faefrost posted:
What astonishes me is how many think that this is a good thing?
For the record I do support gay marriage. The reasons to allow it outweigh the reasons against it. But it must come from the Legislature. There is no other way.
What happened here today was a federal court (with a long sordid history of similar behavior) overturned a states constitutionally protected sovereignty and created state law from the federal bench. They overturned legitimate state constitutional actions with absolutely no basis or precedent beyond "we think so". This is NOT how we are governed. Just because the outcome may be what a lot of people want does not in any way legitimize this process or this courts actions. The state of California and more directly the people of California had spoken on this issue. Right or wrong. It was within their sovereign rights to do so. Just as it was within New Yorks sovereign rights to choose to legislatively change the existing laws and allow such an evolution of societal mores.
What astonishes me is how many think that this is a good thing?
For the record I do support gay marriage. The reasons to allow it outweigh the reasons against it. But it must come from the Legislature. There is no other way.
What happened here today was a federal court (with a long sordid history of similar behavior) overturned a states constitutionally protected sovereignty and created state law from the federal bench. They overturned legitimate state constitutional actions with absolutely no basis or precedent beyond "we think so". This is NOT how we are governed. Just because the outcome may be what a lot of people want does not in any way legitimize this process or this courts actions. The state of California and more directly the people of California had spoken on this issue. Right or wrong. It was within their sovereign rights to do so. Just as it was within New Yorks sovereign rights to choose to legislatively change the existing laws and allow such an evolution of societal mores.
Part of the compact that allows a State to be a member of the United States is that all state laws must be legal and in accordance with the United States Constitution. Any law that is not legal under the United States Constitution (and its Amendments) is void and unenforceable.
The real problems crop up when people start using today's definitions on yesterday's words. The words used in the document were used for a reason and that was largely in part due to the meaning of the words chosen at the time of their usage in the documents. Not their modern day definitions.
-----signature-----
Retired: AC, 11/25/05.
CoH/V, Virtue Server, Global @darthmord
LoTRO, Meneldor, 65 Hunter, Gilborthal & others
"Bipartisanship: When Democrats and Republicans agree on the right way to stick it to the People." -Dorvinion
CoH/V, Virtue Server, Global @darthmord
LoTRO, Meneldor, 65 Hunter, Gilborthal & others
"Bipartisanship: When Democrats and Republicans agree on the right way to stick it to the People." -Dorvinion
