DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**eljugadordepoquer** · 05-09-2012, 06:25 AM

It just proves that they're extra bigoted and extra scared.

"legislating from the bench" is doublespeak for "passing judgement based on current laws in ways that contradict popular opinion amongst rednecks". You're better than that, HC.

Any true freedom-loving American would support gay marriage. Anyone who doesn't can't claim to love freedom. It's as simple as that. You're legislating relationships between consenting adults. It's absurd on its face.

They're not banning homosexuality, Asher. No one is legislating to say you can't have a gay partner. You just aren't conferred state benefits for being in such a relationship. Considering that in most states that have gay marriage, it was passed by court order and not legislation, and that there is a totally valid legal principle by which you can consider this to be legislating from the bench (real judicial activism, we're not talking about Brown v. Board here), it seems perfectly reasonable to me to send a message to the supreme court of whatever state you live in that the Constitution of your state is not quite so elastic.

I'm not gonna deny that a lot of support for this is homophobia-driven bigotry, or try to justify the religious ****. I don't care about any of that. I DO very much care about courts deciding to invent rights as a way to implement policy that is not politically popular but they think is correct. That isn't the court system's job.

05-09-2012, 06:25 AM	#5
eljugadordepoquer Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 439 Senior Member	It just proves that they're extra bigoted and extra scared. "legislating from the bench" is doublespeak for "passing judgement based on current laws in ways that contradict popular opinion amongst rednecks". You're better than that, HC. Any true freedom-loving American would support gay marriage. Anyone who doesn't can't claim to love freedom. It's as simple as that. You're legislating relationships between consenting adults. It's absurd on its face. They're not banning homosexuality, Asher. No one is legislating to say you can't have a gay partner. You just aren't conferred state benefits for being in such a relationship. Considering that in most states that have gay marriage, it was passed by court order and not legislation, and that there is a totally valid legal principle by which you can consider this to be legislating from the bench (real judicial activism, we're not talking about Brown v. Board here), it seems perfectly reasonable to me to send a message to the supreme court of whatever state you live in that the Constitution of your state is not quite so elastic. I'm not gonna deny that a lot of support for this is homophobia-driven bigotry, or try to justify the religious ****. I don't care about any of that. I DO very much care about courts deciding to invent rights as a way to implement policy that is not politically popular but they think is correct. That isn't the court system's job.
	Quote