NY Same-Sex Marriage Ban Struck Down

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mactastic, Feb 4, 2005.

  1. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #1
    Link to Liberal Media
    Good enough reason to celebrate on a Friday!
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    edit -- i read it wrong. i thought same-sex marriage was struck down, not the ban. oops!

    and then i thought everyone was being really sarcastic...
     
  3. brap macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Nottingham
    #3
    Not the kind of thing one expects to hear from the American legal system right now.

    Of course,
    Whose job is probably a lot less secure now.
     
  4. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    <shrugs> The judges who allowed blacks equal rights were so-called 'activist judges' too. Some people are on the right side of history, others aren't.
     
  5. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #5
    That "equal protection under the law" garbage will just have to go, if those activist judges keep deciding that it applies to everybody.
     
  6. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #6
    Beautiful...just beautiful! At last a piece of positive news.
     
  7. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #7
    I especially enjoyed how Bush, an idiot I unfortunately voted for, said he was going to "protect the institution of marriage" in this country.

    I expect a sharp decline in the 50% divorce and 25% domestic abuse rates in this country. :D

    And a sad institution it is. :rolleyes:
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Marriage or the Presidency?
     
  9. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Seems like if Bush wants to protect the sanctity of marriage he could start by not allowing any homosexuals or divorcees in his administration.
     
  10. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #10
    Who would that rule out? (not that it's any of my business).
     
  11. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    Dunno... I have no idea if there are any openly gay members of his administration. But I'm pretty sure there must be a couple of divorcees amongst them. Odds are good anyway.

    It just seems the principled thing to do if you are worried about the sanctity of marriage.
     
  12. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #12
    Meaningless until the SC sets a precedence. After the conservatives have had their period of influence, liberals are going to have a lot of work to do.
     
  13. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #13
    Both.
     
  14. mouchoir macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Location:
    London, UK
    #14
    that reminds me of an obi-wan quote that goes something like

    'who is more the the fool? the fool, or the one that follows him?'

    That is good news – nice to see something positive at last
     
  15. ColoJohnBoy macrumors 65816

    ColoJohnBoy

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #15
    How does one define 'activist judge'? I would say it is a judge who rules pursuant to a personal agenda without regard to the merits of a case or to the legal principles involved.

    Antonin Scalia in Lawrence v. Texas: He dissented, but an activist judicial opinion nonetheless. The entire court in Bush v. Gore: Every single one voted along party lines when they should have rejected the case on grounds of jurisdiction.

    After reading this particular judge's opinion ( http://www.lambdalegal.org/binary-data/LAMBDA_PDF/pdf/378.pdf ), I'm pretty darn confident this wasn't an activist decision. Well-thought-out and in accordance with long-held legal principles.

    P.S. Yay! :)
     

Share This Page