Supreme Court to decide if states can ban gay marriage

T_O_Bull

T_O_Bull

New member
9 highly paid judges. lots of support staff, also well paid. Time spent in expensive facilities. Can we figure out any more ways to waste tax payer money over issues that are stupid. And that goes for the idiot state legislators who started all this. Good God, wise up people, you basically have BS for brains and we have better things to spend our tax dollars on.

T_O_B

 
If we would just live by the Declaration of Independence like we claim we do, none of this time and money would be wasted right now.

 
This isn't stupid. It's extremely important.

If the Court rules that states cannot ban gay marriage it will be a huge victory for human rights. The type of decision we learn about in school fifty years from now and then say, "For goodness sake, can you believe it was only fifty years ago this hadn't been established yet?"

Additionally, the tension between federal power and states rights has been at the forefront of debate since this country was established.

 
tschu said:
I don't get how making sure that discriminating against a group of people doesn't become the law is a stupid waste of tax dollars
Click to expand...
Such an open statement there, do you believe all sorts of minority groups should be protected under the law? By the way I'm for gay rights so don't try spinning me into a homophobe.

 
I do, generally speaking. Neither states nor federal governments should be able to pass laws via majorities that strip any Constitutionally guaranteed rights away from a demographic of people. That's what the Constitution is there for: to protect and ensure these basic rights for all people, no matter if any government or group of people would be OK with taking it away from some.

So, in the event a state legislature or the U.S. Congress passes laws in violation of that, it seems precisely the Court's role to step in and rule it unconstitutional.

 
Abdullah the Butcher said:
tschu said:
I don't get how making sure that discriminating against a group of people doesn't become the law is a stupid waste of tax dollars
Click to expand...
Such an open statement there, do you believe all sorts of minority groups should be protected under the law? By the way I'm for gay rights so don't try spinning me into a homophobe.
Click to expand...
And yours is an even more open statement. By the way there's nothing here about making protection a law - it's more about making sure that discrimination is not the law. And basically, what zoogies said.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tschu said:
Abdullah the Butcher said:
tschu said:
I don't get how making sure that discriminating against a group of people doesn't become the law is a stupid waste of tax dollars
Click to expand...
Such an open statement there, do you believe all sorts of minority groups should be protected under the law? By the way I'm for gay rights so don't try spinning me into a homophobe.
Click to expand...
And yours is an even more open statement. By the way there's nothing here about making protection a law - it's more about making sure that discrimination is not the law. And basically, what zoogies said.
Click to expand...


What both of them said.

 
tschu said:
I don't get how making sure that discriminating against a group of people doesn't become the law is a stupid waste of tax dollars
Click to expand...
What's stupid about this is that there are people out there who think that stopping this is worth wasting tax payer dollars and the time of our court system all the way to the supreme court. The courts have serious business, our streets, roads and highways need repair. These jackasses need to learn to live and let live. Butt out of your neighbors business.

T_O_B

 
I also can't wait for our Supreme Courts to get back to their business of fixing highways
default_biggrin.png


 
Looking at the redefinition of one of the foundations of our society by judges with no basis in the original intent of the constitution, when there is disagreement in the federal appellate courts, seems like a pretty good use of the Supreme courts time to me. But, I have no desire to argue to point, just felt like someone should say it.

 
Back
Top