EPTU.S. Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIb-4S9WUAAyQo1.jpg) LAND OF THE FREE AND HOME OF THE GAY BAYBAYYYYY | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
Also, Scalia's dissent is hilarious. I'm surprised Roberts ruled the way he did. Given his age, and some previous rulings, I thought he would go with the "be on the right side of history" approach. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
It's about time. Glad to see another social issue where the US is not behind other developed nations. | ||
|
Grettin
42412 Posts
On June 27 2015 02:50 andrewlt wrote: Agreed. Not surprised by the ruling but thought one of the other conservative judges (Roberts) would vote for it as well since he does like to be on the right side of history. It's about time. Glad to see another social issue where the US is not behind other developed nations. Thought this was cool. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9330 Posts
| ||
|
Verniy
Canada3360 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 27 2015 03:04 Sent. wrote: American legal system is weird, in Europe such decisions are left to democratically elected parliaments and not some appointed judges. Ok, so it was up to the people. Then it got challenged in the courts and they ruled against gay marriage. It went up to the highest court and the court said "Its legal everywhere." The Court just stopped people from challenging laws allowing gay marriage. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9330 Posts
| ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On June 27 2015 03:04 Sent. wrote: American legal system is weird, in Europe such decisions are left to democratically elected parliaments and not some appointed judges. The point of the Supreme Court is to judge whether a law is constitutional or not. If a law is disputed by two parties, it is first ruled in a lower court. If after a lower court has made a ruling, an appeal can be submitted to the Supreme Court for review. If the Supreme Court accepts the case to review, they will then judge it and their ruling is final. As such, their goal is to ensure that laws meet and abide by the Constitution, and in this case, equality for all (so that minorities are not disenfranchised). A democratically elected parliament can still have the ability, if left to themselves, to disenfranchise a minority group. The Supreme Court provides checks and balances against our parliament (i.e. Congress/House) in that respect. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing. this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door. I think you misunderstood something. They're not judging morality, but rights. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing. this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door. ^^ Of course, very few people understand and appreciate the nuance here. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing. this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door. It became abundantly clear the bigots of America would never stop filing lawsuits and challenging the right for same sex marriage, so I don't really see another way. I guess we could wait until there was the political will to change it, but that didn't really work for a lot of civil rights issues. Its also nice to stand on principle when you are not the party being denied the right to marry. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 27 2015 03:27 xDaunt wrote: ^^ Of course, very few people understand and appreciate the nuance here. Some of us get it, but don't think its a huge issue. Or we take the good with the bad, just like very other American. I believe there was a voting rights ruling that I didn't agree with and I seem to be ok. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On June 27 2015 03:28 Plansix wrote: It became abundantly clear the bigots of America would never stop filing lawsuits and challenging the right for same sex marriage, so I don't really see another way. I guess we could wait until there was the political will to change it, but that didn't really work for a lot of civil rights issues. Its also nice to stand on principle when you are not he party being denied the right to marry. its the right of the bigots to file lawsuits and challenge the rights of gay marriage within the confines of the law. why are you saying that like its a negative? its not principle, its checks and balances. the supreme court has a very narrow role, but constantly expand that beyond what was originally intended. this isnt about gay marriage, its about the limited role of the supreme court. i am pleased that gay marriage is now a done deal; i am not pleased about how it was done. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
shouldve just been "personal unions" all the way down or something | ||
| ||
