excluding homosexual marriage.
Dec 31, 2013 3:48pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Dec 31, 2013 3:51 PM
Con_Alma;1559831 wrote:You're making my point. The federal courts haven't forced the States to grant homosexual marriages. States continue to define marriage as the see fit with many excluding homosexual marriage.
no quite the contrary, we see the chipping away in the DOMA decision, in Ohio ruling, in Utah the courts working toward ending this abuse as they did with the same race marriage laws.
Dec 31, 2013 3:51pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 31, 2013 3:54 PM
Yeah...the courts are doing it. Lol
Dec 31, 2013 3:54pm
GoPens's avatar

GoPens

Senior Member

2,339 posts
Dec 31, 2013 4:38 PM
thavoice;1559783 wrote:Uh. No. Marriage is between a man and a woman. A homo can still marry someone of the opposite sex.
Exhibit B to my earlier argument
Dec 31, 2013 4:38pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Dec 31, 2013 5:07 PM
Con_Alma;1559838 wrote:Yeah...the courts are doing it. Lol
Legalizing gay marriage
Court ruling- Massachusetts, California (US Supreme Court), Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey , New Mexico, Utah (US District Court)
Legislative Action-Vermont. New Hampshire, D. C., New York, Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, Hawaii, Illinois,
Voter approval- Washington, Maine, Maryland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#States_that_license_same-sex_marriage_.28table.29
　
So we have court action including Federal Court action
　
And in Kitchen v Herbert, the case that ended the prohibition on gay marriage in Utah;
“The ruling stated that the US Supreme Court "has held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states’ rights where these two interests are in conflict," and that while Utah has the right to regulate marriage, "it must nevertheless do so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of its citizens," citing
Loving v. Virginia and United States v. Windsor.

Chipping away.
Dec 31, 2013 5:07pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 31, 2013 5:13 PM
You just aren't getting it.

Court actions are reactive to the desire and challenge of the people.

Courts aren't arbitrarily making decisions to change legislation.

I think you'll find there are 3 different actions in States which impact marriage activities...votes, legislative activity and yes court rulings. All are a results of the people's efforts and desires.

The Loving case may be referred to once a case is brought forth but it hardly has initiated the activity of these respective changes.
Dec 31, 2013 5:13pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Dec 31, 2013 5:21 PM
Con_Alma;1559872 wrote:You just aren't getting it.

Court actions are reactive to the desire and challenge of the people.

Courts aren't arbitrarily making decisions to change legislation.

I think you'll find there are 3 different actions in States which impact marriage activities...votes, legislative activity and yes court rulings. All are a results of the people's efforts and desires.

The Loving case may be referred to once a case is brought forth but it hardly has initiated the activity of these respective changes.
you don't get it. Look at the Loving decision made in 1967 when less than 20% of Americans approved of mixed marriages. It was not until the late 1990s when the majority of Americans approved of mixed marriage. The Supreme Court was far ahead of popular opinion, any large scale lobbying action. They were not be reactive to the popular will, they were doing what was right, granting people a basic human right.
Dec 31, 2013 5:21pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 31, 2013 5:25 PM
isadore;1559877 wrote:you don't get it. Look at the Loving decision made in 1967 when less than 20% of Americans approved of mixed marriages. It was not until the late 1990s when the majority of Americans approved of mixed marriage. The Supreme Court was far ahead of popular opinion, any large scale lobbying action. They were not be reactive to the popular will, they were doing what was right, granting people a basic human right.

The court is not far ahead of the curve as it relates to gay marriages. In fact, they appear to be behind the curve. There are still States who are permitted to define what marriage is.

It's the people who are forcing the change. The courts are reactive on this issue.
Dec 31, 2013 5:25pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Dec 31, 2013 5:34 PM
Con_Alma;1559872 wrote:You just aren't getting it.

Court actions are reactive to the desire and challenge of the people.

Courts aren't arbitrarily making decisions to change legislation.

I think you'll find there are 3 different actions in States which impact marriage activities...votes, legislative activity and yes court rulings. All are a results of the people's efforts and desires.

