[mike777]

As many posters here and in other forums point out.



to even suggest gay rights should be put to a popular vote rather than decided by nine is not even an option. You are a bigot. that is the discussion.
----------


fwiw having a sister who is married/gay I fully grant may bias me but on the other hand seeing catholic priests spit on in NYC disturbs me. the discussion of hosp/schools/adoption/etc confusing. If this post sounds confusing fair enough.
---


having lived just north. over the hill, of the gay capital of the world....west Hollywood...I have so many bridge...non bridge/....movie/artsie gay friends.... I love you.

[Vampyr]

mike777, on 2015-July-05, 21:47, said:

to even suggest gay rights should be put to a popular vote rather than decided by nine is not even an option. You are a bigot. that is the discussion.

This is ridiculous; well, what else is new.

Countries have legalised marriage equality through popular vote, legislation, and now SC ruling. Naturally some will favour one method over others.

And yes, some will say that SCOTUS did what they felt was morally right but it was not correct constitutionally. A more strict interpretation of the Supreme Court's remit than yours does not make someone a bigot.

[mike777]

Vampyr, on 2015-July-05, 22:02, said:

This is ridiculous; well, what else is new.

Countries have legalised marriage equality through popular vote, legislation, and now SC ruling. Naturally some will favour one method over others.

And yes, some will say that SCOTUS did what they felt was morally right but it was not correct constitutionally. A more strict interpretation of the Supreme Court's remit than yours does not make someone a bigot.

we seem to agree but not sure...


wish you would quote me in full thank you

If my posts seem confusing/fair enough.

[MrAce]

Vampyr, on 2015-July-05, 20:54, said:

Couldn't a driver fake his starting time?

I will tell you via pm in order not to distract the topic in hand.

[Mbodell]

barmar, on 2015-July-05, 21:28, said:

If support is so overwhelming, why are state and federal legislatures so dead-set against legalizing it, and it takes the courts to tell them that laws like DOMA are unconstitutional?

Because support across the country is substantially, but not overwhelmingly, in favor of same-sex marriage. But that doesn't mean every state (and most of the US is broken and noncompetitive in general elections, so legislators worry more about primaries than general elections). Before the Obergefell v. Hodges case 35 of the states had full same-sex marriage rights (about 69% of population in these states plus then a few others recognized marriages from other states). Of those, 13 involved legislatures passing laws or direct referendums (or both) - twice the legislature was in response to a judicial ruling). But note that 50% of the US being in favor of full same-sex marriage happened around 2011. But of course some states will be backwards.

Compare to interracial marriage. In the mid/late 1960s nearly 1/3 of US citizens lived in states that had interracial marriage as illegal (so very similar to the 15 out for 50 states and the 31% of the country for same-sex before Obergefell). Then there was Loving versus Virginia in 1967 and interracial marriage was legal through out the US. Note that it was not until 1995 that a majority of US people were in favor of interracial marriage being fully legal. And note it took a special court ruling in 1970 to enforce this in Alabama, and Alabama didn't take the state constitutional banning of interracial marriage out until 2000! Some states will be far behind others.

So in terms of popular opinion, the same-sex marriage ruling is more conservative than the interracial marriage. In terms of where the states were at, the supreme court acted at about the same point in time as they had with interracial marriage.

It is all well and good to say it would be better through the ballot box than through the courts; however, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and it doesn't make sense to wait. As others have pointed out, we need to protect minority rights from the possible tyranny of the majority. Or you might say: "Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress" or "Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph" or "Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe". I'd paraphrase as you should prioritize stopping injustice over the exact perfect path. Any path that gets you to justice is better than any path that continues the injustice.

[mike777]

ok your last sentence is so powerful.

"Any path that gets you to justice is better than any path that continues the injustice."




It sums up so much what you believe, what so many justify.


Very powerful.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2015-July-05, 21:28, said:

If support is so overwhelming, why are state and federal legislatures so dead-set against legalizing it, and it takes the courts to tell them that laws like DOMA are unconstitutional?

