If the following viewpoint is mostly true, then I think the means in which gay marriage will become legalized in this country is wrong. Circumventing the publics’ desires are what liberal judges are more often doing when they effect social change in the court system. From Mark Belling
Veiwpoint - "*No state legislature in America has voted for legal gay marriage and no state referendum has approved it either. Public opinion polls continue to show overwhelming opposition. But thanks to a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling, gay marriage is likely to be legal everywhere. Since custom has dictated that all states must recognize as legal a marriage in any state, it will be hard for the other 49 states to not honor Massachusetts’ gay marriages. Imagine the chaos if a couple was considered legally wed in Massachusetts, Michigan and Ohio but not in Florida, Tennessee or Wisconsin. The federal government would be caught in the middle as well. If a couple is legally married in one state but not another, are they considered married for federal tax purposes? What a mess.
The Massachusetts court, like all liberal courts, used the Constitution as the tool to effect social change. There is, of course, nothing in the Constitution that guarantees two men to marry one another just as nothing in the Constitution gives women the right to kill their babies or Casey Martin the right to ride a cart while playing pro golf. These invented constitutional rights are the way unaccountable liberal judges impose a social agenda that is not supported by the majority.
Virtually all major religions in America refuse to sanction gay marriages. The majority of the public is against it. If the Massachusetts ruling stands, we will live in a country in which the majority’s right of self-governance has been stolen. Most of us couldn’t care less if Tom and Jerry, Ben and Jerry, Jerry and Jeff or even Mutt and Jeff shack up and do what they will with one another. But we resent being told we must give such relationships the same legal standing as a marriage between a man and a woman. Those are our values. Call them bigoted or whatever other loaded term you want. They’re still our values."*
I am NOT condemning the act of Gay Marriage, merely the process with which it has become law. I could take this issue up with any number of activity the liberal courts have decided on, but I choose this issue because of the seemingly high percentage of gays on this board and thier respective intelligence.
Please keep the discussion narrowed to the first paragraph -
IOW Are the means with which the courts are legalizing gay marriage OK with you?
The courts are not legalizing anything. They’re indicating the matter was always legal. Massachusetts asked the legislature to fix the laws to clarify their scope. If that seems like a silly thing to you, or this author, then I don’t know what to say. It’s part and parcel of judicial review to point out inconsistencies, or to determine the scope of a law.
One wonders if the judges found against homosexual marriages whether the outcry would have been exactly the same, ie “That’s not fair, there should have been a law passed, judges don’t get to just wildly interpret the law like that!” Yep, one wonders…
First of all, opposition for gay marriage is not “overwhelming”. It tends to be a majority (though often the majority is lost if the word “marriage” isn’t used, and instead equivalent civil unions are replaced), however, though the acceptance of gay marriages is increasing.
I support legalizing gay marriage and making homosexual couples equal in all ways with heterosexual couples. Laws that enforce religious values are, in my opinion, contrary to personal liberty and the principles of our country. Courts should stand up against laws that violate personal liberty and equality.
I don’t think legislation should be made in the courts, but in some cases, majority thinking doesn’t mean that should be the law. All people in our society should be equal in the eyes of the law, and marriage rights and privileges should be given to all or none.
If rights were determined by the “majority,” only straight, white, able-bodied, middle-class, Christian males* of a certain age would have rights. And we wouldn’t need laws, since everything would be decided by a lynch mob. Laws are enacted to protect the rights of everyone who is **not **a straight, white, able-bodied, middle-class, Christian male of a certain age.
If the opinions of the majority are in violation of someone’s rights, somebody has to stand up for the minority; nobody should have the power to vote someone’s rights away. Even if my partner and I were the only gay couple in the world, nobody would have the right to deny us a marriage license.
*I’m referring to *political *majority, not numerical.
The fundamental flaw expressed in the OP is a misunderstanding of what America is about. Contrary to nearly universal belief, our consititution is actually designed to protect minority viewpoints, since the majority is pretty good at protecting itself.
I think in some cases you need to find the allowance in the Constitution. Because it doesnt ban something doesnt then make it automatically acceptable. I think in those cases we need to take the will of the people into considereation.
