Do you honestly believe any court in America would actually agree with you? I find it absolutely incredible that a court would uphold legislation limiting marriage to only those who can procreate, even under the rational basis test. There is no way a court would uphold that kind of restriction.
Then you don’t know what the term means.
The authors did intend equal rights to mean equal rights. That’s the basis for the decision. But for some reason you persist in thinking it’s about gay marriage, not equal rights. The cognitive dissonance continues.
Newly-discovered and newly-stated ones (speaking of activism) intended clearly buttress the argument that the authors must have meant equal rights to somehow exclude gays.
Nor have I. That’s your word. I do not “wish away” anything. To point out the bullshitness of an argument is hardly wishing it weren’t there. The arguments you’re referring to are, as already stated, not based in history or reason, except that the reason is to find a way to make gay-hating acceptable. You buy it.
Pound the table much?
The question is irrelevant, as already pointed out. But keep yelling into your echo chamber if you like.
[qutoe]No basis at all? What of the authority cited by the dissent?
[/quote]
What part of “It’s bullshit made up for the occasion” don’t you understand?
Really? What other categories do you think they intended to exclude from equal rights? What other types of persons do you think they had only an extremely remote chance of even thinking of allowing to be full members of society? Can you read between the lines and tell us?
Bullshit. You’re trying to find a superficially-acceptable way to make a “Gay sex is just icky and we shouldn’t allow it” argument. There is no historical or legal basis for the contrived, case-inspired interpretations you wish the MA SJC had reached instead, in a way that could only be described as activist if it were to be separated from the gut-level hatred that drives your “thought”. But they didn’t - they plainly ruled according the law and the constitution, as written. That’s how judicial restraint works.
We have here just another example, if any were needed, of “activism” being defined as “any rulings I don’t like, and if I do like it, it isn’t activism”. If you really did hold that as a principle, you’d have to support the decision. But your capacity for hatred is apparently even stronger.
Elvis1Lives:
Just curious. I know we’re discussing the Massachusetts’ constitution’s guarantee of equal rights, not the federal version. But since the federal constitution has similar language, perhaps a thought experiment might be instructive.
Why do you suppose the Nineteenth Amendment was thought necessary? After all, the federal constitution ALREADY had language that talked about equality. Why in the world would it have needed to be amended to address the issue?
Dang it. “ElvisL1ves.” Sorry.
Strange question. There were a lot of laws that were in place yet still violated the equal-protection guarantee of the Constitution (there still are some, most notably gaybashing), and no court was going to violate precedent and overturn them (which would be activism, right?). If that had been done, it would be piecemeal, inefficient, and worse, inconsistent. An amendment takes care of the whole problem at once, by eliminating the “we’ve always done it this way” excuse that got codified in laws and precedents. Nothing different in that regard about the 19th, of course, the 13th, 14th, 15th, even the 26th, were needed too for similar reasons- why not bring those up too?
So why do you ask? Is it really your position, as it seems, that unconstitutional laws must not be overturned if they have been in place long enough, lest some consider it activism? At what age does a law in Brickerland gain stronger standing than the Constitution?
Never.
The begged question is what the Constitution MEANS.
You cannot point to the phrase “equal proection” and proclaim, “Ah ha! Equal treatment of every single human being now drawing breath under the sun!” The phrase must be understood in the context of the words around it.
“I took my boat out on the bay.”
“I threw a saddle on the bay.”
“I kept the attacker at bay.”
Bay doesn’t mean the same thing, because the words around it shape its meaning. The words in the Constitution mean something definite, yes, but their meaning cannot be reliably discerned by staring myopically at a single phrase and interpreting it as broadly as you are.
It’s nonsensical to assume “equal protection” means what you seem to be urging we adopt as a meaning. It would remove the ability of the state to legitimately treat different classes of people differently.
Don’t be so silly. You’re begging the question of the definition of “legitimate” and even “class of people” instead - but that’s to be expected from an amoralist, I suppose.
Is it your position that legitimate can mean simply “It’s legitimate because we’ve always done it this way”? or “It’s legitimate if, like Dewey, we can dream up some transparent rationalization for continuing to do it even though we now know it has no basis other than prejudice”? And is it your position that “class of people” can be applied to any people for whom you have a distaste as a basis for finding some superficially-legalistic rationalization for treating them differently?
Same question, really. You continue to avoid it by declaring that there is a “rational basis” for discrimination even though you can’t state one. Maybe that works on your fellow brickers, but not here.
OK.
We clearly do not have a completely objective definition for “rational.”
If we did, then it would be no problem. We would simply set a standard: a proposition must be at least 15% rational in order to pass the “rational basis” test. We could then simply enter a given proposition into the Rational Analyzer Machine, it would spit out the result, and we would have our answer.
Lacking that, we find ourselves at this loggerhead: you insist that the reasoning offered is simply not rational. I insist that, although you do not agree with it, it is rational.
I can’t think of a good way to resolve this conflict.
Here’s a thought: can you identify a proposition with which you strongly disagree, but which you nevertheless would concede has a rational basis? Any proposition at all…
Well, personally, I prefer my own laws to be 100% rational, as well as the reasoning behind them. Oh, and you insist that your reason isn’t ration. I believe if it was, you could demonstrate that fact. You can’t, judging from this thread. That leads me to the conclusion your opinion is that of irrational homophobia. (Not that there is such a thing as a rational kind.)
