Same-sex Marriage

Fine, I'll try and wade through your article. In the meantime, what's your counter to the arguments above (in your own words, if you're otherwise only going to refer to the link)?

 

As I said before, it is not up to the courts to contrive new "rights" or "protected classes" to bestow them on. They are simply to uphold the constitution, which is silent on this matter. If gays want to legally redefine marriage in androgynous terms, they should present their case to the general public.

 

But like abortion, gay marriage et al wasn't really an issue at the time the constitution was drafted. So of course the Constitution does not address it. That's what the courts are trying to sort out now. I think gay rights goes along with the general spirit of the Constitution. As I had said, the courts are checking what's been a tyranny of the majority. I don't believe that the government should be interfering in personal matters such as gay marriage in the first place.

 

Both homosexuality and abortion existed when the Constitution was crafted. The framers clearly had no intention of enshrining these evils as "basic rights." If you believe that should be changed, we have a process for amending the Constitution, as we've done in the past with respect to slavery and women's suffrage. That's how our constitutional republic is supposed to work. Judges were never granted authority to enact sweeping public policy changes by the stroke of a pen.

 

First off, as I'm gathering from the article I'm still reading (but will have to finish later as I'm off to work soon), I thought you were arguing this on a secular and not a religious-moralistic basis. I don't see how calling homosexuality etc. "evils" has a place here.

As I said above, abortion and homosexuality were not a debated issue at the time the Constitution was drafted. I never said they did not exist back then. That was over 200 years ago, and I'd like to think we've progressed a bit since.

We do have a process for changing the Constitution. But if you're citing the examples of abolishing slavery and women's suffrage, that's a pretty damn slow system, isn't it? Basically those causes had to wait until the general (voting) public - the sort of tyranny-of-the-majority I was referring to - had enough of a guilt trip to support taking action and enacting those changes in the Constitution. And prodding from the courts has been needed to push such changes along, especially when you think of the post-antebellum South and the long, slow process of establishing civil rights and getting rid of Jim Crow laws. It's a similar situation here with gay marriage and gay rights, as the general public (specifically the majority of the general public) takes a while to shuck off their ingrained prejudices. So I don't have any beef with courts pushing this along.

Your essay said the gay-activists have been manipulating the public's guilt trip about past discrimination against minorities, and has been passing itself off as a discriminated minority. It's true enough that this is one tactic they've been using, but are they to blame for it? Not allowing marriage on the basis of not being of the right sexual orientation sure sounds like discrimination.

Anyway, off to shelve library books for a few hours, peace.

 

It's funny that someone would refer to a minority as evil and then say they have been "passing themselves off as a discriminated minority".

 

If two people love each other and feel they want to get married... then great

I really dont think its anyones elses business

Love Learning and Freedom Clairexxx

 

I see. Screw the Constitution and the will of the majority; it's better to be ruled by "enlightened" despots. Typical liberal elitism.

Uh, the huge difference here is that the 14th Amendment was specifically enacted to protect racial equality. By costrast, courts today are creating "gay rights" law from scratch.

If recognizing and affirming male-female differentiation and complementarity is "discrimination," then I guess I must plead guilty.

 

Yeah, those guys who are forcing us to not force people who have a different sexual orientation to not marry, those guys are some wicked despots, aren't they. The tyranny.

Heh, I do plead guilty to liberal elitism, in this particular case. I believe that the "will of the majority" on gay marriage (when it is anti-gay) is generally prejudiced and unenlightened. What they personally think of gay marriage is their opinion and they are certainly entitled to it. But I see absolutely no good reason to prevent two gay people from getting married, and I think it's an injustice to gay couples everywhere for them to have to sit through the historically slow process of waiting for the will of the majority to wake up.

It's kind of similar to the situation in the post-Civil War South. Obviously the majority in the South didn't want the black population to have any status or rights, but that doesn't make them right by a simple "will of majority" ruling in anyway but legal. If we didn't prod the South and simply waited for a change in the "will of majority" opinion, the South would still have plenty of Jim Crow laws today. I'm far from an absolutist, but I think there's a point in scenarios such as this gay-rights issue, where you can discern that will of the majority or not, the majority's still dumb. If that makes me an elitist in that respect, then I wear the label proudly.

