Freethought & Rationalism Archive

woodheart · 02-05-2005, 05:30 AM

I am thrilled to see a Judge knows what Equal rights are supposed to be.

Equal human rights wins again and another blow for bigotry and oppression.

DougP · 02-05-2005, 05:32 AM

Im from NY and I was very pleased to hear this yesterday. New York is at least one of the more liberal states, so hopefully it will survive the conservative backlash.

-Doug

jayh · 02-05-2005, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atechnie

I find it ironic that whenever judges rule in favor of gay rights or things like that, they're activist judges. But if judges rule against abortion, they aren't activist judges - they're "interpreting the Constitution strictly."

-atechnie

There are activist judges in the conservative side too. Abortion is one area. I remember one judge requiring unmarried people under supervision of his court to either move out our get married.

Quote:

don't people start to wonder why judge after judge after judge--at all judicial levels, in municipalities and states all across the country--has been striking down these marriage bans???

Actually only a handful have, but they get a lot of publicity. I don't doubt that a number of those judges may not be around that much longer.

Something like this needs public acceptance to work. The simultaneous amending of so many constitutions in a single year is completely unprecedented in the history of this country. Court power in the real world depends on political capital, when the public is loud enough, the court appeases the crowd. Courts are not immune from political pressure (which can also be a good thing).

Shake · 02-05-2005, 06:33 AM

I don't know if this broke on the news last night -- missed the news -- but I saw this story on the front page of my paper this morning. It's nice to see that someone got the story up here!

That'll be some good news here in liberal Rochester. I'm from here and only just recently found out what a sizeable gay population we have here.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 02-05-2005, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Mathew Staver, president of [/b]Liberty Counsel[/b], said he was "disappointed" by the decision. "Redefinition of a law's terms is for the legislature to do, not for a judge. She's an activist judge legislating from the bench."

Note the bold.

Liberty--for the straight, Bible-Believing White People. Everyone else, get fucked.

JustBlazed · 02-05-2005, 09:37 AM

The push must continue for equal protection under the law for ALL. I am SO proud of my home state and the gay marriage laws. As you can see (and obvious to most all of us) that society did not collapse in MA. In fact, it hasn't effected ANYONE in the least bit.

It's sad that 11 states in this year's election actually banned gay marriage.

You can't hide your bigotry behind a religion, everyone should see how silly that truly is. :huh:

Bumble Bee Tuna · 02-05-2005, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayh

While the judgement certainly seems fair, I fear that the backlash will more than negate the positive. Even though I agree with the spirit of the decision, it's hard to deflect the charges of 'activist' (ordering the words husband and wife be replaced by spouse, and all pronouns replaced accordingly) which will have negative reprecussions.

Remember the movement in the 60s? Think of how much backlash THAT generated. There is always more temporary backlash...that's why activism is tough and requires strength and fortitude. If you let the backlash dictate what you do, you will never win.

-B

Shake · 02-05-2005, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Note the bold.

Liberty--for the straight, Bible-Believing White People. Everyone else, get fucked.

Yeah, I thought about the same thing during the State of the Union address, when in his first few sentences, Dubya mentioned something about liberty for all.

erimir · 02-05-2005, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel

Activist judge: A judge who expects the legislature to obey the Constitution.

I think we should get about the business of getting rid of some of the worst cases of legislation from the bench.

We need Constitutional amendments to counteract the unconstitutional abuses of judicial powers exemplified by the following cases:

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
Gideon v. Wainwright
Loving v. Virginia

And of course, the great granddaddy of them all (not in chronological terms):
Roe v. Wade

I'm sure you can think of more than a few other examples of such despicable behavior from judges.

Bill Mutz · 02-05-2005, 06:59 PM

Actually, the gay rights supporters are riding on a backlash themselves here, and it needs to be milked for all that it is worth. If you think that the loving support of the left is going to last forever, I think that you are mistaken. This rush to get the foot in the door for gay marriage is in part a way for the political left to strike back at the right-winged nutjob who adorns the White House, and it'll probably be over the day we can say with a straight face that we have a human being for a president. What matters now is just getting our foot in the door. Two or three states that allow gay marriage would change everything because it would give common people some exposure to the idea, put a human face on the issue. This would pretty much knock the legs from under the Religious Right-wing's political machine, at least in the long-run.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-05-2005, 05:30 AM	#11
woodheart Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Tallahassee FL. Posts: 1,230	I am thrilled to see a Judge knows what Equal rights are supposed to be. Equal human rights wins again and another blow for bigotry and oppression.

02-05-2005, 05:32 AM	#12
DougP Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,441	Im from NY and I was very pleased to hear this yesterday. New York is at least one of the more liberal states, so hopefully it will survive the conservative backlash. -Doug

02-05-2005, 06:33 AM	#14
Shake Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Folding@Home in upstate NY Posts: 14,394	I don't know if this broke on the news last night -- missed the news -- but I saw this story on the front page of my paper this morning. It's nice to see that someone got the story up here! That'll be some good news here in liberal Rochester. I'm from here and only just recently found out what a sizeable gay population we have here.

02-05-2005, 09:37 AM	#16
JustBlazed Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New England Posts: 2,673	The push must continue for equal protection under the law for ALL. I am SO proud of my home state and the gay marriage laws. As you can see (and obvious to most all of us) that society did not collapse in MA. In fact, it hasn't effected ANYONE in the least bit. It's sad that 11 states in this year's election actually banned gay marriage. You can't hide your bigotry behind a religion, everyone should see how silly that truly is. :huh:

02-05-2005, 06:59 PM	#20
Bill Mutz Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: North Carolina Posts: 657	Actually, the gay rights supporters are riding on a backlash themselves here, and it needs to be milked for all that it is worth. If you think that the loving support of the left is going to last forever, I think that you are mistaken. This rush to get the foot in the door for gay marriage is in part a way for the political left to strike back at the right-winged nutjob who adorns the White House, and it'll probably be over the day we can say with a straight face that we have a human being for a president. What matters now is just getting our foot in the door. Two or three states that allow gay marriage would change everything because it would give common people some exposure to the idea, put a human face on the issue. This would pretty much knock the legs from under the Religious Right-wing's political machine, at least in the long-run.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.