Comments on: The Gay Marriage Mess http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2010/01/28/the-gay-marriage-mess/ Sat, 07 Jan 2012 00:40:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Chris http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2010/01/28/the-gay-marriage-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-72 Chris Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:48:33 +0000 http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/?p=89#comment-72 Again, hence why I said "there is very little a new sitting judge can use to over throw this without getting overturned at the appellate level." I didn't say a sitting Judge in the 9th Federal Circuit couldn't make a ruling counter to the Constitution, standing law and precedent, I left it open to the consideration that just such a challenge could take place, but would ultimately be overturned. Again, hence why I said “there is very little a new sitting judge can use to over throw this without getting overturned at the appellate level.” I didn’t say a sitting Judge in the 9th Federal Circuit couldn’t make a ruling counter to the Constitution, standing law and precedent, I left it open to the consideration that just such a challenge could take place, but would ultimately be overturned.

]]> By: Rich http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2010/01/28/the-gay-marriage-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Rich Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:22:39 +0000 http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/?p=89#comment-70 Chris, your argument that a court has no capability to intervene does not hold much water here in California. Experience shows that courts here pretty much intervene where it suits them and do not get corrected until a higher court (sometimes) steps in. In a perfect world, the First Ammendment wins, but we know there is no such thing as a perfect world. I already said I support equalizing marriage for all. I still believe that a very vocal minority will not stop there and I don't think you or anyone els can comvince me otherwise. Rich Chris, your argument that a court has no capability to intervene does not hold much water here in California. Experience shows that courts here pretty much intervene where it suits them and do not get corrected until a higher court (sometimes) steps in. In a perfect world, the First Ammendment wins, but we know there is no such thing as a perfect world.

I already said I support equalizing marriage for all. I still believe that a very vocal minority will not stop there and I don’t think you or anyone els can comvince me otherwise.

Rich

]]> By: Chris http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2010/01/28/the-gay-marriage-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Chris Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:24:59 +0000 http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/?p=89#comment-68 Actually, the court has no capability to intervene in the case of a religious institution carrying out the beliefs rooted in that religion, shy of causing a person direct physical harm by action or inaction. There is so much law on the books to support it, there is very little a new sitting judge can use to over throw this without getting overturned at the appellate level. All in all, first Amendment wins. And complete acceptance is not the same as fair treatment. I recommend fair treatment, I am not expecting any law that will actually require people to change the way they think, just the way they act. Actually, the court has no capability to intervene in the case of a religious institution carrying out the beliefs rooted in that religion, shy of causing a person direct physical harm by action or inaction. There is so much law on the books to support it, there is very little a new sitting judge can use to over throw this without getting overturned at the appellate level. All in all, first Amendment wins.

And complete acceptance is not the same as fair treatment. I recommend fair treatment, I am not expecting any law that will actually require people to change the way they think, just the way they act.

]]> By: Rich http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2010/01/28/the-gay-marriage-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-67 Rich Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:09:45 +0000 http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/?p=89#comment-67 Chris, I fully agree with you on this one (surprised?). I could definitely get behind legislation switching to the state only issuing civil unions, no problem there. I have one reservation though. The GLBT community has a very vocal minority which wants nothing less than FULL equality. They have demonstrated in the past that they are not afraid of legal action in the pursuit of this (i.e. hate crime laws being applied in gay cases, etc...) So what happens when a certain pastor refuses to marry a gay couple and then gets sued? I would like to think that the court would throw out such a suit, but I am not so sure that would happen in every area. Again, I have no issues with the GLBT community as a whole, its that vocal minority that worries me and I fear they will ruin it for the rest (as they already have in many instances). Rich Chris,

I fully agree with you on this one (surprised?). I could definitely get behind legislation switching to the state only issuing civil unions, no problem there. I have one reservation though.

The GLBT community has a very vocal minority which wants nothing less than FULL equality. They have demonstrated in the past that they are not afraid of legal action in the pursuit of this (i.e. hate crime laws being applied in gay cases, etc…) So what happens when a certain pastor refuses to marry a gay couple and then gets sued? I would like to think that the court would throw out such a suit, but I am not so sure that would happen in every area.

Again, I have no issues with the GLBT community as a whole, its that vocal minority that worries me and I fear they will ruin it for the rest (as they already have in many instances).

Rich

]]>