What does that mean, though? Does that mean every judgment then needs to pass a popular vote?

it is quite another to say “”When The People ratified the right to privacy, they were consenting to abortion on demand.”

The people never ratified the right to privacy. That word is not found in the Constitution. Does that mean that invasion of privacy is legal, since the people have not voted it into the guiding instrument?

I must disagree. It should be left up to the individual CHURCHES!

But the job of the court is to interpret the constitution, exactly because they couldn’t even conceive of all of the things they would have to put in there even if they wanted to. That’s why they ended with the tenth amendment. Madison et al. knew that there would never be an absence of gaps in the constitution; in fact, constitutions are supposed to include every little thing. The Judiciary fills that gap by interpreting what is there.

I think it ultimately comes down to your opinion of judicial review. If you think John Marshall had his head up his ass, then any judgment that affects a change in the law (abortion, segregation, miranda rights) is an example of judicial activism. But if Marshall was right, then it is the judiciary’s duty to be the final arbiter of the constitutionality of a law.

In some countries, child marriage is legal — but WE don’t recognize it here. In others, polygamy is legal — but WE don’t recognize it here. In still others, same-sex marriage is just fine — but guess what? WE THE PEOPLE do not recognize it here. Those people may be legally married in their home countries, but if they move to the USA, they instantly become single again — there isn’t even a divorce.

So if you want to marry your 8 year old step-daughter, or your fourteenth wife, or your own brother, fine. Have a little ceremony, get a house, and live together just like any other married couple does.

Just don’t expect OUR government to recognize it as a legal “marriage”. No, that particular priviledge is granted by “We The People”, not by The Creator. It’s called “Consent of the Governed” in our Constitution, and without that consent, your peculiar arrangements are legally invalid.

So is SSM a constitutional right? The simple answer is NO — because We The People never gave our Consent to that. And one or two judges cannot read our consent into a constitution that is totally silent on the question of Marriage, gay or otherwise. Attempts to do so are doing a great job of making sure we DO make our consent explictly clear in our constitutions, state by state by state. The answer is NO, SSM is NOT a constitutional right!

If we have to spell that out for you in the federal constitution, i’m quite sure we will. Just keep pushing us.

But hey, whatever floats your boat. There’s no law saying that two boys can’t play house together. Just don’t expect anyone to take it very seriously. We did not consent to that.

Something of this nature is best left up to a direct vote.
What are the criteria for determining if an issue is “worthy” of a direct vote? I thought that’s why we had a representative republic?

The answer is NO, SSM is NOT a constitutional right!
Marriage of any kind is not a constitutional right. Equal protection under the law is a constitutional right. If you want to grant a privilege to one group of people and exclude others, that’s the amendment you’ll have to repeal.

one or two judges cannot read our consent into a constitution
Actually, that’s part of the job description of Supreme Court Justice.

It’s called “Consent of the Governed” in our Constitution, and without that consent, your peculiar arrangements are legally invalid.
So, if there’s a vote tomorrow that golfers cannot be married since it creates golf widows every Sunday, thereby harming marriage, that’s OK? There’s a term for that: tyranny of the majority.

Was the Civil Rights Act put up to a popular vote? How about Brown v. Board of Education as a piece of judicial activism? Were those justices wrong to end segregation, when part of the population felt it was their privilege to segregate? The judiciary acts as a check to the excesses of the commmon will. Federal judges are appointed for life for that very purpose.

If we have to spell that out for you in the federal constitution, i’m quite sure we will. Just keep pushing us.
That’s obviously the plan of the gay marriage movement; force a motion on a constitutional amendment, create a constitutional crisis which results in an endgame at the 14th amendment. Those who are pushing for a gay marriage amendment are actually playing into their hands.

Don’t claim that marriage is a “right” when what you are really doing is telling people to change the few millennia-old definition of marriage for the benefit of some privileges.

So all of humanity, for the rest of time, needs to live by the standards of our millenial ancestors? Shall we get rid of all of our wheels and fire, while we’re at it?

You agree with me on my point; you’re just saying that individual legislastures and individual states should decide if gay couples should receive tax breaks and stuff…. right?

I don’t know what the criteria is for determining what gets a direct vote and what is for our elected representatives. I imagine that these kinds of hot button societal issues are better left to direct vote, but that is admittedly just my opinion.

Equal protection under the law is a constitutional right. If you want to grant a privilege to one group of people and exclude others, that’s the amendment you’ll have to repeal.

That’s simply not true. Marriage doesn’t fall under the “equal protection” clause precisely because we are not talking about rights, but about privileges.

Were those justices wrong to end segregation, when part of the population felt it was their privilege to segregate?

Yes they were wrong. It’s called freedom of association.

The judiciary acts as a check to the excesses of the commmon will. Federal judges are appointed for life for that very purpose.

Do you have a source to back up your claim that the reason federal judges are appointed for life is to prevent the excesses of the common will?

So all of humanity, for the rest of time, needs to live by the standards of our millenial ancestors? Shall we get rid of all of our wheels and fire, while we’re at it?

Can you just address the argument instead?

Perhaps you could explain to us why you think polygamy is such a bad thing? I think this is relevant, because the philosophical underpinnings of our constitution depends on balancing the rights of the individual against the greater good of the populace.

That’s actually a debate for another day. We can hold different opinions on whether or not polgamy is good or bad, but there is no question (yet) that The State has every right to allow or prohibit multiple marriage as “We The People” see fit. If we want to enact a law or constitutional amendment to allow it, we can. But it would be an injustice for a judge to simply read a right into the constitution that is clearly not there, never was, and more importantly — we never consented to.

Consent of the governed is a very high principle in this country. You want to see the same-sex marriage issue become a festering sore on society that lingers for generations? Just let a judge force it on us without seeking our consent, like they did in Roe v Wade. The reason that issue is still so heated & contentious is because the right to an abortion is clearly not written in the constitution, it never was, and We The People were never asked for our consent to put it there. So the anger rages on, with no end in sight. SSM will be the same, if the will of the people is ignored, and new constitutional rights are invented out of thin air by an unelected elite.

Besides, Loving was about laws that kept the races apart. Marriage is a pact that brings the sexes together. Do you not see the difference between racial segregation and gender integration?