Discussion for article #222983
Critics note most states still do not allow gay marriage and that in most of the states that do, it was the work of courts or legislatures, not the will of the people.
um… that ain’t necessarily flattering to the people in those states. That’s what history will come to recognize as “a black eye”. I guess it’s supposed to suggest that the people are more important than courts, as if checks and balances are terms limited to the finance industry.
Also, doesn’t there need to be some sort of demonstrable harm for a ruling to be stayed pending appeal? What’s the harm here? People might accidentally get some rights?
1 Like
Legislatures are not the will of the people? Since when?
Oh well, there’s always toe-tappin’ at the Airport.
1 Like
A lot of worried sheep in Idaho.
Let it go, let it go
You lost, bigots.
Let it go.
The cold never bothered me anyway.
I’m surprised that The 9th Circuit granted this stay. While the circumstances were only tangential to this case, The 9th’s refusal to recognize plaintiff’s standing in Hollingsworth v. Perry in June, 2013, had the immediate effect of legalizing same sex marriage in California.
Neither Butch Otter (great gay porn name) or the plaintiffs will accept an adverse decision from the 9th. Next stop, The Supremes. Either SS marriage will be legal everywhere or we are in for one helluva mess. We’re in for a helluva mess either way but moving in the right direction.
LD
just a test
1 Like
At the heart of the issue, is that the word marriage is being redefined. When laws have been written based on current legal interpretations of key words (i.e., marriage = traditional marriage), to redefine the word, is to rewrite the law.
This is not defining a law, as court opinions do, this is legislative initiative hijacked by the courts. Ultimately, it is society at large that should define marriage. If the majority of voters in a state wish for marriage to be one man and one woman, and express that wish through their elected representatives, the courts have no right to strike down such legislation.
No.
The people can vote for whatever they want, but, and this is key, we live in a country that does not give the majority the right to oppress a minority.
This is not the courts hijacking democracy. This is another example of the courts protecting the rights of the minorities.
Edit: How would you like it if a majority of people could invalidate your marriage, just because they think you are icky?
1 Like
Exactly.
FAIL.
The “will of the people” is null and void if it violates the due process and equal protection rights of others when no legitimate state interest exists for doing so. By your logic, interracial marriage should be subject to the whims of legislatures.
1 Like