Activist judges strike again

[avatar4321]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070831/ap_on_re_us/same_sex_marriage

The judge overturned an Iowa law preventing gay marriage.

I am personally sick and tired of our Republic contually being under attack by these people who just ignore the Democratic process.

[diuretic]

I think you mean "democratic" process with a small "D".

Having said that, what's "non-democratic" about this?

If you can come up with something other than "judges have no right..." it would be good.



Hanson ruled that the state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.

The judge did his job as he saw it. If he's wrong, then as in the normal judicial process, he will be reversed.

The sky is not falling.

[April15]

I think you mean "democratic" process with a small "D".

Having said that, what's "non-democratic" about this?

If you can come up with something other than "judges have no right..." it would be good.



The judge did his job as he saw it. If he's wrong, then as in the normal judicial process, he will be reversed.

The sky is not falling.

This guy thinks all judges should be card carrying god squad fanatics.

[truthmatters]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070831/ap_on_re_us/same_sex_marriage

The judge overturned an Iowa law preventing gay marriage.

I am personally sick and tired of our Republic contually being under attack by these people who just ignore the Democratic process.


Hanson, ruling in a case filed by six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in 2005, declared the law unconstitutional Thursday.

Damn that constitution huh?

[jimnyc]

Hanson, ruling in a case filed by six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in 2005, declared the law unconstitutional Thursday.

Damn that constitution huh?

And the marriages were put to a halt less than 24 hours later when a stay was placed on his order.

Damn those people that vote huh?

[truthmatters]

And the marriages were put to a halt less than 24 hours later when a stay was placed on his order.

Damn those people that vote huh?


Where did I complain about that?

[jimnyc]

Where did I complain about that?

Didn't say you did. But you were quick to defend what the judge did, regardless of what the people voted for.

I read some more today. A bunch of queers descended on the town like cockroaches after the judges ruling, only to find out about the stay after their arrival. Just when a door opens - *WHAM* - it gets shut right in their faces.

And the governor is waiting in the wings for the final decision before taking action, as he has already stated he is against the queer marriages.

I'm kind of glad the queers keep pushing the issue all over the place. It's only a matter of time before just about every state puts a stop to it and places it on the books that marriage is reserved for between a man and a woman. The voting thus far has been so overwhelmingly against queer marriage.

[avatar4321]

Hanson, ruling in a case filed by six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in 2005, declared the law unconstitutional Thursday.

Damn that constitution huh?

The Constitution is a document that is established and governed for and by the people. If you ignore the people you destroy the legitimacy of a Constitution. If you continually force the people to things they dont want it wont be long before they feel disenfranchised. When that happens you have a very high chance of revolution.

That is dangerous, deadly, and it wont be a pleasant ending for those trying to oppress the people.

[LiberalNation]

Judges jobs are to judge laws to see if they fit the constitution. That means they get to interpret the constitution. Don't have a prob with it. Plenty of unconstitutional laws may be popular at one time or another, that doesn't mean they should remain laws just cuz they're popular.

[bullypulpit]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070831/ap_on_re_us/same_sex_marriage

The judge overturned an Iowa law preventing gay marriage.

I am personally sick and tired of our Republic contually being under attack by these people who just ignore the Democratic process.

You say that like its a bad thing. The only interest the state has in marriage is its value as a contract...as in seeing that children are cared for, property is bought and sold and the estate is apportioned properly after the death of one spouse or the other. The gender of the couple has no bearing on these issues. Just because you and the other right-wing nuts get your panties in a wad is irrelevant.

[bullypulpit]

And the marriages were put to a halt less than 24 hours later when a stay was placed on his order.

Damn those people that vote huh?

Tyranny of the majority, old son!

[jimnyc]

Tyranny of the majority, old son!

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to label the citizens desire to protect society from abhorrent and deviant behavior to be "tyranny".

But I still love you, Bully!

[Kathianne]

Tyranny of the majority, old son!

That was the great fear of the founders, tyranny of the masses, yet over time, the tyranny of the minority has certainly come to the forefront of issues.

[actsnoblemartin]

Judges should not be allowed to make law from the bench.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070831/ap_on_re_us/same_sex_marriage

The judge overturned an Iowa law preventing gay marriage.

I am personally sick and tired of our Republic contually being under attack by these people who just ignore the Democratic process.

[Gaffer]

Judges should not be allowed to make law from the bench.

They do it all the time though. I think they should have term limits.

[actsnoblemartin]

where in the constitution did it say gays had the right to marry?. It didnt , a judge has to infer it did, and make law from the bench.


Hanson, ruling in a case filed by six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in 2005, declared the law unconstitutional Thursday.

Damn that constitution huh?

[diuretic]

where in the constitution did it say gays had the right to marry?. It didnt , a judge has to infer it did, and make law from the bench.

From my limited understanding of your Constitution I'm pretty sure it doesn't specify individual rights, but it does seek to constrain government from unreasonably infringing on what the Founding Fathers saw as "natural" rights (those are the "inalienable" rights they talked about). I would think that there was also a bit of a balance with state's rights as well, vis-a-vis the federal government and perhaps that's where the issue of marriage comes up. Whereas in my country marriage is a federal matter (we can't have a Nevada type situation for example) in the US it's down to the states so they can pretty much legislate how they wish I think.