R
Rau
Guest
Nah, no they don’t. There’s always a 3rd (and / or 4th) person involved. Maybe that’s really an argument for multi-person marriage. A recognition of the full breadth of the family?
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
4 Justices found no such right for SSM. It was a 5-4 decision. Thus, we must conclude that - objectively - there is grave doubt that the majority reasoned soundly. To be fair to all - strident legal opinion one way or the other smack of hubris.
N
niceatheist
Guest
I disagree. The core of constitutional theory is the bedrock laws of a land, the basic framework of governance, should be very hard to change. This is particularly true of a federal system, where the nation is built of multiple states. An easy to change constitution in such a federal structure would lead to severe instability.niceatheist:
Herein lies an error, perhaps attributable to hubris. The Constitution should not be so hard to change that the very thought (these days at least) seems to be anathema. This is all the more true when one considers the extent of time over which it is expected to remain applicable.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Yes, and this is precisely why judicial activism is so awful.
N
niceatheist
Guest
And if there was an actual solid definition of “judicial activism”, I meet even be compelled to agree. Generally the definition appears to be “they ruled in a way I disagreed with”.niceatheist:
Yes, and this is precisely why judicial activism is so awful.
The Supreme Court’s role as a constitutional court is set out int he Constitution, and all that is implied by having the power to overturn law and interpret the Constitution.
R
Rau
Guest
I answered with respect to “gay couples”. I believe that was his context.Even when gay people marry people of the opposite sex?
Less common lately, but certainly not impossible.
R
Rau
Guest
Then the scope of the Constitution ought to be constrained accordingly, both in the matters it addresses explicitly, and the extent of delving and divining and inferring that is permitted to discover implied rights, eg SSM, that no one ever intentionally (knowingly) put there. If it is to be extremely hard to change, then we can’t risk its meaning being derived from other than plain, transparent language - otherwise the judges place themselves above the document and can’t practically be corrected.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
Well, the Constitution is what it is. That it isn’t what you would like is, frankly, tough luck for you.niceatheist:
Then the scope of the Constitution ought to be constrained accordingly, both in the matters it addresses explicitly, and the extent of delving and divining and inferring that is permitted to discover implied rights, eg SSM, that no one ever intentionally (knowingly) put there.
R
Rau
Guest
The debating point was the desirable balance between its “bedrockness” and ease of change. Your response here merely avoids the point.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
This is precisely what you have been denying.
I’m glad to see that you’ve come around.
R
Rau
Guest
Oh, a separate point, not in debate?
N
niceatheist
Guest
My view is that no matter how inconvenient it may be for any party, a constitution should require a very high amount of consensus before being changed. No one party or interest should be able to gain sufficient dominance to unilaterally alter a constitution. That it means not everything you hold dear or everything I hold dear will end up being protected or pre-eminent isn’t a sign of weakness, but a sign that power in a well-functioning democracy cannot sit in one just set of hands, nor can liberties simply be left up to the mob.niceatheist:
The debating point was the desirable balance between its “bedrockness” and ease of change. Your response here merely avoids the point.
Gay marriage is here to stay in the West. I’m not demanding that you see the rightness of it. Such a demand would be ridiculous. But by this point plotting to undo it isn’t going to work. Surely there must be more pressing problems out there than trying to take yet more swings at a pretty small percentage of the population.
R
Rau
Guest
Sure. And the higher degree of consensus required to change the Constitution, the more straightforward the document should be.
N
niceatheist
Guest
No, because a legal document that requires any kind of supermajority to amend must leave enough undefined, while making core principals clear, otherwise it would, after a few decades, become completely unusable. There has to be ambiguity and expansiveness in a constitution, or it will fossilize.niceatheist:
Sure. And the higher degree of consensus required to change the Constitution, the more straightforward the document should be.
And really, the Founding Fathers were coming from an English Common Law tradition, where judges had long ago evolved the power to interpret law, and even invoke the notion that some laws held supremacy over others (which is how the British constitution still works today). There has to be structure, but room for future governments to be able to govern without having their hands tied.
Ultimately the biggest problem, particularly when you deal with those parts of a constitution that deal with civil liberties is that there are going to be clashes of liberties, and it is going to be up to the courts to decide where the balance is. A constitution that tried to predict all such clashes would be huge, unwieldy and still couldn’t contemplate all possible iterations.
At the end of the day, Obergefell v. Hodges sits within a general framework, dating back to the Constitution’s writing, that personal liberties should be as expansive as possible, and state interference in those liberties be limited to necessity. The “risks” of SSM are very few in my view, and thus whatever perceived or real clash with other liberties are relatively minor.
E
edwest211
Guest
Another dodge. There are more important things. Like indoctrinating children in schools, by adding other LGBT events to schools, by portraying gay married couples in an always positive light on TV. From the GLAAD web site: “Leading the conversation. Shaping the media narrative. Changing the culture. That’s how GLAAD accelerates acceptance for LGBTQ people.”
I don’t know if the guy standing in front of me at the store is gay or not. I don’t care.
And GLAAD does an annual report on LGBTQ inclusion on TV. So start shaking in your boots TV exec.s, GLAAD is gunning for you.
From the GLSEN web site: “Championing LGBTQ issues in K-12 education since 1990”
Inclusion means Christians are automatically excluded unless they’ve fallen for any of this.
I don’t know if the guy standing in front of me at the store is gay or not. I don’t care.
And GLAAD does an annual report on LGBTQ inclusion on TV. So start shaking in your boots TV exec.s, GLAAD is gunning for you.
From the GLSEN web site: “Championing LGBTQ issues in K-12 education since 1990”
Inclusion means Christians are automatically excluded unless they’ve fallen for any of this.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
If by “excluded” you mean Christians who oppose homosexuality aren’t permitted to use classrooms to spread hatred and fear against gay people, then bloody well right.
E
edwest211
Guest
Yet another dodge. An attempt to turn the tables. If a gay teacher brings her wife to class or significant other, what will kids think?
And the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds. Which helps special interests.
http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html
And the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds. Which helps special interests.
http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html
N
niceatheist
Guest
How is it a dodge? If you want to teach your kids to hate homosexuals, you can do it on your own time, and no, the supreme court is well within its rights to strike down statutes it finds to violate constitutional rights.
- Status