Gay Marriage

ci

Yes, I think there is much to your claim. And it is not terribly difficult to evidence the promotion of modes of thought which are not rational, which effectively damage rational thought and discourse.

Gay marriage is just a heterosexual marriage between two men or two women: besides being of the same gender, there seems to be no difference. Welcome to the 21th century I say to all opponents.

That's a great soundbite, but I'm not big on judges who are big on soundbites. It seems to me that rather than ruling whether A or B is more substantial--which does not sound like a legal distinction to me--he should rule that Prop 22 was unconstitutional under CA's constitution, if that is the case. (I'm inclined to think that it is, but I have not read CA's constitution, and should probably read that of my own state first.) If not, he is forced to rule (whether he personally agrees or does not) that current CA law prohibits those marriages.

You may think I'm splitting hairs, but the law IS ABOUT splitting hairs. You don't do the "right" thing for the wrong reason. You do what the law says you must, and you work to change the law if you disagree with the outcome it requires. Judges simply casting aside laws with which they disagree weakens the law for everyone.

scrat

No, I don't think you are inappropriately splitting hairs here. The tough legal/social questions arise where rights or principles clash, and hair splitting becomes the only mode by which we can best choices, as you suggest.

But 'judges simply casting aside laws with which they disagree' mis-states the issue. This isn't a small town judge rescinding local speed limits because he's just bought a new hemi, or a mad evangelist who's been told by a deep and resonant midnight voice to execute the firstborn male child of all families whose names end with 'stein'.

This is a fellow who holds that the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are senior to legislation which constitutes a diminishment of such freedoms.

As you know, I believe that where we might err, we ought to err on the side of liberty.

It will be very interesting to see how these cases play out.

This is not the first time a proposition was voted in by California voters which was conflicting with the Constitution. They also voted against Pay TV in the Sixties.

I honestly don't care about the gay marriage issue as much as I care about the judicial system and the Democratic party again hijacking the system against the vote of the people.

There once was a time when Democrats were the advocates of Democracy, and Republicans the advocates of maintaining a Republic. Remember the neverending debate about whether a political official should vote according to his conscience or according to the will of his constituency? Invariably, the Republicans were saying the former and the Democrats the latter. Now all has switched.

Again and again, the people vote one way, and if the Democrats lose, they just find a backdoor loophole to circumvent democracy. Their pompous actions show no regard for the rule of law or the will of the people. I have been told, time and time again, by liberal friends, something along the lines of "We really have to do [this], because the vast majority of America are just stupid small-town religious zealots. They really don't deserve a vote on these things."

Gay marriages in San Francisco is yet another example of how liberals think they're better than everyone else. What makes me the maddest is not the issue itself as much as the complete disregard for the rule of law and for the will of the people. The people have voted, time and time again, to not have gay marriages in California. Yet Gavin Newsom, hoping to stay the Democratic poster-boy for the world, made his own decision as to the legality of gay-marriage. Instead of his vote counting for 1/270,000,000th of the decision, it was 100%--thus invoking a monocratic totalitarian empire, as the democrats love to do.

The same people who are saying "leave the Iraqis to create their own government, otherwise it will never stand" are perfectly happy hijacking our government through grandstanding, fillibusters, and revisionist history.

What Arnold Schwarzennegger needs to do first is to state publicly that, whatever the outcome of the legal contest, these marriages will not be grandfathered in to new law. Those who were married illegally will need to be remarried, if this is made legal at all. This will slow down the hype, and will guarantee Schwarzennegger future political office, so long as the people vote for our leaders (and they're not just appointed by liberal monocrats.) Then both sides can fight on a fair playing ground.

Democrats always feel they have a moral immunity to law--that if they use the word "environment" or "feminism" or "civil rights" to justify their atrocities, they are excused from having to convince the people to approve of them. No. Sorry, but if the people don't value the environment over their having a Costco, there's nothing you can do about it except convince them otherwise. If gay marriage is to become legal, it needs to become so through the vote of the people, not through some farcical aquatic ceremony. Otherwise it will not stand.

