Judges Vie to Overturn MO Gay Marriage Ban

Overpaid Slacker · 08-06-2004, 07:55 AM

(2004-08-05) -- According to an unnamed law professor at the University of Missouri (MU), federal judges in the midwest today are "racing their colleagues for the prize" of overturning the Missouri state constitutional amendment passed this week which defines marriage as a monogamous heterosexual union.

"The average citizen cannot comprehend the visceral thrill of taking pen in hand and reversing the so-called 'will of the people' with a flick of the wrist," said the MU professor. "It is the juice of the judiciary. There is nothing sweeter than saying 'a million commoners are wrong and I'm right'. It makes me wish I were behind the bench rather than the law school lectern. I'm so jealous."

The amendment, which effectively bans homosexual marriage, won the support of seven-out-of-10 voters on a primary election day that drew twice the normal turnout. Backers of the amendment spent only $19,000 promoting it, while opponents pulled out all the stops and spent $450,000 in a vain attempt to defeat it.

"The fact that support for the amendment was so overwhelming just makes it more exciting to invalidate," said the professor. "Judges are giggling like school girls over the chance. They'll comb the docket for a test case just for bragging rights."

The amendment, which takes effect in September says: "That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."

From Scott Ott's ScrappleFace.com, meaning it's a joke.

JP

Moneyguy1 · 08-06-2004, 09:41 AM

Why are judges becoming so (can't think of another word) "contrary"?

I was brought up to believe that it is the "will of the people" and not the "will of the court".

I feel sorry for our society.

I feel sorry for judges who want only to aggrandize themselves.

Overpaid Slacker · 08-06-2004, 09:59 AM

Bob -
This is a common lament of the Right (and one which I believe has more than just a kernel of truth): The Left wants to stack judicial appointments strongly in their favor b/c they know that they'll lose many of the policy battles in the legislature, where "the People" have the most influence and can pass bills that they want. Many of those on the Left believe that the public can't think for itself (ie doesn't agree with the Left) and need to be protected from themselves and their own judgment by appointed judges who can essentially thwart the will of the electorate by "creatively construing" the legislation to redirect its thrust Leftward. Examples are legion (esp if you've gone to law school) but it's another "elephant in the room" to much of the far Left.

JP

mikester · 08-06-2004, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Why are judges becoming so (can't think of another word) "contrary"?

I was brought up to believe that it is the "will of the people" and not the "will of the court".

I feel sorry for our society.

I feel sorry for judges who want only to aggrandize themselves.

Judges are in place not to uphold the will of the people but the law. If the will of the people is to break "the law" then the judges would of course be against that by definition - the person on the otherhand (that has the job of judge) might have differing points of view than the law allows by their interpretation.

dhoward · dhoward's Garage

I'm embarassed to be from Missouri.
There are already laws on the books preventing gay marrige. Personally, I don't believe mucking about with the state consitution is the proper way to address the issue.
These religeous zealots are starting to get on my nerves....

Moneyguy1 · 08-06-2004, 07:48 PM

Call me unsophisticated...

How come, if the will of the people, in a general election, is to do "X", and that is not in conflict with the existing law, does the judicial community have the right to overturn what the people have expressed they want?

Looks like voting will become irrelevant if this kind of behaviour is permitted to continue.

H.G.P. · 08-06-2004, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Call me unsophisticated...

How come, if the will of the people, in a general election, is to do "X", and that is not in conflict with the existing law, does the judicial community have the right to overturn what the people have expressed they want?

Looks like voting will become irrelevant if this kind of behaviour is permitted to continue.

This is the point I brought up yesterday in one of Cramer's threads...."The means/ workings of change are corrupt. That the judicial branch has breached the Law/Constitution. It is no longer an "interpreter" of plain legislative fact, whether labeled as a "moral" or not."

This has been going on too long. It's time to call these rogues to the carpet with executive order to arrrest followed by impeachment.

brittbolen · 08-08-2004, 06:18 AM

Just because the people want it, doesn't mean the people are right in the end. Look at the civil rights movement, most of the south didn't want integrated schools, buses, lunch counters. It took courts to force civil rights on a lot of the south. In the end I think most people agree that it was the right thing to do even if the people didn't want it. I see this as just next phase, and I'm all for the judges overturning it! I just don't see it as being fair to give some families rights, and not others.

B

350HP930 · 08-08-2004, 07:49 AM

Bigotry should have no place in the law. More power to judges and politicians who are willing to go against politcal pressure in order to do the right thing.

Moneyguy1 · 08-08-2004, 10:02 AM

My point wasn't about anything that is "illegal" or "prohibited by the constitution" being voted into law, it was about things that are legal being overturned.

Although the physical aspects of homosexuality do not appeal to me, I would agree that people have a right to live with whom they choose to live with, and should have some legal recourse in the system. I also believe that if the majority wish unions between same-sex to be referred to as something other than "marriage", then the public has that right.

I find it interesting that the gay rights movement has sucessfully been able to pin the label of "homophobe" on anyone who tries to present a different point of view to theirs. It is simply a case, of which history is replete, of one group attempting to convince the majority that the lifestyle of that group is a valid as any other, be it religious, political, sexual, or any other.

I do not see a differentiation in terms to be "bigotry", as long as equal rights are available under the law and there are no legal differences in how the partners are treated. A word has only the meaning society gives it. If the majority is uncomfortable with a certain use of a word, then why shouldn't society have a right to limit the use of that word or meaning of that word?

Hey..we all seem to like to use a certain word in describing things as a adjective, noun, pronoun, gerund, adverb, expletive and so on. Wayne, in his infinite wisdom, prevents us from doing so in this forum. So, we invent new words, that, to the reader, portray the same precise "meaning", but are not offensive to the majority.

Any society that attempts to become all things to all people runs the risk of becoming nothing to anyone. (don't know who said that, but I like it)