Originally Posted by Guest

Dear Guest: The Supreme Court's majority decision was based on flawed logic and bad law. The progressives on this bench engaged in judicial activism.

As to the majority of the population the wrong question is being presented. The question isn't are you in favor of same sex marriage? Rather the question should have been do you believe the definition of marriage should continue to defined as being between one man and one woman?

What the Supreme Court did was to negate the definition of what is a man or what is a woman and by blurring that distinction they have opened a pandora's box.

This issue should not have been left to the supreme court but to individual states or as a referendum.

Roe v Wade was also bad law and has divided this nation since its ruling. The same sex marriage decision is roe v Wade on steroids

Well, learn to live with both same sex marriage and Roe v. Wade. BOTH are the law of the land!

[QUOTE=Guest;1100182]Some here are erroneously trying to make us believe that since The president is a democrat elected by the majority.
Yes to a point. More accurately he was elected by the majority of those who voted.
He in no way represents the real majority.
The gay marriage issue just happened to be rammed through the political and judicial system and does not represent the way the real majority of Americans feel.
---------

If you actually feel that Pres. Obama was elected by a majority of those who actually voted, how is that different than any other President who has been elected? Only the people who cast a vote can be counted.

I have a good buddy in The Villages who does not vote and he just says, "Don't blame me, I don't vote."

Once again, if you can cite a recent Gallup poll or other credible poll about same sex marriage, do so.

Originally Posted by Guest

Some here are erroneously trying to make us believe that since The president is a democrat elected by the majority.
Yes to a point. More accurately he was elected by the majority of those who voted.
He in no way represents the real majority.
The gay marriage issue just happened to be rammed through the political and judicial system and does not represent the way the real majority of Americans feel.

If there were a nation wide referendum on the subject of the definition, the real majority would have defeated what has been done recently.

So it is helpful to define the participation of select events.

One political party is totally out of touch with reality. The polls are always skewed, the wrong people voted, the wrong questions were asked, but this one may take the cake. To repeat the quote "the president was elected by the majority of those who voted". As if this is a bad thing and not the way things have been done since this country was founded and the way countries around the world count their votes.

This particular party needs to ask itself why have we lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, and what can we do to turn this around, and why have we lost the women's vote every year since 1988. There is still time to do some soul searching before the next presidential election.

" More accurately he was elected by the majority of those who voted.
He in no way represents the real majority."

Huh? Are not Presidents elected by a majority of people who vote? This has to be the strangest statement that was EVER posted on TOTV.

Dear Guest: The Supreme Court's majority decision was based on flawed logic and bad law. The progressives on this bench engaged in judicial activism.

We don't have a nine member Supreme Court. There are three Republican leaning judges voting as a block. There are four Democratic leaning judges voting as a lock. Justice Roberts, and Justice Kennedy are the only two that base their decisions on the case at hand. Every decision that is controversial is going to be decided by Roberts and Kennedy. The decision will be either 5/4 or 6/3.

You can't call the four progressive judges activists, and not call the three conservatives activists. They are both doing the same thing.

Originally Posted by Guest

Dear Guest: The Supreme Court's majority decision was based on flawed logic and bad law. The progressives on this bench engaged in judicial activism.

We don't have a nine member Supreme Court. There are three Republican leaning judges voting as a block. There are four Democratic leaning judges voting as a lock. Justice Roberts, and Justice Kennedy are the only two that base their decisions on the case at hand. Every decision that is controversial is going to be decided by Roberts and Kennedy. The decision will be either 5/4 or 6/3.

You can't call the four progressive judges activists, and not call the three conservatives activists. They are both doing the same thing.

Just a very minor correction to your post. The word is "bloc" and not "block".

As stated in an earlier post, the justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The President will try to nominate a judge with the same political leanings.

It doesn't matter if you feel that the same sex marriage decision was flawed. It is now the law of the land.

There is nothing to do about it now. Same sex marriages are just as legal as two sex marriages.

Originally Posted by Guest

It doesn't matter if you feel that the same sex marriage decision was flawed. It is now the law of the land.

There is nothing to do about it now. Same sex marriages are just as legal as two sex marriages.

Dear Guest: so let me get this straight if the Supreme Court decides that eminent domain should be expanded to include entire cities being removed for the benefit of the government it would be the law of the land and we better get use to it.? Dred Scott (circa 1887) affirming slavery was the law of the land so should blacks have just accepted their fate?

