Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 06/02/06 5:51 pm:
a more recent example of the court interference is the May 16 decision against Georgia . A state judge ruled Georgia’s marriage amendment, which was approved by 76 percent of voters in 2004, violates the state constitution.

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 06/02/06 5:56 pm:

Hello again tom:

Sometimes voters approve laws that contravenes that state’s or the federal Constitution. Voters, even a vast majority of them, cannot take away the rights of the minority. When laws like that are struck down, I don't call that interference. I call it the judiciary doing its job.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 06/02/06 5:59 pm:
Every State law or state constitutional amendment that was passed barring same sex marriage was passed by an overwhelming majority of the States residents . That has not stopped judges from imposing their view of what is acceptable on the states. If they persist in this then unfortunately amendment is the only recourse .

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 06/02/06 6:02 pm:
how could an amendment to a State constitution be unconstitutional ?

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 06/02/06 6:05 pm:

Hello again, tom:

As an example, if a state passed an amendment to their constitution that said the police didn't need to warrants to search anyone in that state (because nobody there has anything to hide [they're all righty's]), that would be un-constitutional, at least at the federal level and probably the state too. A state can not amend their Constitution in such a way that results in the loss of someone’s rights granted them under the Bill of Rights.

I suggest that an amendment to the federal Constitution, as proposed by Bush and the religious right, IS and WILL BE FOUND TO BE, un-constitutional - if for no other reason than it contradicts the equal protection clause.

Scalito wouldn't read it that way. THIS court would probably be ACTIVIST in the matter, and rule other than what the framers intended.

Betcha you wouldn't call THAT activist.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 06/02/06 7:27 pm:
I never used the term activist ;imperial yes but not activist .


When did marriage become a constitutional right ? Why can't the definition be limited ? Do our laws ban first cousins from marrying ;a brother from marrying his sister,prohibit polygamy ,prohibiting minors from marrying ? If so then yes it can be restrictive in spite of your definition of equal rights.

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 06/05/06 4:04 pm:

Hello again, Elliot:

>>>It is really a states' right, not a federal issue.<<<

I read your entire answer. We disagree. Much of our apples and orange argument is based on how marriage is defined. Mine is based on one definition. Yours on another. If my definition is accurate, then it’s a matter for the court. If your is, then it’s a matter for the voter.

I don’t disagree that homosexuals are highly unpopular. Should this issue ever be put to a vote, I’m certain it would lose by a large majority. Would it lose by a 2/3rds majority in the states? I would hope not, but that is something we could argue about.

Whether or not the Supreme Court would grant homosexuals the right to marry is a question that may never be asked of them. Firstly, and properly so, they’ll be asked to be the “decider” in our argument.

So, what’s OUR argument? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but may I surmise that your argument may be summed up thusly: a homosexual has the same rights I do in choosing a mate? Therefore, an argument about equal rights is moot. I submit, however, that he or she does not have the same rights as you, and the question IS about equal rights.

If we can’t agree on that (and I doubt we can), then you’ll go on talking about apples and I’ll talk about oranges.

Ok, I’ll give it a shot. You might say that, like yourself, a homosexual is free to choose a mate from the same pool of available talent I choose my mate from (the opposite sex). End of argument. I, however, would argue that your pool doesn’t strike his fancy, therefore he’s not free to choose. Beginning of argument.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 06/05/06 4:19 pm:
Yes, that pretty much sums up the argument. That, and whether the definition of marriage is to be determined by the states or the courts.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 06/05/06 4:54 pm:

Hello again, El:

>>>That, and whether the definition of marriage is to be determined by the states or the courts.<<<

Not really..... And the difference is at the crux of the argument.

I suggest that first and foremost, the Supreme Court must decide if a homosexual, who can’t freely choose his mate, is being discriminated against contrary to the 14th Amendment. If they determine that he is being discriminated against, then no state can make a law saying otherwise.

If the Supreme Court determines that there is NO discrimination, then the states can decide for themselves. Either way, there is NO need for a Constitutional Amendment.

excon

PS> Why would you be worried about your packed Supreme Court anyway?

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 06/05/06 5:04 pm:
I disagree, excon. The first thing that must be decided is who's jurisdiction such a case would reside in. The Supreme Court would only render a decision on the definition of marriage if lower courts in who's jurisdiction it lays can't come up with a solution or if such a solution is disputed by the parties. But the first question that needs to be determined is whether it belongs in the state courts or the federal courts. The jurisdiction question must be answered before the definition of marriage can even be tried.

And I'm not woried about how the courts would decide. What I'm worried about is that the Supreme Court be involved in deciding at all. In my opinion, this is something to be decided by the states, not the courts. It's not a question of what the final decision would be (which would almost certainly rule against gay marriage). It's a question who who has the legal right to make the decision in the first place. I'm against legislation through judicial fiat even when the courts rule in my favor. I think that it is a constitutional sepparation of powers issue. And the only reason that I favor a marriage amendment is that it would give the states their right to decide as opposed to the courts.

Elliot