Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Waterlow]

Regardless of whether you are for or against gay marriage, it is pretty stupid to have one biased (by that I mean gay) judge give the ruling.

This comment makes me feel suddenly very tired and weary.

[DaWoad]

Regardless of whether you are for or against gay marriage, it is pretty stupid to have one biased (by that I mean gay) judge give the ruling.

Gods, you're right! If only there was some system where by one could appeal to a higher court if one felt a judge's decision was wrong!

clearly we must rectify this issue! We will create some sort of higher, perhaps even supreme, court. Then we'll have to have an odd number of judges so that there aren't ties. hmmm but how to appoint them. Oh, I know, we'll have the rueling party appoint new judges. That makes sense . . .wait. . . is anyone getting a sense of deja vue?

[Mortonus]

Well the constitution is built to serve the majority. The majority of people in California don't want gay marriage and I don't see any substantial evidence that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

[Waterlow]

Well the constitution is built to serve the majority.

Is this actually the case?

[Juristonia]

Well the constitution is built to serve the majority. The majority of people in California don't want gay marriage and I don't see any substantial evidence that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

That's because you're not very smart and obviously didn't read this thread at all.

I swear, these threads should just be locked after Cat posted on them.

[DaWoad]

Well the constitution is built to serve the majority.

Is this actually the case?

not in the slightest

[Ifreann]

Well the constitution is built to serve the majority.

No, it isn't.

[Drachmar]

Well the constitution is built to serve the majority. The majority of people in California don't want gay marriage and I don't see any substantial evidence that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

You are wrong. The constitution is built to legislate via representative rule, it has also enshrined civil rights in the attempt to prevent a tyranny rule of the majority. Sorry, your constitutional studies are fail.

[Farnhamia]

Well the constitution is built to serve the majority. The majority of people in California don't want gay marriage and I don't see any substantial evidence that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

Read.

[Mortonus]

Yes it is. The majority votes people into office to represent them and make decisions they would want. Elected officials should serve the majority of people because the majority voted them into office.

[DaWoad]

Yes it is. The majority votes people into office to represent them and make decisions they would want. Elected officials should serve the majority of people because the majority voted them into office.

you realize that judges are not a part of the electorate do you not?

[Ifreann]

Yes it is. The majority votes people into office to represent them and make decisions they would want. Elected officials should serve the majority of people because the majority voted them into office.

Judges are not, generally, elected officials.

[Farnhamia]

Yes it is. The majority votes people into office to represent them and make decisions they would want. Elected officials should serve the majority of people because the majority voted them into office.

So you'd be okay with a referendum saying that Mets fans are not allowed to marry other Mets fans, but only Yankee fans? Or that Mets fans, because of a demonstrated inability to grasp reality, may no longer vote? If the majority of the people in New York State voted yes on those questions? Because frankly that's about the same kind of sense that barring us from marrying makes.

[Drachmar]

Yes it is. The majority votes people into office to represent them and make decisions they would want. Elected officials should serve the majority of people because the majority voted them into office.

You don't understand checks and balances very well, do you?

[Mortonus]

I never said they were. I was saying that they should still act in the interest of the majority and not themselves because they are public servants.

[Farnhamia]

I never said they were. I was saying that they should still act in the interest of the majority and not themselves because they are public servants.

Two things ...

1) What?
2) Use the "Quote" button, okay? It's the polite thing to do.

[Mortonus]

Yes it is. The majority votes people into office to represent them and make decisions they would want. Elected officials should serve the majority of people because the majority voted them into office.

You don't understand checks and balances very well, do you?

Fine. Enlighten me good sir and tell me how it relates to this situation.

[Drachmar]

I never said they were. I was saying that they should still act in the interest of the majority and not themselves because they are public servants.

Did you actually read the ruling?

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/TVNews/MSNBC%20TV/Maddow/Blog/2010/07/prop8ruling.pdf

[Thevenin]

Regardless of whether you are for or against gay marriage, it is pretty stupid to have one biased (by that I mean gay) judge give the ruling.

By that logic, you could say a straight judge would be biased, and you'd have to find a eunuch to make a fair ruling.

[Mortonus]

I never said they were. I was saying that they should still act in the interest of the majority and not themselves because they are public servants.

Two things ...

1) What?
2) Use the "Quote" button, okay? It's the polite thing to do.

What do you mean what?
And no, I won't use quote. Oh wait crap.

[Eventa]

I just dont see why people dont consider marrige a civil right.

[Mortonus]

Regardless of whether you are for or against gay marriage, it is pretty stupid to have one biased (by that I mean gay) judge give the ruling.

By that logic, you could say a straight judge would be biased, and you'd have to find a eunuch to make a fair ruling.

No, not all straight people are against gays but all gays are for gays. Its like asking a black person if blacks marrying should be illegal or asking a white person.

[Ifreann]

I never said they were. I was saying that they should still act in the interest of the majority and not themselves because they are public servants.

Their job is to make judgement based on the law. The whims of the majority should not be their concern. That's the whole point.

[Mortonus]

The law was created by the majority. Plus there is no mention of gay marriage in the Constitution so the law serves the people, not the other way around.

[Sanctaria]

Regardless of whether you are for or against gay marriage, it is pretty stupid to have one biased (by that I mean gay) judge give the ruling.

By that logic, you could say a straight judge would be biased, and you'd have to find a eunuch to make a fair ruling.

No, not all straight people are against gays but all gays are for gays. Its like asking a black person if blacks marrying should be illegal or asking a white person.

I'm gay and I'm against gay marriage. Don't make rash generalisations.

Oh, I'm also a law student, specialising in constitutional and criminal law, and I still would have found Prop 8 unconsitutional.