Poll: Who should have final say on gay marriage? Voters, courts or congress?

[RabidMongoose]

Oh i get it just fine, the USSC has ruled that marriage is a right, that means that per the constitution itself it IS a right since their job is to interpret the constitution.

Um, sure, but again it's how the conservative justices will frame the right in question.

And no, you may not know this but NO state can legally construct legislation that goes against the federal constitution.

We haven't even begun discussing what happens after the repeal of state law... you really don't have a fucking clue about the US legal system, do you?

Thanks for the obvious. And I do know about the US legal system considering that I am an American lawyer. I'd say that I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do considering that you're a subject of the British queen. It's quite obvious that you're reciting a small portion of one case and think that conservative justices have no other constitutional analysis that they can apply. They can easily distinguish it to follow their own conservative agenda.

Hell, some freaking state supreme courts didn't even bother to cite to Loving v. Virginia when they UPHELD same sex marriage.

I do and i have presented knowledge to you, take it in, realise that it is fact, cement it and rid yourself of your delusions.

Ah well, i've tried to help you, i've got better things to do than to educate Americans on their constitution (which is just a god damn piece of paper) and legal system...

Good luck though, when you reach high school i'm sure you can even have an argument without baiting or trolling, not that it will make sense since you refuse to learn from the information handed to you but still, you could nod and perhaps get away with that withouth shouting "QEEEN" like you had writing tourettes.

I'm going to hold my thumbs for you, you can doit, i'm sure of it!

Again, all you've stated was "Loving v. Virginia", haven't been able to display any knowledge of constitutional analysis or principles, and you don't even state the correct constitutional terminology in your posts. I agree with you about the overall issue of same sex marriage, but you are so lacking in any legal or constitutional knowledge that you should be embarrassed.

Go back to your queen. It's quite obvious that you have no clue about a real and actual constitution.

 

[bfdd]

Its already like this. Single people who have no relatives can't give survivor benefits to anyone. You don't see single people crying do you? This is an attempt by the gay population to get on the government welfare tabs plain and simple.

Uh I do have a problem as a single person with people getting benefits I don't just because they made the personal decision to get married. A married person and a single person are not treated equally and it's retarded period. Government should stay away from marriage absolutely. It should have NOTHING to do with governing.

 

[PrinceofWands]

There is no 'final say', there is the continuing power struggle, checks & balances. When the legislation passes something bad, the courts can overturn it or the people vote them out. When the people want what's wrong, the legislation can make laws to punish them, and the courts can put them away. When the courts act irresponsibly, people can vote in different people (in most cases) and the legislation can just change the foundational law to nullify court objections.

All of those groups are wrong at times, and right at others. If any got the 'final say' everything would be ruined.

As for the 'gay marriage' debacle, there are two options: allow it absolutely under equal protection (even if you have to switch it to civil union terminology), or remove all vestiges of marriage from government interaction.

Anyone who seeks to repress the rights of a few individuals for ANY reason is an ignorant bigot, an evil bastard, and flat out wrong. I'm perfectly willing to kill or die to keep them from getting their way.

 

[Zebo]

Democracy IS mob rule, you twit, now go back to pretending you're Rambo.

LOL hey at he's got the retarded voice/text/diction down pat... half way there.

 

[Zebo]

nm

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Perhaps it is that i'm a Brit or that i'm not as bright as you but what does the constitution say about interracial marriages? How about drinking fountains? Placements on buses?

How can you NOT get such a simple thing as this? How old are you?

Equal protection doesn't NEED to spell everything out.

Now i'm sure you'll blush when you realise you just been thumbed on the nose by a Brit on your own countries constitution and try to explain it away in your own small mind but.....

I've been following this enough to know that your Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is indeed a right, so there you go. Loving vs Virginia and you are so lost in your own ignorance that it's not even funny anymore.

Cheerio, gotta go but i'm sure others will taunt you for this, as they should.

Oh look, another leftist moron who doesn't understand the differences between MARRIAGE (a choice not a right) and one's skin color/race(not a choice). Man you people are stupid.

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh look, another leftist moron who doesn't understand the differences between MARRIAGE (a choice not a right) and one's skin color/race(not a choice). Man you people are stupid.

Wat? Almost all Southern marriages are not choice but mandated by the fact that the girl got pregnant. And race is a total option because you can always kill yourself. Man are you fucked up in your thinking.

Also, even if marriage were an option, that would mean nothing at all. It isn't marriage that is a right, but the right to marry if one so opts. You can opt out of marriage via divorce, which is also a right.

Think of it this way. When do you have choice? When you have a right to options.