Indiana ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[cobber]

Can't make it through 18 pages of celebrations.

This should have been challenged in the State courts, under the principles of federalism. It's not a federal matter.

Just another federal incursion into the shards of the 10th Amendment. Whatever you might think of the liberty principle, it's a kick in the teeth to the rights of the State and another power grab by our overlords in DC.

Now if the ban were challenged in the State courts and upheld, then resort to the federal courts.

 

[Denny347]

Oh, so the constitution changes with society, not when the actual words get changed via amendment?

BTW, since this issue has generally lost in the legislature, I'm not sure who exactly "we" are that you think agrees with you.

So legality aside, do you approve of gay marriage? You do not have to answer if you don't want to.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

For the law to change, the words in it must change. Otherwise, it is not law; it is just a screen that tyranny hides behind.

So what happens when our "values" on firearms and self defense change?

What if a certain Carmel city court judge decided that his values didn't comport with your legal defense?

I appeal to a higher judge, just as Indiana gays did.

Our values on firearms and self defense have changed, which is why all fifty states now have concealed carry.

​See how this values/laws thing works?

 

[Denny347]

Can't make it through 18 pages of celebrations.

This should have been challenged in the State courts, under the principles of federalism. It's not a federal matter.

Just another federal incursion into the shards of the 10th Amendment. Whatever you might think of the liberty principle, it's a kick in the teeth to the rights of the State and another power grab by our overlords in DC.

Now if the ban were challenged in the State courts and upheld, then resort to the federal courts.

The Feds better not also kick us in the teeth by forcing states to allow gun carry.

 

[Fargo]

Legislators too have passed terrible laws with support of their electorate, what's your point. I bet if Hoosiers elect reps to the Statehouse that get a hair up their ass about guns and decide to pass restrictive gun laws, we'd be high fiving the judge for slapping down our duly elected officials, doing the exact same thing we are flaming them for now. The only difference is the topic of debate. Of course we are confident that the Constitution supports our side, as confident as those who support Marriage Equality and most court decisions from all over the country seem to support this. Maybe you are wrong and they are actually right?

I have 150 years of consistent law that says I'm right, you have 1 year or so a century and an half after the law in question was passed.

We elect and can unelect our legislators. We can hold them to account. We have virtually zero control over our appointed federal judiciary.

I'm going to repost Jefferson's feelings in 1823:

At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account. - See more at: Morning Quote: Thomas Jefferson on the Intended Role of the Judiciary - Political Ruminations

He was right.

 

[Mark 1911]

Something a friend of mine wrote. I like the way he articulates himself, just thought I'd share. The judges can call it marriage if they like, but they have no more authority to do that than you or I. I never will.

When one part of society is sick, it affects the whole of which it is a part. This is true in the secular sphere and it is true in the religious sphere (where it is spelled out very clearly in scripture - thus there is no such thing as a "completely PERSONAL" sin). I don't consider myself holier than thou - I'm struggling to make my way. But I do have the right - even to have the responsibility - to have the clarity of vision to comment on things that impact the society in which I live - whether I base it on (1) the Catechism and or bible in my hand, or (2) strictly on common sense and historical sociological and scientific fact. Words have meaning. That why we have different words to describe different ways two individuals relate to each other. My relationship with my mother is different than my relationship with my sister which is different than my relationship with my nieces which is different with my relationships with female friends: even though love is the underlying thread that runs through all of those relationships. If we suddenly - in the face of thousands of years of both religious AND secular/societal norms - determine on a whim that a loving relationship between two individual other than one man and one woman in a contract (civil/secular) or a covenant (religious) constitutes MARRIAGE, then we cannot limit that "exception to the millenia-established societal norm" to two homosexuals in a loving monogamous relationship. We MUST, therefore, allow Pandora's box to open completely and recognize a monogamous, loving relationship between two (or more) people as a marriage - otherwise we are discriminating against them as well. I love my niece, and she loves me. Who is society to impose any kind of "norm" or restriction on the love the two of us share.

 

[Fargo]

I appeal to a higher judge, just as Indiana gays did.