And you seem to keep missing or at least ignoring what I've been trying to emphasize regarding the Constitution and the fact it doesn't have provisions for gay rights legislature. My point is, that because gay rights were not a debated issue at the time of the Constitution's drafting, it was not addressed in the Constitution. This is because society was much more restricted and Bible-conscious back then (duh). Thankfully it is not so anymore, and we should recognize that. I am not really saying screw the Constitution - since the Constitution does not really choose a side in this debate, it's not yet very relevant until it is updated to address the issue.

Gotta start sometime. At one point or another racial equality laws were made from scratch. I was merely using the racial equality and civil rights scenario as a parallel example.

By the way eventually I will finish the linked essay you posted in the near future.

 

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that we had this public debate, amended the Constitution, and passed federal legislation? Pro-gay activist judges have circumvented this whole process.

Again, the Constitution makes provisions for such "updates," and they don't include judicial decree.

They were not invented by judges! How many times to I have point this out?

 

I guess we kinda just differ here. I don't have a big problem with judges doing this, because I view it as speeding up a process that eventually will have gay marriages legalized not far in the future anyhow. You do. I do admit it's not an orthodox method, and probably shouldn't happen too often. As I've said above, I view this scenario as one which has long been one of injustice and should be changed as soon as possible.

Looking at the big picture, though, your only real argument thus far against pro-gay marriage legislation has been simply a legal issue and the circumventing of the accepted process. Is it only this factor that bothers you about the current push for pro-gay legislation, that is, the fact that as you see it the judges are acting beyond their authority, or do you oppose it otherwise?

 

Huck Finn.


Government 101.


The US supreme court is the only authority allowed to enact federal constitutional change to amendments.Congress may present amendment ideas.but only the supreme court JUDGES may actually enact them.

they are also the only authority allowed to rule if something is accused of being unconstitutional.


you continuously saying that judges have no business dealing with the constitution only shows that you have been asleep during all your social studies classes in school.


It called the system of Checks and Balances.The Supreme Court was created and given a lifetime membership to prevent our bill of rights from being manipulated by partisan agendas.


If we didnt have the Supreme Court...then Bush would be able to eliminate(rather then the pussyish limiting he's doing now) our rights to free press and speech.We wouldnt be allowed to protest AT ALL.

and we would have ZERO privacy as opposed to the little we have left.


If we didnt have the supreme court a president could make slavery legal again and take away both a woman's and minoritie's right to vote.


but I bet you'd love that kind of country Huck..wouldnt you?

 

this goes for Congress too.

and having no supreme court would cause chaos between the president,the congress,and the state governments.

total chaos.

 

So judicial tyranny is OK, as long as you happen to like the results?

Of course I oppose it in principle. That should be clear from the link I cited before.

 

No. Constitutional amendments must be ratified by 2/3 of the US Senate and 3/4 of the states.

I realize that, but they've far exceeded this authority in recent decades, issuing decrees with little or no basis in the text of the Constitution.

Maybe you should read more carefully. I've argued that their only purpose is to uphold the Constitution, rather than crafting public policy as they see fit.

First of all, I never said that we don't need the Supreme Court. Second, the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments explicitly protect these rights; they weren't concocted by judicial activists.

 

This is the most convoluted logic I have seen in a long while. You can affirm male-female differentiation and complementarity until the cows come home, but you are still demanding discrimination. If you think it is appropriate discrimination, fine, but you can't weasel out it.

Why don't you at least admit you think gays are evil (actually you already did that) and want the government wage your moral wars. In fact what you really remind me of is the southern conservatives which pursued racist policies under the guise of "states rights". You are not fooling anyone.

 

Huck do you honestly beleive there was not ANY judicial activism when blacks were trying to gain equal rights?

 

I think Brown v. Board of Education was firmly grounded in the 14th Amendment, but I think that subsequent forced school bussing has been a complete fiasco. Asians are now being carted to different schools all across San Francisco in an attempt to meet prescribed racial quotas.

 

forced busing does not work. the boston public schools are more segregated now than they were in the 70's. its a complete waster of money.

 

You are forgetting that had not "Judicial Activism" by the Warren Court been used, Plessy v. Fergueson would still have been in place. Congress sure as hell then was not about to give those rights to blacks, it would have been political suicide. Heck, when Boston City public schools were integrated there were protests.

Judicial activism can be "bad" or "good"--it is really your opinion on the matter, but denying civil rights to people, even if the majority is against it, is wrong, as you are trying to do with gays. I think pointbreak said it better than I did.