| # | Author | Message |
11
| utahjosh
Thu 5/15/2008 11:43a | Without commenting on this particular issue, it strikes me as interesting that "we the people" can vote for one thing, but then a small group of judges can put it down.
Our system of govt is interesting. |
12
| Dabob2
Thu 5/15/2008 11:43a | Whoa. Cool.
<I haven't read the opinion yet, but I did see equal protection arguments used as grounds for the decision, which I think is accurate.>
Yep.
"There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state's general legislative policy and preference," said the 120-page ruling." |
13
| jdub
Thu 5/15/2008 11:46a | The anti crowd has been working on that ballot initiative for some time already, signing petitions, raising cash. Maybe we should get a pro-racial discrimination referendum goin', while we're at it.
|
14
| Dabob2
Thu 5/15/2008 11:47a | <Without commenting on this particular issue, it strikes me as interesting that "we the people" can vote for one thing, but then a small group of judges can put it down. >
You can not vote in what the supreme court of your state (or country) deems unconstitutional. A majority of Alabama's citizens could vote to re-institute slavery, but it would not fly, as that has been judged unconstitutional. A majority somewhere else could vote to make Methodism (say) the official religion; that wouldn't stand either, even if 90% of the residents were Methodists, and voted for it. |
15
| Kar2oonMan
Thu 5/15/2008 11:48a | >> "we the people" can vote for one thing, but then a small group of judges can put it down<<
If a thing is simply unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if we the people vote for it. |
16
| BlueDevilSF
Thu 5/15/2008 11:48a | >>Without commenting on this particular issue, it strikes me as interesting that "we the people" can vote for one thing, but then a small group of judges can put it down.
Our system of govt is interesting.<<
So, I suppose we'll see you and your LDS buddies trolling around the Castro come November? |
17
| Kar2oonMan
Thu 5/15/2008 11:48a | Or, what Dabob said. LOL! |
18
| SingleParkPassholder
Thu 5/15/2008 11:52a | "Without commenting on this particular issue, it strikes me as interesting that "we the people" can vote for one thing, but then a small group of judges can put it down.
Our system of govt is interesting."
Josh, plainly put, sometimes the will of some people ain't cool. Moreover, religious objections, which is really the backbone of the ant- crowd, have no business in a legal arena. |
19
| WilliamK99
Thu 5/15/2008 11:54a | So my referendum declaring California seceds from the Union would be Unconstituitional?
Ot amazes me that some people think you can make anything legal or illegal by putting a referendum on our ballots. Imagine the chaos if this was true. |
20
| RoadTrip
Thu 5/15/2008 11:59a | <<Josh, plainly put, sometimes the will of some people ain't cool. Moreover, religious objections, which is really the backbone of the ant- crowd, have no business in a legal arena.>>
Religion really isn't a factor in something like this. The decision says that the state will recognize gay marriage. Individual religions and churches are under no obligation to. This is as it should be... separation of Church and State.
|
