Idaho News (Eagle: earthquakes, costs, gas)

[mistyriver]

Originally Posted by Syringaloid

Wolf Advocates Try to Arrest Gov. Otter Over Wolf Killing | citydesk | Boise Weekly

Thats a stupid move. I'd rather see someone arrest him for the idiocy of he and his attorney's argument against same sex marriage in Idaho:

Idaho makes case for same-sex marriage ban in court - Spokesman.com - Sept. 9, 2014

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by mistyriver

Thats a stupid move. I'd rather see someone arrest him for the idiocy of he and his attorney's argument against same sex marriage in Idaho:

Idaho makes case for same-sex marriage ban in court - Spokesman.com - Sept. 9, 2014

Governor Otter is doing the people's business that he was elected by the people of Idaho to do. They voted overwhelmingly to maintain the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman, the only kind of marriage that there is - or can be.

"Idiocy", since you're throwing out that term, would be to allow one misguided judge and the very small number of others that share your view to trump and override the sensibility of Idahoans in numbers dwarfing those bent on offending the many to appease the very few who live to disrupt.

[mistyriver]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

Governor Otter is doing the people's business that he was elected by the people of Idaho to do. They voted overwhelmingly to maintain the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman, the only kind of marriage that there is - or can be.

"Idiocy", since you're throwing out that term, would be to allow one misguided judge and the very small number of others that share your view to trump and override the sensibility of Idahoans in numbers dwarfing those bent on offending the many to appease the very few who live to disrupt.

It's idiotic to throw the taxpayer's money down the toilet to grandstand which is exactly what he's doing. Whether you agree with same sex marriage or not, it's here to stay. It's been ruled unconstitutional to deny gay people the right to marry. What if the citizens of a state voted to disallow different races from marrying. Would you support spending the money to fight for that too?

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

Governor Otter is doing the people's business that he was elected by the people of Idaho to do. They voted overwhelmingly to maintain the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman, the only kind of marriage that there is - or can be.

"Idiocy", since you're throwing out that term, would be to allow one misguided judge and the very small number of others that share your view to trump and override the sensibility of Idahoans in numbers dwarfing those bent on offending the many to appease the very few who live to disrupt.

You have to remember, in today's world, democracy is thrown out the window regularly by activist judges...not to mention an executive branch led by someone that thinks he is a dictator rather than president. The heck with the will of the people, laws and the state constitution.

[mistyriver]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

You have to remember, in today's world, democracy is thrown out the window regularly by activist judges...not to mention an executive branch led by someone that thinks he is a dictator rather than president. The heck with the will of the people, laws and the state constitution.

This isn't a pure democracy, it's a democratic republic and we must abide by the constitution. Banning gay marriage has been found to be unconstitutional.

[TohobitPeak]

The last time there was a statewide vote in Idaho about gay marriage was back in the stone age, 2006. Times have changed and people are more aware now. I'm frustrated Butch is wasting my money.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by mistyriver

This isn't a pure democracy, it's a democratic republic and we must abide by the constitution. Banning gay marriage has been found to be unconstitutional.

True enough about the democratic republic. With respect to being found unconstitutional, I don't remember seeing anything about homosexual marriage in the constitution. The definition of a marriage as between one man and woman has been found to be unconstitutional by some judges, constitutional by others. It will eventually end up in the hands of the supreme court. Will be glad to have it over so we can quit wasting money one state at a time.

[mistyriver]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

True enough about the democratic republic. With respect to being found unconstitutional, I don't remember seeing anything about homosexual marriage in the constitution. The definition of a marriage as between one man and woman has been found to be unconstitutional by some judges, constitutional by others. It will eventually end up in the hands of the supreme court. Will be glad to have it over so we can quit wasting money one state at a time.

Where was any marriage mentioned in the Constitution?

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by mistyriver

Where was any marriage mentioned in the Constitution?

I don't believe so, though could be wrong. Which is why it should remain a state issue, not one "settled" by federal courts. Our court system (not just on this issue) is a bit of a joke, where cases are selected to go before certain judges based on their political leanings.

You can argue that marriage licenses are a federal "issue" under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, where different states respect licenses granted in others; such as driver's licenses. Under that argument my Idaho CCW license has to be recognized by NYS, CA, MA, etc. And I don't see that happening. That is not what the people of those states want. Why is homosexual marriage any different?

Personally, I don't much care. If the people of Idaho want to make homosexual marriage legal, fine.

[mistyriver]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

I don't believe so, though could be wrong. Which is why it should remain a state issue, not one "settled" by federal courts. Our court system (not just on this issue) is a bit of a joke, where cases are selected to go before certain judges based on their political leanings.

You can argue that marriage licenses are a federal "issue" under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, where different states respect licenses granted in others; such as driver's licenses. Under that argument my Idaho CCW license has to be recognized by NYS, CA, MA, etc. And I don't see that happening. That is not what the people of those states want. Why is homosexual marriage any different?

Personally, I don't much care. If the people of Idaho want to make homosexual marriage legal, fine.

How did you feel about civil rights being forced on the southern states by the federal government?