US Appeals Court rules gay marriage bans in WI and IN unconstitutional.

[Designer99]

Seems like a lot of people on here are for this. What happened to states rights? Marriage is not in the constitution. The states have the RIGHT to decide on this. This is a political issue, the judges who vote either way are doing it based on their political views, not on what is constitutional. Keep in mind that if there are ever a bunch of right wing judges who will vote solely on political views, and they get in power, then the door swings both ways. We should be for what the states want, other than what is given in the constitution. Thats how it was set up, thats what made the country great. Its too bad everything is political

Today's ruling was written by Justice Richard Posner, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan, so...

 

[HoughMade]

Today's ruling was written by Justice Richard Posner, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan, so...

so.....what? Are you assuming this issue was on Ronald Reagan's radar in making a choice of who to appoint 33 years ago? It wasn't even on Posner's radar. As I have mentioned several times in this thread, judicial activism is bad no matter who is using it.

 

[PistolBob]

Today's ruling was written by Justice Richard Posner, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan, so...

Just more ammo on why federal judge appointments should never be for life. The guy is 75 years old. Time to retire.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Ya know, I just can't help but think that if you believe that gay marriage is even in the top 100 of issues that you believe will impact your life, have you read a newspaper? Have you perused the internet? Have you watched the TV news (any channel)?

 

[mrjarrell]

Just more ammo on why federal judge appointments should never be for life. The guy is 75 years old. Time to retire.

He happens to be gun owners best friend in the courts. He's never let us down. Now that he's ruled in a fashion that some here don't like, then suddenly it's time for him to retire. Face it, when even a conservative judge is ruling against you and calling your best arguments nonsense you're just another lost causer.

Indiana has thus invented an insidious form of discrimination: favoring first cousins, provided they are not of the same sex, over homosexuals. Elderly first cousins are permitted to marry because they can't produce children; homosexuals are forbidden to marry because they can't produce children. The state's arg ment that a marriage of first cousins who are past child-bearing age provides a "model [of] family life for younger, potentially procreative men and women" is impossible to take seriously.

Indiana's government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of governmental encouragement of marriage through a combination of sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents - model citizens really - so have no need for marriage. Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.

I like Posner and hope he hangs around a while. Still lots of battles to fight.

Here's the decision:
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...4/C:14-2526:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412339:S:0

 

[Designer99]

so.....what? Are you assuming this issue was on Ronald Reagan's radar in making a choice of who to appoint 33 years ago? It wasn't even on Posner's radar. As I have mentioned several times in this thread, judicial activism is bad no matter who is using it.

Well, that was a response to Zippy's assertion that Republican appointed judges would rule differently. You're moving the goal post to a different point entirely. This issue being on Reagan or Posner's radar back in 1981 is completely irrelevant. If this judge's ideology was good enough for the exalted Reagan, then it should be good enough for all Republicans. So what, you ask? So, if this was a judge appointed by Obama or Clinton, you'd be kicking and screaming about liberals.

"Judicial Activism" is the feeble cry of someone who didn't get there way. The appointed judge has ruled. Get over it and get on with your life.

 

[HoughMade]

Whoa, settle down skippy. We can't have a philosophical discussion about the nature of law without attacking?

You seem to be assuming judicial philosophies don't change over the years.

If you see "judicial activism" as a "feeble cry", how do you feel that judges should interpret the 2d Amendment? Original intent, or in light of conditions as believed to exist today?

 

[Designer99]

He happens to be gun owners best friend in the courts. He's never let us down. Now that he's ruled in a fashion that some here don't like, then suddenly it's time for him to retire. Face it, when even a conservative judge is ruling against you and calling your best arguments nonsense you're just another lost causer.

What? A judge that is pro gay marriage and pro gun? That doesn't fit into the established Left / Right paradigm that we're all supposed to subscribe to. Mr Jarrell, you're going to make people's heads explode with confusion.

 

[Designer99]

Whoa, settle down skippy. We can't have a philosophical discussion about the nature of law without attacking?

You seem to be assuming judicial philosophies don't change over the years.

If you see "judicial activism" as a "feeble cry", how do you feel that judges should interpret the 2d Amendment? Original intent, or in light of conditions as believed to exist today?

