California supreme is review gay marriage law

[joevol320]

if they overturn this, it will be bad. what is point of voting if the court is going to overturn it.

you know the odds are good that they will since it's such a leftist court.

[Headed For Home]

pretty sad to say the least

[rjd970]

I'm about as left as you can get on social issues, and I can even see that overturning this would be a big mistake. We're a democracy, the people have spoken, leave it alone.

[SavageOrangeJug]

Originally Posted by rjd970

I'm about as left as you can get on social issues, and I can even see that overturning this would be a big mistake. We're a democracy, the people have spoken, leave it alone.

Perhaps the first time we have agreed.

You cannot allow activist judges to overrule the will of the people.

[TennTradition]

So this is probably not the case here, but just for the sake of argument (before we get too giddy here), it seems to me that there are times when it is perfectly reasonable for a state supreme court to overturn the will of the people. For example, had the citizens of the state of Tennessee voted to start a lottery directly (without calling for a constitutional convention to do so), then you would expect the state supreme court to overturn the vote on the basis that it would install an unconstitutional lottery.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by rjd970

I'm about as left as you can get on social issues, and I can even see that overturning this would be a big mistake. We're a democracy, the people have spoken, leave it alone.

if this attitude were implemented throughout our history, the schools would still be segregated.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

[allvol123]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

if this attitude were implemented throughout our history, the schools would still be segregated.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

You really believe that?

[rjd970]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

if this attitude were implemented throughout our history, the schools would still be segregated.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I disagree.

We just elected a black president. It's a completely different country than it was 50 years ago with regard to racism. The civil rights movement would have eventually worked it out without the help of the courts. Maybe it would have taken longer, but it would have still happened a long time ago.

Your point is noted though. If it gets to the supreme court and they decide the ban is unconstitutional then it is what it is, it's the democratic system we have. I have no problem with gay marriage and I personally wouldn't have voted for the ban (or against the measure...however it was worded). It's a great country and if the majority don't agree with me I live with it. I'm sure there are a lot of republicans feeling this way right now.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by allvol123

You really believe that?

you get the point. Civil rights would be far behind where they are today.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by rjd970

I disagree.

We just elected a black president. It's a completely different country than it was 50 years ago with regard to racism. The civil rights movement would have eventually worked it out without the help of the courts. Maybe it would have taken longer, but it would have still happened a long time ago.

Your point is noted though. If it gets to the supreme court and they decide the ban is unconstitutional then it is what it is, it's the democratic system we have. I have no problem with gay marriage and I personally wouldn't have voted for the ban (or against the measure...however it was worded). It's a great country and if the majority don't agree with me I live with it. I'm sure there are a lot of republicans feeling this way right now.

it took the courts and military action to integrate. Had we awaited the populace and left it to states, there is no way all school systems would be integrated today.

Bottom line is that the function of the courts is not to bend to popular opinion.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

[utvolpj]

Originally Posted by SavageOrangeJug

Perhaps the first time we have agreed.

You cannot allow activist judges to overrule the will of the people.

if by activist judges you mean ones that interpret the Constitution correctly then we need more of them.

[droski]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

it took the courts and military action to integrate. Had we awaited the populace and left it to states, there is no way all school systems would be integrated today.

Bottom line is that the function of the courts is not to bend to popular opinion.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

completely agree.

[allvol123]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

you get the point. Civil rights would be far behind where they are today.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Not sure you can prove that. Being serious, not a smartass. The evolution would most certainly have been different, but it might have been better for minorities. The timeline would probably have been slower, but the results might also have been better. I am a big believer in the idea that you get better results when things are not forced on people.

[jcwvolfan]

Originally Posted by rjd970

I'm about as left as you can get on social issues, and I can even see that overturning this would be a big mistake. We're a democracy, the people have spoken, leave it alone.

This country is not nor was it ever intended to be a democracy. Bending to the will of the people over the rule of law is very dangerous.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

[tatervol]

Originally Posted by jcwvolfan

This country is not nor was it ever intended to be a democracy. Bending to the will of the people over the rule of law is very dangerous.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

So many people dont realize this