so why bother having a Supreme Court then?

Leslie

Leslie

Communistrator
Staff member
WASHINGTON — President Bush, reacting to a new Massachusetts state court ruling, says a constitutional amendment will be necessary to ban gay marriages if judges persist in approving them.


OAS_AD('Middle');In a written statement late Wednesday, Bush termed "deeply troubling" the decision that same-sex couples in Massachusetts have a right to marry — not just form civil unions — and reiterated a position staked out in his State of the Union speech last month.

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said in the statement. "If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
The Massachusetts Supreme Court's advisory opinion that gays are entitled to nothing less than marriage set the stage for the nation's first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings by the spring.
Click to expand...

sorry bout the fox link
:confuse3:
 
Tis just one of the fancified battles twixt the power of a state vs the power of the feds. Its just like when California legalied medicinal pot only to have the feds come down like a hammer saying that it is still a federal crime and they wont hesitate to come down like a metric ton of bricks.
 
itll be a power battle between judicial and executive branches. how does he go about changing the Constitution? does he need 3/4 of the Senate to do that?
 
freako104 said:
itll be a power battle between judicial and executive branches. how does he go about changing the Constitution? does he need 3/4 of the Senate to do that?
Click to expand...
[history geek]Two thirds majority of each house, then ratified by three-fourths of the states.[/history geek]
 
It's also not yet a battle between the executive and judicial branch of the federal government. This was in a state supreme court, not the federal one.

And if we want to go further, Bush is right as far as a gay marriage ban requiring a consititutional amendment. The job of the courts is to interpret laws as applied under the Constitution. If, in the court's opinion, the law is contrary to the constitution, then it's overturned. If a constitutional amendment is passed outlawing gay marriage, then bans on it would no longer be unconstitutional.
 
Inkara1 said:
It's also not yet a battle between the executive and judicial branch of the federal government. This was in a state supreme court, not the federal one.

And if we want to go further, Bush is right as far as a gay marriage ban requiring a consititutional amendment. The job of the courts is to interpret laws as applied under the Constitution. If, in the court's opinion, the law is contrary to the constitution, then it's overturned. If a constitutional amendment is passed outlawing gay marriage, then bans on it would no longer be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Good point. When he can't get an amendment passed, do you suppose he'll try to vacate the constitution altogether?
 
I can solve this dilema immediately.

Get government out of religion.

The JoP should only perform civil ceremonies...same as marriage without the religion part.

Make them legally equal but seperate.
 
I personally don't think there is a chance in hell of a constitutional ban ever getting through.
 
chcr said:
That's all I'm saying. Unfortunately, this administration seems bent on the reverse.
Click to expand...


This administration? What about states? How many Federal Judges perform marriages?

Americans do not want gay marriage. Period.
 
Ok, but by your own figures there most Americans also feel it's none of the Governments business also.
 
Depends on who is asked

Would you favor or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow marriage ONLY between a man and a woman?"

Favor Oppose Don'tKnow
% % %
55 40 5
Click to expand...

The poll I believe you're looking at is the first one? The one that said state law needs to handle this, not the feds? Look how well that's going now.

I'm more pissed about judges legislating from the bench than anything.
 
I think that you and I can agree on although I do have to wonder cant they suggest a law for Senate to look at and maybe pass in the Senate?
 
Depends on who is asked
Click to expand...
Which is why you don't trust polls. It's usually easy to find one that supports your viewpoint.

I'm more pissed about judges legislating from the bench than anything.
Click to expand...

Umm... I guess I'm missing the boat. The judge found the ban unconstitutional, which it was. That is their job. If they'd found something unconstitutional that you agreed with, well I guess that would have been okay. The religious right are the only people who really care about this issue. You don't want a judge to legislate (they didn't) but it's okay for these jamokes to?????
 
because herr bush doesn't like gay marriages because of his damned pure christian point of view, it needs to be banned....right.

some people just happen to love somebody from their own sex, big deal. if the love is true, and they want to seal that by marriage, then it should be possible.

even though bush' fragile little mind can't understand it.
 
chcr said:
Which is why you don't trust polls. It's usually easy to find one that supports your viewpoint.
Click to expand...

That's why I like that source. It has polls from everybody.


chcr said:
Umm... I guess I'm missing the boat. The judge found the ban unconstitutional, which it was. That is their job. If they'd found something unconstitutional that you agreed with, well I guess that would have been okay. The religious right are the only people who really care about this issue. You don't want a judge to legislate (they didn't) but it's okay for these jamokes to?????
Click to expand...

If the Mass Supreme Court said the ban was illegal & stopped there it would have been fine. They instead, told the legislature they had until May to write a law. When the legislature asked if a civil union was okay the court said no. THAT is not thier job. They interpret laws. They don't (or aren't supposed to) tell lawmakers what to write.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top