Aww, don't get all sensitive. You're not being attacked, you're being told to accept the official ruling and move on. You didn't cry judicial activism when Judge Posner said that the right to bear arms implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home, did you? I didn't think so.

 

[CathyInBlue]

OH NOES!!! YOU'RE CATHYS SHILL ACCOUNT!!

Or am I his?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Cathy said "Gay Blow".



**REPORTED**

Turns out, Dead Duck is a migratory water fowl. An illegally immigrating migratory water fowl.


**DEPORTED**

 

[HoughMade]

Aww, don't get all sensitive. You're not being attacked, you're being told to accept the official ruling and move on. You didn't cry judicial activism when Judge Posner said that the right to bear arms implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home, did you? I didn't think so.

1. Once an intermediate appellate court rules, shut up. Gotcha. And that's what you would be doing if it came out the other way. Sure.

2. That would be because that is an application of original intent. I don't have time to explain that right now...which is clearly needed.

 

[HoosierLife]

Men with men, working that which is unseemly...

 

[snafu21]

This whole thread is making me laugh and roll my eyes. If you're so against homosexuals, don't be one.... Don't wanna see homosexuals in their bedroom, don't go into it.... Don't wanna hang out with a homosexual, then don't.... But if you're only beef is with the idea that homosexually is bad or wrong or whatever, then I sure hope you stick to your convictions and forgo the hundreds of thousands of lesbian porn videos on the net.... Cause last I checked, lesbians (as sexy as they can be) are still homosexuals and should disgust everyone who is against homosexuality.

Just my .02

 

[88GT]

Great! All I'll say in response is that historically, things are called supernatural when the truth is, we have not yet discovered enough about nature to understand it. I do not consider some things that people call "supernatural" apart from nature, but nature that may yet be beyond our understanding in many ways.

On another tack, that which is truly supernatural, by definition, would be beyond the ability of the natural world to explain, including testing. And possibly observing.

Aww, don't get all sensitive. You're not being attacked, you're being told to accept the official ruling and move on. You didn't cry judicial activism when Judge Posner said that the right to bear arms implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home, did you? I didn't think so.

Arrgghh. Stop with the logical fallacies. The existence of a ruling is not justification for the ruling. And the rightness of one particular ruling by one particular judge does not mean all rulings by said particular judge are also right.

 

[Dean C.]

I for one think it being made legal was inevitable but I am of the younger generation. Now on to the next major issue!!!

 

[cyprant]

Quote Originally Posted by Hkindiana View Post
Is it legal yet for me to marry my sister OR brother? If not, then WHY not? Just askin . . . .
I have several thoughts about this:

1. Have you discussed this with your sister or brother?

2. At least you can buy a smaller turkey at Thanksgiving.

3. Are you a member of European royalty?...or from West Virginia?

4. I suppose there are advantages for a kid who has both arms on one side of his body.

5. No fights about whose parent to spend Christmas Day with.

6. No need for an inconvenient trip to the BMV to change you name on your drivers license after the wedding.

7. Less funerals when the older generation starts to pass on.

I think his point is that if some as unnatural as gay marriage is allowed, why can't something as unnatural as brother/sister marriages be allowed...

 

[cop car]

when will they rule all these gun bans in Illinois, Chicago, NYC etc unconstitutional, as well as actually grant us the freedom, instead of just saying that the laws are "unconstitutional" yet letting these cities or states trample our rights by still having these laws, and still enforcing them?

im all for equal rights and treatment for the gays, as long as they fight for the equal rights and treatment of SINGLE people also. (why does the government even care if you are married or single for tax breaks etc) AND also the rights of all us gun owners.

my guess would be that a VAST majority of people who support gay marriage, citing the constitution as granting them equal rights, in the next breath would gladly tell you that they don't think the second amendment grants anyone the rights for personal firearms. hypocrisy at its finest!

 

[Henry]

US appeals court rules gay marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana unconstitutional | Fox News

Who's getting gay married among the INGO growd? I wanna be a guest at the first big, gay blow out wedding bash in Indiana.

No thank you.

 

[AA&E]

Everbody seem to love an activist judiciary as long as they agree with them. ​

Yep, people will support government intrusion into citizens lives as long as it's regarding beliefs they personally believe in and agianst citizens they disagree with that are being intruded upon.