John Adams Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 A NY court today ruled that NYs ban on gay marriage violated the NY State Constitution. Appeals on the Way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 As much as Im against gay marriage, Im glad this went through. Why? Because fighting laws you dont like IN THE COURTS is the proper way to do it. Having elected officials flout the laws on the books like those mayors did a while back was reprehensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I don't pay attention to the ruling of activist judges. This issue is on it's way to the supreme court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 To clarify the law - it can only go as high as the top court in New York state. It's an issue of the NYS constitution, so if it flies in Albany, that's the end of the story. I believe there's one step in between - Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Superior Court, maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 You gotta love issues of little importance getting all this attention! Wake me when the fluff goes away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 5, 2005 Author Share Posted February 5, 2005 I don't pay attention to the ruling of activist judges. This issue is on it's way to the supreme court. 228733[/snapback] Do you use "activist" to describe judges on the right too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 I really dislike the term activist judges. Part of the purpose of even having a judicial system is to protect the interests of the individual against that of a majority. Basically, there needs to be some system allowing you to do unpopular things. The courts struck down anti-inter-racial marriage laws a few decades ago, and it went against the will of the majority. Brown v. Board of Ed is another case. Segregation was popular, because it imposed the will of a majority on the minority - it got trumped by equal protection under the law, just like this. Legislatures can NOT be trusted to protect any minority or any individual. That's why we need courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 To clarify the law - it can only go as high as the top court in New York state. It's an issue of the NYS constitution, so if it flies in Albany, that's the end of the story. I believe there's one step in between - Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Superior Court, maybe? 228760[/snapback] it will go to the appellate division then to the Court of Appeals. For those who dislike "activist judges," how would you have courts handle issues of substantive rights? I think the term is deplorable and an invention of right wingers who disliked the outcome of various substantive due process cases. Under their definition, the most "activist" of activist judges must have been our first Chief Justice, John Marshall, for reading into the Constitution the concept of judicial review in the Marbury v. Madison decision! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 it will go to the appellate division then to the Court of Appeals. For those who dislike "activist judges," how would you have courts handle issues of substantive rights? I think the term is deplorable and an invention of right wingers who disliked the outcome of various substantive due process cases. Under their definition, the most "activist" of activist judges must have been our first Chief Justice, John Marshall, for reading into the Constitution the concept of judicial review in the Marbury v. Madison decision! 229206[/snapback] I'd rather they strike down the law and force the legislative branch to actually do their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 I'd rather they strike down the law and force the legislative branch to actually do their job. 229217[/snapback] fair enough, there is a fine line between judicial rulings and legislative action. however, Justice Douglas once wrote that enumerated rights (i.e. speech, assembly, worship, etc) necessarily have cast a penumbra of unstated rights (i.e. privacy). Meaning that the enumerated rights would be rendered meaningless without the existence of unstated rights like privacy. For example, what good is the right to assembly if the government were allowed unfettered access into your home? Given that, and the judiciary's charge of interpreting laws - if there is a broad provision for equal protection, is it not the judiciary's job to interpret what that means? If the legislature does not like the judiciary's interpretation they can pass appropriate legislation within Constitutional limits. What is "activist" about this? This is our system of seperation of powers at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 A NY court today ruled that NYs ban on gay marriage violated the NY State Constitution. Appeals on the Way 228670[/snapback] We appreciate the fact that you told us your views about the smoking ban in bars. Thank you. To paraphrase, you stated that although you are against it, the issue does not matter enough to you to work, petition politicians, nor lobby against. Please, correct me if I am wrong, for I do NOT want to misrepresent your views nor statements, OK? Now, how much does the gay marriage issue matter to you, and why? Also, given your lukewarm opposition to the smoking ban (in bars), do you think that hetrosexuals should swarm to, and actively support your apparent cause, that of gay marriages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 We appreciate the fact that you told us your views about the smoking ban in bars. Thank you. To paraphrase, you stated that although you are against it, the issue does not matter enough to you to work, petition politicians, nor lobby against. Please, correct me if I am wrong, for I do NOT want to misrepresent your views nor statements, OK? Now, how much does the gay marriage issue matter to you, and why? Also, given your lukewarm opposition to the smoking ban (in bars), do you think that hetrosexuals should swarm to, and actively support your apparent cause, that of gay marriages? 229487[/snapback] Maybe he's a gay non smoker..............no wait. Kidding, just kidding!! carry on.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thamus Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 The NYS Supreme Court is not the highest court in the state? What is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 6, 2005 Author Share Posted February 6, 2005 The NYS Supreme Court is not the highest court in the state? What is? 229503[/snapback] The highest court in NYS is the Court of Appeals. Just a strange naming of the courts in NYS. In most states the state Supreme Court is the highest; in NYS, the Supreme Court is a middle court and the Court of Appeals is the highest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 6, 2005 Author Share Posted February 6, 2005 We appreciate the fact that you told us your views about the smoking ban in bars. Thank you. To paraphrase, you stated that although you are against it, the issue does not matter enough to you to work, petition politicians, nor lobby against. Please, correct me if I am wrong, for I do NOT want to misrepresent your views nor statements, OK? Now, how much does the gay marriage issue matter to you, and why? Also, given your lukewarm opposition to the smoking ban (in bars), do you think that hetrosexuals should swarm to, and actively support your apparent cause, that of gay marriages? 229487[/snapback] Prohibiting someone from 1) having death benefits, 2) committing to a relationship (marriage), 3) sharing health benefits with their chosen spouse, 4) (and on) amounts to discrimination against someone just because of the sex of the person they fall in love with. It's an extension of the government into the love/sex life of adults. It bugs me more than you, I guess. Heterosexuals can support gay marriage or not. Be active or not. There are plenty of anti-gay marriage heteros who think this issue is of paramount import. Why? I have no idea. You have your big issue: smoking in private places. I'm with you- it's absurd that the government tells private businesses to follow rules RE smoking- but I don't care a whole lot about it. You do. We all have our priorities. As an early poster in this thread said: who cares? I agree- Iraq, Russia, tax cuts, shrinking the size of the federal government- these are bigger issues. This one gets my dander up. If it doesn't do it for you, then so be it: go back to your smoking campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 6, 2005 Author Share Posted February 6, 2005 Maybe he's a gay non smoker..............no wait. Kidding, just kidding!! carry on.............. 229497[/snapback] This coming form a guy whose avatar is a couple guys frolicking under a rainbow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 This coming form a guy whose avatar is a couple guys frolicking under a rainbow? 229903[/snapback] That was good, cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 Just a quick question : To those who oppose gay marriage, can you give me a multi-sentence explanation why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 Just a quick question : To those who oppose gay marriage, can you give me a multi-sentence explanation why? 229965[/snapback] Perhaps you should ask for a 'logical' multi-sentence explanation...might get more meaningful results that way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Now, how much does the gay marriage issue matter to you, and why? Also, given your lukewarm opposition to the smoking ban (in bars), do you think that hetrosexuals should swarm to, and actively support your apparent cause, that of gay marriages? I could care less....If you wanna smoke another dude's pole...go ahead...as long as you ain't messing with me I don't care. I'm not super religious so hey whatever floats your boat...just don't affect me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts