One could almost imagine this was my point. I don’t intend to be that terribly obscure.
I must have misunderstood your point, although it still escapes me. Sorry if I’m just being dense.
At any rate, it’s tangential to the OP, and has no bearing on the validity of the argument, either way, so I’ll agree to disagree on that point and let it go.
You are conflating two distinct ideas: conclusions and technique.
Because the *technique * that was used was exactly the correct one . The SC of MA is charged with the job of interpreting the law as they, learned judges schooled in these matters, understand it. That is what they did in this case.
Part B is the conclusion they came to. They concluded something different from what you believe they ought to have. It appears you believe they should have come down against gay marriage, both because it isn’t explicitly stated in Constitution, and because most people seem to not be in favor of it.
The only really debatable part of all this, and it isn’t that debatable, is the “does the Constitution protect it, or not?”, because the opinions of the people at large do not, and should not, play a part in their decisions. That’s not the way it works.
Except very occasionally. That’s why we do have the means to pass constitutional amendments, but it’s also why it’s so damn difficult to do so.
magog - thanks for the response. The link quoted in the OP made it sound like all the other 49 states would have to accept the Mass. law on the grounds that marriage in one state cant be illegal in another. So, it may affect the nation in its entirety. Hopefully the SC will take a stand on the issue and make a decision final, one way or the other.
spectrum - I don`t agree with you 100%. On principle, yes, but not in reality.
If we go back to the last Presidential election and look at the way the State Constitution of Florida was abused. The Gore supporters wanted to ignore the Constitutional process by which an election is ran. I beleive I heard the term “the will of the people” about a zillion times during that whoo-haa.
The fact remains that if the majority were to IGNORE the Constitution or interpret it in a bastardised fashion they could.
Imagine if we had all Extreme Right Wing judges on the stand or Extreme Left Wingers on the stand. Each group could, in essence, override past decisions and take proactive steps in determining social agenda from the bench. I don`t think you can say that anything that we take as a constitutional gimme is permanent.
Should be, but may not be.
The basic core principles of the Constitution will remain, but the adaptations of those principles could change.
Stoid - Understood.
So? They were stopped, on Constitutional grounds.
Yes. So? In any system involving humans there is the chance for human bias and human error. That does not change the reality of how the system works.
Unlikely, if you have any understanding how the judicial system works. Courts are loathe to directly overturn prior decisions. Instead great pains are taken to gently ease wrong decisions – and there have been wrong decisions (any decision that comes down opposed to liberty is wrong, AFAIC), such as Dred Scott or Hardwick – to the side to make room for corrected verdicts.
The freedoms protected by the broadly worded passages of the Constitution will adapt and evolve as society evolves. That is why any Constitution is a living document. Freedoms we did not recognize before (such as the right to privacy) or priveleges we should never have allowed (such as the ownership of slaves) will be corrected as the culture grows.
From the viewpoint:
This is an awfully silly thing to get upset about. The Federal Government has to make a yes/no decision to a question. So what? The first paragraph is so much gut reaction and emotion. Oh what a mess! Imagine the chaos!
:eek:
This is perhaps the most racist, bigoted statement I have ever read on this message board. I’m appalled.
I know a lot of “fundies”.
They claim to be against this because 1. God says its a sin
2.whatever other reasons
First, even if it really were a sin, thats God’s business.
I suppose He could strike them all down if He wanted, but I’m Not God.
Second, it doesn’t affect me or anyone else At All.
I just dont get it.
Article IV states that states will recognize “acts, records, and judicial procedings of every other state,” but this hasn’t stopped states from passing laws where they will not recognize same-sex marriges. So, this clearly is a grey area. IMHO, the Supreme Court will get involved when this inevitable conflict occurs.
States can do whatever they want, at least until the federal government gets involved…
spectrum -
Quote
The freedoms protected by the broadly worded passages of the Constitution will adapt and evolve as society evolves. That is why any Constitution is a living document. Freedoms we did not recognize before (such as the right to privacy) or priveleges we should never have allowed (such as the ownership of slaves) will be corrected as the culture grows.
That`s what I was getting at. Things change.
The founding forefathers could not have foreseen same sex marriages.
Issues like this will come and go and the interpretation of the Constitution regarding those issues will depend on who we have in the judicial, legislative, and executive structure at the time.
I hope, as I`m sure you do, that the basic principles of the Constitution will be upheld and that only positive progress will be made, as you have also stated.
I think it is inevitable that only positive progress will occur. America is, and has long been, drawn inexorably leftward by currents of social change.
