does this mean your rights are not granted nor covered under the Constitution? It goes both ways. no pun intended.
Prop 8 over turned in CA
- Thread starter Ms Tree
- Start date
does this mean your rights are not granted nor covered under the Constitution? It goes both ways. no pun intended.
delldude
Veteran
Explain where in the Constituion 'civil rights' are specifically addressed.
OP
- Jul 13, 2010
- 9,731
- 9,025
xUT
Veteran
OP
- Jul 13, 2010
- 9,731
- 9,025
- Thread Starter
- #21
Obama drops defense of law against gay marriage
"The president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," Holder said.
The key provisions in the law "fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional."
"The president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," Holder said.
The key provisions in the law "fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional."
xUT
Veteran
delldude
Veteran
xUT
Veteran
One would think, as a 'judge' you would make full disclosure before a ruling. Of course that may have affected his retirement...
OP
- Jul 13, 2010
- 9,731
- 9,025
xUT
Veteran
His sexual status is 'male', his preference is 'other males', if he is such an 'honest' stalwart in law, why would he hide his preference until after he retired?
B)
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
Impropriety & Impartiality are not really what's at stake her. It's the APPEARANCE of same that apparently has some concerned.
Roll back the clock to AL in the 1950's. Were judges and juries there capable of giving a black man a fair trial? Often the answer was a resounding NO. The impropriety then was real, not made up. So bad that even today 50 years later, many blacks still feel a fair trial in the south is beyond their reach.
I can easily see why some conservative Christian groups could feel like a gay judge would not be impartial. The modern day Conservative Christian has a lot in common with the black man of the south some 50 years ago in that they both feel they're treated unfairly buy the judicial system.
I am not saying I agree with them, just that I can see where they're coming from.
Dog Wonder
Veteran
The Dark Side Of The Moon is only hypnotic if you are stoned.
OP
- Jul 13, 2010
- 9,731
- 9,025
- Thread Starter
- #29
What business is it of yours or anyone else who he likes? Are judges required to state their sexual preferences somewhere?
I'm sorry but that is the biggest load of horse crap since the idea of abolishing public education. The idea that Christians are some how mistreated by the judicial system is at least laughable, obscene but laughable. Why just the other day I read that a nut job claiming to be christian lost a case about freedom of speech ... OH no....they won that case.
Where do you come up with this crap?
If this is a conflict of interest then every case seen before every judge will have a conflict of some sort. No female judge can rule on females and vice-versa. A black judge cannot rule on blacks and vice-versa and the list goes on. Funny how no one is making a case over these types of cases. I guess people have come to accept blacks and women as being equal under the law.
This better be laughed out of the appellate court or the legal system will become even more of a laughing stock than it already is.
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
Whoa! Slow down I said some "Feel" like they're not treated fairly I never said they were! However always remember perception is reality. Blacks were denied equal justice this is fact, Today like some Christians it's more of a feeling, but again perception is reality. I never said their opinion or feeling was right.
Hopefully it will be adjudicated under the law and not have new law made by activist judges. Again I never said I agreed with them, I said I understood where they're coming from. You know my view on Gay Marriage is "Why Not? Let them be miserable like the rest of us" If you spend anytime around Conservative Evangelical Christians, Homosexuality and Gay Marriage is an assault upon their core values and beliefs. Right or wrong it strikes at the very heart of all they hold dear. Given this, how do you think they'd react to a gay judge?
I'm not here to say their argument does or doesn't have merit, I just know where they're coming from and in that context I understand. To me ones choice of romantic partners is NOT the business of Government. For me it's kind of simple:
Think Homosexuality is wrong? COOL, Don't have sex with someone of the same gender. Pretty simple.
Think Abortion is wrong? Don't have one!
Think Tattoos are the mark of the devil? FINE Don't get a tattoo.
And so it goes. Someone once asked me what the Libertarian philosophy was and half joking I said "I can sum it up in three words, LEAVE ME ALONE" If I decide to become a Gay Ob-GYN who works in drag with my flaming queen lover as my Scrub Nurse at an abortion clinic with Tattoos and piercings, It's nobody that's in Governments damn business. You want my opinion this crap shouldn't be clogging up the courts
