Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33
  1. #1
    Sooper Dooper Moderator!
    Reputation: il sogno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    18,972

    TX Gives XXX to XY+XY

    Texas bans gay marriage. Better late then never? Or soooo 2004?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110801910.html
    Last edited by il sogno; 11-11-2005 at 10:48 AM.

  2. #2
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,430

    Question for y'all

    Here a question. So let's say that the people of TX voted to ban it. Say a federal judge rules it's unconstitutional. Is that judical activism. Should a federal judge really be able to make that call for a state? (1st and 14th amendment coupling)

    Also wonder about the SF mayor who allowed gay marriage even though the people of CA voted to ban it. Why wasn't he punished for it? Why is he still in office?

  3. #3
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    42,402

    well let's ask you this first

    if people in the South voted to ban inter racial marriages and a federal judge overturned it saying it was Unconstititional would you call that 'activist' or just plain 'doing the right thing'?
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  4. #4
    Bickety bam!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,544

    Bravo!

    Quote Originally Posted by atpjunkie
    if people in the South voted to ban inter racial marriages and a federal judge overturned it saying it was Unconstititional would you call that 'activist' or just plain 'doing the right thing'?
    Good analogy my friend, very good...

    I'm sure it was viewed as being judicial activism then as well.

    Maybe some day people will say, yes, let them get married. Does it really matter? That's the question. And if it does matter if 2 people of the same sex can get married, tell me why it matters...

    So come on you conservatives or even liberals who might be against such things. I'm curious as to why YOU think it's wrong for 2 men or 2 women to get married.

  5. #5
    Shirtcocker
    Reputation: Bocephus Jones II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    61,138
    Quote Originally Posted by atpjunkie
    if people in the South voted to ban inter racial marriages and a federal judge overturned it saying it was Unconstititional would you call that 'activist' or just plain 'doing the right thing'?
    or let's go all the way with this and say that Texas decided to make slavery legal again. Would it be activist for the fed judge to overturn it?
    "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." -S. Hawking

  6. #6
    Sooper Dooper Moderator!
    Reputation: il sogno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    18,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Flip Flash
    Here a question. So let's say that the people of TX voted to ban it. Say a federal judge rules it's unconstitutional. Is that judical activism. Should a federal judge really be able to make that call for a state? (1st and 14th amendment coupling)
    How 'bout the judicial activism that got GWB into office in 2000? Federal judges (Supreme Court) not allowing a state court to make a decision as to whether the votes in their own state should be counted.

  7. #7
    If You See Kay
    Reputation: DeaconBlues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    931

    I Hate Activist Judges

    Quote Originally Posted by Flip Flash
    Here a question. So let's say that the people of TX voted to ban it. Say a federal judge rules it's unconstitutional. Is that judical activism. Should a federal judge really be able to make that call for a state? (1st and 14th amendment coupling)
    Don't they understand what is really meant by "...liberty and justice for all?"

    "All" includes most everybody, but not everybody.

    Deek
    "The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese"--unknown

  8. #8
    Sooper Dooper Moderator!
    Reputation: il sogno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    18,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Flip Flash
    Also wonder about the SF mayor who allowed gay marriage even though the people of CA voted to ban it. Why wasn't he punished for it? Why is he still in office?
    As far as Gavin Newsom goes, his constituency supports gay marriage. If he gets "punished" (and I don't think he will be), it will be in the next SF mayoral election.

    Also I am sure you know that a few months ago the CA legislature passed a bill legalizing gay marriage. One of Arnold's campaign promises was that he would sign such a bill. He went back on that promise earlier this year. Well, maybe he will sign the bill now that he has been humbled by the failure of his policies in this last election and he is in more of a cooperative mood in regards to his relationship with the legislature.
    Last edited by il sogno; 11-11-2005 at 11:40 AM.

