Posts: 11,959
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
163
Federal Judge Whips It Out
02-15-2014, 01:57 PM
Bah let them have their marriage... copyright issues aside, it was heterosexuals who killed it anyway.
"Imagine" by HCE | Hitler reacts to Battle of Montreal | An alternative use for
squid that has never crossed your mind before
Posts: 5,184
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation:
264
Federal Judge Whips It Out
02-15-2014, 02:11 PM
HCE, the majority of the voters in Virginia voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. And now a (female) judge has the gall to overturn this majority vote on the basis that it's "unconstitutional". The idea that the US Constitution somehow requires that gay men should be allowed to "marry" each other is an insult as far as I'm concerned. Gay "marriage" would have struck the framers of the Constitution as incomprehensible nonsense. While I understand that Constitutional interpretation is not entirely about original meaning, it still takes a special kind of impudence to take an idea that would strike the writers of a document as unthinkably grotesque, and decide that this document now mandates it.
If Americans want gay marriage to be permitted, let the voters decide so -- it should not be imposed from on high with this kind of arrogant "we know better what's good for you" judicial fiat.
same old shit, sixes and sevens Shaft...
Posts: 1,008
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
16
Federal Judge Whips It Out
02-15-2014, 02:16 PM
^^ Exactly.
It's pretty much like taxation without representation.
The majority want something one way, and someone higher up decides to not give a shit what the public wants and makes the policy anyway.
This is how revolutions start.
Posts: 11,959
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
163
Federal Judge Whips It Out
02-15-2014, 02:20 PM
Sorry, missed that was the case. I can agree with that. They should respect their constituents. At least in Croatia the Supreme Court judges were fair enough to acknowledge the will of the people (65% majority voting to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman in a national referendum) and proceed to enter it into the law.
In theory, I could support judges or politicians of any rank in overturning lower-rank officials' or referendum decisions on the basis of preventing actual and direct harm. This, however, is not one of those cases.
"Imagine" by HCE | Hitler reacts to Battle of Montreal | An alternative use for
squid that has never crossed your mind before
Posts: 2,467
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation:
254
Federal Judge Whips It Out
02-15-2014, 02:35 PM
Quote:Quote:
“Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal,” wrote Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in Norfolk. “Surely this means all of us.”
The most revealing and pathetic fact from this story is that a Federal Judge doesn't know that "all men are created equal" is a line from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Then again, given the rampant disregard for the law we've seen over the past two decades, should we really be surprised these days that Federal judges are so laughably ignorant of the Constitution?
[size=8pt]"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.”[/size] [size=7pt] - Romans 8:18[/size]
Posts: 1,422
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
16
Federal Judge Whips It Out
02-15-2014, 03:09 PM
I could see the argument for gay marriage under the 14th amendment (equal protection under the law). However, this ruling is a slap in the face of the 10th amendment (State sovereignty). Last time I checked, marriage licenses are granted by the state, not the federal government.
10/14/15: The day I learned that convicted terrorists are treated with more human dignity than veterans.