Good on you. I was, of course, speaking somewhat US-centrically. It’s clear to me that the cause of same-sex marriage in Canada has advanced quite far, and enjoys a much more open acceptance there than here.
Could you answer my other questions? Why should anyone think that marriage is primarily a religious institution? Why should we tiptoe around the word ‘marriage’ because of the hissy-fits thrown by closed-minded religious folk? What is the difference between governmental recognition of civil marriage while leaving religious marriage up to religion and your proposal, other than semantics? That is, how is what you propose different from the status quo in Massachusetts?
Because in the minds of most people in the United States today, “marriage” is a state that can only exist between a man and a woman, and that attitude results in substantial measure from religious roots. Whether the ultimate roots of marriage are civil or religious is not particularly relevant. You may characterize this as “hissy fits” by “closed-minded religious folks” but again I direct your attention to the fact that this attitude is shared by a majority of Americans.
Now, you may feel that this merely demonstrates that a majority of Americans are “closed-minded religious folks,” but, true or not, it’s irrelevant: to affect a change, you must convince a majority of this exact audience.
Is the difference between my proposal and yours merely “semantics?” Yes. But because so many people are so attached to the word “marriage,” it’s not useful to dismiss it as “merely” semantics.
Put another way: if it’s merely semantics, why would YOU object?
- Rick
Elected legislatures haven’t been so hot on doing what is right either. And despite your examples of past judicial activism, every instance of “judicial activism” in living memory has been for greater freedom for the common man.
Judges are the only people who can exercise their own conscience with impunity. They are not in the pockets of special interest groups, nor do they need to pander to bigots to keep their job.
When I read the decision in Lawrence vs Texas, I felt a profound sense of pride that at the heart of our constitution and laws is a sense of fundamental justice and fairness and freedom. Nothing that Congress or the President has done in my lifetime has resonated with me as promoting freedom rather than oppression, or justice rather than injustice.
I look to results, and I see no justice from Congress. You can spout off platitudes how great our democracy is, and the will of the people is expressed through our elected representatives, and I may agree with you in principle, but in practice I see nothing great coming out of our democracy.
I’ll bookmark this comment. If Mr. Bush is re-elected, and appoints a judge that shifts the balance of power on the Court (Lawrence, for instance, was 5-4), and the Court issues a decision that you protest, I’ll be pointing you back to this comment.
- Rick
Tuh. Duh. He’s going to vote the way Scalia votes, of course.
:dubious:
Because I don’t want people like you telling me I’m not married to the areligious woman of my dreams just because you don’t want to recognize the marriages of gays. Look, the semantic difference is clearly intended to indicate that civil unions, while being the equal of marriage in the eyes of the law, are not the equal of marriage in the eyes of society as a whole. It is an attempt to impose second-class status, to enact “seperate and equal” while retaining a tone of condemnation. That’s why I object.
Frankly, I’m glad that there are enough politicians in this country who take the principle of equality before the law seriously enough that they’re willing to ignore their religious convictions and uphold the spirit of the Charter. And it’s really too bad that there aren’t enough such politicians in your country. That this is the fault of the voters is true, but not particularly on point. A majority refusing to allow a minority to participate in one of the basic societal institutions for no reason beyond religious bigotry is not something to celebrate, even if it is the procedurally proper result of the legislative system.
The gist of my ire is that your hypothetical decision (regardless of whether I’d agree with it or not) would result from a case being heard by SCOTUS, with someone having their day in court.
They propose to strip us of the possibility of ever having that day in court with this pile of crap legislation. The States’ governing powers might be protected from the potentialy rogue clutches of the Judiciary, but millions of tax-paying, law-abiding citizens would be denied an opportunity to try and protect themselves from any unconstitutional clutches of the States…an opportunity that would remain available to everyone else.
That is simply horseshit to the nth degree.
And I know that Bricker is not advocating said pile of crap, but rather leading us merily skipping down a related tangent…
Lawrence was 6-3. Five justices signed onto the main opinion, with O’Connor filing a concurring opinion.
And hopefully, when Blalron is called to task by you, he or she will remember all the basic classes in civics that we all had to take in school. Because there, we learned the most basic idea behind the system of checks and balances, a system that you and Rep. John Hostettler (Dipshit-Indiana), don’t seem to appreciate.
The judicial branch is set up specifically to prevent the “might makes right” situation you describe at the top of your quote. The legislative branch acts (in theory) on the will of the majority of the people; the judicial branch examines individual cases to make sure that individuals are treated fairly. I didn’t think that was all that difficult a concept to grasp.
The system makes sense and isn’t as subject to the whims of partisan politics that everything else has turned into – there’s a reason justices serve for life, you know, and it’s not because the U.S. is fascist. It’s intended to make the justices answer only to the Constitution and not to make unfair decisions as an attempt to get re-appointed during an election year.
In short, simple terms: I don’t give a rat’s ass whether or not it’s true that “the majority of Americans” don’t support my right to marry. People much smarter than myself, and definitely much smarter than anyone in the current administration, set up a system hundreds of years ago to ensure that my rights as an individual wouldn’t be squashed by “closed-minded religious folks,” even if they do have numbers on their side.
How did Lochner and Dred Scott happen, then?
Of course I agree with you, Rick. I would favor a court that acted clearly on established principle without resorting to providing guidance. Perhaps limiting the courts ability to that of saying ‘no’ would do it.
Congress: Law A
Court: This is unconstitutional.
Congress: How?
Court: Not your department. Try again.
And allowing congress to have the exclusive ability to determine laws and such.
Sure, I think we’d all do that.
But we all know it won’t happen. With the establishment of an activist court (in both directions!) (Break into song…“How do you solve a problem like Scalia?”) they went from being 9 old men to a political resource. And the minute that happens there’s no going back.
Lochner I’d never heard of before this thread. Dred Scott happened because there were racists on the Supreme Court. It happens. Note that I talked about the system and about what it was intended to do. Just because it doesn’t always work mean that the system is invalid.
This piece of legislation is a blatantly transparent attempt to chip away at the rights of homosexuals by containing the “problem” in a few states. Defenders talk about the “will of the majority” and “states’ rights,” which is nothing more than an attempt to distance themselves from the real issue and not reveal their true intentions.