The Founding Fathers may not have foreseen same-sex marriage, but they authored a document which, once society reached a certain level of progressively, renders same sex marriage a virtual surety. That’s why the reactionaries are attempting to undermine the progressiveness inherent in the Constitution with their decrepit Federal Marriage Amendment – though even that wouldn’t last if it were passed.
With gay marriage legal in Denmark and the Netherlands and soon Canada, civil-union type relationships available in Germany and soon Britain, gay marriage under one name or another is an inevitability in the Western world. The best the gay-haters can do is throw their support behind an amendment which will, by the twilight of this generation, make them appear as backwards minded and prudish as the fools who once foisted the Prohibition amendment upon this nation.
What ever … Bite me…
I’m sorry, but I get upset. You see I want to marry my sister, but she won’t marry me because she says it is against the law. Now if I can get the law change to legalize brother / sister marriages, well maybe, just maybe she will marry me…
Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize I was speaking to a child. My bad. I won’t make the same mistake again.
I’m creating a new law, jayjay’s law, which follows:
The longer a discussion on same-sex marriage continues, the closer the odds in favor of someone bringing incest, bestiality, pedophilia or bigamy into the argument approach infinity.
The point you are missing is the difference between ordinary law and fundamental law. If all the laws in your example were the regular kind then there would be no need for the legislature to repeal “law Z”. Those parts of it that were contradicted by “law X” would automatically be void when the newer law was passed. The situation is Mass is different. There the law contradicts the fundamental law of the state: its constitution. When ordinary law confronts fundamental law, it loses.
I don’t know how the Mass constitution can be amended but from what I hear it can’t be done in six months. If so then the judicial ruling gives the people no recourse. They can not exercise their democratic right to control the laws made in their name and their will has been trumped by the judiciary. State constitutions actually tend to be easier to amend than our national constitution which requires 2/3 majority of each house of Congress plus ratification by 3/4 of the states. Basically any proposal that is even mildly controvertial can be defeated so when the Supreme Court rules something unconstitutional that’s pretty much the end of it unless you can get new judges willing to reopen the issue appointed. That’s why fundamental law is such a pain in the fundament.
As for checks and balances, they are the death of majority rule. Democracy gets checked at the door.
You know, the reason I like the SMDB Great Debates is the powerful debating style of the posters.
It’s amazing how, like a game of telephone, news gets distorted. It’s also amazing how excessive speculation and extrapolation tends to be conflated with the facts.
The MA (my place of residence) Supreme Court has basically ruled that the state constitution lacks the specific language to deny homosexuals legal marriage. They have given the state legislature 180 days to change the laws one way or another.
It is estimated that a state referendum to amend the MA constitution would take no less than two years and upwards of three. So the 180 day deadline essentially makes gay marriage legal for the time being. However, it is highly likely there will be a state referendum. What happens then remains to be seen. One probable scenerio is the specification of legal marriage as a union between a man and a woman; a separate “domestic partner” category would cover all other unions between two people, and would confer upon the recipients of a domestic partner license some, but not all, of the rights and privileges of the married. California and Vermont now have domestic partner laws on the books, so there are already a clear precedents for such a legal course. I do not believe domestic partner status in one state confers upon the so-licensed the same or even any such rights and privileges in another state. For instance, domestic partners in Vermont can file jointly on their state income tax forms; domestic partners in California cannot.
It is interesting to speculate about what may happen to those who are awarded marriage licenses in the interim, should marriage someday be constitutionally defined as a union between a man and a woman. Would their licenses be revoked, or would those individuals be grandfathered?
At any rate, the MA SC has hardly “legalized” gay marriage. They have simply said, as of yet, there is no reason to regard gay marriage as illegal. They have given the state legislature a clear mandate to clean up the language and decide once and for all what it’s going to do about the present state of affairs. Since an expeditious state referendum is almost a certainty, a popular vote will decide the issue within three years or less. The courts have hardly usurped the democratic process. They have also not changed the definition of marriage. They have precipitated a crisis, out of which a legal definition is likely to emerge; but, given the steady increase in societal tolerance for homosexual behavior, such a crisis was likely inevitable.
I even like the SDMB, too!
Yes, but the state Constitution clearly states that there cannot be second-class citizens - this was agreed upon (presumably) by the citizens of that state. The judges that decided this were appointed by elected officials. And, finally, if the Constitution does need to be changed, there’s the ability to change it. It’s tedious, but the process is there. They do have recourse.
It’s the balance between “majority rule” and “equal rights for all.” It’s not perfect, and they may have overstepped their bounds, but overall I think the system works.
That`s what happens when I forget to lock my computer at work…
Sorry bout that.
control + alt + delete, then press enter (repeat ad-infinitum).
**Ignore the previous two posts **
(I suspect a cleaning person is involved here.)
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: