 Author
|
Topic: MA Gay Marriage (Read 7775 times)
|
|
Rearden
|
I have to say I oppose the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
I am all for allowing gays to marry. I just want to go about changing the law the right way, through the legislature. The courts are the wrong method. As it is, the will of the few old lawyers on the court have overridden the elected representatives of the people in the legislature. Rather like when the US Supremes knock over state laws.
Can you see how dangerous it is when a few people in black robes get to overturn the stated will of the people? What a precedent?!?!?! Law no longer means anything at all when it can simply be "reinterpreted" by whoever happens to be on the bench at the time.
For those who believe the court did its job by interpreting the Mass Constitution, I have one question: when the constitutional provision they are referring to was written, did the authors mean that it should apply to gay marriage?
That's really the criteria: context and original meaning. And if you're willing to give a few elderly lawyers the power to reinterpret the law, especially the supreme law of the land, well then...
1.) You better get ready to hand over your guns right now, because the Supremes could just say that the second amendment doesn't really mean what you think it does.
2.) You should get ready for the time when the feds seize the newspapers, and the Supremes say that the first amendment doesn't say what you think it does.
3.) You should get ready for the time when those states that choose to outlaw abortion, at the will of the people, have their laws overturned and what they consider murder forced upon them by a Supreme Court that "sees" rights that plainly are not there.... oh, wait, that's already happened.
4.) Just like the interstate commerce clause, meant to keep state borders open to trade and citizens, has been "reinterpreted" to allow the feds to regulate everything from guns to food to forcing businesses to serve those they would rather not.
Really, the list of courts exceeding their power by ignoring the original intent and context of their respective Constitutions goes on and on and on...
When you empower courts to overturn laws made by the people, even when you happen to agree that the end result is an improvement, you open the door to all sorts of judicial tyranny. And I think that's even worse than legislative tyranny, because most judges aren't even elected.
I want the same result you do, but let's do this the right way. Let's not expand the power of the courts. Let's just repeal the damn marriage license requirement and let people make whatever contracts they please.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Government can do only one thing: It can break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See? If not for the government you couldn't walk."
|
|
|
|
bostnfound
|
As you might have guessed, I have little interest in mythology. Unconditional love is a ludicrious concept. If my wife molests our children and kills my dog, I will no longer love her. However, if she says she no longer loves me and wants to divorce, I will respect her for that. Our individual happiness is what matters.
Anyway, granted its a simplistic interpretation but there is a seperation between church and state. Marriage should be viewed in the secular light. Discussing marriage as it pertains to christian mythology, simply alienates a large percentage of American's, including other christians. And as a secular concept, marriages by law are a contract. Granted this contract concerns a great deal of other case law but the same goes for corporate law or any other type of contract.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Justin
|
A homosexual partnership is not treated equal under the law especially due to the DEATH TAX. If I die, my wife gets to keep my house, my pension, and all of my belongings since it is worth less than 3 million dollars. However, if a gay couple, who has lived together for 50 years, has one of the spouses die, then they must pay a tax of 50 percent on everything owned by the dead spouse. That is text book inequality under the law.
Of course it's inequality, the whole premise of wealth redistribution and social engineering depend on it, most notably with the progressive tax system. The granting of special exemption and benefits by the state is not, howver, a deprivation of rights. If I die and leave my possesions to my father, he has to pay the inheritance tax as well; my desire to not have my father pay the tax does not mean I should support state recognition of incestuous marriage. I should instead fight the tax itself. Do I think government should stay out of marriage? Of course. However since they are already involved, they should treat all of its citizens equally under the law. Gay men and women are targeted by the DEATH TAX as well as many other laws, making their life more difficult. Allowing gay marriage dilute's both the Federal Government and State's ability to steal from the dead.
What you forget is that "marriage" in this context is a state creation, thus *any* conditions imposed by the state would by definition discriminate against others that did not meet the conditions. Your assumption that including gay couples within the tax exemption of the state will translate into fewer taxes is mistaken. The push to make gay couples another "privileged group" only shifts the burden to others. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 12, 2004, 08:51:34 pm by Justin »
|
Logged
|
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Diderot
|
|
|
|
Justin
|
I am all for allowing gays to marry.
And with that sentence you have fallen into the trap. Marriage is a construct of the state, and only has meaning with respect to the privileges granted by the state. Gays are not forbidden from living together. They are not forbidden from willing their possesions upon death. What they do not get is a chance to benefit from being a state sanctioned "privileged class." I just want to go about changing the law the right way, through the legislature. The courts are the wrong method.
