I didn’t say the courts can’t overstep their bounds, I said the people were part of the process.

Whether or not my arguments meet your criteria for “good” is more of your problem than mine. I don’t set out to change your mind, just to speak my opinion. If you need to ridicule that opinion then enjoy yourself.

Thanks for the clarification Pat.

And taking the peoples voice, and right to govern themselves away is EXACTLY what courts do when they take it upon themselves to dictate social policy. Its not stretching it by any means. Your argument that the courts cant overstep their bounds because after all the people elected the people who appointed them is risible. By that “logic”, and I use the word loosely, the President and congress can’t overstep their respective authority because the people elect them directly!

Call me when you get a good argument. 90 posts and I have yet to see one.

You do realize what a ridiculous request this is right?

“The right to self-governance.”

To a certain extent I actually do agree with you but = the people vote for the governor, who appoints the judges. And they vote for the legislatures who approve the judges (or deny). So in effect, the people are governing themselves. Correct me if I’m wrong but in MA, just like NJ, the courts made their ruling and bounced it back to the legislature to do something about it. NJ chose domestic partnerships (or some pale imitation thereof) and MA chose marriage. So again, it was the legislature put in by the people that made the final decision. Plus in MA an attempt to push through man/woman only thing and it failed twice at least in the legislature (the one put in by the people), Oh, and there were actually protests by both side at this time. Sorry can’t remember the date. So, yeah, there is merit to the argument that it shouldn’t be in the courts, but the claim that the people’s voice has been taken away is stretching it. Oh and that’s a big one here in CT but when we did vote on the ConCon and voted it down the family crowd said special interests bought the vote. If we vote we’re damned, and if we don’t we’re double damned) Some people are never happy unless they totally dominate right?

Please name these rallies and protests, giving dates and locations, particularly any you attended, Id like to look them up.

I don’t deny that, it’s the same in CT. I understand your point and if you mean spontaneous blocking of traffic or raucous demonstrations outside of churches then yeah, I agree. No point in repeating what I said last night because apparently I, the press, the family organizations on both sides and the people who actually participated in the rallies/protests all hallucinated it and as you say, no one felt their “rights” were being denied or chose to do anything about it. That’s a pretty amazing hallucination – lasting a decade or so involving thousands of people, not to mention the money that people gave to support something that never happened.

The gay marriage that exists in America today, in MA, and until recently in CA, was brought about by split court decisions in response to lawsuits by a handful of activists. There were no protests in the streets until prop 8 passed, there was no march on washington, no bus boycott, no selma, no boston tea party, etc, etc, etc….

The point being, people who are actually being denied a civil right DO something about it.

what are the valid reasons for not standing up for your own personal God given rights when someone is denying them to you?

You had an education deferment?

I don’t work for a car company but I opposed bailing them out. Does my opinion not count because I didn’t work for a car company?

AE, I don’t see how this refers only to “the gay marriage that exists today” but if you say so. Still, the issue didn’t appear out of nowhere all of a sudden did it? I can’t speak much about MA but here in CT it was far from quiet. There were rallies/protests even before the issue was first raised in the legislature. I remember reading about some stuff happening during the time I was hangin’ with the Full Gospel crowd back in the late 80s and of course I was properly offended by it. Instead of PC churches have RC or CC. Every time it was brought up in the legislature there were protests/rallies from both sides, especially as the civil union battle heated up and then when the court case was started. In fact they only only stopped when the courts handed down their decision – actually the day after. And they will start up again because the “family values” folks are already starting to plan what they will do next and of course the “love makes a family” folks will have to respond.

Actually I wonder if the legislature hadn’t been forced to add “marriage = one man/one woman” to the civil union bill to get it through would the issue have hit the court here so soon. Eventually it would have I suppose. I thought our civil union law was just fine, maybe I’d feel different if I was looking to get hitched but I doubt it. To me the state has nothing to do with marriage, they can put the word on the license but it is the two people (yes I do discriminate) and God that makes it a marriage.

which post to Attmay, you two have conversed a few times

I do so covet your approval.

LOL ADD, I wasn’t addressing you. Or expecting you back. But thanks for the unintended confession.

Brown and getting browner.

Take that away, and make marriage about something else other than procreation, and there is no longer any valid reason to prohibit blood relatives from marrying.

I say it doesn’t, which is why I don’t. Gay rights is like seduction – the people susceptible to “nice shoes, wanna have sex?” are already on the gay rights bandwagon. Now it’s time to schmooze, buy a few drinks, and dance a bit just to get a phone number. Then go on a date, or two, or three. Then they’ll be willing to go with the whole gay rights thing, cause we took it slow and gave people reasons they thought persuasive.

Go to fast, and we’re just gonna get slapped.