Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
I understand, tybur. Just questioning how impartially such interpretation can be done. The ‘brush strokes’ are broad enough that it is possible for even very learned judges to have diametrically opposed views on the constitutionality of the same question.
I am fairly new to all this, although I do know a decent amount of European 18th Century history. Where I came from (and where I live mostly now) these kinds of questions get resolved by legislation.
BrooklynCouch — Sure, I’ll agree with that. BUT if this is such a strong societal value… ya know, that same-sex couples are incapable of raising children, not deserving of tax breaks, and are generally ‘less than’ —> Shouldn’t the Constitution be ammended to reflect this?!
“28th Amendment: All citizens are afforded equal protection under the LAW except for homosexuals or other individuals engaging in same-sex “non-platonic” relationships. These couples shall have limited protection under the law, but an individual State remove all protections from these persons if decided through majority referendum.”
It can’t be unconstitutional if you get that passed! If the vast majority thinks this way, then this shouldn’t be a problem!! You only need 2/3 of the U.S. Congress and 3/4 of the States legislatures (34 of 50) to ratify this new amendment!
By tybur6 on August 4, 2010 6:17 PM, recognizing that kids are best raised by a man and a woman has nothing (at least directly) to do with religion. It’s just so obvious to many, probably most people. It’s a societal value.
Even if you are part of the minority that disagrees with me, at least have the clarity to recognize that such changes shouldn’t be created by judicial edict.
By the way… What is going on in Western Europe that is directly related to same-sex marriage?!
Is this related to the European Union is the forming of the “Beast Kingdom” that will engulf the world? and things like a unified monetary system being one of the tools of the Anti-Christ and the “seven years of peace” is the work of the Devil…. all preventing the second coming of Christ?
In the end we’ll all be sodomizers and baby killers doing the bidding of Ba‘al Zebûb?
BrooklynCouch — I think you and the “majority of Americans” are dead wrong… but I don’t think your less sophisticated. I think that you simply don’t understand the difference between a LEGAL union and a religious one. That’s fine. You’ll lose in court, but that’s fine.
Etson – This is how the law works. There is the foundation — the constitution. Then there is case law that goes up against the constitution. This is the 200+ years of refinement and individual examples that give definition to the constitution’s broad brush strokes.
The constitution is quite forgiving, actually. For example, this is why you can know carry assault weapons in National Parks and on the streets of Washington DC.
But to your point, it’s still a question of the constitution. If the judge was stepping outside his bounds and Prop 8 doesn’t violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses… then his decision will be reversed. But it’s a pretty narrow decision. Maybe they should have written a Prop 8 that didn’t prima facie violate Due Process and Equal Protection. Then this would have easily found it’s way to the Supreme Court…. as it is, I doubt it will make it that far. The court will refuse to review.
I am not here to entertain you. Just know that the vast majority of Americans agree with me, and it’s typical leftist/progressive arrogant drivel to think that I/we are any less sophisticated, compassionate, or enlightened than thee.
I understand, tybur. Just questioning how impartially such interpretation can be done. The ‘brush strokes’ are broad enough that it is possible for even very learned judges to have diametrically opposed views on the constitutionality of the same question.
I am fairly new to all this, although I do know a decent amount of European 18th Century history. Where I came from (and where I live mostly now) these kinds of questions get resolved by legislation.
BrooklynCouch — Sure, I’ll agree with that. BUT if this is such a strong societal value… ya know, that same-sex couples are incapable of raising children, not deserving of tax breaks, and are generally ‘less than’ —> Shouldn’t the Constitution be ammended to reflect this?!
“28th Amendment: All citizens are afforded equal protection under the LAW except for homosexuals or other individuals engaging in same-sex “non-platonic” relationships. These couples shall have limited protection under the law, but an individual State remove all protections from these persons if decided through majority referendum.”
It can’t be unconstitutional if you get that passed! If the vast majority thinks this way, then this shouldn’t be a problem!! You only need 2/3 of the U.S. Congress and 3/4 of the States legislatures (34 of 50) to ratify this new amendment!
By tybur6 on August 4, 2010 6:17 PM, recognizing that kids are best raised by a man and a woman has nothing (at least directly) to do with religion. It’s just so obvious to many, probably most people. It’s a societal value.
Even if you are part of the minority that disagrees with me, at least have the clarity to recognize that such changes shouldn’t be created by judicial edict.
By the way… What is going on in Western Europe that is directly related to same-sex marriage?!
Is this related to the European Union is the forming of the “Beast Kingdom” that will engulf the world? and things like a unified monetary system being one of the tools of the Anti-Christ and the “seven years of peace” is the work of the Devil…. all preventing the second coming of Christ?
In the end we’ll all be sodomizers and baby killers doing the bidding of Ba‘al Zebûb?
Something like that?
“As it is, I doubt it will make it that far. The court will refuse to review.”
That would surprise me greatly. The Supreme Court will definitely pass upon it.
In the interim, as one of my favorite bloggers just wrote, “Thanks for the extra [conservative] 7% turnout in November!!!
BrooklynCouch — I think you and the “majority of Americans” are dead wrong… but I don’t think your less sophisticated. I think that you simply don’t understand the difference between a LEGAL union and a religious one. That’s fine. You’ll lose in court, but that’s fine.
Etson – This is how the law works. There is the foundation — the constitution. Then there is case law that goes up against the constitution. This is the 200+ years of refinement and individual examples that give definition to the constitution’s broad brush strokes.
The constitution is quite forgiving, actually. For example, this is why you can know carry assault weapons in National Parks and on the streets of Washington DC.
But to your point, it’s still a question of the constitution. If the judge was stepping outside his bounds and Prop 8 doesn’t violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses… then his decision will be reversed. But it’s a pretty narrow decision. Maybe they should have written a Prop 8 that didn’t prima facie violate Due Process and Equal Protection. Then this would have easily found it’s way to the Supreme Court…. as it is, I doubt it will make it that far. The court will refuse to review.
Intentional or not, entertainment always accompanies these types of discussions.
I am not here to entertain you. Just know that the vast majority of Americans agree with me, and it’s typical leftist/progressive arrogant drivel to think that I/we are any less sophisticated, compassionate, or enlightened than thee.