The court's action is absolutely the correct method...if you understand the separation of powers, and if you understand that it does *not* have any direct impact on the other two branches. Their opinion will only matters if a case comes before it. As it is, the will of the few old lawyers on the court have overridden the elected representatives of the people in the legislature. Rather like when the US Supremes knock over state laws.
The relationship between the State and the Federal governments is *vastly* different than the relationship between the three branches. Activist judges in the former relationship are bad; in the latter "activist judges" has no meaning. That's really the criteria: context and original meaning. And if you're willing to give a few elderly lawyers the power to reinterpret the law, especially the supreme law of the land, well then...
1.) You better get ready to hand over your guns right now, because the Supremes could just say that the second amendment doesn't really mean what you think it does.
2.) You should get ready for the time when the feds seize the newspapers, and the Supremes say that the first amendment doesn't say what you think it does.
3.) You should get ready for the time when those states that choose to outlaw abortion, at the will of the people, have their laws overturned and what they consider murder forced upon them by a Supreme Court that "sees" rights that plainly are not there.... oh, wait, that's already happened.
4.) Just like the interstate commerce clause, meant to keep state borders open to trade and citizens, has been "reinterpreted" to allow the feds to regulate everything from guns to food to forcing businesses to serve those they would rather not.
What you're missing is the distinction between the state prosecuting an individual, and an individual suing the state. In order to prosecute an individual all three branches must work together, the Legislative must codify the crime, the Executive must prosecute, and the Judicial must find them guilty. This is the area to which the above four cases pertain. The judicial judgement in the marriage case only opens the door for gays to sue the state for some claimed benefits. The result is that the state will either have to pay up, or remove the privileges entirely. When you empower courts to overturn laws made by the people, even when you happen to agree that the end result is an improvement, you open the door to all sorts of judicial tyranny. And I think that's even worse than legislative tyranny, because most judges aren't even elected.
Just for anyone that missed my point: When judges overturn laws, it either sets people free, or allows the state to be punished, nothing more. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Diderot
|
|
|
|
Tracy Saboe
|
As you might have guessed, I have little interest in mythology. Unconditional love is a ludicrious concept.
Just because you've never experienced it doesn't make it myth. It is illogical to state a universal negative as you just have. Christian's have the ability to love unconditionally. Perhaps you need to experience God's love yourself to practice it on your own. I don't know. Unconditional love is possible. You practice it on yourself all the time. You love yourself, even though sometimes you disaprove of the actions you take. Even though sometimes you realize that you do self destructive things. Even though sometimes you hurt yourself. Loving your spouce is no different. Just because you've never seen it or experienced it yourself, doesn't mean it's not possible. As I said. Universally stating the nonexistence of something is illogical. That's not to say their aren't any valid reason's for divorse. Biblically, abuse and adultery are the only two I'm aware of. And being unequally yoked. (If you become a Christian, and you're spouce wants to leave because of it. "Let him/her go.") It's not Christlike to force a non-Christian to behave as a Christian should. Regardless, Marriage is a religious sacrament. Complete seperation of church and state, requires seperation of marraige and state. That means all types of things that make marrage a favored, or disfavored political class (as Justin has said.) is wrong. I don't know why you're so quick to jump down my thoat for believing in traditional family values. We're on the same side. Get government out of interpersonal relationships altogether. You have to realize that most of the people you're going to be talking to in New Hampshire are probably not aitheists. Most I think, in fact do believe in more conservative judeo-Christian values. You're never going to convince any of them about the virtues of libertarianism if you simply dismiss their beliefs as myth. To do so is not only intellectually lazy, but defeats our purpose. Tracy |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blefuscu
|
Dang, I have a lot to catch up on...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Man will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest" - Denis Diderot
"I like beer and ice cream, and I have other vices too." - Blefuscu
|
|
|
|
Blefuscu
|
Why do you expect me to have a reaction?
It's not my state. I don't care.
I'm opposed to any sort of ammendment banning homosexual relationships if that's what you're wondering.
I'm also opposed to Bushes proposed Marriage ammendment.
I'm opposed to all state involvement in marriage actually.
Marriage is a holy sacrament. It's not the place of government to tell me who I can and can't marry.
But I better be allowed to keep my freedom of association and not be forced to recognize a gay union as a marriage if I don't want to.
