Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:18:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1535 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
For instance, show me in the Constitution the right to marry.
|
No problem!
----
Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people. ----- How’s that? Do you need citations of common law or the
Uniform Commercial Code?
| |
In
essence, a supreme court judge can rule with impunity, because just about
anything can be gleaned from anything. And that is why the Left and Right
are salivating at the chance to appoint the next few Supremes.
| |
It is also not “legislating from the bench” to strike
down unconstitutional laws.
|
But don’t you see? If you are creative enough, you can pull
unconstitutionality out of your butt!
|
But that’s why there are nine of them. If a majority of nine of the (arguably)
brightest legal scholars in America agree on something, I think it’s
unreasonable and disrespectful to imply that they’re pulling it out of their
butt. Even when you disagree (and I do, sometimes). I would prefer that the
bench include a more even distribution of justice-personal-politics (three
centrists, two republicans, two democrats, a socialist, a libertarian, seems
reasonable) than it current does, but even though I don’t like how politically
conservative the current court is, I usually still respect their law.
| |
| |
Why must this disciminatory prohibition be included as part of
the formulation?
|
Because that is the definition of marriage.
|
A definition of marriage, as has been pointed out much to your consternation.
| |
When it’s convenient of course. Compared the lengths of governmental
paternity verses maternity leave lately?
What about when I get a $5000 tax deduction-- merely for having kids, and you
as a childless person get none? This is inequitable.
|
Agreed! Both cases are perfect examples of things that should be fixed!
| |
But the fact remains that our society’s standards, as a whole, are
Judeo-Christian in origin.
|
What would be a possible counter-example? And why does it matter to this
particular argument?
| |
The reality is that once the state defines, all are forced to adhere. The
question is who will be the ones who get discriminated against.
|
No, when marriage is broadly understood to include homosexuals, no one new, will
be discriminated against. The overall level of discrimination will have
decreased. Sure, polygamists will still be unreasonably victimized, but still,
things will have been made one notch better.
| |
| |
As far as I’m concerned, the pervasiveness of heterosexual divorce and
heterosexual infidelity are causing far more significant changes to the
institution of heterosexual marriage than homosexual marriage ever could
hope to do. Not that that’s entirely negative--if the institution needs to
change in order to remain relevant, then I say let it change!
|
I would say that the pervasiveness of divorce and infidelity is symptom of a
general moral breakdown in our society. The general success or failure of
the institution of marriage is like a moral barometer of our culture. The
institution certainly needs no changing-- if anything, it is an anchor which
keeps our society from drifting away into moral chaos.
|
Out of curiosity, why do either of you think that divorce or infidelity are bad?
(I think lying to your spouse is bad, so if that’s all you mean, then fine, but
I’m assuming that infidelity is primarily about non-exclusive sexual contact.
Is it infidelity if everyone is aware?) (And actually, I guess Dave didn’t
clearly imply negativity, but I inferred on first reading.)
| |
Once you say marriage is between 2 people, a collective of 3 people will
object. Make it 3, and 4 will protest. Make it N people, and 1 and his sheep
(sorry) will object. And so on.
|
Except that the sheep is incapable of objecting in court.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
