Hardly relevant. Many laws can fall foul of the Constitution. But marriage is a matter of federal law in Australia, so the legislature can make laws about it and are not surprisingly influenced by their voters, particularly after asking the voters specifically what they prefer.
Indeed. That means that we could make a law saying that I can, and it would be legal. It does not mean that we can find an implied right in words in the Bill of Rights that do not indicate such a right.
Are there any constraints on what rights we could include? If not, the Supreme Court becomes an unelected superlegislature. Do you consider that just?
It has this because it has declared it has this. Do you believe in checks and balances? If so, what possible check is there upon Supreme Court activism? Constitutional Amendment? But the Supreme Court can “interpret” that out of existence!
So that, for instance, adults cannot marry children.
Yes, but you haven’t answered me about what the constraints on liberties are. Is there any line the judiciary cannot (gradually) cross?
The Supreme Court acts on a precedent that makes the Supreme Court a superlegislature without checks and balances. This hurts both conservative and liberal causes, depending on the case.
Children are minors, and cannot give consent. Mind you, by the looks of it, in some parts of the US, that’s hardly a constraint to those God-fearing Christians looking for a little purity.niceatheist:
So that, for instance, adults cannot marry children.
Who knows? Courts only deal with the situations as they currently are. But allowing same-sex couples to enter civil marriages seems to have a pretty limited affect on anyone else’s liberty.
The Supreme Court is empowered by the Constitution. If it isn’t working as people intended, then amend the constitution to restrict its authority. Of course we both know that would be a horrible idea, as witnessed by the paper tiger courts in other jurisdictions.
Well, I don’t. I think the Supreme Court applies the Constitution as it sees appropriate.
It’s whatever a given society says it is.
And societies have done so since the dawn of time. In the end, almost every aspect of human conduct is pretty much a consensus, though changing that conduct can often take a rather violent or revolutionary form. For instance, the Slave States did not give up the notion of slavery willingly or happily, but basically had to be beaten into the mud.
I suppose it could, but I don’t like the idea of civil liberties being left simply to popular poll. As uncomfortable as it may be for some, either political and judicial interventions are best. The mob should not decide what liberties are available to which people.
Ultimately, a society does. Gay marriage has steadily been growing as an issue for two decades now, and societal attitudes in the West, at least, have been changing towards acceptance. Whether it was via statute, as was done in places like Canada and the UK, or via referendum like Australia or Ireland, or via the courts, as in the US, it’s not as if SSM appeared out of nowhere and was just imposed. It’s been coming for a while now.
Plenty of societies have done just that, and indeed, in the US, capital punishment is still practiced.
The Spartans used to leave unfit infants out in the open to die of exposure.
Ah, so we’re right back to reducto ad absurdum arguments. The sad part is that I could, without even jumping to Google, find examples to show that societies have done just those sorts of things.
So…therefore it’s right for gay “rights” activists to do the same thing?
In that case I would suggest discussing the matter on a Jewish forum since Catholics follow the New Testament.
Of course I would. Why would you assume otherwise?niceatheist:
Gloves are coming off, eh?
Tell us you’d have the same problem if a Muslim imam did the same thing.
Now where did I say that?
Or not… There aren’t any slaves in the Christian world anymore, and human slavery is considered fundamentally immoral.
Only if what it is to be man or woman is also decided by society. Wait…, that may have been a prophetic statement!
That’s a false choice argument and only being used because the Court erroenesly ruled in favour of your agenda.