That last sentence is the key question I think. If the people of Mass. voted for or against it, fine. But when an activist judge starts deciding the will of the people one way or the other (see California), that's bull shit. The people should decide.

Oh...you mean the purpose of judges is to interpret legislation, not to legislate? Shucks, I must be in the wrong country or something.

No. As you point out, it was not legislated, the court determined that denying gay people the right to marry was unconstitutional, an unpopular yet legally consistant line of reasoning.

--PunkDavid (but we're getting off topic here)

Punkdavid already said it right, but here's my 2 cents:

They were not "activist" judges "legislating" from the bench. They were simply judges who ruled from the bench, and they didn't let public controversy affect their decision. The majority shouldn't be able to limit the civil rights of a minority.

Yes they were. They were activists...and the legislated from the bench. Didn't they force legislation in Mass?

Again, I'm not saying I am for the banning of gay marraige for a litany of reasons. But I give far more creadance to states that have overwhelming popular votes ammending their constitutions to ban gay marraige, than I do with city mayors and judges legislating over the will of the people.

I have just one question for some folks here. I notice that there is a hesitancy to label yourselves, why is that? I mean, one of the first things I make clear when I meet new people is, "I'm conservative." I don't understand why people wouldn't want to make their personal beliefs and ideologies perfectly clear with other individuals.

So if a state...lets say Mississippi...held a vote and the majority of people agreed that blacks should ride in the back of the bus, then that would be okay? After all, it's the will of the people.

The term "activist judge" is awarded by a "uninformed person". So the term along with being ridiculous carries no weight.
Before the courts , same sex marraige is a civil rights issue.
Before the courts, Roe v. Wade is a power of the government issue.
Please do not ask me to explain, little brain, try researching and understanding an issue yourself before forming an opinion on it.
god help you

No, because that is unconstitutional for several reasons.

It's along the same lines as banning gay marriage. Just because the majority feel a certain way, that doesn't necessarily make it right.

Activist Judges = Oxymoron.

Yes they did force legislation, legislation to amend the Massachusetts Constitution. This is what judges are supposed to do. They interpret the laws and the highest law, the constitution, and rule on it. In this case, the judges determined that the state law defining marriage was inconsistent with the equal protection language of the state constitution, and invalidated the law. They ordered the legislature to fix the problem, and the legislature responded by commencing the process of amending the constitution. NO NEW LAW WAS MADE, NO LEGISLATING WAS DONE. Everything the judges did was entirely consistant with the doctrine of judicial review. It was unpopular, but judges shouldn't be trying to win popularity contests, they should be interpreting laws, and invalidating them if the laws violate rights laid out in the constitution.



"Legislating" is a term of art with a specific definition, don't throw it around like this. As for the point you made, it is a matter of politics on two levels. First is the basic question of whether gay marriages should be recognized by law. The second is the underlying question of whether a majority, no matter how large, ought to be able to deny rights or priviledges to a minority, no matter how small.

--PunkDavid

Activist judges = misnomer.

--PunkDavid (BTW James, what happened to your avatar?)

Remember children , a democracy is most threatened by tyranny of the majority. The framers of our constitution understood this in a way our leaders today can not so they create out constitution to protect the rights of the minority.

I'm actually not sure if there's new legislation or not, but I think they did force the legislature to re-write the marriage laws. Doesn't matter. It's not outside of the court's power to overturn this law, because there's nothing in the state constitution banning same sex marriage, but the constitution does ban discrimination, so the justices were simply doing their duty: upholding the constitution.

remember when the site crashed . people lost post and such, well I lost my everything . I'll pull back something right now

Well dang, PunkDavid said almost exactly what I was going to say. Oh well.

I do have a couple more statements, though:

--If you ever wanted to know one of the issues I strongly disagree with Bill O'Reilly on, this is one of them.

--If Bush were to appoint a Supreme Court justice that ends up overturning Roe v. Wade, would you call that judge an "activist judge"?

Your name is James? You told me you were a female.

Yeah that's what I meant.

And I have no idea. It won't show up on my blog either. It appears in my blog profile and on other sites I link it to, but not here or on my front page.

I am James. I am a man.

well no shit the people who drafted the constitution would understand it in ways people today cant. they fucking wrote it, hello

do you really think there would be a right to arms if they knew guns could be made that shoot 10 bullets in a second without having to reload?