The Loving case may be referred to once a case is brought forth but it hardly has initiated the activity of these respective changes.
The Loving case stands as a refutation of your statement.
Dec 31, 2013 5:34pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Dec 31, 2013 5:36 PM
isadore;1559877 wrote:you don't get it. Look at the Loving decision made in 1967 when less than 20% of Americans approved of mixed marriages. It was not until the late 1990s when the majority of Americans approved of mixed marriage. The Supreme Court was far ahead of popular opinion, any large scale lobbying action. They were not be reactive to the popular will, they were doing what was right, granting people a basic human right.
So the government is controlling the minds of the people. Awesome!
Dec 31, 2013 5:36pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 31, 2013 5:37 PM
The loving case did not force States to recognize nor allow gay marriages.
Dec 31, 2013 5:37pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 31, 2013 5:37 PM
WebFire;1559884 wrote:So the government is controlling the minds of the people. Awesome!

Lol: thumbup:
Dec 31, 2013 5:37pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Dec 31, 2013 5:46 PM
WebFire;1559884 wrote:So the government is controlling the minds of the people. Awesome!
the court resisted majoritarianism and acted to protect the basic rights of a persecuted group of Americans.
Dec 31, 2013 5:46pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Dec 31, 2013 5:46 PM
Con_Alma;1559886 wrote:Lol: thumbup:
birds of a feather
Dec 31, 2013 5:46pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Dec 31, 2013 5:48 PM
isadore;1559891 wrote:the court resisted majoritarianism and acted to protect the basic rights of a persecuted group of Americans.
Marriage isn't a basic right.
Dec 31, 2013 5:48pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Dec 31, 2013 5:50 PM
Con_Alma;1559885 wrote:The loving case did not force States to recognize nor allow gay marriages.
Loving case showed the Supreme Court to declare marriage a basic right and establish a precedent of intervening in unjust state marriage law. We can see its application in the DOMA decision and the Utah case.
Dec 31, 2013 5:50pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Dec 31, 2013 5:51 PM
WebFire;1559894 wrote:Marriage isn't a basic right.
gosh a ruddies you say it isn't and the Supreme Court and I say it is.
Dec 31, 2013 5:51pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 31, 2013 5:53 PM
isadore;1559891 wrote:the court resisted majoritarianism and acted to protect the basic rights of a persecuted group of Americans.

The court reacted to an appeal from a citizen after losing a legal suit filed against the State. The Court didn't initiate it. It's the nature of the judicial branch's role. They will always be reactive. They interpret law. They don't create it.

The court has not has not yet forced States to recognize gay marriages. They are behind...way behind.
Dec 31, 2013 5:53pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Dec 31, 2013 5:55 PM
Supreme Court Loving Decision
Marrage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Dec 31, 2013 5:55pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 31, 2013 5:57 PM
isadore;1559897 wrote:Loving case showed the Supreme Court to declare marriage a basic right and establish a precedent of intervening in unjust state marriage law. We can see its application in the DOMA decision and the Utah case.

...and yet for decades even continuing today the States are able to define what exactly marriage is. The Federal courts did indeed intervene in the Loving case but they have not done so as it relates to gay marriage with regards to forcing same sex opportunities within all States. Even if they do so, they will be reacting as opposed to leading.
Dec 31, 2013 5:57pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 31, 2013 5:58 PM
isadore;1559900 wrote:Supreme Court Loving Decision
Marrage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

...a reactive ruling based on an appeal from losing a legal suit against the State.
Dec 31, 2013 5:58pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Dec 31, 2013 6:07 PM
You have been going on through a series of post about the courts
reacting to public opinion.
Con_Alma wrote: Court actions are reactive to the desire and challenge of the people.

Courts aren't arbitrarily making decisions to change legislation.
And now you try to redefine the situation. In the Loving decision they went way beyond popular opinion, they took a position unpopular with most Americans..
they acted to throw out the laws in many states. They set a precedent of federal government intervening in state marriage law to protect the basic rights of an oppressed minority. Now in DOMA and the Utah case we see them doing it again.
Dec 31, 2013 6:07pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 31, 2013 6:14 PM
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.
Dec 31, 2013 6:14pm