Tracy Saboe
I didn't mean to inquire about your emotional or general reaction. I was merely wondering to what extent you felt I addressed your backwards assertion that allowing gays to marry constituted endorsement by the state and that it is an entitlement. But that's OK, we'll move on. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Man will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest" - Denis Diderot
"I like beer and ice cream, and I have other vices too." - Blefuscu
|
|
|
|
Rearden
|
And with that sentence you have fallen into the trap. Marriage is a construct of the state, and only has meaning with respect to the privileges granted by the state. I disagree. Marriage is a contract between two (or more) people. Just because the word has traditionally been restricted to a man and a woman does not mean that gay people cannot use it to refer to their contract. Just as various levels of government feel it is their imperative to interfere with your right to contract with your employer, they feel it is their imperative to to interfere with your right to contract with a marriage partner. I've not fallen into any trap here. Gays are not forbidden from living together. They are not forbidden from willing their possesions upon death. What they do not get is a chance to benefit from being a state sanctioned "privileged class." OK, we agree here. Only I'm saying that there should be no such privileged class. The best thing to do is get government completely out of the marriage business. Or, rather, each state should be free to legislate as they wish, and we can each push our home state, or, in these desperate times, the single state of New Hampshire, to get out of the marriage business. The solution isn't to confer state-sanctioned status upon gays. The solution is to recognize marriage as a contract and repeal all laws regarding licenses and other such nonsense (except, of course, for minors). The court's action is absolutely the correct method...if you understand the separation of powers, and if you understand that it does *not* have any direct impact on the other two branches. Their opinion will only matters if a case comes before it. Believe me, Justin, I do understand the separation of powers. Not to toot my own horn, but I'd put my understanding of the federalist system and the Constitution up against that of anyone else on this board. I know my stuff. No, the court's action is completely the wrong action. It certainly does have a direct impact on the other two branches, as the executive and legislative branches made a certain law (which I certainly agree is unjust) at the request of the people, only to have the court overturn it. The original ruling gave the legislature six months to legalize gay marriage, or it simply became legal despite the laws on the books to the contrary, right?!?! How dare this court overturn the will of the people like that?!?! They have made a sham of their state's constitution by such willful misinterpretation. Their decision does not only affect any case brought before it, it affects the day-to-day policies of the state of Massachusetts. If I were gay, in six months I'd be able to walk into a town hall and procure a marriage license, whereas now I cannot. I wouldn't have to file suit. The court's action would obviously affect me, right?
The relationship between the State and the Federal governments is *vastly* different than the relationship between the three branches. Activist judges in the former relationship are bad; in the latter "activist judges" has no meaning.
Again, I'm well aware of this, and I don't think I wrote anything to give you the impression that I was not aware that the relationship between the state and federal governments is different from the relationship between the three branches. I take issue with your second statement, though. There are activist judges at both the state and federal levels, and they are always bad. Always. The difference is a matter of impact. The activist judges in Massachusetts have impacted their state. If that were the Supreme Court, they would have impacted the entire country. It's simply a matter of scale, but it's always a bad thing. What you're missing is the distinction between the state prosecuting an individual, and an individual suing the state. In order to prosecute an individual all three branches must work together, the Legislative must codify the crime, the Executive must prosecute, and the Judicial must find them guilty. This is the area to which the above four cases pertain. Uhhh... that's not true at all, and I'm not missing any such distinction. In Roe v. Wade, Wade sued the state in federal court. She was not prosecuted, and she actually had the child by the time her case was heard in DC. What if I, a Maryland resident, apply for a gun permit, and am turned down, and I file a suit? Then I would be just like the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts case. Only I'd lose, because my cause wouldn't be popular with activist judges today. The judicial judgement in the marriage case only opens the door for gays to sue the state for some claimed benefits. The result is that the state will either have to pay up, or remove the privileges entirely. And they're going to pay up instead of removing the privileges for everyone else in the state, and you know it. Again, I'm not arguing against equal rights for gays. I'm arguing that the decision was a clear misreading of the Massachusetts State Constitution by a group of activist judges. When the article in question was written its authors had no intention of making gay marriage legal. None. So, in creating this "right to marry" out of thin air, as the court has done, they have essentially made law and precedent where there is none. Judges should not do this! The Founders knew well the dangers that lie this way. Jefferson himself argued strenously for the hands of judges being tied by the law -- he believed they should have as little discretion as possible. The opinions and beliefs of one appointed man or a small group of appointed men should not outweigh the opinions and beliefs of elected men who make the law. But in Massachusetts, now it does, and thus gradually the law ceases to have meaning.
