Same-Sex Marriage Update

[betenoire]

QUICK - I am about to pick a fight with Nick's uncle on facebook. I need to know the name of that rule (I think it might even be in your constitution) that makes it okay/required for judges to overturn votes by the popular majority if said vote holds the minority down.

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by betenoire

QUICK - I am about to pick a fight with Nick's uncle on facebook. I need to know the name of that rule (I think it might even be in your constitution) that makes it okay/required for judges to overturn votes by the popular majority if said vote holds the minority down.

the 14th amendmenat

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by betenoire

QUICK - I am about to pick a fight with Nick's uncle on facebook. I need to know the name of that rule (I think it might even be in your constitution) that makes it okay/required for judges to overturn votes by the popular majority if said vote holds the minority down.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

(Hope that's what you were looking for)

[betenoire]

Thanks guys. I'm not gonna lie - I don't really understand how the US works.

Anyway.

He said: "I don't have a problem with the ruling, with one exception, and it troubles me; a judge overruled the will of the people of California. This seems to be an ever increasing trend that really bothers me. Measures are put on a ballot, voters approve them, special interests that are negatively affected by the laws file suit and the courts step in. This happened before recently in California that I can recall, with a judge overturning voter approved immigration legislation. Judicial meddling just bugs me."

So now I'm saying: "It's seems to me that this "judicial meddling" is written into your constitution.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Yeah, I am sooo articulate with all of my copy and pasting!

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Thanks guys. I'm not gonna lie - I don't really understand how the US works.

Anyway.

He said: "I don't have a problem with the ruling, with one exception, and it troubles me; a judge overruled the will of the people of California. This seems to be an ever increasing trend that really bothers me. Measures are put on a ballot, voters approve them, special interests that are negatively affected by the laws file suit and the courts step in. This happened before recently in California that I can recall, with a judge overturning voter approved immigration legislation. Judicial meddling just bugs me."

So now I'm saying: "It's seems to me that this "judicial meddling" is written into your constitution.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Yeah, I am sooo articulate with all of my copy and pasting!

Wellll.... you could tell him (if you are asking for input from posters here) that in 1968 it was the will of the American people that marriage between blacks and whites should not be recognized, and it was the judiciary that forced the populace to stop illegally prohibiting interracial marriages. The parents of our current president were denied marriage rights in 32 states.

In the USA we have three branches of government: Executive (president), Legislative, and Judicial, that all have EQUAL power. In theory any branch can "meddle" with the decisions of another- this is set up as a sort of fail-safe mechanism within our government. Another example of this would be the Presidential Veto, whereby the pres can completely disregard the wishes of our elected legislative officials and single handedly strike down their decisions.

(Not sure if this is too simplistic or too detailed or if you even wanted leverage for your position so I'll shut up now :0)

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

Wellll.... you could tell him (if you are asking for input from posters here) that in 1968 it was the will of the American people that marriage between blacks and whites should not be recognized, and it was the judiciary that forced the populace to stop illegally prohibiting interracial marriages. The parents of our current president were denied marriage rights in 32 states.

In the USA we have three branches of government: Executive (president), Legislative, and Judicial, that all have EQUAL power. In theory any branch can "meddle" with the decisions of another- this is set up as a sort of fail-safe mechanism within our government. Another example of this would be the Presidential Veto, whereby the pres can completely disregard the wishes of our elected legislative officials and single handedly strike down their decisions.

(Not sure if this is too simplistic or too detailed or if you even wanted leverage for your position so I'll shut up now :0)

I'll take what I can get. Thanks

(Sometimes I just like to randomly bait him. Like yesterday Nick posted that he wanted to go on vacation and his uncle said he should get an RV so I posted that there was no way Nick was getting an RV because there's only so much I can do to reduce me and Nick's collective carbon footprint.

I am just an ass sometimes.

No, he does not believe in global warming.)

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by betenoire

I'll take what I can get. Thanks

(Sometimes I just like to randomly bait him. Like yesterday Nick posted that he wanted to go on vacation and his uncle said he should get an RV so I posted that there was no way Nick was getting an RV because there's only so much I can do to reduce me and Nick's collective carbon footprint.

I am just an ass sometimes.

No, he does not believe in global warming.)

Oh it's like that, huh? Hmmm, baiting.... tell him that all the gays are going to marry "illegal immigrants"... that should work.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

Oh it's like that, huh? Hmmm, baiting.... tell him that all the gays are going to marry "illegal immigrants"... that should work.

ooooooooooooh! That -would- get him riled up!