Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler
See for me this is why the gay marriage ammendment has got to be a constitutional ammendment. What's good in San Fran isn't even goodfor the entire state; leave alone the rest of the land. This is sometimes the down side of federalism, and even if every state passes laws to ban it eventually some loony toons judge (like this one) will overturn it. Even in spite of a trillion judges upholding it befre him one somewhere will monkey it all up. At least with a constitutional ammendment it can't be undone by the judiciary.
|
Sometimes the judiciary does society a favour, as with dumping Jim Crow, creating incentives like suppression to stop illegal searches, etc. If you think the government is trying to screw you, you can bet the farm you'll be calling upon the courts to stop them. I also can't stress enough the plain constitutional truth that the judiciary is a co-equal branch with the other two. It states what the law means. That isn't monkeying with the law--that is doing its job. I'm far more concerned with the power hungry who bash the courts because they apparently like power too much.
And not every new idea is a bad one. The Constitution itself was cutting edge for its time. Good ideas are what leads to progress.
Some won't work out, but that is part of the growth process.
On gay marriage, I oppose the amendment banning it. The idea of "ban this-ban that" is a bipartisan problem. Rather than focus on nuts and bolts of fixing bridges, potholes, programmes, etc, and spending wisely, politicians would rather pick on gays, gun owners, flag burners, smokers, trans-fats, etc. The targets get framed as bad guys and pay the costs of this crap in their wallets and happiness.
I can't find a reasonable basis for denying gays the right to marry as heterosexuals do insofar a secular issuance of marriage licence (religious marriage rules and ceremonies belong to the respective groups and have a separate and independent character).
If this country values personal freedom and the pursuit of happiness, it has to put up or shut up on that absent compelling reasons. How does allowing gays to marry cause significant harm? If a strong and constitutional case can't be made how it does, and I can't think of one, then it really is a case of 'mind your own business' in my view.