You know, people may take your point seriously Mountain Ref, if you hadn't started the thread with a gay bashing post. Just a thought. :idunno:

 

If you had started the thread asking, what appears to be your real point, "why vote on something if it can be overturned?", you'd get the thread taken a lot more seriously.

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

-Thomas Jefferson

 

"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

-James Madison, Federalist 51

 

Our whole system of government is designed to protect individual liberties. Certainly there is even more evidence than this that the framers wanted to create a system in which the people truly controlled their government but limited their ability to do as they wished by protecting minorities. We established judicial review a long time ago. Unless we want to get rid of it by constitutional amendment, it's here to stay.

 

As for why they didn't settle the issue before it was put to a vote, the simple answer is that they weren't allowed to do so. In Federal courts and most state courts, there must be a "case or controversy" before the court can rule. This rule comes straight from Article Three of the US Constitution, as interpreted by our first Chief Justice John Jay: no advisory opinions. Simply put, most courts in this country aren't allowed to make a ruling saying: "If this law is passed, it will be struck down as unconstitutional." They have to wait until the law actually affects someone who can then bring a suit.

I assume those that are against this think it is ok for any law to stand that so long as it makes it on the ballot and is voted in by the majority?

You know, people may take your point seriously Mountain Ref, if you hadn't started the thread with a gay bashing post. Just a thought. :idunno:

 

If you had started the thread asking, what appears to be your real point, "why vote on something if it can be overturned?", you'd get the thread taken a lot more seriously.

 

I agree here. I think the sexual orientation of the judge is completely irrelevant here and is a bad argument for those who oppose the overturning of the referendum.

I agree here. I think the sexual orientation of the judge is completely irrelevant here and is a bad argument for those who oppose the overturning of the referendum.

 

I agree as well. I can't think of any instance that a judge would be called upon to rule, where the potential for a "conflict" might not exist. Judges, though, are scholars of the law. Yet even so, judge to judge, there is disagreement over issues.

We live in a Republic; so the wishes of the many cannot trump the rights of the few.

We live in a Republic; so the wishes of the many cannot trump the rights of the few.

:thumb:Exactly! There has been many times in the past that the government had to step in and say that something was not wright, that what many wish/want cannot interfere with the rights of others.

 

I just don't get some people, there was even someone on my Facebook friends list who took part in some poll on FB and claimed that gay marriages should not be allowed as then married gay couples will be able to file join tax returns ect and all of it will cause the government to lose too much money. WHAT? So he thinks it's okay to now allow it for this reason? But in heterosexual marriages it's okay? This should not come into play, it's either all has the same benefits or no one has them!

I can make up stuff too to show my side too.

 

But that scenario isn't really "made up" is it? It has historical roots.

 

I can assuredly say that if many southern states had voted in '64 to retain "Jim Crow Laws" some of the states would have voted to do so. The truth is that things like "Voting Rights" and "Civil Rights" were won as much in the courts as in the ballot boxes and if left to some in a ballot would have remained in effect far longer.

Latest info I read said that 50.6% of U.S. marriages end in divorce. I sometimes wonder about two things.

 

1. Are folks like me becoming an extinct species (married 32 years)?

2. If gays were premitted to marry, would they do a better job of choosing partners for life?

Why do we vote? Can anyone answer this? Does our vote count?

 

What are your thoughts about the Electoral College?

^ Is it a D1 school?

What are your thoughts about the Electoral College?

 

it is what it is, it is usually right, but Gore should have won, he had more votes.

My only point is if it is allowed to get as far as to the ballot, then why should 1 man rule it illegal. why not stop it before the voters go vote.

You know, people may take your point seriously Mountain Ref, if you hadn't started the thread with a gay bashing post. Just a thought. :idunno:

 

If you had started the thread asking, what appears to be your real point, "why vote on something if it can be overturned?", you'd get the thread taken a lot more seriously.

 

Not a gay basher, I actually have good friends who are gay. I am just angry at our legal system in general. i mean i fyou let a gay judge rule on a gay issue, duh. I am sure a straight judge who is not biased one way or the other would have been a better pick. Not every judge is against gays. still votes should matter adn if people bring them up adn it passes, then it passes. it isnt like gays are not allowed to vote, or go to all straight bars.

Al Gore got more votes in 2000 and the supreme court overturned it.

 

What did the supreme court over turn?