Don't it make my Red state Blue...

[Gargamel]

Judicial powers haven't changed. The next step on an issue like this one is to appeal to a higher court, the highest being the Supreme Court. If they all uphold it, or if the Supreme Court chooses not to hear it, then too bad, so sad.

So basically you are stating that just 1 arm of the federal government can go against the will of a state or states. (What... maybe 4 or 5 judges in total)

Obviously it can....

What I'm saying is that there is no way in hell that any state rep at the constitutional convention would have been OK with that, much less signed on the dotted line.

The Civil War was much less about slavery than State's rights....

Thanks for the links, but I'm well aware of how it works.... I'm saying that how it has "grown" to work over the centuries would never have been embraced by the people who signed the constitution in the first place.

[Chili]

Maybe this will help some understand how all this works:

http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/branches.html

and:

http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/national/judicial.html

[Chili]

While I'm personally against same sex marriage, I find the issue about #51,000 on the list of priorities for this country.

I'm much more worried about activist federal judges and the power they seem to have defining the "rights" of the state.

What if we were talking say.... a Federal Judge found private property rights unconstitutional?

Would the Federal government have the power to "stay" or "negate" private property rights in Texas as the case crawled up the system?

Or what if the State of Texas amended its constitution to define "Marriage" as between man and woman?

Does the judicial arm of federal government have the power to declare a state constitution "unconstitutional"?

I'm not worried about the subject as much as I am the process.

The power of the Federal Government, in my opinion, has grown into something that the Founders never would have intended.

and yes, blue is coming, and its going to be everywhere.... it's only a matter of time.

Judicial powers haven't changed. The next step on an issue like this one is to appeal to a higher court, the highest being the Supreme Court. If they all uphold it, or if the Supreme Court chooses not to hear it, then too bad, so sad.

[Gargamel]

While I'm personally against same sex marriage, I find the issue about #51,000 on the list of priorities for this country.

I'm much more worried about activist federal judges and the power they seem to have defining the "rights" of the state.

What if we were talking say.... a Federal Judge found private property rights unconstitutional?

Would the Federal government have the power to "stay" or "negate" private property rights in Texas as the case crawled up the system?

The State of Texas amended its constitution to define "Marriage" as between man and woman.

Does the judicial arm of federal government have the power to declare a state constitution "unconstitutional"?

I'm not worried about the subject as much as I am the process.

The power of the Federal Government, in my opinion, has grown into something that the Founders never would have intended.

and yes, blue is coming, and its going to be everywhere.... it's only a matter of time.

[asphaltjunkie]

The Feds, or a single judge?

Federal judge. In the United States, the title of federal judge usually means a judge appointed by the President of the United States. Orlando Garcia was appointed by Clinton. Was a Texas State Representative as a Democrat member. Not helping refute my conspiracy theorist-like claims.

[Baron Von Crowder]

I just cant seem to grasp how this is something that the government, be it state, national, or municipal has any reason to have an opinion or regulate.

Two guys or to chicks want a marriage license? Take their money and be done with it. I dont know the numbers, and I may be way off base, but it would seem that holding up courts, probate for estates, etc for people denied marriage licenses would cost the state a good chunk of change. By just simply doing it, it would save a ton of money that could be better squandered elsewhere.

[YALE]

Also, anyone that doesn't understand a judge's legislative rights is a moron. Judges make laws all the time, and the legitimacy of that goes back to the Saxon days in England. Common Law, bitches.

[Mach1]

Blue is the future!

[racrguy]

It has nothing to do with gay marriage. It's about giving enough of the people what they want so they'll vote for you blindly.

It has to be more than just a coincidence that the Feds have deemed unconstitutional one of the unions largest Red state's ban on gay marriage.

It has nothing to do with NOT being a giant piece of shit rights crushing ban. Not at all.

Just because it's a "large red state" doesn't mean that they don't do some backwards ass shit that isn't right. Majority rules, minority rights. Do I need to explain this concept?

[YALE]

It has nothing to do with gay marriage. It's about giving enough of the people what they want so they'll vote for you blindly.

It has to be more than just a coincidence that the Feds have deemed unconstitutional one of the unions largest Red state's ban on gay marriage.

The Feds, or a single judge?

[asphaltjunkie]

It has nothing to do with gay marriage. It's about giving enough of the people what they want so they'll vote for you blindly.

It has to be more than just a coincidence that the Feds have deemed unconstitutional one of the unions largest Red state's ban on gay marriage.

[bcoop]

Will someone please explain why this is an issue ?

Clearly, people don't have anything better to worry about than what goes on in someone else's bedroom.


Seriously, you fucking crybabies need to get the fuck over it. Other people's sexual orientation doesn't affect you a single fucking bit.

[YALE]

Will someone please explain why this is an issue ?

Because morons cite the bible and the law without reading either.

[Scott Mc]

I really DGAF about gay marriage. if 2 people want to be miserable with eachother, who the fuck am i to have a say in that?

My thoughts too, why get mad either way of a piece of damned paper.

[Chili]

Will someone please explain why this is an issue ?

Because God hates fags?