Indiana ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[Liberty Sanders]

Very welcome news.

The better half and I have two lady friends who were planning to get hitched in Iowa and we were planning to attend. It will be WAY cooler to witnesss it here.

Which I'll be doing tomorrow at 1000HRS in Irvington. They didn't waste any time. They've asked me to be an official witness.

Hopefully I'll be toasting the bride & bride before the Attorney General can pull any shenanigans.

 

[Denny347]

That's not the answer I've gotten when I've asked it in previous threads.

The state will always have a hand in marriage and it will never go away. However, I married my wife for reasons that had nothing to do with state interests as most all of us do. The same reasons that homosexuals want to marry.

 

[Fargo]

Perhaps...I still don't see the harm in this. I cannot fathom standing in the way of 2 consenting adults who love each other and want their relationship legal like every one else. We may whine and cry that marriage should mean nothing different to the government but it does and always will. The fact that homosexuality, once a very taboo subject never acknowledged in public policy, is now accepted means that our legal views regarding them will/should change.

If that is the case I would put you that the appropriate method for changing the definition is via our elected representatives via the democratic process, not by some unelected lawyer in a black robe.

The only reason this is in federal court is because they can't win at the legislature. Therefore they are making an end run around the law by getting a judge to redefine a legal term. That is oligarchy.

Judges are not supposed to be replacing the legislature and every time we get on board with that, we **** away a little more liberty.

 

[saleen4971]

no, but they are one part of keeping said legislatural branch in check.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

If that is the case I would put you that the appropriate method for changing the definition is via our elected representatives via the democratic process, not by some unelected lawyer in a black robe.

The only reason this is in federal court is because they can't win at the legislature. Therefore they are making an end run around the law by getting a judge to redefine a legal term. That is oligarchy.

Judges are not supposed to be replacing the legislature and every time we get on board with that, we **** away a little more liberty.

Back in the day blacks couldn't win in state legislatures either, so the federal government stepped in, and rightfully so. This is another such case.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

If that is the case I would put you that the appropriate method for changing the definition is via our elected representatives via the democratic process, not by some unelected lawyer in a black robe.

The only reason this is in federal court is because they can't win at the legislature. Therefore they are making an end run around the law by getting a judge to redefine a legal term. That is oligarchy.

Judges are not supposed to be replacing the legislature and every time we get on board with that, we **** away a little more liberty.

P.S. We didn't **** away any liberty here...we GAINED some.

 

[Fargo]

P.S. We didn't **** away any liberty here...we GAINED some.

Ceding more power to an unelected judge rather than those we have chosen to legislate is NOT gaining liberty. How are you going to like it when some judge uses the power you just gave him to crap all over your rights? How do we the people propose to control these appointees for life? You can't vote them out. You can't remove them via election.

 

[Henry]

I've got a phone, I've got a pen. If that doesn't work, I've got a guy in a black robe. The people's house (and the Constitution) be damned!

 

[Fargo]

I've got a phone, I've got a pen. If that doesn't work, I've got a guy in a black robe. The people's house (and the Constitution) be damned!

The number of people in this thread who are falling all over themselves to be ruled by Ivy League, wealthy, entitled lawyers picked out by politicians is appalling to me.

Come on, let's **** away an entire forest of rights because were obsessed with this one particular tree.


The end justifies the means, right?

 

[mrjarrell]

No Rights have been "pissed away". Liberty has been expanded. You seem really big on the 10th Amendment and completely ignore the one before it. The peoples Rights come before the state.

[h=2]AMENDMENT IX[/h]The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

​

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Ceding more power to an unelected judge rather than those we have chosen to legislate is NOT gaining liberty. How are you going to like it when some judge uses the power you just gave him to crap all over your rights? How do we the people propose to control these appointees for life? You can't vote them out. You can't remove them via election.

No power has been "ceded" to this judge other than that which he already had. His job is to interpret and enforce the Constitution. He did that and properly.

In this country rights are not based on popularity. If a majority of people polled want to ban semi-automatic rifles, does that mean the legislature can ban them based on the fact that the "people" want it? NO, they cannot.

Can the majority in a state band together and vote away the rights of a minority because that minority is unpopular? NO, they cannot.

If a man and a woman can get married, then so can a man and a man or a woman and a woman, and the people of Indiana have neither the legal or moral right to deny them that right. If they attempt to do so an "unelected judge" has both the right AND the responsibility to stop it.

