Damn those activist judges! First, giving blacks and women the right to vote, now letting people who love each other get married!

Lordy, make it stop!

They are not writing laws. They are upholding the constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. That is their job, to interprit the constitution and act accordingly. The fourteenth ammendment garuntees EQUAL RIGHTS for all native born and nationalized Americans. What part of 'the constitution garuntees equality' do you not understand?

Most people also used to be kind of upset at the idea of people of different colors marrying, but gee, i guess we got past that.

Also was there something in there defending your pointless anecdotal example of those immoral, open-marriage gay guys that clearly illustrated all of homosexuality you were talking about earlier? Or did you decide you dump that as a losing argument and move on to simply attacking the counter point?

Ah, the old activist judge dead horse, come out to be beaten once again.

Why is it that conservatives and members of the Bush administration feel the need to invoke the bogeyman of "activist, liberal judges" whenever there's a court ruling with which they do not agree, yet none of them had a problem with the highly politicized (and questionable constitutionality) of the Bush v. Gore decision? Maybe it's because the outcome happened to be in their favor that time?

It is not from some ill-conceived "activist" tendencies that judges rule on the constitutionality of laws in their states. It is in fact their primary role to do so - if the legislature passes a law that is in conflict with either the state or federal constitution then it is the duty of the supreme court (be it state or federal) to declare that law unconstitutional. This is the nature of checks and balances. A cursory reading of the federal constitution would suggest to me that the 14th amendment applies in this case:

In light of the 1942 Supreme Court decision Skinner v. Oklahoma, in which it the majority opinion stated "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival" (not to mention other invocations of marriage as a right in decisions Loving v. Virginia (1967), Milford v. Worcester (1810), Baehr v. Lewin (1993) and Baker v. State (1999) ) it would seem that to deny this basic right to anyone would violate both the spirit and the letter of the 14th amendment.

It would seem that the judges making these decisions are hardly "activist." One might even go so far as to describe them as "constructionist."

only in oklahoma would we try to force sterilization. of course, we've come a long way since 1942...

*coughimhofecough*
*coughistookcough*
*coughnicklescough*

I'm going out on a limb and suggest that marriage has nothing to do with the constitution. Invented by religions. Poltical systems issue licenses, marriages are performed as religious ceremonies. What happened to separation of church and State? The fact that you have both a ceremnony and a license indicates that there are two aspects of the process. No special legal rights for couples; then no one will care.

The fact that couples seek government approval and support for their behavior suggests big brother has won.

[Edited on May 17, 2004 by Ensatina]

i think you pegged the crux of the argument.

I don't see why some people feel the need to tell others that they can't have a private life together. I'm all in favor of gay marriage.

It is ironic that many of the people that are decrying gay marriage as something that will harm the institurion of marriage are people that are themselves divorced and remarried.

I hate to be old fashioned, but isn't marriage a committment? I say let gay people go for it and don't judge them until you have some proof that they can't be as committed as straight people. I don't think that you'll find that proof.

yeah but, who cares? i don't care in the slightest what most married couples think is wrong or right. "adultery" isn't illegal, and for that matter, having extra-marital sex where both husband and wife know in advance and agree to it isn't even unethical. so what's the problem? why do the government or popular opinion have to get involved?

far more married couples experiment during the course of their relationship than the mainstream would admit to. you'd have to be living in a cave to believe otherwise.

you don't understand how the judicial system works. if the legislature writes a law that it had no authority to write, the judicial system has the authority to nullify that law. that's straight out of high school civics class. fighting an unjust law through the court system is just as procedural as going through the legislative process.

whining that people are using a process that you find aesthetically displeasing is a poor argument against gay marriage, especially when that process is considered just as valid and constitutionally sound as the other.

hear, fucking hear! you should talk to my man Bill Graves...

i know this isn't anything to do with gay marraige, but he's against that too, and he's been married twice. he also put up a bill to allow handguns inside the capitol. what a looney!

a marriage licence, is no different than a contract between 2 business partners.
spiritually, people are free to do as they please..........legally, however , not everyone shares the same rights.
that's the debate.......

it should make no difference what sex the 2 are,
if they are consenting adults, the should be able to bind themselves legally.
why does sex, even become an issue, except for individual moral belief?
because the average moron can't separate the 2...........

oh sweetie, it doesn't surprise me. however open marriage is much more common than bisexual men in leather tights getting married just for the fun of desecrating a tradition. that was kinda the point.

I think that was my point with the exception that it's the licensing that's the problem, not the marriage. The license is a business contract that confers certain legal rights. The church, once again (and to the detriment of society, once again), is attempting to insinuate itself into your legal system. The debate should be over the license, not the marriage (the marriage is different for every religion).

It would be an interesting quest for someone to investigate the possibility of gaining the same or greater rights to a "marriage" by incorporating rather than licensing. Corporations are "all powerful". Do you take this Chief Executive Officer --- ? Do you take this Chief Financial Officer ---?

C'mon legal affairs, do your jobs!

Oh, and another point, where does your political/legal system get the right to sanction (with fees, of course) a religious ceremony? A "marriage license" in one title throws separation of church and State to the wind.

[Edited on May 18, 2004 by Ensatina]

[Edited on May 18, 2004 by Ensatina]

i will never understand certain people...

OH NO, ATTACK OF THE MARRIED GAYS, THE WORLD WILL BURN.......pshaw!

what's there to be afraid of? people are in love? more business for divorce lawyers? i mean, come on.

i don't give a flying fuck who you are, what you do, what your sexual prefference is...it's all your fucking business, not mine.

decadence of morality...whatever, how fucking un-american. the fact that this is happening, that people are being totally un-rock n' roll and unamerican about this makes me sick.

love has no boundaries. fuck your religious bullshit, fuck your conservative ways.........ARGH.

anyways, i apologize for the use of "bad" language but this pisses me off and i'm surrounded by many republicans here in the south.

i think the only point that you haven't stated, is the actual benefits given to married partners........and for me that is the issue. connecting as a corporation would work, except when it comes to child care, or spousal compensation (in case of death or disability). gay couples, even with a palimony agrrement, and a will, don't usually get these things. unlike legally married straight couples.

i think that's why i responded to you in the first place, i just didn't spit it out.....
as far as church and state.......................in god we trust,
all others must pay cash.