Should judges be prohibited from overriding the will of the people?

[vvvvvvv]

Veggie, you have the burden to prove your point first, or at least prove it in your rebuttal, you have not done either.

I did. You never addressed it, which means that you tacitly conceded it. Once a point is tacitly conceded by the opposing party, there is no need to address it again.

By the way I did post proof, from credible sources, you did not post an opposing viewpoint, which is your responsibility.

The only information you posted was on an orthogonal issue.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The only way anything in the Oklahoma Constitution can be deemed unconstitutional is if it is deemed to be contrary to the US Constitution by the Supreme Court. For any issue involving a state, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction as per the US Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, and any other decree, opinion, or ruling by any other judge in any other venue is null and void, and unenforceable under the US Constitution. Ergo, any and all challenges to the Oklahoma Constitution must be presented to the Supreme Court; otherwise, any challenge brought forth in any other way is moot.

Woody

 

[Lurker66]

Perhaps we should write a "how to win a debate on a forum" guide.

Orthogonal. ....I had to look that up lol. And yep, your right.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I forgot to add that it's a different story for a statute.

Woody

 

[donner]

Your statement alone proves my point. The fact is, your statement actually reinforces the data I posted to prove my point.
I am glad that we agree about how the destruction of the family unit is harmful the children, which is my argument.

Maybe i missed it, but did anyone ever point out how gay marriage is actually destructive to the family unit? I agree that stable households are important for children, but i don't recall you posting anything about how the gender makeup of the parents actually impacts anything.

Two mommies or two daddies might not be a traditional nuclear family, but does being loved by two parents of the same sex do more harm than only having one parent?

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

No. Just some homophobes who think heterosexuals have done such an outstanding job of upholding the sanctity if marriage.

Gay marriage will not harm society.

Maybe i missed it, but did anyone ever point out how gay marriage is actually destructive to the family unit? I agree that stable households are important for children, but i don't recall you posting anything about how the gender makeup of the parents actually impacts anything.

Two mommies or two daddies might not be a traditional nuclear family, but does being loved by two parents of the same sex do more harm than only having one parent?

 

[donner]

Maybe your understanding of the reason for a marriage is wrong. The institution is to make a legal obligation for the support of any offspring and provide an environment that provides for all of the needs of child, which is not limited to food and clothing but love, security, morals, and esteem. If you don't believe it is important to have people get married and then have families, just look at what has happened to African American society, or our lower socioeconomic classes of other races.
Marriage needs to be reserved for heterosexual couples, for the purpose of raising productive citizens.
Marriage is not about love, healthcare, taxes, religion, or a political agenda.
I do not care if two guys want to move in next door to me and make out in the front yard. However, they have no reason to get married.

Okay, so "marriage needs to be reserved for heterosexual couples for the purpose of raising productive citizens." (Which, as someone else points out, seems to leave out a lot of married people who either don't want or cannot have children of their own, but we'll ignore that problem for now)

Next you said:

I'll bite, if you have a society where marriage is no longer about procreation. We end up in a nation full of disadvantaged children. The mothers are doomed to poverty. I end up paying higher taxes to provide for the children. The point where I am taxed to pay for someone else’s lack of morals, it personally harms me.
I am not homophobic, I think people should have the right have whatever sort of sex they want, provided it does not involve children or animals. I also think two people, of whatever combination, should have the right to have the same legal protections as any other couple.

how does fighting for access to marriage, even for people who cannot procreate, lead to a nation of disadvantaged children exactly? Furthermore, how does that show a 'lack of morals'? If anything, it seems like gay couples being allowed to marry would, at worst, do nothing to the issue since they cannot procreate and second, if they did procreate they'd have the potential to create a stable, two-parent, household, thus negating the problem you mentioned.

But then you said:

I never said anything about kids of gay people. I am discussing children in single parent families, which is the result of a society where marriage is not important.

So what do single parents have to do with this discussion then? Allowing gays to marry seems like it would help protect society against single-parent famlies, would it not? I mean demonstrating a willingness to fight for marriage recognition would seem to indicate that it's important for those people. Heck, having kids without being married is far easier than actually going through the process of getting married.

As I stated before, I do not disagree that gay couples should have legal rights, the same as married couples. The union just needs a different name. You have failed to prove that gay marriage is not harmful to society.

Why does the name matter (religious connotation aside, which it a different discussion)?

Also, how do you define 'harmful to society?' Do we look at the happiness of children of gay couples? the mental health of those children? how they contribute to society longterm? incarceration rates?

There hasn't been legal gay marriage here for long enough to study the effects and second it's very difficult to identify the causal mechanism for what you're asking without being more specific about what sort of 'harm' you're measuring.

 

[AKguy1985]

No judges should only rule things unconstitutional if they find it unconstitutional

exactly.

 

[BReeves]

No judges should only rule things unconstitutional if they find it unconstitutional

Another in agreement with the above.

On gay marriage, I don't care what they do as long as they leave me alone.

 

[Jesse Pinkman]

This poll questions displays a lack of understanding for how the three branches of government keep each other in check.

For the original poster, this would be the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. An attempt by the Legislative Branch to pass such a law would be met with heavy opposition.