Power to the People has a new meaning.

mrcolj, Your thesis emplies that "the people" never makes a mistake. Most of us understand the difference between what is right and what is wrong. Equal opportunity and the pursuit of happiness is an American birthright that has nothing to do with "majority votes" that denies it. Wake up and smell the bacon. Start with our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You won't go wrong - most of the time.

No, I know "the people" make mistakes, but I believe that this is the right of the people, and thus the definition of democracy.

To say that the Constitution outweighs the values of the people is to transfer all decision making power to lawyers, and that's just what's been happening.

Even lawyers can't override the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

They may try to interpret it, but that's the limitation.

I'm not arguing for a straight-democracy, ochlarchy, or otherwise. You know last week, when Arnold's plans cut the car-registration tax, and thus cut funding for higher ed, his opponents went straight to the supreme court, arguing they had the right to do so because their issue was so important? Thankfully they were shot down. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

When things don't go your way, I just think you have an obligation to take it to the people, not to the courts.

The lawyers and special interests have overridden the Constitution on many occassions by redefining our view of the Constitution. That's all a fair and legal part of the game, but it's never been taken this far. Saying this is part of the game is like saying pork belongs in politics. The world considers special interest groups as a subset of corruption, and I think they're right to do so.

Pork doesn't necessarily belong in politics, but it does whether we agree with it or not. You say that "lawyers and special interests have overriden the Constituion on may occasions." Please list them. Thx, c.i.

Doesn't that require that he throw the law out as unconstitutional? The wording sounds to me as if he simply skipped that step. That's where my complaint resides. Otherwise, we agree yet again. :wink:

The authors of the Constitution if you really read what they wrote, especially Jefferson, wrote a flexible document. They didn't believe it would stand for even a hundred years as it was. We've gone into how little it has changed before with such tomfoolery as Prohibition thrown into the mix. If a President can be elected on the Equal Rights provision, so can gays get married based on that same Amendment. It is Democracy that you can't be selective in applying it.

LW - The only flexibility intended was the ability to amend it when needed. If the Constitution were meant to simply be open to new interpretation any time it suited people, what would we need the amendment process for? Those in power could simply decide it meant whatever they wished it to mean. (That is of course exactly what some have done already, aided by folks like you who fail to see the danger in this "flexible" body of law you think is so nifty.)

A law that is open to new interpretation as societal norms change is no law at all. The Constitution, as with any law or set of laws, must mean something concrete, or it is without meaning. I submit that a lot of the problems we have and face today have been made worse by eroding the "concreteness" of the Constitution and of law. When society outgrows a law or set of laws, the law should be repealed, and a new law passed. When we find the Constitution does not allow for things we feel are necessary of our government, we are supposed to amend it, not simply "find" the authority to do what we wish in the margins.

When we cede to government the authority to ignore the Constitution when it suits our ends, we have torn from the Constitution its power to bar them from doing things we do not wish them to do. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that the 2nd amendment allows for infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, without suggesting that maybe the rights to freedom of religion and free, unfettered speech are also open to constraint and limitation by the government.

You're attributing perfection to a document the authors did not consider perfect. They knew full well that it was open to interpretation. Words, or semantics if you will, cannot convey absolute thought. You can gnash your teeth all day long about jurists interpreting the document not to your liking but your're only wearing them down.

It seems obvious to me that the constitution has to be interpreted, as is true with any document or law. This is the responsibility of the courts, to have the final word on the interpretation of the law.

I agree, Scrat that amending the Constitution is one way to try to protect certain rights and privileges, but if we amend the Constitution for every little nit picky thing any group wants, the document will become worthless and unwieldy. And I think it's absolutely wrong to amend the Constitution in such a way as to deprive a segment of our population of their rights. That's a misuse of the amendment process, and a violation of the spirit of the Constitution.

We already had that with Prohibition and the Marriage Amendment is of the same ilk.

NEWS ALERT
http://www.cnn.com
President Bush will announce he supports a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, the White House said. Announcement expected shortly. Details to come.

Yep, he just did it.