Topix Chitown Regulars

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#98912 May 19, 2014
greenwichvillage wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha!!. The judge did just what dog wanted ( went with the will of the people) after reading hundreds of opinion polls that said over 50% of the population support gay marriage.
50% of the Oregon population? This is just untrue (but I know you, and your ilk, aren't ones to let facts get in the way of you opinion.) The ban on gay marriage was passed by the elective representatives of the majority of the population. Calling the rule unconstitutional, fine, send it back to the legislature. Call it unconstitutional so now it's legal and gay marriage licenses can now be issued is a direct violation of the 10th amendment.

A federal judge ruled that Illinois's ban on conceal carry was unconstitutional. The state legislature had six months to amend that law. By your logic, as soon as the judge ruled it unconstitutional, I could then conceal carry immediately.

And the right to bear arms is explicitly mentioned in amendment number 2. The "right" to marry is not mentioned anywhere. Gay marriage is not a constitutional issue, any judge who rules otherwise should be immediately disbarred. It is purely a social issue
cheluzal

Plant City, FL

#98913 May 19, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
It's heartwarming to see activist judges overturning the will of the people! The separation of powers has no place in America! Judges should have the right to make, enforce, AND interpret the law!
I like the one in CA.
Voted no by the state, arguably one of the most liberal, and still overturned.
But the minortiy control the majority and tolerance is a one-way street. I see none for my views and beliefs.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#98914 May 19, 2014
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
God help this country against the day that judges make decisions based on popular opinion. Seriously. That is not their job.
Popular opinion gets voiced through the legislature when they pass laws and the judges are tasked with interpreting the law, or, sometimes saying whether a law runs afoul with the state or US constitution.
Here, here!

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#98915 May 19, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
50% of the Oregon population? This is just untrue (but I know you, and your ilk, aren't ones to let facts get in the way of you opinion.) The ban on gay marriage was passed by the elective representatives of the majority of the population. Calling the rule unconstitutional, fine, send it back to the legislature. Call it unconstitutional so now it's legal and gay marriage licenses can now be issued is a direct violation of the 10th amendment. otherwise should be immediately disbarred.
Just how the hell would you know what the the citizens of this state think?
The unconstitutional initiative was on a ballot a decade ago.
Old bigots have died.
Younger voters aren't afraid of giving their friends, family, and neighbours equality in marriage.
The tide has turned, and that initiative would never pass today, even if they could find a way around the fact that is is unconstitutional.
They were hoping that by changing the state constitution they could keep it outlawed, ans did not foresee the federal courts judging it to be unconstitutional.
They had all their hopes pinned to DOMA, and when that fell, it was only a matter of time.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#98916 May 19, 2014
cheluzal wrote:
But the minortiy control the majority and tolerance is a one-way street. I see none for my views and beliefs.
Because your views are wrong, the minority says so. You will accept what the minority wants, otherwise, you're just an intolerant homobigotphobe and will be incinerated because you don't think like us

A trick we learned from the Nazis!

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#98917 May 19, 2014
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text>Just how the hell would you know what the the citizens of this state think?
The unconstitutional initiative was on a ballot a decade ago.
Old bigots have died.
Younger voters aren't afraid of giving their friends, family, and neighbours equality in marriage.
The tide has turned, and that initiative would never pass today, even if they could find a way around the fact that is is unconstitutional.
They were hoping that by changing the state constitution they could keep it outlawed, ans did not foresee the federal courts judging it to be unconstitutional.
They had all their hopes pinned to DOMA, and when that fell, it was only a matter of time.
You lost me at bigots.

The Supreme court has ruled that gay marriage is a state issue. Let the legislature pass gay marriage then if that's what the people want. My point is, is not up to the judge. If a judge rules it unconstitutional, let the legislature vote on it. To rule it unconstitutional and therefore it's legal, effective immediately, is what I take issue with

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#98918 May 19, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Because your views are wrong, the minority says so. You will accept what the minority wants, otherwise, you're just an intolerant homobigotphobe and will be incinerated because you don't think like us
A trick we learned from the Nazis!
Just how does people you don't know and will never meet marrying same sex partners affect you? What damages have you suffered?
When your rights are actually being infringed upon, let us know, but your sensibilities and feelings do not count.
Move to Iran, It's illegal to even be gay there,

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#98919 May 19, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
You lost me at bigots.
The Supreme court has ruled that gay marriage is a state issue. Let the legislature pass gay marriage then if that's what the people want. My point is, is not up to the judge. If a judge rules it unconstitutional, let the legislature vote on it. To rule it unconstitutional and therefore it's legal, effective immediately, is what I take issue with
Tough. That's the way it works. Your feelings on Oregon law are irrelevant.
Amusing, but irrelevant,
8^J

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#98920 May 19, 2014
Oh, and the legislature had nothing to do with the initiative, so why should they have anything to do with it now?
Really, you shoud STFU about things you are so ignorant about.
But go on with your silly tantrums, it makes me laugh,
8^J

