Amazingly Enough...
I like Kung-Fu.
I really hope they win. Maybe it'd help out people challenging them elsewhere, such as here.
The one here in Utah is really bad, too, because it means that the state doesn't recognize civil unions, which is one of the things they used to finally prosecute Tom Green.
Sig under construction.
Is there a link or something that can explain what exactly this 'law' means? Before it was a state decision, and now it's not a state decision, but federal law?
Anyway I'm personally against marriage universally, so my position is of support. You're welcome to fight it if you support gay marriage -- that's what's so great about your country (among other things).
As for the ban itself, does this annul all existing gay marriages?
State Question 711Originally Posted by ShlupMoo
I like Kung-Fu.
Hope they win.
It's good to see people standing up for their rights. Even if they don't win, I hope they make a scene. It's about time someone told the christian right that their power exists only for as long as we let it.
A democracy is rule by the people; we elect our leaders according to the will of the majority. But our Constitution and many of our laws protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. Does the majority (or the representatives of the majority) protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority only because the majority wills it? Can the majority decide that the rights of the minority should no longer be protected? If the majority does decide this, what is there to stop it?
This is how we had legal slavery for so long, and how women were not allowed to vote for so long, among other things. How did we eventually come to realize that those things were wrong? Through objective observation and rational thinking, is the only answer I come up with. I hear a lot of people (including the President) complain about judges being "activists" and making rulings about laws that are against the will of the people. I would argue that that is exactly what judges are supposed to do; protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority, whenever the majority is wrong.
This brings up another point though: our judges are appointed by leaders the majority elects. If the majority is too dumb to know which laws are OK and which ones wrongfully harm the minority, then how is the majority smart enough to pick leaders to decide which laws are OK? People only vote for leaders they agree with. By electing leaders all we've done is pushed the problem up one level. The majority elects leaders; the leaders appoint judges; but the judges must somehow be willing and able to disagree both with the leaders and with the people themselves, if disagreement is warranted. It doesn't seem that our system is set up in a way to allow this to happen very easily.
I so want this to get to the supreme court really fast before all these judges retire.
I would be impressed, but there better be a hell of a lot more people working to get these terrible bans lifted than just one lesbo.
Posting Permissions