Our values on firearms and self defense have changed, which is why all fifty states now have concealed carry.

​See how this values/laws thing works?

You are aware this was a district judge's ruling, the lowest federal court of general jurisdiction, right? This was a trial court ruling, so I wouldn't get too carried away with the "higher judge" bit.

 

[jbombelli]

I love reading all the thinly disguised hatred for homosexuality posted by people who claim to be pro-freedom.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Something a friend of mine wrote. I like the way he articulates himself, just thought I'd share. The judges can call it marriage if they like, but they have no more authority to do that than you or I. I never will.

Your friend pretty well stated what i did, only better.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...age-ruled-unconstitutional-5.html#post5121186

 

[cobber]

The Feds better not also kick us in the teeth by forcing states to allow gun carry.

When they "allow" us to carry guns I should grovel and lick their boots? I don't see the feds doing that by and large. We have a lot of flotsam and jetsam of federal gun laws that our "masters" still hold over our heads.

Buy hey, gays can marry. It's all better now! I'm sure this is making headlines on MSNBC.

You are aware this was a district judge's ruling, the lowest federal court of general jurisdiction, right? This was a trial court ruling, so I wouldn't get too carried away with the "higher judge" bit.

Higher than a federal magistrate at least.

According to the 7th Circuit, a pre-trial diversion in Indiana is a conviction. The judge who wrote the opinion said he didn't care what Indiana law said. I really, really don't want the federal judiciary re-writing Indiana law...

 

[Fargo]

I love reading all the thinly disguised hatred for homosexuality posted by people who claim to be pro-freedom.

I love the self-righteous snots who think they can read my mind and heart.

 

[Mark 1911]

Your friend pretty well stated what i did, only better.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...age-ruled-unconstitutional-5.html#post5121186

missed that one!

 

[gravitas73]

I love the self-righteous snots who think they can read my mind and heart.

Can you explain how denying the rights of gays to marry infringes on yours or anyone else's rights?

 

[AA&E]

Ceding more power to an unelected judge rather than those we have chosen to legislate is NOT gaining liberty. How are you going to like it when some judge uses the power you just gave him to crap all over your rights? How do we the people propose to control these appointees for life? You can't vote them out. You can't remove them via election.

No power was ceded to an unelected official. Instead mob rule mentality was outlawed on a specific subject.

 

[Fargo]

Can you explain how denying the rights of gays to marry infringes on yours or anyone else's rights?

Your question does not make sense. How would denying gays rights infringe on my rights?

 

[Fargo]

No power was ceded to an unelected official. Instead mob rule mentality was outlawed on a specific subject.

So now judge's have the power to "outlaw" things? Tell me more about how we haven't ceded them powers beyond judgement?

 

[Notavictim646]

Can you explain how denying the rights of gays to marry infringes on yours or anyone else's rights?

Yes. Employers will be required to provide spousal benefits based on a relationship that they may find offensive.

 

[Henry]

The Feds better not also kick us in the teeth by forcing states to allow gun carry.

The feds are one judge away from ensuring you are prohibited from carrying...well, not you...just private citizens.

Looking to the central goverment to address State matters is a treacherous proposition.

 

[AA&E]

So the framers the founders and the people of this country for the last 200+ years of all just been a bunch of constitution violating pigs, right? And we needed this enlightened judge to show is how we were all wrong, right? Including the current electorate of the state of Indiana, right?


I'd wager you spent most of your life voting for people who believe in the current definition of marriage including up and up through the last couple years. If they are constitution violators, what does that make you?

It makes him enlightened. Once upon a time slavery was accepted. Segregation. Woman's rights. All practices that were once enjoyed very little support until people stood up against injustice and said enough to ignorance and discrimination.

 

[Henry]

Yes. Employers will be required to provide spousal benefits based on a relationship that they may find offensive.

But...but I was told there would be no growth in government...or was it no noticeable growth...oh wait...things change...that's it!

BTW, how much did the unfunded obligation under yet ANOTHER federal program that should be abolished (SS) grow today?