 

[Fargo]

No power has been "ceded" to this judge other than that which he already had. His job is to interpret and enforce the Constitution. He did that and properly.

In this country rights are not based on popularity. If a majority of people polled want to ban semi-automatic rifles, does that mean the legislature can ban them based on the fact that the "people" want it? NO, they cannot.

Can the majority in a state band together and vote away the rights of a minority because that minority is unpopular? NO, they cannot.

If a man and a woman can get married, then so can a man and a man or a woman or a woman, and the people of Indiana have neither the legal or moral right to deny them that right. If they attempt to do so an "unelected judge" has both the right AND the responsibility to stop it.

So the framers the founders and the people of this country for the last 200+ years of all just been a bunch of constitution violating pigs, right? And we needed this enlightened judge to show is how we were all wrong, right? Including the current electorate of the state of Indiana, right?


I'd wager you spent most of your life voting for people who believe in the current definition of marriage including up and up through the last couple years. If they are constitution violators, what does that make you?

 

[Denny347]

If that is the case I would put you that the appropriate method for changing the definition is via our elected representatives via the democratic process, not by some unelected lawyer in a black robe.

The only reason this is in federal court is because they can't win at the legislature. Therefore they are making an end run around the law by getting a judge to redefine a legal term. That is oligarchy.

Judges are not supposed to be replacing the legislature and every time we get on board with that, we **** away a little more liberty.

Maybe the legislators got this wrong? They do it all the time. Is not what the Judicial Branch is for?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

So the framers the founders and the people of this country for the last 200+ years of all just been a bunch of constitution violating pigs, right? And we needed this enlightened judge to show is how we were all wrong, right? Including the current electorate of the state of Indiana, right?

​Exactly. Our legislature is 100% wrong. The judge is 100% right.

 

[Denny347]

So the framers the founders and the people of this country for the last 200+ years of all just been a bunch of constitution violating pigs, right? And we needed this enlightened judge to show is how we were all wrong, right? Including the current electorate of the state of Indiana, right?

Judges have been doing this EXACT things since the start, just not this topic. It seems that this particular topic garners a more harsh reaction than others. Or do you think this judge ruling was based on something OTHER than law, like a lobbyist, a bribe, a higher political position, etc?

 

[Fargo]

Maybe the legislators got this wrong? They do it all the time. Is not what the Judicial Branch is for?

No, only if you think that unelected lawyers should be your rulers rather than your representatives. If a judge can change the law just because he believes the legislature got it wrong he is no longer a judge, he is a super legislator. Not a judge.

 

[Fargo]

Judges have been doing this EXACT things since the start, just not this topic. It seems that this particular topic garners a more harsh reaction than others. Or do you think this judge ruling was based on something OTHER than law, like a lobbyist, a bribe, a higher political position, etc?

No, I believe it was based on a desire to socially engineer a law that he didn't like that the legislature had passed. That is not what a judge it is supposed to do.

He is to pass judgement, not make law.

 

[Denny347]

No, only if you think that unelected lawyers should be your rulers rather than your representatives. If a judge can change the law just because he believes the legislature got it wrong he is no longer a judge, he is a super legislator. Not a judge.

Ok, I have not read the ruling, maybe you have. What did the judge use as the basis of this decision? Was there no legal basis for his decision? Do you have this same view of our USSC, "unelected lawyers"? The founding fathers set it up this way for a reason. How would you make this system better? Would you prefer that the Judges have NO control over Legislative matters?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

No, only if you think that unelected lawyers should be your rulers rather than your representatives. If a judge can change the law just because he believes the legislature got it wrong he is no longer a judge, he is a super legislator. Not a judge.

It's a judge's JOB to determine whether legislation complies with both the state and federal constitutions. If the legislation doesn't it's his JOB to intervene.

Was the US Supreme Court trampling the rights of state legislatures when they ruled on Heller & McDonald?

 

[Fargo]

It's a judge's JOB to determine whether legislation complies with both the state and federal constitutions. If the legislation doesn't it's his JOB to intervene.

Was the US Supreme Court trampling the rights of state legislatures when they ruled on Heller & McDonald?

Heller, no. McDonald, yes. Incorporation was made up 60 years after the 14th was ratified.