Just for anyone that missed my point:
When judges overturn laws, it either sets people free, or allows the state to be punished, nothing more.
When judges overturn laws made by the will of the people, it is the worst sort of tyranny. It is the tyranny of the few over the many. I happen to be pro-life. From my perspective, when the Supreme Court overturned Texas's law against abortion, it opened the door to the disappearance of a healthy chunk of my generation. Now without getting into the actual abortion question (already done elsewhere), let's suppose you agree with my position: that abortion is force against a clear victim. Let's suppose I'm right -- in that case, did the court do no harm? Let's consider all the times courts were faced with cases and failed to act. How about Buck v. Bell, asserting that Virginia was entitled to sterilize people deemed "substandard." What did the chief justice say? Oh yes: "Three generations of imbeciles is enough." How about activist courts in the other direction? The federal internment of thousands of Japanese-American citizens was clearly unconstitutional, as it violated the right to speedy trial and the right to be secure in person and papers. But when the case got to the Supremes, they were activists, all right: instead of doing what the law (the Constitution) demanded and ordering their release, they said that times of war call for desperate measures and found for the government.Who was set free there, when that law (the supreme law of the nation) was "overturned"? It is one thing when they overturn laws that run counter to their respective constitutions. That is not activism. But when they overturn laws based on their personal moral convictions, on their personal opinions, they are placing their own beliefs over those of the representatives of the people, and that, regardless of how you personally feel about the issue at hand, is tyranny. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Government can do only one thing: It can break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See? If not for the government you couldn't walk."
|
|
|
|
Blefuscu
|
Marriage is a holy sacrament. It's not the place of government to tell me who I can and can't marry.
Tracy Saboe
Marriage is a contract between two parties, not a holy sacrament. Inserting theology will just confuse a very simple answer. It's not JUST a contract. One of the reason's the divorse rate is so high is that that's what most people think. Marriage isn't about keeping score, and doing things if the other party does things, etc. The contract part can be handle simply with contractual law. I don't see what the big deal is. Homosexuals can enter into a contract if they want to as it is. TRacy In the context of civil marriage licensing, it is just a contract, as Bostnfound said. Many people also consider it a sacred thing, but others don't. It may be presumed that atheists and nominally religious people value their marriages as much or as little as the devout do. The religious or sacramental aspect of marriage is irrelevant with respect to the special treatment (entitlement, if you will) that the state affords to heterosexual married people. The state shouldn't be involved in civil marriage licensing, recognition, or granting of privileges at all. But it happens that they are. The crux of the matter here is that the Massachusetts constitution guarantees equality to all, but the state legislature chose to deny that guarantee of equality to one class of people with no rational justification for doing so. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Man will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest" - Denis Diderot
"I like beer and ice cream, and I have other vices too." - Blefuscu
|
|
|
|
Blefuscu
|
This decision dilutes the power of the state because it removes an unconstitutional restriction against personal liberty and equality that is guaranteed by the Massachusetts constitution.
BZZZZZZT! There was no previous restriction on personal liberty and equality, only the restriction on who could enjoy the fruits of state coercion (e.g. compulsory insurance, etc.). The effect of the ruling is to increase the number of people that benefit from state coercion. This is not, in my mind, a dilution of state power. BZZZZZZT! Nuts! Previous when? Before the state started licensing marriage and giving away special privileges to certain classes of people? Right. Everyone was on an equal footing under those circumstances with respect to government granted privilege. The salient effect of the ruling is to restore equality. The collateral damage of increased government-granted privilege can be dealt with for all by eliminating the privileges. That would be a laudable goal, and one I personally support. But regardless of whether that happens or not, there is no justification for continuing to restrict the guarantee of equality in marriage to heterosexuals only. The ruling itself should not require any action on the part of the other two branches. No law must be changed, since the body of laws is controlled by the Legislature. No enforcement must be changed, since enforcement of the law is controlled by the Executive. When a case comes before the court it is then, and only then, that their opinion matters.
