But when it comes to the Constitutional law of the future, shouldn’t we begin to restore respect for democracy, by letting the people speak with one loud voice on constitutional amendments?
This is patently silly. We’ve been divided along regional, etc. lines since the election of the first Adams administration. Indeed, our entire framework of government is based on the divisions of men, as the Federalist Papers clearly demonstrate. It is meant to exploit these divisions and thus create a less vulnerable commonwealth.
But whether it happens by Minimalist, or by Perfectionist grounds, one thing it will not be: Democratic.
You probably mean small "d" democratic, I suspect. Otherwise you are using a proper noun and thus you’re referring to the Democratic party.
Anyway, our government is not particularly condusive to majority rule; indeed, within it are significant checks on the authority of "the people," and it is in many ways anti-majoritarian. Rightly so, because the founders realized that majorities can create much mischief.
The long-term legal strategy of GLBT.inc is to wear down the existing moral spirit of America...
Or they could simply be trying to change peoples’ minds. Surveys certainly demonstrate that each new generation is less hostile to homosexuals than the last; a good thing IMHO. So if democracy, majority rule, etc. is your concern, it seems that a good case can be made that an increasing majority have come to see the merit to the argument that sexuality should be left up to the individual.
Epicurus - 08:04am on 04/08/2006
they could simply be trying to change peoples’ minds
Of course, but whose mind? The people’s? Or just a few judges?
It is my opinion that the authority to write novel new constitutional priviledges lies with the people, and nowhere else. We don’t complain when judges make sweeping rulings that we generally agree with anyway, but it was never within their domain to make such rulings anyway. But through our complacence and apathy, we’ve allowed them to assume responsibility.
Right or wrong, the push for a Federal Marriage Amendment is an affirmation and uprising of the American Moral Spirit. Finding an existing constitutional right to same-sex marriage through judicial fiat, whether by perfectionism or minimalism, is merely shoving unpopular morality down our throats, on the hope that we will swallow it.
If the people want to ratify a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, let them. But it’s absurd for anyone to suggest that we already have ratified it, or that we don’t have the right to do so if we want to.
Marty - 09:04am on 04/08/2006
Marty,
What push? The FMA is dead in the water.
As to the issue of marraige, the government should simply leave that domain.
The courts exist as a counter-majoritarian check; which is why we have unelected, lifetime appointed federal judges who may only be removed from office if their acts violate the "good behavior."
As to whom they are trying to persuade, clearly they are persuading each new generation that sexuality is a domain which should not be under the purview of state interference or regulation.
Epicurus - 10:04pm on 04/08/2006
What push? The FMA is dead in the water.
Nah, she’s still building up steam. State by state by state, court decision by court decision by court decision. Every time Lambda wins in court (so far, they aren’t doing very well), another state realizes the need for an amendment. 19 States so far, with another 6 voting this year.
If and when DOMA is struck down, FMA will be in the bag.
Marty - 04:04am on 04/09/2006
If and when DOMA is struck down, FMA will be in the bag.
Okay maybe not "in the bag", but that will be a high-water mark. There are more than enough states today with DOMA protection, that if lost, will have no recourse left but ratification of a federal amendment.
The offensive thing is this minimalist belief that it will be okay for judges to "find" an existing Constitutional right to SSM, right at the moment when opponents are unable—barely—to demand otherwise. That is to say, "because we cannot quite generate the overwhelming support to say otherwise, there must be a constitutional right to SSM."
This sapping of the moral spirit of america has consequences far beyond what happens to our marriage laws...
Marty - 04:04am on 04/09/2006
It’s not marriage.
robert108 - 09:04am on 04/09/2006
As to the issue of marraige, the government should simply leave that domain.
Epicurus is right. This is where this debate should end. I’ve visited with a number of homosexuals about the idea of whether or not the government (federal or state) should be in the business of marriage. When presented with information in this context they tend to agree.
The government enterd the business of marriage, not because they wanted to make a moral statement, but because it was a way to generate more tax revenue. Plain and simple.
Take the moral debate to a church, get it out of my government.
Dave W - 10:04am on 04/09/2006
Another distraction from the real issue. It’s not a political issue, although the lefties are trying very hard to politicize it. It’s about what marriage is, and what it isn’t. In its attempt to mainstream homosexuality to destroy the traditional family, the lefties are attacking the institution of marriage. Although some of the details of the requirements for marriage have changed through the ages, one thing has remained constant: it is between men and women. Homosexual sex, being purely recreational, is not the glue that holds society together. The family structure, with husband, wife and children, is the basic unit of society. In order to convince me of the virtue of destroying that for the selfish desires of a small minority special interest group, you are going to have to enumerate a lot of benefits to society in general. Otherwise, the cost is way too high.
robert108 - 10:04am on 04/09/2006
Take the moral debate to a church, get it out of my government.