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#98921 May 19, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
50% of the Oregon population? This is just untrue (but I know you, and your ilk, aren't ones to let facts get in the way of you opinion.) The ban on gay marriage was passed by the elective representatives of the majority of the population. Calling the rule unconstitutional, fine, send it back to the legislature. Call it unconstitutional so now it's legal and gay marriage licenses can now be issued is a direct violation of the 10th amendment.
A federal judge ruled that Illinois's ban on conceal carry was unconstitutional. The state legislature had six months to amend that law. By your logic, as soon as the judge ruled it unconstitutional, I could then conceal carry immediately.
And the right to bear arms is explicitly mentioned in amendment number 2. The "right" to marry is not mentioned anywhere. Gay marriage is not a constitutional issue, any judge who rules otherwise should be immediately disbarred. It is purely a social issue
First of all, I never said Oregon, it eas US opinion.

Now make up your feeble mind. One minute you want only judges to make and then rule on laws but then you say a judge should be disbarred if he rules other then what you believe. Can't have it both ways, mope.

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#98922 May 19, 2014
Smack!
You go with that. Your right but nobody will listen .
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
God help this country against the day that judges make decisions based on popular opinion. Seriously. That is not their job.
Popular opinion gets voiced through the legislature when they pass laws and the judges are tasked with interpreting the law, or, sometimes saying whether a law runs afoul with the state or US constitution.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#98923 May 19, 2014
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text>It is worse than a fallopian tube being ripped apart and WAY worse than labour pains.
Tonka has my deepest and most sincere sympathy,.
Thanks, but I'm gonna guess it varies greatly. I was non functional most of the day in that I really could not find a comfortable position and there was no way I could focus on anything(glad I left work before it really started). Tossed and turned all day. But to me, it was discomfort and pain rolled together, but I'd say more discomfort than pain. My wife has had 2 kids and passed a stone. She laughed when my dad(who has passed a stone) suggested it was as painful as labor.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#98924 May 19, 2014
RACE wrote:
And all those peeps who would not have broken their vows are now encouraged to do so. It's legal after all.
<quoted text>
Its legal to go pick someone up at a bar, get on a dating site, go pick someone up off craigslist, or at the gym, or pottery class. People already have the ability to break their vows. If legal prostitution is the only thing stopping someone from breaking their vows, those vows really don't mean that much.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#98925 May 19, 2014
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks, but I'm gonna guess it varies greatly. I was non functional most of the day in that I really could not find a comfortable position and there was no way I could focus on anything(glad I left work before it really started). Tossed and turned all day. But to me, it was discomfort and pain rolled together, but I'd say more discomfort than pain. My wife has had 2 kids and passed a stone. She laughed when my dad(who has passed a stone) suggested it was as painful as labor.
It DOES vary greatly. The ones I had would not have passed, I had surgery to fix it.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#98926 May 19, 2014
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text>Just how does people you don't know and will never meet marrying same sex partners affect you?
And how does a ban on gay marriage affect YOU?
NWmoon wrote:
What damages have you suffered?
What damages from banning gay marriage do you suffer?
NWmoon wrote:
When your rights are actually being infringed upon, let us know, but your sensibilities and feelings do not count.
Violation of the constitution infringes upon us all
NWmoon wrote:
Move to Iran, It's illegal to even be gay there,
Are you speaking ill of Islam?

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#98927 May 19, 2014
NWmoon wrote:
Tough. That's the way it works.
No, that is NOT the way it works. Pick up a book about the constitution, maybe you'll learn something

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#98928 May 19, 2014
greenwichvillage wrote:
Now make up your feeble mind. One minute you want only judges to make and then rule on laws but then you say a judge should be disbarred if he rules other then what you believe. Can't have it both ways, mope.
I don't believe I ever made such a claim. Mope

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#98929 May 19, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is NOT the way it works. Pick up a book about the constitution, maybe you'll learn something
Actually, in this state, in this case, that is exactly how it works.
Licenses were being issued shortly after the ruling was filed, a ballroom was ready with clergy and others who could legally wed couples, and there are many MANY newly wed couples celebrating tonight.
Just galls you, don't it?
As always, you're TSTI

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#98930 May 19, 2014
NWmoon wrote:
, and there are many MANY newly wed couples celebrating tonight.
All six of them? And cheer the destruction of the constitution all you like. Can't have that pesky thing getting in the way of our agenda

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#98931 May 20, 2014

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min flack 1,656,925
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Dudley 64,306
New Site on Jpusa CULT by Ex-Member 1 hr Wild 20
Film on Sex Crimes at Jesus People USA 1 hr Wild 36
Jon Trott of JPUSA protects child molestors 1 hr Wild 29
Trump is A 4 hr J Chill 162
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 hr Las Cruces Retiree 243,089

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages