It must be an election year because ...

That's right.
Gay people "screw" -- says the celibate-not--by-choice -- for no purpose at all. Affectation? Tenderness? Love?
Of course not.
The answer is, of course, that he doesn't have an answer. Just makes him icky Down There.

 

When are we going to just admit that the "activists" don't want to take this to the people because they know the judiciary is their only hope?  And if you admit that, you admit that AMERICA as a collective doesn't want gay marriage.


This is about forcing one's will on the will of the people. How American! End of story.

 

The same could have been said about equal rights for women, back in the early 20th century, or about blacks in the middle part of the century.

 

Please google "Loving v. Virginia" for more judicial thwarting of the people's will.

 

I just don't understand how you can use the phrase "America as a collective" when there are clearly so many people who disagree. There is a difference, usually missed by you and the other flame-throwing righties on this board, between "majority" and "collective."

Kind of scary that you guys throw that term around....

 

Well, I guess three-quarters of the population must be "homophobes" and "bigots," according to your definition.

How fucking arrogant can you be?

 

Wow ... I read the summary, especially the quote from the judge who sentenced the couple (black woman, white man who married) ...

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Sickening. Truly sickening to think a judge had that opinion.
I guess you could apply the same logic to the sexes. God created the different sexes and the fact that he separated the sexes shows that he did not intend for the sexes to mix.
:

 

Or mistaken.
Whatever, nobody's civil rights are -- or ought to be -- subject to a plebiscite. Period.
Got a problem with that? Take it up with James Madison.
And, alley, it's especially troubling when you realize that God ought not to have anything to do with civil licenses for anything.

 

Just put it to a vote and you'll see how wide a majority rejects Adam and Steve's so-called right to swap rings.

 

Two years ago, a guy named Charles Jay wrote a piece about this issue. Much of what he said made a lot of sense to me, especially the part about "activeist judges"
Here's that part:

"If anything, I guess, if there is going to be a Constitutional amendment, it should be one that clears the way for same-sex marriages, by disallowing the discrimination against individuals on the basis of sexual preference. After all, why should government, on any level, preclude a choice that is made between two consenting adults, so long as those adults are not infringing upon the rights of another? By the same token, why shouldn't the federal government ensure that the right of people to marry the partner of their choice be violated by any state?

Hopefully, somewhere along the way, a judge will be asking those very same questions. I suppose these are the "activist judges", as Bush and members of the Religious Right would refer to them.

Well, if they're "legislating from the bench", thank God for it. In fact, give us some more. Let me offer a quick civics lesson, for a President who may or may not have attended Yale. There are three branches of government - executive, legislative, and judicial - each of which holds different authority, and performs certain checks and balances over the others. Anyone who is familiar with the way legislation is written, deliberated, and ultimately enacted into law knows that sometimes the constitutionality of such laws is an afterthought. What takes precedence is usually the agenda of the bill's proponent, and how he or she will be able to bargain, barter, sell, buy, or steal votes for that bill, preferably without anyone paying close attention to the bill's contents, in order to get it passed.

As a result, anything can conceivably slip through the cracks. Many bills that become law are just "unconstitutionalities" waiting to be challenged. In some cases they never are. But on those occasions where the substantive and legitimate constitutional questions are raised about a law, and a judge rules to invalidate it, that judge is not being "activist" in the pejorative sense, as moralizers suggest. He or she is in fact fulfilling a duty and obligation, without which our system of government would fail to function faithfully."

 

Yeah, it must be an election year. I went out and voted in the primaries here in Iowa.

Who else voted in their respective states? Who didn't give a shit?

 

I did. There's a real chance a Dem could knock off our GOP senator, Conrad Burns. Wanted to make sure the better of the 2 Dems was who would be his opponent.