Results 11 to 20 of 31
-
03-27-2013, 09:45 AM #11
I think they want to pass the buck off to the next court members. I'm assuming the country is split in half and they don't want half the country to hate them. I think they need to grow a pair and make a ruling, one way or the other...
-
-
03-27-2013, 09:47 AM #12
Not like it's their JOB or anything! But I think you and Veg are right...I hope not though. I don't think the SCOTUS will make a ruling...again, hope I'm wrong.
-
03-27-2013, 09:56 AM #13
I'm all for gay marriage! Just get this over with. There are problems 1000x more important than this that need to be fixed/addressed!
-
-
03-27-2013, 10:35 AM #14
Gay marriage isn't even a problem. The fight against it is.
-
03-27-2013, 01:24 PM #15
I can't remember which judge said it, but the point was made by one of them questioning whether or not they should overrule a majority vote by a states population. Regardless of the subject, I agree with this. I would see it the same way if there was a majority vote in favor of gay marriage. I do not see the logic in the SC over ruling what the people of a state decided in a vote. This is skirting states rights legal issues.
-
-
03-27-2013, 01:26 PM #16
Your point is understood, Duane. However, I am by no means relating the severity of the issues, but if states were allowed to vote on slavery, where would we be?
-
03-27-2013, 01:30 PM #17
That is a valid point, especially since you guys are all about state's rights. But this issue has both state and federal implications, so I don't see how one can avoid it being decided on a federal level.
Also, if SCOTUS decides that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, are you saying it's a state's right to go against said constitution?
Remember my argument about the second amendment? I find it funny that no one who was arguing with me pointed out that SCOTUS had put the matter of the second amendment's meaning to bed in the 70s (I think). Personally, I think it's just another example of people ignoring the constitution and focussing on politics and what they want instead, but the fact of the matter is SCOTUS made a ruling and it stands. Same goes for Roe v Wade.
If SCOTUS deems it unconstitutional to not recognize gay marriage, what right does any state within the union have to go against that?
-
-
03-27-2013, 01:31 PM #18
I get your point, but no state ever held a public vote to allow or abolish slavery (to my knowledge). Perhaps had the people been allowed to vote it would have been abolished much earlier than it was.
-
03-27-2013, 01:34 PM #19
Well when you have a state that abolished slavery last month...yeah, it's hard to argue that.
-
03-27-2013, 01:35 PM #20
The precedent of states going against what the Fed says is not unheard of. Fed laws says that marijuana is a controlled substance and it is illegal to possess or use it, yet we just had the population of Colorado and Washington vote to pass laws that make it legal to possess and use in your home for recreational purposes.
-