tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8633739716642496215.post7640584831392682697..comments2023-09-24T03:09:48.377-07:00Comments on Protect Biblical Marriage: Re: Marriage Controversy - What Can The Righteous Do?Christinewjchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8633739716642496215.post-71708049774830419202010-08-10T10:29:15.206-07:002010-08-10T10:29:15.206-07:00Are judges "perfect" in your mind?
No,...<i>Are judges "perfect" in your mind?</i> <br /><br />No, not at all. I think I've been abundantly clear that I believe we're all fallible human beings, judges included.<br /><br />But then I wasn't asking if he was perfect, I was asking if you understand that this is how our system works? That if a judge finds a law to be unconstitutional, that he has an obligation to overturn it, right?<br /><br /><i>Do you not see that what he did was an unconstitutional act in and of itself?</i><br /><br />I'm sorry, but I'm no legal scholar. Legal language and its complexities are a bit over my head and I'll have to own up to not being in a position to make an authoritative statement on the topic. <br /><br />Are you a legal scholar?<br /><br />Having said that, based on my NON-expert reading of the Constitution, I don't see how it can be constitutional to provide benefits to one group of consenting and rational adults and not to another. But I'm content with leaving it in the legal process established in our nation, flawed though it is.<br /><br />This first judge found in Unconstitutional. It will be appealed to a higher court and they will make a further decision on the law and this judge's ruling and that will either be appealed or not until it reaches the Supreme Court, which will make a final decision (which may be the next step, actually, as I understand it).<br /><br />My question was only to ask if you understand that this IS our process? That IF the judge thought it was unconstitutional, then OUR PROCESS requires for him to overrule it and then it can be appealed or not.<br /><br />Agree or disagree, that IS our process and there's nothing especially wrong about the process, even if it's possible for a bad decision to result, right? I mean, this is a flawed system of gov't thought up by flawed human beings. I happen to think America's system is a GREAT one, but it is flawed and imperfect, nonetheless.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8633739716642496215.post-91606349935567384602010-08-10T10:13:03.128-07:002010-08-10T10:13:03.128-07:00Dan,
What is ALSO means is that the judge's O...Dan,<br /><br />What is ALSO means is that the judge's OPINION was unconstitutional in and of itself!<br /><br />Are judges "perfect" in your mind? Do you not see that what he did was an unconstitutional act in and of itself?<br /><br />Perhaps this person's comment (from the Legal Insurrection blog post) will state it better than I can:<br /><br />DINORightMarie said... <br />Kyle - you point yourself right back at Prof. Jacobson's argument: these court decisions you refer to were evaluating the one man/one woman relationship. Read this again: <br />"In order to prove that society has no constitutionally rational basis for making a value judgment in favor of traditional marriage, Olson needs to prove that traditional marriage is not the most fundamental relationship in society."<br />--Prof. Jacobson<br /><br />Based on your logic, polygamy and marriage between people and animals is/may be acceptable, because "our cultures (sic) understanding of marriage has changed over time." Prof. Jacobson's point is that Olson's assertion has not been proven, and thus Olson's side has set themselves up to fail at the appellate level. The pro-Prop. 8 team did not force this issue, but it should be caught at a higher level, if we are still a nation of laws (no sarcasm intended).<br /><br />The judge's ruling in this case was loaded with self-justifying explanations as to why he depended on biased witness testimony rather than legal precedent. The SCOTUS has ruled in many instances against polygamy and other "value judgment" definitions of marriage. This is ONE judge making the decision for CA and setting precedent for all 50 states who now have to address this issue and tremble at a single judge's power to dictate to us ALL what is acceptable in society. This is the ultimate form of judicial tyranny.<br /><br />The 9th circuit will not likely do anything; however, the SCOTUS will evaluate this fundamental flaw, IMHO, and overturn this activist judge's ruling. <br /><br />August 9, 2010 4:03 PMChristinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8633739716642496215.post-67842586245705909722010-08-10T10:00:04.691-07:002010-08-10T10:00:04.691-07:00The second part of that post - from the law profes...<i>The second part of that post - from the law professor - certainly DID answer your questions. It showed that the decision made by the homosexual judge WAS FLAWED and will likely be overturned by the Supreme Court! </i><br /><br />But you DO understand, don't you, that this was not my question. My question was not: Do you think it ought to be overturned?<br /><br />My question was: You DO understand that this is how our system works? That if a judge presides over a case and decides that a law that was passed is actually unconstitutional, that this judge has a duty to overturn that law?<br /><br />That is a different question than: SHOULD this law be overturned, right?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8633739716642496215.post-49204265140390233272010-08-10T08:30:17.879-07:002010-08-10T08:30:17.879-07:00Dan,
Are you being sarcastic here? The second pa...Dan,<br /><br />Are you being sarcastic here? The second part of that post - from the law professor - certainly DID answer your questions. It showed that the decision made by the homosexual judge WAS FLAWED and will likely be overturned by the Supreme Court! <br /><br />Here is the relevant section:<br />There is a logical flaw, however, in Olson's primary legal argument that the Judge merely followed Supreme Court precedent on the issue of marriage (emphasis mine):<br /><br /><br />As a matter of fact, since 1888 the United States Supreme Court has 14 times decided and articulated that the right to marriage is a fundamental right. We're not talking about a new right here.<br /><br />We're talking about whether a fundamental right, something that the Supreme Court has characterized as the most fundamental relationship we have in this country, can be deprived of certain individuals because of the color of their skin or because of their sexual orientation.<br /><br /><br />The problem with this argument is that the marriages the Supreme Court has addressed in the past were marriages between one man and one woman, which the Court -- in Olson's characterization -- has deemed "the most fundamental relationship we have in this country...."<br /><br />On that, the supporters of Prop. 8 could agree. The traditional marriage has been recognized as being of fundamental importance to society, unlike other relationships, such as polygamy, which also have a historical and religious basis, but as to which society has made a value judgment.<br /><br />By focusing on the fundamental right to marry, but ignoring that that right arose on the basis of the Supreme Court recognizing the fundamental role in society of traditional marriage, I think the legal team opposing Prop. 8 has set itself up for failure.<br /><br />Olson's argument is something of a circular firing squad. In order to prove that society has no constitutionally rational basis for making a value judgment in favor of traditional marriage, Olson needs to prove that traditional marriage is not the most fundamental relationship in society. But, according to Olson, on 14 occasions the Supreme Court has said otherwise.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8633739716642496215.post-70060198037127254182010-08-10T05:01:29.075-07:002010-08-10T05:01:29.075-07:00I don't see how this addresses any of my quest...I don't see how this addresses any of my questions...Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.com