I don't care what people do in their private lives but the decision made was pure politics and deeply flawed as was Roe v Wade. Even the plaintiff in the Roe case regretted her decision and fights for its repeal.

So here we are deeply divided over another issue that if handled properly would have prevented this wide divide.

Despite what the Supreme court ruled biology clearly defines a man ans woman and their respective roles in marriage and procreation. And despite trans gender operations etc the DNA clealy speaks to the sex of this individual .

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

It doesn't matter if you feel that the same sex marriage decision was flawed. It is now the law of the land.

There is nothing to do about it now. Same sex marriages are just as legal as two sex marriages.

Any law can be changed or modified. Not that it will happen because anyone not PC is ostracized by the loud minority. But, with a conservative in the White House and congressional majority, the PC avalanche can be slowed. Maybe the PC minority will be hushed enough so that the moral majority can lead properly. Because without morality, America will definitely fall. Of course, liberals love anarchy, because they hold more power over the people that way. The dependent are easily lead by the gold ring in their noses.

Originally Posted by Guest

Dear Guest: so let me get this straight if the Supreme Court decides that eminent domain should be expanded to include entire cities being removed for the benefit of the government it would be the law of the land and we better get use to it.? Dred Scott (circa 1887) affirming slavery was the law of the land so should blacks have just accepted their fate?

I don't care what people do in their private lives but the decision made was pure politics and deeply flawed as was Roe v Wade. Even the plaintiff in the Roe case regretted her decision and fights for its repeal.

So here we are deeply divided over another issue that if handled properly would have prevented this wide divide.

Despite what the Supreme court ruled biology clearly defines a man ans woman and their respective roles in marriage and procreation. And despite trans gender operations etc the DNA clealy speaks to the sex of this individual .

Personal Best Regards:

Wow! Your American history is way off! The Dred Scott decision was 1857 - which was before the Civil War.

Originally Posted by Guest

Wow! Your American history is way off! The Dred Scott decision was 1857 - which was before the Civil War.

And out of all he said, that was what you picked out to comment on? Wow! Can anyone say "grasping at straws?"

The Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court was in 1857 which was BEFORE the Civil War. The Chief Justice had the opinion that slaves were personal property of their owner no matter if the owner went into free territory.

Moot point since slavery was abolished by an amendment to the US Constitution.

You should be glad that the Supreme Court decided that same sex marrriage is legal in all the USA. Now, when your grandson or granddaughter tells you they are getting married to their lover of the same sex, you can rejoice in their happiness.

Originally Posted by Guest

The Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court was in 1857 which was BEFORE the Civil War. The Chief Justice had the opinion that slaves were personal property of their owner no matter if the owner went into free territory.

Moot point since slavery was abolished by an amendment to the US Constitution.

You should be glad that the Supreme Court decided that same sex marrriage is legal in all the USA. Now, when your grandson or granddaughter tells you they are getting married to their lover of the same sex, you can rejoice in their happiness.

You agree that Dred Scott was a mistake, yet you cannot see this particular decision as something that could be a bad one !!

You do recall that about 10 years ago, a same sex couple was breaking the law by simply showing their love and still break the law in almost 1/2 the countries of the world ?

Problem today is if you are able to get political traction and power on ANY issue and then slam it in the face of everybody, it suddenly becomes mainstream.

Originally Posted by Guest

You agree that Dred Scott was a mistake, yet you cannot see this particular decision as something that could be a bad one !!

You do recall that about 10 years ago, a same sex couple was breaking the law by simply showing their love and still break the law in almost 1/2 the countries of the world ?

Problem today is if you are able to get political traction and power on ANY issue and then slam it in the face of everybody, it suddenly becomes mainstream.

You do recall that over 10 years ago Massachusetts, under Governor Mitt Romney, became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage and started what would become a wave, eventually encompassing 37 states before the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage to be legal in all 50 states.

Originally Posted by Guest

You do recall that over 10 years ago Massachusetts, under Governor Mitt Romney, became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage and started what would become a wave, eventually encompassing 37 states before the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage to be legal in all 50 states.

Since you mentioned Gov Romney's name for some reason, it should be noted that he was totally opposed to the ruling.

And he and I and everyone respect the law and abide by it. As with Dred Scott, all court decisions are correct and moral.