I don't understand you here. You seem to be saying that the three branches of government are unrelated, and have no check/balance relationship to one another. My understanding is that the legislature makes law, the executive enforces law, and the court nitpicks it to ensure that it is constitutional. I repeat - there was no legislating from the bench. The court ruled on a case that was brought before them (i.e., the criteria you cited as a requirement), so I take it you'd concede that their opinion does, in fact, matter (to use your expression). |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 13, 2004, 04:34:47 am by Blefuscu »
|
Logged
|
"Man will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest" - Denis Diderot
"I like beer and ice cream, and I have other vices too." - Blefuscu
|
|
|
|
Blefuscu
|
A homosexual partnership is not treated equal under the law especially due to the DEATH TAX. If I die, my wife gets to keep my house, my pension, and all of my belongings since it is worth less than 3 million dollars. However, if a gay couple, who has lived together for 50 years, has one of the spouses die, then they must pay a tax of 50 percent on everything owned by the dead spouse. That is text book inequality under the law.
Do I think government should stay out of marriage? Of course. However since they are already involved, they should treat all of its citizens equally under the law. Gay men and women are targeted by the DEATH TAX as well as many other laws, making their life more difficult. Allowing gay marriage dilute's both the Federal Government and State's ability to steal from the dead.
This is absolutely right on. And the death tax example is only one of many that demonstrate the utter lack of equality with which the government treats relationships that are none of its business in the first place. I believe there were something like a 1000 or so similar benefits cited in the case before the court. Equality under the law is the point here. If you can get the state to stop regulating marriage altogether, that would achieve the same goal of equality, and would at the same time satisfy a libertarian objective of reducing government force. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Man will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest" - Denis Diderot
"I like beer and ice cream, and I have other vices too." - Blefuscu
|
|
|
|
Blefuscu
|
Your perception of what marriage is is very different from the Christian Biblical perception of it.
Go read Intended for Pleasure
It's by a Christian Sex theoropist, but it actually has some excellent advice just for marriage in general.
Agape love. Unconditional love is a reality.
You're suppost to love your spouce regardless of what she/he does for you. It's not about keeping score. In fact, keeping score is what causes most of the antagonism. A good marriage depends on the spouces being able to forgive each other.
And yes, divorse IS bad. Especially if there are children involved. My wife and I happen to subscribe to the traditional notions of marriage.
How very politically incorrect of me.
If you don't like the death tax. Get rid of it. It's evil. In fact Bushes plan currently would repeal it by 2010 (although that next year it'l be back into full force) I would prefer that it be abolished now.
But it's the death tax that's evil.
The State not recognizing something as marrage., is not a breach of rights. You don't have a "RIGHT" to be married.
Regardless, I think we can agree that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Extending the reach of government into interpersonal afairs to include "homosexuality" only expands it.
Tracy
Your religious definition of marriage with all of its related attributes is not a matter for anyone to be arguing about. It's your belief, and you have a right to it. It also has nothing to do with this case. This case is about equality in respect to civil marriage, which is the only aspect of marriage concerning which any state government here in the US is entitled to regulate. (Not that they should be entitled.) I mostly agree with you here, Tracy. Taxes are evil. Government regulation too. Get rid of them, and we solve most of these problems. But if you can't get rid of them, treat everyone the same. That's what this case is about. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Man will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest" - Denis Diderot
"I like beer and ice cream, and I have other vices too." - Blefuscu
|
|
|
|
Blefuscu
|
I have to say I oppose the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
I am all for allowing gays to marry. I just want to go about changing the law the right way, through the legislature. The courts are the wrong method. As it is, the will of the few old lawyers on the court have overridden the elected representatives of the people in the legislature. Rather like when the US Supremes knock over state laws.
Can you see how dangerous it is when a few people in black robes get to overturn the stated will of the people? What a precedent?!?!?! Law no longer means anything at all when it can simply be "reinterpreted" by whoever happens to be on the bench at the time.
For those who believe the court did its job by interpreting the Mass Constitution, I have one question: when the constitutional provision they are referring to was written, did the authors mean that it should apply to gay marriage?
The courts have a designated function under the constitution. They are charged with ensuring that the law, as enacted by the legislature, as enforced by the executive, is in agreement with the fundamental principles expressed in the constitution. The marriage law is a statute, not a constitutional provision. It was enacted by the legislature. It is not part of the fundamental (constitutional) law. The constitutional provisons under which the statute must be judged (by the judicial branch, of course) are the due process and equality articles. Those articles of the constitution are broadly applicable to all aspects of life, liberty, property, etc. They weren't written to address marriage, gay or otherwise, per se. So yeah. The court did it's job, and it is the job of the court in this case to judge the statute that the legislature enacted. Literally, that is the courts function. And what's this "will of the people" stuff? Tyranny of the majority? That's another function of the court, you know, to serve as a balance against the "will of the people" when it encroaches on the liberty interests of minorities. Minorities have as much right to equal treatment as the majority. That's really the criteria: context and original meaning. And if you're willing to give a few elderly lawyers the power to reinterpret the law, especially the supreme law of the land, well then...
