scottopic: (nuclear halitosis.)
scottopic ([personal profile] scottopic) wrote2006-10-27 03:37 pm

(no subject)

grr, affirming Equal Protection isn't enacting new laws.

[identity profile] lordfeldo.livejournal.com 2006-10-27 08:07 pm (UTC)(link)
entirely underrated.

[identity profile] judecorp.livejournal.com 2006-10-27 08:20 pm (UTC)(link)
You're starting to sound like one of them crazy liberals.

[identity profile] theinnocence.livejournal.com 2006-10-28 01:38 am (UTC)(link)
you sound like an annoyed parent

[identity profile] sammhain.livejournal.com 2006-10-28 08:10 am (UTC)(link)
I just noticed your icon is Lo Pan, holy shit that kicks ass.

[identity profile] scottopic.livejournal.com 2006-10-28 10:26 am (UTC)(link)
INDEED!

[identity profile] chapel-of-words.livejournal.com 2006-10-29 03:28 pm (UTC)(link)
There is a growing movement amongst some conservatives that are advising strongly against a gay marriage amendment to the constitution. Good list of who and the basic arguments here, though I remember a better written piece a few months ago.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_05_28-2006_06_03.shtml#1149254028

The reasoning basically comes down to:

1) There are precious few scenarios: read none, where judges created 'new law' when it came to gays and marriage. Indeed the whole 'activist judge' thing has been so overplayed it's really in the same state of credibility as WMD in Iraq at this point.

2) Those areas where mayors took it into their hands to create 'new law' (such as in San Francisco) were later overturned by, you guessed it, judges.

3) States are handling the issue case by case either through legislature or constitutional amendments to their state legislatures.

I may not be a fan of the way most states are deciding against the marriages, but there's certainly no grand sweeping conspiracy across the land to short circuit the democratic process to regard gays as (gasp) equal under the social contract of the United States.

Tim C.