Supremes punt on same sex marriage

[cgriff 0]

cvfd1399

We know that's not how it works, and it's unconstitutional, we are talking about how/why it would or would not work.

If you can vote for one person or another, then you can easily set up the voting to allow a yes or no vote for gay marriage, gay healthcare rights, etc.

COULD it be done? Yes, absolutely. It would take a lot more work than you think, but it could be done. What we're vainly attempting to explain is why it should never be considered, let alone accomplished. Rights are often unpopular, or they wouldn't need to be protected in the first place. Sometimes paychecks help; let's try that. Everyone posting on this thread gets to vote on whether we take your paycheck and divy it up amongst all SC posters. Good idea or bad? Wanna try it? Regardless of how the vote goes, are you going to comply? Probably not... Some things just aren't open to votes, and never should be.

[billvon 3,132]

>But how is it fair in our current system if majority of the people do not want a
>gun ban, but the Supreme Court makes it legal anyway ok?

They can't - because the Constitution prohibits it.

You can, of course, change the Constitution if you want. But the process is quite difficult and lengthy and requires super majorities of the Senate, House and the States themselves (2/3, 2/3 and 3/4 respectively.) As they say, that's a feature, not a bug.

>How is a direct majority vote not invoke a majority/tyranny in a local or state
>election but it does on a federal level? When my mayor gets elected by a 51-49
>margin how is that not the same as a gun ban getting 51-49 on a national level?

Because he is bound by the Constitution as well. He can't ban guns either (or deport all black people etc.)

[kelpdiver 2]

cvfd1399

But how is it fair in our current system if majority of the people do not want a gun ban, but the Supreme Court makes it legal anyway ok?

It's fair because the people have a means to change the Constitution. And that is the method they must use if they want to change the rules that govern our system. There is still a danger here that the majority can trample over the rights of the minority, but it's not easy to do.

[lawrocket 3]

In a total coincidence having absolutely nothing to do with the SCOTUS denials of cert yesterday, the 9th Circuit struck down gay marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada today.

[Url]http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/10/08/14-35420.pdf[/url]

Earlier today the 9th site had no opinions today. So at some point today they issued this one (well, these two). Again, I'm sure, having absolutely nothing at all to do with the SCOTUS yesterday.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,175]

lawrocket

In a total coincidence having absolutely nothing to do with the SCOTUS denials of cert yesterday, the 9th Circuit struck down gay marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada today.

[Url]http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/10/08/14-35420.pdf[/url]

Earlier today the 9th site had no opinions today. So at some point today they issued this one (well, these two). Again, I'm sure, having absolutely nothing at all to do with the SCOTUS yesterday.

Are there any districts in the 9th Circuit that still have bans in place? And if so, does this decision affect them

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I think Alaska and Arizona. Not directly impacted by the decision. But certainly impacted. It's an issue, in my mind, of how many ways the 9th will overturn gay marriage bans. Equal protection. Procedural Due Process. Substantive Due Process. Just keep running down the line.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,175]

lawrocket

I think Alaska and Arizona. Not directly impacted by the decision. But certainly impacted. It's an issue, in my mind, of how many ways the 9th will overturn gay marriage bans. Equal protection. Procedural Due Process. Substantive Due Process. Just keep running down the line.

Justice Kennedy has issued a stay.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,175]

Those poor Nevada county clerks must be confused. In a 24 hour period, same sex marriage went from being illegal to legal, back to illegal, and back to legal again.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 3]

Well, that's the public sector for you: they swing both ways.

[kallend 2,175]

Andy9o8

Well, that's the public sector for you: they swing both ways.

Supremes lifted the stay in Idaho.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tonyhays 86]

Bigot dominoes in motion

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”