  9. #9
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    42,402

    well if ya remeber Phyllis Schafly

    the Ann Coulter of the 80's her new book is about activist judges and every brain dead neo con is 'ya ya' while Rehnquists Court holds the record for most legislation overturned and
    for appointing a President over a State SC's ruling.
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  10. #10
    Sooper Dooper Moderator!
    Reputation: il sogno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    18,972
    Flip, atp raises an important issue for you and me as we are both in cross cultural/inter-racial marriages. Are you not concerned that religious consevatives emboldened by these bans on gay marriage might one day goosestep a couple of steps further and invalidate our marriages?

  11. #11
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    42,402

    well especially because

    it is waht is culturally relevant in that time period as well as today.

    many folks when inter racial marriage bans were overturned were quite against it. In many states still up to today my guess is, if left up to the populace it would still be banned. This is an example of the court stepping in when the general populace has excercised their 'masses are asses card'. Because most folks don't understand how it relates to the Constitution. Most likely when we are a more tolerant and enlightened society a majority of us will look upon this era as barbaric, as we look on the segregation era America today.
    Jefferson understood how time would show changes that would point to the barbaric ways of the past to even it's most 'enlightened members' (Jefferson, a slave owner being a fine example). Once again, a little reading would do ya a heap of good.
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    53,822
    Quote Originally Posted by il sogno
    How 'bout the judicial activism that got GWB into office in 2000? Federal judges (Supreme Court) not allowing a state court to make a decision as to whether the votes in their own state should be counted.
    What the Federal Court ruled was that they couldn't change the law after the election.

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    53,822
    I believe the ban on same sex marriages will apply to mixed racial same sex as well. Double dipping, sounds like a civil liberties lawyer's wet dream to me. Let the fun begin.

  14. #14
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    42,402

    regardless of what you think they ruled on

    the Fed Court superceded a state SC courts decision. that is 'activist'
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    53,822
    Quote Originally Posted by atpjunkie
    the Fed Court superceded a state SC courts decision. that is 'activist'
    No, they corrected a State Court that was in error, that's what they do.

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,430

    Not looking to get flamed, but here's my answer.

    I think the key difference is that: Michael Jackson can try all he wants, but he's a black guy. Ann Hecht (sp?) was one day EG's hottie and the next married a cameraman.

    Modern Christian believe that all men are created equal, but they view homosexuals as choosing a lifestyle, not born into it.

    I think Joe and Jane America don't really have a strong conviction that it's a "born" thing, hence people err on the side of it's a choice.

  17. #17
    Palm trees & sunshine!
    Reputation: KenB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    24,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Flip Flash
    Here a question. So let's say that the people of TX voted to ban it. Say a federal judge rules it's unconstitutional. Is that judical activism. Should a federal judge really be able to make that call for a state? (1st and 14th amendment coupling)

    Also wonder about the SF mayor who allowed gay marriage even though the people of CA voted to ban it. Why wasn't he punished for it? Why is he still in office?
    It would depend upon the basis used for the ruling. This IS a states rights issue. My position is that the state should have no say in marriage whatsoever. It should also not recognize it. Marriage is a religious thing. The state should only care about civil unions. If you want a civil union, then go get one. If you want your church to sanction it then go get married in addition.


    supervillain

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,430

    I think the answer is

    There will always be a position that activism is occuring, depending on what side you are on. Still as the Constitution expert, did the Federal government take away State rights in regard to legislating religion. I read that it did by coupling the 1st and 14th amendments (see you asked me to study so I started).

  19. #19
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    42,402

    c'mon Ken

    you know marriage is both a sacred and civil contract. you know there are certain civil rights or advantages given to married couples. while I agree it shouldn't it does. heck jan van eyck understood it well when he painted the 'marriage of arnolfini'

    http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/eyck/arnolfini/

    while personally I need neither the church or the states approval of my relationship I did see the advantages it provides me, my wife and child.
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  20. #20
    Palm trees & sunshine!
    Reputation: KenB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    24,222
    Quote Originally Posted by atpjunkie
    you know marriage is both a sacred and civil contract. you know there are certain civil rights or advantages given to married couples. while I agree it shouldn't it does. heck jan van eyck understood it well when he painted the 'marriage of arnolfini'

    http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/eyck/arnolfini/

    while personally I need neither the church or the states approval of my relationship I did see the advantages it provides me, my wife and child.
    Civil Unions. Just transfer everything about marriage to civil unions, minus the religion then make it so that the state only recognizes civil unions as legally binding. Marriage would no longer be recognized by the state but marriage and a civil union would not need to be mutually exclusive. You'd get a civil union license just like you get a marriage license. The only difference being that once you sign on the dotted line, it's done. If you want to get married in a church you'd still be free to do so in addition. OR, if you didn't want the state recognized civil union you could still get married in a church, only the state wouldn't recognize the union.