No, not reinterpret (although they do that a lot) that's not their function. To judge the constitutionality of law, however, is.
1.) You better get ready to hand over your guns right now, because the Supremes could just say that the second amendment doesn't really mean what you think it does.
2.) You should get ready for the time when the feds seize the newspapers, and the Supremes say that the first amendment doesn't say what you think it does.
3.) You should get ready for the time when those states that choose to outlaw abortion, at the will of the people, have their laws overturned and what they consider murder forced upon them by a Supreme Court that "sees" rights that plainly are not there.... oh, wait, that's already happened.
4.) Just like the interstate commerce clause, meant to keep state borders open to trade and citizens, has been "reinterpreted" to allow the feds to regulate everything from guns to food to forcing businesses to serve those they would rather not.
You somehow transitioned from state to federal Supreme Court. But I agree with you in the cases you cited, except for the abortion thing, number 3. States shouldn't be allowed to override the deeply personal self-ownership rights of a woman to decide how she will manage her own body. Abortion is one of the handful of issues where I believe even many libertarians throw principle out the window and advocate state initiation of force against personal liberty. (Hah, people on either side of the abortion argument could assert that!) But I believe that is not an area where states, or the federal government, should be allowed to meddle. The role of the state in this case is to protect the right of the person to choose, not to restrict it. The little tyranny is not less objectionable than the big tyranny. Really, the list of courts exceeding their power by ignoring the original intent and context of their respective Constitutions goes on and on and on...
When you empower courts to overturn laws made by the people, even when you happen to agree that the end result is an improvement, you open the door to all sorts of judicial tyranny. And I think that's even worse than legislative tyranny, because most judges aren't even elected.
I want the same result you do, but let's do this the right way. Let's not expand the power of the courts. Let's just repeal the damn marriage license requirement and let people make whatever contracts they please.
Man, I agree that courts should not be allowed to overturn constitutional law, but that is not what happened here. They overturned unconstitutional law. That is their job, and it is necessary sometimes because the "will of the people" is not always in line with the principles of the constitution. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 13, 2004, 04:42:17 am by Blefuscu »
|
Logged
|
"Man will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest" - Denis Diderot
"I like beer and ice cream, and I have other vices too." - Blefuscu
|
|
|
|
Blefuscu
|
The court's action is absolutely the correct method...if you understand the separation of powers, and if you understand that it does *not* have any direct impact on the other two branches. Their opinion will only matters if a case comes before it.
There you go again. Could you please explain the part about *not* having any direct impact on the other two branches? That just doesn't fit with my understanding, so I'd appreciate if you'd elaborate some. I'm prepared to consider that my understanding *may* be deficient. The judicial judgement in the marriage case only opens the door for gays to sue the state for some claimed benefits. The result is that the state will either have to pay up, or remove the privileges entirely. Cite some examples of the sort of benefits you're talking about, for the sake of argument. And what, btw, would be wrong with removing the privileges for everyone entirely? That would be another, and significantly more libertarian, outcome that serves the same objective of ensuring equality. Puts everyone on the same footing. When you empower courts to overturn laws made by the people, even when you happen to agree that the end result is an improvement, you open the door to all sorts of judicial tyranny. And I think that's even worse than legislative tyranny, because most judges aren't even elected.
Just for anyone that missed my point: When judges overturn laws, it either sets people free, or allows the state to be punished, nothing more.That is a very cynical way of looking at it, and it isn't right anyway. There are exceptions, but constitutional principles mostly guarantee freedoms for people, and laws mostly take them away. Toppling laws mostly restores freedoms. That is surely what happened in this marriage law case. It's impossible for the state to be punished. Think about that. The state isn't a person, it is an instrument of force. Maybe what you mean is that overturning some laws means that the people who have to pay for government are punished. That may be true, but if 20,000 of us all get together and move to a liberty-oriented state with a relatively small population, we may be able to do something about minimizing government and constraining it to serving it's proper role. I like it. Let's try it with New Hampshire, maybe. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Man will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest" - Denis Diderot
"I like beer and ice cream, and I have other vices too." - Blefuscu
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
