Indiana ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[Henry]

Great, I have to teach history again. Ok, the Framers debated the 14th Amendment after the Civil War. The Civil War saw the use such firearms as the Gatling gun and the Henry rifle. The Framers, not the founders, were well aware of these weapons.



.

But the founders nor even the "framers" could have possibly imagined the weapons available today. Maybe a judge will rule the Second doesn't cover such things as AR15s or AK pattern rifles and that such weapons have no place other than the battle field. After all, change is here..and it's here to stay...or so I've been told.

 

[Fargo]

What makes a federal judge different is his appointment to the bench by our elected representatives and the rights and responsibilities that attach to the office. Such as the right to intervene when legislatures pass unconstitutional laws.

So why were not all the laws making sodomy a criminal act immediately voided when the 14th Amendment was passed 150 years ago? Are you straight facedly telling me that this Judge knows better than everyone at the time of ratification?

Where did he get his magic prescience? Or maybe he is just making the law what HE thinks it should be because he disagrees with "we the people"?

This blind deference to federal judges, just because we like the result, is the death of freedom.

 

[mrjarrell]

So you are impeaching your own source now that you've figured out he is dead set against you on this?

Not impeaching at all. He stated that we grow and evolve. We have. Just as we evolved to grant freedom and equality to women and minorities we have now reached another of those points and the judges are leading the way, against the wishes of the same people who would have upheld the fugitive slave laws in a past age.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

So why were not all the laws making sodomy a criminal act immediately voided when the 14th Amendment was passed 150 years ago? Are you straight facedly telling me that this Judge knows better than everyone at the time of ratification?

Where did he get his magic prescience? Or maybe he is just making the law what HE thinks it should be because he disagrees with "we the people"?

He is not making law. He is interpreting existing law. That law is the Constitution which requires EQUAL protection under the law.

 

[Henry]

Not impeaching at all. He stated that we grow and evolve. We have. Just as we evolved to grant freedom and equality to women and minorities we have now reached another of those points and the judges are leading the way, against the wishes of the same people who would have upheld the fugitive slave laws in a past age.

Freedom is granted by people? Freedom is granted by judges? Really?

 

[Fargo]

Not impeaching at all. He stated that we grow and evolve. We have. Just as we evolved to grant freedom and equality to women and minorities we have now reached another of those points and the judges are leading the way, against the wishes of the same people who would have upheld the fugitive slave laws in a past age.

Who wrote Dred Scot? (Hint, it was a "judge")

Who wrote Cruikshank? (Hint, it was a judge)

Who ruled that social outcasts could be forcibly neutered? (Hint, it was a judge)

Judges have presided over terrible things. Your blind faith in them "leading the way" is a slippery slope to an ugly place.

 

[Fargo]

He is not making law. He is interpreting existing law. That law is the Constitution which requires EQUAL protection under the law.

The existing law from ratification through the next 150 years says he is wrong. Once again, how did he magically discover this 150 years later?

Do I know have "equal protection" to marry my sister? Or my biological offspring?

 

[Notavictim646]

I accept gay marriage. And a gay lifestyle is every bit as legitimate as yours or mine.

Yeah, I know. Seems like a lot of people agree with you. Won't be letting any normal decent gays babysit my grandkids though.

 

[mrjarrell]

Freedom is granted by people? Freedom is granted by judges? Really?

Yes, Henry. "We". We as a nation.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

The existing law from ratification through the next 150 years says he is wrong. Once again, how did he magically discover this 150 years later?

​Because the rest of us did.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The existing law from ratification through the next 150 years says he is wrong. Once again, how did he magically discover this 150 years later?

Well...

It is a living document.

 

[mrjarrell]

Who wrote Dred Scot? (Hint, it was a "judge")

Who wrote Cruikshank? (Hint, it was a judge)

Who ruled that social outcasts could be forcibly neutered? (Hint, it was a judge)

Judges have presided over terrible things. Your blind faith in them "leading the way" is a slippery slope to an ugly place.

And so have legislators. And judges serve to rein them in when they pass unConstitutional laws.

 

[Fargo]

​Because the rest of us did.

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.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

The existing law from ratification through the next 150 years says he is wrong. Once again, how did he magically discover this 150 years later?

Do I know have "equal protection" to marry my sister? Or my biological offspring?

You might...there are biological issues impacting our culture in such relationships that would have to be addressed. I would have to hear from people who are versed in such things before giving an opinion.

 

[Henry]

Yes, Henry. "We". We as a nation.

Hmmm... I thought man was endowed with freedom. I did not know it was granted by "nations" or other people.

Maybe you should get rid of that anarchist logo.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

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

Values change, as does the role they play in our lives.

 

[Fargo]

Hmmm... I thought man was endowed with freedom. I did not know it was granted by "nations" or other people.

Maybe you should get rid of that anarchist logo.

I'm thinking he could photoshop a big "OJ" in for "Oligarch-Judge"....

 

[Fargo]

Values change, as does the role they play in our lives.

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?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The existing law from ratification through the next 150 years says he is wrong. Once again, how did he magically discover this 150 years later?

Do I know have "equal protection" to marry my sister? Or my biological offspring?

Yes. And not only that, any other combination or permutation of individuals and groups of people, animals, vegetables, and minerals. Logically speaking, as I threw out above: if a state does not have the constitutional right to select a single form of "marriage" to recognize, all forms must be recognized.

 

[Denny347]

Who wrote Dred Scot? (Hint, it was a "judge")

Who wrote Cruikshank? (Hint, it was a judge)

Who ruled that social outcasts could be forcibly neutered? (Hint, it was a judge)

Judges have presided over terrible things. Your blind faith in them "leading the way" is a slippery slope to an ugly place.

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?