Gay Marriage

They should recuse themselves if their judgement reflects a conflict of interest. Being gay or having relatives who are gay are not conflicts of interest. Having a vested interest or receiving some sort of direct benefit as a result of their judgement is.

Quote: boymimbo

They should recuse themselves if their judgement reflects a conflict of interest.

BOOM! Thank you very much.

Anyway, we're going in circles now. (This always seems to happen in conversations with liberals.) Here's what I said earlier: "OTOH, gays are incredibly biased when it comes to gay marriage. Virtually all of them support it. That's why gay judges should recuse themselves."

Quote: boymimbo

The real issue is that judges are elected officials who typically side with a political party, and then you ask them to be fair. The end result is that the judges end up being partisan typically towards liberal causes in urban centres and conservative causes in the red states and rural towns which just makes the country more divisive.

Judges are a mixture of elected and appointed positions. The higher the court the less likely it is an elected position.

As to "divisive" the USA has always been extremely divided and always will be. No big deal.

Quote: Beethoven

I just don't understand why gay marriage supporters are so deathly scared of ballot initiatives. I'm consistent. I can live with whatever the people decide, whether it's abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, gay marriage, marijuana, etc.

I applaud your consistency. So since voters in Maryland, Maine, & Washington state have already passed ballot initiatives legalizing gay marriage, you're willing to respect the outcome. Maine's gay marriages are legitimate, because they are voter-sanctioned. And they ought to have all the rights & obligations as straight married couples. End of story. Right?

Whereas in Pennsylvania & Iowa etc, the decision was made by tyrannical judicial fiat, so you question the legitimacy of those marriages.

It gets sticky, though. The U.S. Constitution's full faith & credit clause mandates that contracts be honored across state lines, which gets awkward when two married lesbians from Maryland move to Alabama, and upon crossing the state line they are suddenly no longer married.

Quote: reno

I applaud your consistency. So since voters in Maryland, Maine, & Washington state have already passed ballot initiatives legalizing gay marriage, you're willing to respect the outcome. Maine's gay marriages are legitimate, because they are voter-sanctioned. And they ought to have all the rights & obligations as straight married couples. End of story. Right?

Whereas in Pennsylvania & Iowa etc, the decision was made by tyrannical judicial fiat, so you question the legitimacy of those marriages.

I would agree with this statement.

Quote:

It gets sticky, though. The U.S. Constitution's full faith & credit clause mandates that contracts be honored across state lines, which gets awkward when two married lesbians from Maryland move to Alabama, and upon crossing the state line they are suddenly no longer married.

If this is the case then my conceal/carry permit should travel as well, same as my drivers license. But it doesn't. When I was a PCO that license only carried if the states agreed. Clearly there is not 100% reciprocity.

Quote: AZDuffman

I would agree with this statement.

Ok, 3 states down, just 47 states left. Would you extend this legitimacy to the gay marriages occuring in the 7 states that used their legislatures as the method for legalization?

Quote: reno

Ok, 3 states down, just 47 states left. Would you extend this legitimacy to the gay marriages occuring in the 7 states that used their legislatures as the method for legalization?

I would allow reciprocity between any states that legalized via legislature or referendum. I will caveat it here and say I would allow al of those states to either accept or deny the licenses issued by the other states on their own as there could be any number of small legalities they may or may not want to accept. For example, if one state had a different age of consent then the state with the higher age could accept or deny it. Now I doubt that would be an issue, but it is an example of what I am talking about.

I would allow any state to not recognize any marriage from any other state since we seem to be intent on destroying the idea of marriage from one man/one woman to whatever strikes the fancy of the liberal movement. So yes, man and woman not recognized in NY unless they were married there then they can just go to the county and get a new license. They can thank the supporters of gay marriage for their hassle.

Quote: reno

I applaud your consistency.

No need for "applause". I've been saying this for almost 2 years here. Where have you been??

Quote: reno

So since voters in Maryland, Maine, & Washington state have already passed ballot initiatives legalizing gay marriage, you're willing to respect the outcome. Maine's gay marriages are legitimate, because they are voter-sanctioned. And they ought to have all the rights & obligations as straight married couples. End of story. Right?

Nope, not necessarily. If folks decide that they want to come to their senses at some point in the future, then they have every right to vote again and restore "one man/one woman".

Quote: reno

Whereas in Pennsylvania & Iowa etc, the decision was made by tyrannical judicial fiat, so you question the legitimacy of those marriages.

Again, I've been saying this for almost 2 years. Where have you been? (Granted, I've talked with you much less than some of the other libs here, so that could be part of the reason)

Anyway, I still don't understand why liberals are so afraid of letting the people decide the issues. If we let contentious issues (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, etc.) be decided by the people, then there would be a lot less problems.

I'm just sick and tired of libs using activist judges and rogue politicians to FORCE their views on everyone else.

Quote: reno

Ok, 3 states down, just 47 states left. Would you extend this legitimacy to the gay marriages occuring in the 7 states that used their legislatures as the method for legalization?

The rightwing uses the courts to fight everything from the EPA to abortion, Obamacare, for prayer, and more.. Once they swear off the courts for good, there may some valid point about popular votes and staying out of the courts.

I guarantee that won't happen though.

Quote: rxwine

The rightwing uses the courts to fight everything from the EPA to abortion, Obamacare, for prayer, and more.. Once they swear off the courts for good, there may some valid point about popular votes and staying out of the courts.

I guarantee that won't happen though.

The bias of court activism towards and by the left is many times what the right takes to court. The left even used the courts to try to steal a Presidential election and make some votes count more than others.