Your government?
Our government! We can have a moral debate any time we want to.
Marty - 10:04am on 04/09/2006
Marriage is a religious institution, not a government one.
But when it comes to the Constitutional law of the future, shouldn’t we begin to restore respect for democracy, by letting the people speak with one loud voice on constitutional amendments?
This is patently silly. We’ve been divided along regional, etc. lines since the election of the first Adams administration. Indeed, our entire framework of government is based on the divisions of men, as the Federalist Papers clearly demonstrate. It is meant to exploit these divisions and thus create a less vulnerable commonwealth.
But whether it happens by Minimalist, or by Perfectionist grounds, one thing it will not be: Democratic.
You probably mean small "d" democratic, I suspect. Otherwise you are using a proper noun and thus you’re referring to the Democratic party.
Anyway, our government is not particularly condusive to majority rule; indeed, within it are significant checks on the authority of "the people," and it is in many ways anti-majoritarian. Rightly so, because the founders realized that majorities can create much mischief.
The long-term legal strategy of GLBT.inc is to wear down the existing moral spirit of America...
Or they could simply be trying to change peoples’ minds. Surveys certainly demonstrate that each new generation is less hostile to homosexuals than the last; a good thing IMHO. So if democracy, majority rule, etc. is your concern, it seems that a good case can be made that an increasing majority have come to see the merit to the argument that sexuality should be left up to the individual.
they could simply be trying to change peoples’ minds
Of course, but whose mind? The people’s? Or just a few judges?
It is my opinion that the authority to write novel new constitutional priviledges lies with the people, and nowhere else. We don’t complain when judges make sweeping rulings that we generally agree with anyway, but it was never within their domain to make such rulings anyway. But through our complacence and apathy, we’ve allowed them to assume responsibility.
Right or wrong, the push for a Federal Marriage Amendment is an affirmation and uprising of the American Moral Spirit. Finding an existing constitutional right to same-sex marriage through judicial fiat, whether by perfectionism or minimalism, is merely shoving unpopular morality down our throats, on the hope that we will swallow it.
If the people want to ratify a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, let them. But it’s absurd for anyone to suggest that we already have ratified it, or that we don’t have the right to do so if we want to.
Marty,
What push? The FMA is dead in the water.
As to the issue of marraige, the government should simply leave that domain.
The courts exist as a counter-majoritarian check; which is why we have unelected, lifetime appointed federal judges who may only be removed from office if their acts violate the "good behavior."
As to whom they are trying to persuade, clearly they are persuading each new generation that sexuality is a domain which should not be under the purview of state interference or regulation.
What push? The FMA is dead in the water.
Nah, she’s still building up steam. State by state by state, court decision by court decision by court decision. Every time Lambda wins in court (so far, they aren’t doing very well), another state realizes the need for an amendment. 19 States so far, with another 6 voting this year.
If and when DOMA is struck down, FMA will be in the bag.
If and when DOMA is struck down, FMA will be in the bag.
Okay maybe not "in the bag", but that will be a high-water mark. There are more than enough states today with DOMA protection, that if lost, will have no recourse left but ratification of a federal amendment.
The offensive thing is this minimalist belief that it will be okay for judges to "find" an existing Constitutional right to SSM, right at the moment when opponents are unable—barely—to demand otherwise. That is to say, "because we cannot quite generate the overwhelming support to say otherwise, there must be a constitutional right to SSM."
This sapping of the moral spirit of america has consequences far beyond what happens to our marriage laws...
It’s not marriage.
Epicurus is right. This is where this debate should end. I’ve visited with a number of homosexuals about the idea of whether or not the government (federal or state) should be in the business of marriage. When presented with information in this context they tend to agree.
The government enterd the business of marriage, not because they wanted to make a moral statement, but because it was a way to generate more tax revenue. Plain and simple.
Take the moral debate to a church, get it out of my government.
Another distraction from the real issue. It’s not a political issue, although the lefties are trying very hard to politicize it. It’s about what marriage is, and what it isn’t. In its attempt to mainstream homosexuality to destroy the traditional family, the lefties are attacking the institution of marriage. Although some of the details of the requirements for marriage have changed through the ages, one thing has remained constant: it is between men and women. Homosexual sex, being purely recreational, is not the glue that holds society together. The family structure, with husband, wife and children, is the basic unit of society. In order to convince me of the virtue of destroying that for the selfish desires of a small minority special interest group, you are going to have to enumerate a lot of benefits to society in general. Otherwise, the cost is way too high.
Take the moral debate to a church, get it out of my government.
Your government?
Our government! We can have a moral debate any time we want to.
Marriage is a religious institution, not a government one.