Agreed. A good example - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supr...-finance-limits-corporations/story?id=9269776
You'll get no argument from me. That ruling was a huge mistake. Both parties will profit handsomely as a result, at the expense of the people, of course.
Quote from JamesL: Another leftist admits it....FOX is a reliable news source. About as right as a stopped clock.
"a marriage contract is a legal contract. not a religious one. that being the case there should be no reason that any two people should not be able to enter into a legal contract. people wanting to ban same sex marriage need to show how letting two people of the same sex marry harms traditional marriage. the judge was correct in his decision: jem ---That is the first problem there - why 2 people. It used to be a man and a women... now you wish to change the contract... why discriminate against 3 people if you do not wish to respect the original definition--- In deciding the case, Walker offered a variety of findings that may be as important as the ruling itself. Among them were the following: â¢"Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents' assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence." jem --- this is specious -- it does not matter at all -- who cares - â¢"Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation." jem --- this is an outright lie --- I lived in Washington D.C., I worked with lesbians on the hill and I went to school with plenty of gays. I knew plenty of people choose to straight sex then switch to gay sex and a few even switched back --- â¢"Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex." jem --- yeah sure ... just ignore other factors such as procreation - â¢"Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals." jem -- but that argument does cut into the idea that this is discriminatory does it -- so why not refuse to the debate the argument and throw out this one liner. â¢"Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive." jem --- sure -- if procreation means nothing - â¢"The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships." jem -- exactly-- this is about symbolism and a radical agenda -- Gays and lesbians would do fine to accept civil unions - but instead some prefer to try and force their morality onto others. --- â¢"Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages." jem --- why would someone even write this crock? how does he know?-- Perhaps the most important political finding that Walker made was his conclusion that the fact that Prop 8 passed as a voter initiative was irrelevant as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." jem -- this is circular dishonesty. The point of his decision is that he is trying to create a knew fundamental right --- this sentence shows the dishonesty of this judge.
The new tactic of the left is to label any Supreme Court decision they disagree with as "judicial activism." It is a clever strategy, since it seeks to discredit the traditional conservative complaint about leftwing activist judges. Let me explain why this label is incorrect. The cited case involved congress passing a law to severely restrict a core First Amendment right, political speech, in order to insulate incumbents from criticism. A side effect of the law was to muzzle groups that had been targeted by congress and to limit access to the marketplace of ideas. Of course, media corporations, who just happen to by and large be big defenders of liberal democrats, were exempted. By virtue of owning a newspaper, a corporation got special rights not enjoyed by others. The Supreme Court correctly ruled that the law violated the First Amendment. Unlike the kind of raw judicial activism involved in the California gay marriage case, the Court didn't have to make ridiculous and highly controversial policy arguments to support its decision. It only had to focus on the actual text of the First Amendment. That is hardly judicial activism. Judicial activism is exemplified by cases like the gay marriage case and the Arizona immigration case, where judges have to invent constitutional rights or arguments to reach a predetermined policy result. Typically, such activism is used to force policies on the country that could never have been enacted through normal democratic means. For example, such unpopular and deeply divisive policies as abortion, gay marriage, forced busing, racial quotas and affirmative action are all the result of judicial edicts. Some judges have even forced localities to raise taxes, a quitessential functionof the elected representatives, to pay for the farleft schemes they have forced on the people. Whenever you hear a politician talk about a "living Constitution", what they actually mean is they support allowing judges to force policies on voters that the voters would never support. It has been the left's go-to technique for forcing an extreme and highly damaging agenda on the country. They wrap themselves in the legacy of the civil rights movement to legitimize it, and try to paint any popular opposition as equivalent to George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door in defiance of court orders.
I wonder if Obama will sue California now? <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N6K9dS9wl7U&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N6K9dS9wl7U&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>