Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Same-Sex Marriage

[Suudy]

So how do we know whose “moral truths” are correct and how should we make decisions about this in a pluralist democracy with many different competing claims to moral truth?

As I keep arguing, through philosophical arguments. To try and do law without reference to philosophy is to essentially be arbitrary.

 

[JimG]

So how do we know whose “moral truths” are correct and how should we make decisions about this in a pluralist democracy with many different competing claims to moral truth?

In a pluralist democracy such decisions are made by voters, by legislatures, and by constitutional amendments. Yes, there are established methods of doing the democratic process. Five persons deciding for the nation is hardly a democratic process.

 

[SavannahGal]

Actually, the question as to whether the 14th Amendment protects a right to same sex marriage ought to be an easy one to answer. It was never there–in the intent, in the drafting, in the ratification, or in the understanding of it. It’s just not in there. The only reason that it’s not an easy question is that the Court has already arrogated to itself the power to change or add to the meaning of words that others have written for specific purposes. It’s no longer a question of what the Amendment means; it’s a question of what the justices would like for it to mean now.

Since the ratification of the 14th amendment, Equal Protection has never been bounded by tradition. If that were the case it would be essentially meaningless. While tradition may be an important principle in limiting the scope of rights not enumerated in the Constitution, Equal Protection has always been about challenging traditions that are pernicious. The Court could not have arrived at decisions like Brown v. Board of Education or Loving v. Virginia without this understanding.

 

[SavannahGal]

Which (as JimG has touched on in his response) is the problem. It seems the courts are not interested in finding truth. They are limiting their sources of information. Rather than conforming the law to reality, they are conforming it to their own will.

As far as Equal Protection, I would refer you to my response to JimG.

Regarding “finding truth?” I don’t understand your point. What sources of information were pertinent, yet not sufficiently reviewed?

 

[Tomdstone]

I guess it comes down to whether one believes morality is determined by the courts.

I don’t think that the courts are concerned with theological arguments. They rule on the basis of what they think the current law states.

 

[Tomdstone]

There are not different version of moral truths.

Not sure. Some say capital punishment is allowed, others say no. Some say torture is OK to protect a society from nuclear war, others say no. Some say that slaves should obey their masters, others say no. Some say wives should be subject to their husbands and wear headcovering in Church, others say no.

 

[Sy_Noe]

In a pluralist democracy such decisions are made by voters, by legislatures, and by constitutional amendments. Yes, there are established methods of doing the democratic process. Five persons deciding for the nation is hardly a democratic process.

We may not agree with their decisions. There are SC rulings I disagree with too. But the justices just didn’t anoint themselves. A President and Senate are elected and justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

 

[Sy_Noe]

There are not different version of moral truths. Just because a court says something is so carries no weight whatsoever when discussing morality. The idea constitutional rights accrue from engaging in sodomy is absolutely specious

Don’t ever recall saying there was.

 

[Sy_Noe]

So how do we know whose “moral truths” are correct and how should we make decisions about this in a pluralist democracy with many different competing claims to moral truth?

Bingo