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

[Pokinfun]

I understand what you are both saying. But, it takes me back to my original point, which is you can use the 14th Amendment to force all of the states to have the same law. The 10th Amendment was intended to prevent factions from coming to power and using the power of the Federal government take control of the states, and pushing an agenda or laws that the people of that state disagree with. The topic of gay marriage is an agenda being pushed by a faction, on all states, using the power of the Fed.
In Federalist Number 10, it more or less says that factions can be defeated by popular vote, which is how a republic saves itself. The power of liberty rest in the popular vote, otherwise the light of liberty is blown out by factions. Therefore, When a judge can override a state's popular vote then liberty is extinguished.

 

[Dave70968]

Only insofar as the laws violate a Constitutionally-protected right. There are a lot of laws that don't have Constitutional concerns, at least not facially, though uneven application may trigger Equal Protection review.

 

[cmhbob]

Banning gay marriage limits a right to a particular class of people, for no other reason than a particular holy book says it should be that way.

If your only justification for a law is that a particular holy book says it should be that way, then in our country, that law is illegal at its source.

Society is not harmed when two people in a loving, committed relationship want the same rights and privileges as others in a loving, committed relationship. No individual is harmed when two people in a loving, committed relationship want the same rights and privileges as others in a loving, committed relationship. Therefore, there is no need for a ban on gay marriage.

And no, I don't see a reason to ban polygamy, either. Update the laws. Yes, divorces can be messy. But divorces from a monagamist marriage can be messy, and we still allow them.

 

[Jack T.]

Society is not harmed when two people in a loving, committed relationship want the same rights and privileges as others in a loving, committed relationship. No individual is harmed when two people in a loving, committed relationship want the same rights and privileges as others in a loving, committed relationship. Therefore, there is no need for a ban on gay marriage.

Well, in the case of homosexuality, that's debatable.

 

[Dave70968]

Well, in the case of homosexuality, that's debatable.

Fine. Debate it. Tell me what harm you suffer when two guys you don't know go at it.

"Eeew, I don't want to see that" isn't a harm, BTW.

 

[Jack T.]

Fine. Debate it. Tell me what harm you suffer when two guys you don't know go at it.

"Eeew, I don't want to see that" isn't a harm, BTW.

Why? Your mind is made up and nothing I say will change it. At the very least, gay men lack certain "male" qualities. . .and I'd like to think masculine men, in society, help rather than harm.

 

[cmhbob]

At the very least, gay men lack certain "male" qualities. . .

Like what? And so what? Do gay women lack certain "female" qualities? And again, so what?

 

[Dave70968]

Why? Your mind is made up and nothing I say will change it. At the very least, gay men lack certain "male" qualities. . .and I'd like to think masculine men, in society, help rather than harm.

Okay, fine. Tell me the quantifiable personal harm you suffer. "Eeew, I don't want to see that" still doesn't count; it's the (sort-of) grown-up equivalent of cooties.

What real, tangible harm do you, personally, suffer?

 

[Pokinfun]

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, fine. Tell me the quantifiable personal harm you suffer. "Eeew, I don't want to see that" still doesn't count; it's the (sort-of) grown-up equivalent of cooties.

What real, tangible harm do you, personally, suffer?

 

[vvvvvvv]

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.

So... what harm have you personally suffered?

Your post only alleges societal harms, but you do not put forward any data to back your claims.