Rich people have more rights than poor ones. Rational basis: fact. They have the same rights, as famously remarked, to beg for bread and sleep under bridges, as well as a bunch of others that poor people don’t have.
Rich people should have more rights than poor people. Rational basis: social Darwinism, or. as its often coyly dressed, they are the entreprenuers, the “engines of progress”, and a bunch of other twaddle
“All men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights” I entirely agree. There is no rational basis whatsoever, it is held to be self-evident, which is simply another way of saying it is an article of faith, a dogma, a fundamental principle asserted as having no need for a rational basis.
Has it one? Nope. Do I care? Not in the slightest.
Could you give an example of a state legitimately treating different classes of people differently?
Like what? Can you name one “right” that rich Americans have that poor Americans don’t? I don’t believe you have proposed a rational basis, you’ve just stated an opinion.
Does this mean that you would invalidate any law the legislature passed that you did not completely agree with? Are you arguing for a new governmental system, composed of King Scott_plaid I ?
It seems to me that SOME deference must be given to the legislature; some room must exist to say, “Even though I disagree with this law, I acknowledge that a reasonable person could favor it.”
I’ve said before that, if I were a state legislator, I’d vote for a bill permitting same-sex marriage; if I were a state governor, I’d sign such a bill.
As a state judge, however, I would likely not find that my state’s constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection mandated my state recognize same-sex marriage.
De ya ken the distinction?
Sure. Felons, even those having completed their terms of imprisonment, are not permitted to own a firearm.
Fourteen year olds are not permitted to consent to sex.
Blind persons are not permitted to drive.
’luc: That’s one of the bases from which rationality proceeds, IOW a “principle”. It doesn’t need a rational basis itself because it *is * such a basis.
I would disagree that you shouldn’t care - the regular reexamination of principles is a healthy exercise, useful in differentiating true principles from mere rationalizations and simple prejudices.
Then you still fail to understand, and may not be capable of it. The “reasoning” you offer follows the format of a valid argument, but lacks content. It most certainly is the product of reasoning, of a sort, but not reasoning beginning from a principle that you are willing and able to identify to us, obvious though it may be to those not completely result-oriented as you are. The gay-bashing “argument” is *not * irrational, it is a *rationalization * (and look that up sometime) - but nevertheless it fails on that count and therefore fails in total.
When using my name, you removed the _. I am fine with that, but if you do, please capitalize the last name. It is simply proper English. Thus, I have corrected this quote.
Yes, I am. 
As I have discussed with you on the topic of the church lying about the effectiveness of condoms, cardinals who shuffle around child abusing priest, etc., I feel certain things are wrong… Your response was that they were legal to do, so too bad. So yeah, I would strike down laws which have no basis in reality, if I were king. Now, you seem to be claiming my only reason to want such things struck down is that I disagree with them. However, that is ridiculous. I think certain laws are wrong, not just because I disagree with them, but because they have no rational basis.
And when no one can say such a thing…? When people say, there is no purpose to this law, other then to restrict freedoms, and no rational basis, what then?
“Result-oriented?” If anything, I am guilty of leaning too far in the other direction: I am process-oriented. It is you, and your side, that is result-oriented; you start from the result the same-sex marriage is a Good Thing, and that, therefore, the law must permit it. If the Constitution fails to permit a Good Thing, in your view, there’s a problem with the interpretation of the Constitution.
I am not results-oriented. I think the process should be followed, and an honest practioner will accept the result reached, or change the law to achieve the “correct” result. You want to tinker with the process to produce the result you desire.
Same question I asked another poster earlier: can you give me an example of a law you disagree with, but which does have a rational basis?
This question gets back to the lack of a an objective measure of rationality that we can both accept. I don’t know how to solve that problem.
Why would I want to? To win an argument? If so, then elucidator’s post seem to answer the question nicely.
You seem to be claiming it is hard to an objective measure of rationality. However, once you discount people making disingenuous claims, such as you seem to be making. (Bricker"I believe it is right to discriminated against gays."), and insane people (Some nut: “I truly believe that China does not exist.”), then I believe we can, at least as far as writing, and striking down laws.
That is so false that it calls your claim to regard for fact into serious doubt. “Our side” regards equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and each of its states as a Good Thing, and applies that legal principle to the reality of this situation. Your side regards gay marriage as a Bad Thing, and looks for legalistic arguments to support banning it. There is no clearer example of being results-oriented than your own position. You are not reasoning, you are rationalizing.
Reverse your pronouns there. The process *was * followed in MA, *honestly *, deriving from the principles enshrined in the MA Constitution, and you have not succeeded in any way in showing where it wasn’t. You, by contrast, are happy to dream up lame *ad hoc * stories about the purpose of marriage being procreation and similar bullshit in order to affirm the self-righteousness of your own hatred.
Don’t bother to regale us with any more complaints about so-called “judicial activism”. You are eager to use it yourself rather than consider people with different inborn sexual orientations to be real, equal citizens, just as “good” as you and with the same rights under the law.
Dewey, same for you.