    The point being that the religious folks are concerned about the sanctity of marriage being usurped by the gay folks. I say remove the state entirely from the equation and let the churches fight it out amongst themselves. Some will allow gay marriages, some won't but it won't matter a whit in the end.


    supervillain

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    53,822
    Quote Originally Posted by KenB
    Civil Unions. Just transfer everything about marriage to civil unions, minus the religion then make it so that the state only recognizes civil unions as legally binding. Marriage would no longer be recognized by the state but marriage and a civil union would not need to be mutually exclusive. You'd get a civil union license just like you get a marriage license. The only difference being that once you sign on the dotted line, it's done. If you want to get married in a church you'd still be free to do so in addition. OR, if you didn't want the state recognized civil union you could still get married in a church, only the state wouldn't recognize the union.

    The point being that the religious folks are concerned about the sanctity of marriage being usurped by the gay folks. I say remove the state entirely from the equation and let the churches fight it out amongst themselves. Some will allow gay marriages, some won't but it won't matter a whit in the end.
    You may want to lay this all at the feet of religion but I believe you would find that a hard sell to the other side as well. What they want is marriage, the equal of hetrosexual marriage.

  22. #22
    Palm trees & sunshine!
    Reputation: KenB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    24,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit
    You may want to lay this all at the feet of religion but I believe you would find that a hard sell to the other side as well. What they want is marriage, the equal of hetrosexual marriage.
    Then they need to work on a Constitutional amendment, IMO, 'cause I don't see it guaranteed in there anywhere -- which puts it squarely on the States where I think it oughta be.

    Although, as I said, marriage is a religious thing. Some churches will welcome it. If civil unions were made law then any and all laws passed barring gay marriage would be nullified thanks to the 1st Amendment. So, in that, they could very well get what they want -- a state recognized civil union AND a same-sex marriage.

    See how taking religion out of government works better for everyone.


    supervillain

  23. #23
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,430

    Great conversation

    Ken's answer sounds good. Your point is equally good. There is a romance with marriage whereas civil union sounds cold.

    I thought gays in the earlier days didn't want to get married and sell out. Wonder why the change? Rebel not enough? Acceptance the goal?

  24. #24
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    42,402

    no majority of it started during the first aids epidemic

    when male 'partners' were not allowed visitation to their dying partners as they aren't 'direct family'. More of it now, recently is on the fact that many want to start families and adoption is easier for 'amrried' couples. If they changed the states position on civil unions and the R's and P's that go with it in most cases that would be enough.

    ps you are still dodging the 'activist' comment about inter racial unions

    step or shut (up)
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  25. #25
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    53,822
    Quote Originally Posted by KenB
    Then they need to work on a Constitutional amendment, IMO, 'cause I don't see it guaranteed in there anywhere -- which puts it squarely on the States where I think it oughta be.

    Although, as I said, marriage is a religious thing. Some churches will welcome it. If civil unions were made law then any and all laws passed barring gay marriage would be nullified thanks to the 1st Amendment. So, in that, they could very well get what they want -- a state recognized civil union AND a same-sex marriage.

    See how taking religion out of government works better for everyone.
    I think we may have found some common ground. I, too, believe it should be up to the States. Social change doesn't happen all at once and it comes to different segments of the population and country at different speeds. People need time to adjust.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

INTERBIKE

EUROBIKE

Hot Deals

Interbike Featured Booths

Check out the hottest road bike products from these brands!




















See All Interbike Coverage - Click Here »


Latest RoadBike Articles


Latest Videos

RoadbikeReview on Facebook