Because legislators don't lose votes from SC decisions.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2015-July-05, 21:28, said:

If support is so overwhelming, why are state and federal legislatures so dead-set against legalizing it, and it takes the courts to tell them that laws like DOMA are unconstitutional?

How cute...

Barry acts as if the American South has a functioning democracy.

With this said and done, even if you undid all the gerrymandering I suspect that our friends down in Dixie would be perfectly happy to vote to deprive gays of basic rights. (Once again, this is why one doesn't determine people's rights based on popular referendum)

However, I suspect that within 20 years or so, this will reverse itself down South. (I expect that society is going to be a lot more flexible wrt gay rights than they are wrt equal rights for blacks)

[y66]

Mbodell, the Supremes are not the only ones on a roll. You made my day dude.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2015-July-06, 06:20, said:

Barry acts as if the American South has a functioning democracy.

Most of my posts in this thread have been based on an idealistic notion that legislatures can be expected to do the "right thing".

I realize that our country has been suffering from Congressional gridlock for some time. But does that legitimize the other branches taking up its role by fiat? The branches are supposed to check and balance each other, not take over when another branch is being stupid.

I suppose the thing that keeps this from being overdone and causing chaos is that except for the President's veto power, most of the checks available are extremely slow. SCOTUS can't just declare a law unconstitutional on their own, somoene has to sue the government when the law is used against them, it has to make its way through several levels of appeals, and then SCOTUS has to find room for it on their docket -- this typically takes years. And if Congress doesn't like a SCOTUS ruling, it takes years to pass a constitutional amendment to override it. The President has a limited ability to use Executive Action to implement some policies without Congressional approval (although these can sometimes be quite far-reaching -- the Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Action).

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2015-July-07, 14:27, said:

I realize that our country has been suffering from Congressional gridlock for some time. But does that legitimize the other branches taking up its role by fiat? The branches are supposed to check and balance each other, not take over when another branch is being stupid.

The Supreme court has traditionally lead the voting public wrt expanding legal rights

Loving versus Virigina
Brown versus Board of Education
yada yada yada

This decision is hardly unique, nor is it undesirable

The tricky balancing act for the court is NOT whether it is going to move in advance of congress, rather it is precisely when to take action

[ArtK78]

hrothgar, on 2015-July-07, 14:34, said:

The Supreme court has traditionally lead the voting public wrt expanding legal rights

Loving versus Virigina
Brown versus Board of Education
yada yada yada

This decision is hardly unique, nor is it undesirable

The tricky balancing act for the court is NOT whether it is going to move in advance of congress, rather it is precisely when to take action

My personal favorite is Yada vs. Yada. It was a divorce case.

[Zelandakh]

ArtK78, on 2015-July-07, 15:27, said:

My personal favorite is Yada vs. Yada. It was a divorce case.

No, it was Yada vs Yada vs Yada, an inheritence case.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2015-July-07, 14:27, said:

Most of my posts in this thread have been based on an idealistic notion that legislatures can be expected to do the "right thing".

I realize that our country has been suffering from Congressional gridlock for some time. But does that legitimize the other branches taking up its role by fiat? The branches are supposed to check and balance each other, not take over when another branch is being stupid.

I suppose the thing that keeps this from being overdone and causing chaos is that except for the President's veto power, most of the checks available are extremely slow. SCOTUS can't just declare a law unconstitutional on their own, somoene has to sue the government when the law is used against them, it has to make its way through several levels of appeals, and then SCOTUS has to find room for it on their docket -- this typically takes years. And if Congress doesn't like a SCOTUS ruling, it takes years to pass a constitutional amendment to override it. The President has a limited ability to use Executive Action to implement some policies without Congressional approval (although these can sometimes be quite far-reaching -- the Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Action).

It's not like the judicial system decides on its own to correct a perceived wrong - first, someone with standing must bring suit.

[jjbrr]

jjbrr, on 2015-June-27, 10:00, said:

RIP, Jack.

Link