Full US Marriage Equality Betting Pool

"The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice." Lawrence v. Texas

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102

And what does that quotation mean to you?

Here you go cracker, explain this one too if you can.

Quote:

"The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice." Lawrence v. Texas

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102

Here we go again, you can answer it now.

The Constitution protects all individuals (homosexuals included) from the abuse of government power.

The fact that it has taken 138 years of feet-dragging history after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce constitutional limitations on state governmental powers does not require the courts to abstain from enforcing the Constitution and ridding this country of the evils the Constitution sought to prohibit.

Liberty, justice, and equal protection under the law are basic concepts that are not subject to the whims of majoritarian politics and elections.

Rights protected by the Constitution against governmental usurpations must be vindicated by our courts.

Thomas, your desire to leave the determination of the individual rights of disfavored minorities in the hands of majoritarian politics flies in the face of the constitutional values upon which this country was founded.

Place your bets here, ladies and gentlemen, with your predictions of when marriage equality will be the law of all fifty states, whether by referendum, Supreme Court ruling, alien fiat, or whatever.

Quote:

Place your bets here, ladies and gentlemen, with your predictions of when marriage equality will be the law of all fifty states, whether by referendum, Supreme Court ruling, alien fiat, or whatever.

what a sloppy post....what IS "marriage equality"? Is that when I can marry any animal ( or several), or thing, for instance maybe my cell phone?? I should be able to marry for instance my daughter, because all choices are equal, right?

U shud need the free consent
of all parties to the marriage!

U shud need the free consent
of all parties to the marriage!

does the government get to regulate who is allowed to consent,
for instance by applying arbitrary age restrictions?

Does the government get to contradict the parties,
for instance by claiming that the consent was coerced when both parties insist that it was not?

If I may, I 'll offer some comments
and observations on the quotation.
First, let me say that I favor freedom
of homosexuals to marry. U have already succeeded
in getting it, as u know. I predict that u will be MORE
successful in the future in expanding it. It is my opinion
that its egregiously ABHORRENT that government intrudes
into something as personal as anyone's marriage;
that is NONE OF GOVERNMENT's BUSINESS.
Marriage shud be as defined by the parties thereto....
David

If I may, I 'll offer some comments
and observations on the quotation.
First, let me say that I favor freedom
of homosexuals to marry. U have already succeeded
in getting it, as u know. I predict that u will be MORE
successful in the future in expanding it. It is my opinion
that its egregiously ABHORRENT that government intrudes
into something as personal as anyone's marriage;
that is NONE OF GOVERNMENT's BUSINESS.
Marriage shud be as defined by the parties thereto....
David

I th0ught that the business of the courts was to enforce law
and not their private concepts of morality.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

If I may, I 'll offer some comments
and observations on the quotation.
First, let me say that I favor freedom
of homosexuals to marry. U have already succeeded
in getting it, as u know. I predict that u will be MORE
successful in the future in expanding it. It is my opinion
that its egregiously ABHORRENT that government intrudes
into something as personal as anyone's marriage;
that is NONE OF GOVERNMENT's BUSINESS.
Marriage shud be as defined by the parties thereto....
David

Brandon9000 wrote:

I th0ught that the business of the courts was to enforce law
and not their private concepts of morality.

YES. Judges get paid for doing that.
Do u trust your fellow human beings not to cheat????

rather than being disenfranchised by judges who rule any way they please regardless of the law.

rather than being disenfranchised by judges who rule any way they please regardless of the law.

It is pretty clear that SCOTUS has decided that they are ROME, the Bible says what ever they say it says,
and they can change their minds when ever they bloody well please.

Conservatism means just playing it straight,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

If I may, I 'll offer some comments
and observations on the quotation.
First, let me say that I favor freedom
of homosexuals to marry. U have already succeeded
in getting it, as u know. I predict that u will be MORE
successful in the future in expanding it. It is my opinion
that its egregiously ABHORRENT that government intrudes
into something as personal as anyone's marriage;
that is NONE OF GOVERNMENT's BUSINESS.
Marriage shud be as defined by the parties thereto....
David

Brandon9000 wrote:

I th0ught that the business of the courts was to enforce law
and not their private concepts of morality.

YES. Judges get paid for doing that.
Do u trust your fellow human beings not to cheat????

...and, therefore, judges shouldn't rule laws unconstitutional based on things the Constitution doesn't actually say. It's a good thing when the electorate gets to determine their own government by voting, rather than being disenfranchised by judges who rule any way they please regardless of the law.

Quote:

Conservatism means just playing it straight,

Roberts, who decided to rewrite OBAMACARE singlehandidly from the bench,
seems to not agree with you sir.

Thanks David!

Some of the best free entertainment in the world was 6 or 7 years ago when DebraLaw would post. I was just a kid back then but I sure got a kick out of her. She was brilliant and a damn good lawyer, she would grab Brandon by the seat of his pants and mop the forum floor with him. Back then I had to give him a little credit, after an ass whopping that hard headed little **** would come back for more.

If I may, I 'll offer some comments
and observations on the quotation.
First, let me say that I favor freedom
of homosexuals to marry. U have already succeeded
in getting it, as u know. I predict that u will be MORE
successful in the future in expanding it. It is my opinion
that its egregiously ABHORRENT that government intrudes
into something as personal as anyone's marriage;
that is NONE OF GOVERNMENT's BUSINESS.
Marriage shud be as defined by the parties thereto....
David

I th0ught that the business of the courts was to enforce law
and not their private concepts of morality.