Indiana ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[jamil]

Well he does seem to favor progressive politics.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well he does seem to favor progressive politics.

I also meant to say I giggled a little out loud when I read that phrase "the clauses are irrelevent..."

 

[jamil]

I also meant to say I giggled a little out loud when I read that phrase "the clauses are irrelevent..."

Of course they're irrelevant until needed to make his progressive heart seem to jibe with his libertarian head.

Sorry mrjerrell. Just

 

[mrjarrell]

Your preference for the federal government's riding roughshod over the will of the people and especially religious people is well noted.

The federal judges in these cases aren't "running roughshod" over the "will of the people". They are knocking down unConstitutional laws and amendments that were passed by politicians, in most cases. When these were voted on by voters, it didn't matter. You can't vote peoples Rights away. The judges are restoring balance to the system that has been unbalanced by people without the best interests of liberty in mind. Upholding Constitutional Rights is part of their job. I;m not sorry that it gored some people pet ox. The judge in KY addressed the whole religion schtick quite well.

"In America, even sincere and long-held religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been outvoted."

Well said on his part. And oh, so true.

 

[mrjarrell]

Of course they're irrelevant until needed to make his progressive heart seem to jibe with his libertarian head.

Sorry mrjerrell. Just

I expected no more from you.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Logic isn't really all that difficult.

If 9 supersedes 10, 1 supersedes 9. If the amendments were written in order of importance, then it stands to reason the clauses within the various amendments were written in order of importance. As Mr. Spock would say: "logic dictates" that congress may neither write laws creating a US religion or write laws preventing one from practicing their religion. That "or" in that first clause logically means both phrases share equal weight and importance.

 

[level.eleven]

This conversation would be a lot easier if the "anti-federalists" just admitted they hold a belief that certain members of INGO are icky because of a book they read. I'm sorry, but this rapid and haphazard cry of federalism a) doesn't hold water legally, and b) is personal. The contortions are becoming laughable. I believe the score is 20-nil. Nil, just for World Cup props.

 

[Mark 1911]

The clauses are irrelevant, for the most part. Marriage is a Right under the 9th Amendment. Why do you hate peoples Rights so much? The Rights of the individual come before the powers of the state, as it should be. Unless you think the state should be of greater importance? That would explain a few things.

But you said that upholding the 1st amendment to protect religious freedom is nothing more than placating Catholics. Somehow the practice of religion by Catholics is not as worthy of protection in your view. Why do you hate people's rights so much?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...kes-contraception-mandate-15.html#post5134305

Your preference for the federal government's riding roughshod over the will of the people and especially religious people is well noted.

and may I add, "by many".

 

[jbombelli]

Your preference for the federal government's riding roughshod over the will of the people and especially religious people is well noted.

Your preference for a majority running roughshod over the rights of a minority via the power of the state is equally noted.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Your preference for a majority running roughshod over the rights of a minority via the power of the state is equally noted.

Looks like when it comes to the love of big powerful, government everybody has their favorite flavor.

 

[jbombelli]

Looks like when it comes to the love of big powerful, government everybody has their favorite flavor.

I always take the side of individual freedom. Even when it's protected by the government.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I always take the side of individual freedom.

I stand on the side of the Constitution.

 

[mrjarrell]

But you said that upholding the 1st amendment to protect religious freedom is nothing more than placating Catholics. Somehow the practice of religion by Catholics is not as worthy of protection in your view. Why do you hate people's rights so much?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...kes-contraception-mandate-15.html#post5134305

Didn't say any such thing. Said that was the reason for the expansion of the ruling, to take into account the catholic stance on contraception, (it's from the article). I have stated no stance on the SCOTUS ruling in the HL case. While I believe that the SCOTUS did create a protected class with this one, by not making the ruling the cover everyone with an objection and that they have likely opened the door to other drugs or procedures being denied because of someones particular religious beliefs.

 

[mrjarrell]

Your preference for a majority running roughshod over the rights of a minority via the power of the state is equally noted.

Exactly. The only people who were run over were the LGBT citizens. No-one else has been inconvenienced in any way.

 

[mrjarrell]

I stand on the side of the Constitution.

Except for the 9th Amendment and the 14th.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Except for the 9th Amendment and the 14th.

Yeah we know if it were up to you none of the others would apply...maybe except for certain clauses (or certain progressive interpretations of them).

 

[jbombelli]

I stand on the side of the Constitution.

Apparently not since the law in question was found to be against the Constitution.

 

[LPMan59]

Apparently not since the law in question was found to be against the Constitution.

Nope. They just got it wrong.

 

[MisterChester]

Nope. They just got it wrong.

How was it not against the constitution?

 

[cobber]

Exactly. The only people who were run over were the LGBT citizens. No-one else has been inconvenienced in any way.

No, if you are an Indiana resident, the State powers were usurped. You don't think that's a problem?

Except for the 9th Amendment and the 14th.

And you the 10th, apparently, which would seem to be the only bulwark against an intrusive federal government.


Do you have a pen and a phone too? Because that's another way to circumvent the legislature.


How about the branches of government get out of each other's bailiwicks, and the fed stops poaching on State turf?

Apparently not since the law in question was found to be against the Constitution.

Thus spake one federal district court judge. Did anyone ever take the issue before the Indiana Courts of Appeal? So now can anyone with a rights argument circumvent the Indiana courts and run to a federal district court?