![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I asked a question, a while back about why judges that don't oppose gay marriage are considered to be "activist judges." I saw on a message board tonight the following explanation:
Fuckheads
And then he goes on about "clear constitutional mandates." Excuse me? It's a cultural preference, not a basic human right. Or a right designed to protect the existence of our nation.
I also tend to believe that the real problem with what is going on in Massachusetts is that it is originating with the judicial branch. Some of the issues raised:What this idiot is saying is that there's no law restricting an activity, even though the people would like there to be. So a judge that rules said activity is allowable is acting out of the proper bounds of the judiciary, but a judge disallowing said activity, even though no law forbids it, would not be "judicial activism"?
(1) Its pretty clear that this is an undemocratic result. The elected representatives and polls of the folks are all strongly opposed to gay marriage. The man/woman definition of marriage has been in the statute books for literally centuries, put their via the democratic process.
Say what you will about how democracy is limited in a constitutional republic, we should nonetheless be careful of overturning democratically supported institutions without a clear constitutional mandate. Democracy may suck, but it beats the hell out of rule by oligarchy. There's a balance here, and its my sense that the court overstepped its role.
Fuckheads
And then he goes on about "clear constitutional mandates." Excuse me? It's a cultural preference, not a basic human right. Or a right designed to protect the existence of our nation.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-19 01:36 pm (UTC)From:Idiots.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-19 06:05 pm (UTC)From:I find it hard to believe that a secular contractual transaction between two men or two women would undermine a religious covenant of a woman and a man. The conservatives must have a low opinion of marriage to think it so fragile. This is a political, not a religious issue in my mind...
There's nothing wrong with activist judges, as long as they are guardians of the Constitution and the greater good. If it weren't for activist judges, the Brown v. Board of Education decision never would have happened.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-19 08:05 pm (UTC)From: (Anonymous)Jeff Smithpeters
no subject
Date: 2004-05-19 11:26 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 03:47 am (UTC)From: (Anonymous)http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/09/us090403.htm
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 04:10 pm (UTC)From: (Anonymous)Jeff Smithpeters
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 05:12 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 06:18 pm (UTC)From: (Anonymous)Jeff Smithpeters
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 10:12 pm (UTC)From:And so what if it is about the money? Why should they get denied the same benefits that you and I can get? Do you think the insurance industry is willing to let our partners in on the deal because we're in love?
Which brings us back to the subject of selfishness. Is this your best argument this time - that it will cost the rest of us more money? Typical conservative opinions: (1) It's all about my money. (2) If you're different than me, I will come up with some way to justify my hatred of you. (Both of those apply here.)
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 11:20 pm (UTC)From: (Anonymous)no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 02:56 am (UTC)From:I thought that was an interesting way to send the message - discrimination is not to be tollerated.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 05:03 am (UTC)From:<sarc>