Your rights are extended to you via the majority. If the majority don`t want to extend a certain right to the populace (including themselves) then that should be determined as the will of the people.
Polygamy does not bring equal protection into question. The Massachusetts court decided that gay people could not be treated differently than staright people or be denied the same rights and priveleges. Polymay laws do not discriminate between gay and straight or create an artificial class of people who can be treated differently.
You really don’t seem to be getting it that the will of the people plays absolutely no role in determing civil rights. It’s an interpretive process not a democratic one.
Right, sort of. We believe, in theory, in protecting the rights of all citizens. You can’t start cherry picking when you don’t like how that plays out. That would kinda be the point.
Okay, then, a majority of people posting to this thread have told you that your opinion is wrong. Obviously, if the majority view is always correct and binding, you are going to graciously make a post in which you recant your erroneous views.
Or, perhaps, your right to hold and express an opinion that disagrees with the rest of us is your privilege as an individual, not subject to majority review to ensure you conform.
In which case, the opinions of the 90%+ of Americans who are not gay as to whether gay people should marry each other if they so choose are, in fact, not apropos.
Oh, and by the way, even the strictest of constructionists (as I have it from Dewey) believe that Americans have the right to do whatever is not made illegal, not, as your response to Diogenes suggests, that they can do only what the Constitution clearly permits. The difference in their perspective is that they do not see the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments (and a few others, notably the Fifth) as guaranteeing the variety of rights that the Supremes have found there, only (in their view) that such rights may be guaranteed by state constitution or by statute.
Finally, I would very much like an expansion of what you meant in your post responding to Stoid. I can see one meaning in which I would applaud your statement, and another which I would vilify, and would very much like clarification.
I really don’t feel this (the quoted passage) to be a very honest statement; I don’t have any kind of cite, but my impression (from my gathered experience of interacting with folks) is that the majority of the opponents of gay marriage would be more than happy to see homosexuality itself outlawed; this statement is just a slightly more verbose version of “hey, don’t get me wrong, some of my friends are gay, but…” - a rather transparent attempt to dress up bigotry in fashionable clothes.
If the writer does not care less what Jerry and his partner do, what the hell difference does it make to him or his ‘values’ what legal status is afforded to Jerry?
There is no logical, sensible, rational argument against gay marriage. It is a gut reaction from people. We don’t make or interpret laws based on the “ick factor”.
Poly - I`m not, as I have said, disputing the act of gay marriage, just the manner in which it has become legalized, or as some have said - clarified. Through the courts.
Now, having heard the opinion of others here, I am beginning to understand what the problems are.
My response to Stoid was in referrence to the people who embraced the constitution some 225 odd years ago, being the majority (at the time). That continues today with the majority holding the document sacred and wishing that it remain so. The majority enforce its’ principles and interpret its’ meanings. The majority should also be able to ammend it.
Nitpick: Rights are enumerated and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but as the document says itself, are not extended or granted by any authority but innate in every individual as a matter of their existence.
That said, whuckfistle, how do you come by a conclusion that “the majority enforce” the Constitution’s principles and “interpret its meanings” as if either are roles of the general populace? The majority certainly does not enforce anything, law enforcement enforces. The majority certainly does not interpret anthing, that’s the very specific role of the courts. The majority plays a part in amending the Constitution, but only as final arbiters of a process which begins with elected officials, not a public referendum.
Am I misunderstanding your meaning or are you (like a vast number of Americans, including the author of the piece of crap which was referenced and quoted in the OP) in need of a brushup on Civics 101?
My general references to the “majority” are such that I think that if the majority wanted to drastically change the Constitution, they could. Given enough time and willpower and enough backing, the document could be altered to meet the needs of the people demanding the changes. This generally would be an act of the majority. That`s basically what I mean by such statements.
I realise that the judicial branch enforces and interprets- but if the majority wanted to change it in some way it could/should be done.
Now, as far as this topic in concerned, I would think that if it was so cut and dry, there wouldnt be opposition to the interpretation as there is. Even Democratic liberal candidates cant come out and say they are in favor of gay marriages for fear of loss of support. And why haven`t the judges in the other 49 states ruled the same way?