Poll: Who should have final say on gay marriage? Voters, courts or congress?
- Thread starter ProfJohn
- Start date
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
The Constitution is the final say on everything.
If you want to know what the Constitution says, ask the Supreme Court.
If you want to know what the Constitution says, ask the Supreme Court.
PieIsAwesome
Diamond Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 4,054
- 1
- 0
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
So? It does grant equal protection to all United States citizens. That's all it needs to say.
So? If that ability weren't Constitutional, in principle one could bring a suit before the Supreme Court, demonstrate as much, and the provision would cease to be.
In the past the message from the democrats has been that there is no need for a federal bill that defines marriage. Maybe they were wrong or maybe we should let states decide for themselves. Before California can recognize gay marriage they would have to first rewrite a lot of laws about the subject.
IMO - nobody. Having a say on gay rights is like having a say on what you'll be wearing tomorrow.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 51,880
- 44,709
- 136
I think this is rather instructive:
The Theory of the American Founding, Part Three: Why Equal Protection of the Law?
The cornerstone of the American political system is the principle of human equality enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration begins with a simple yet profound articulation of this principle: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." All human beings possess equally the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Declaration goes on to state the purpose of government: "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Since all men possess equal rights by nature, the purpose of government is to secure those rights.
The purpose of government - securing rights - points to the inherent limits placed on a just government. That is, if the purpose of government is to protect rights, then government must be limited to those things necessary for the protection of rights. If the government itself becomes too large and powerful, it becomes a threat to the rights and liberties of the people, the very things government is supposed to protect. This underlies Madison's famous statement in Federalist 51:
"But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself."
Madison's point is that human nature is not angelic: human beings are not wholly good. Sometimes they follow the baser elements of their nature and violate the rights of others. Thus government is instituted to protect its citizens against those who would violate their rights. But at the heart of the idea of just government lies a great difficulty: government must be at once strong enough to protect our rights, but not so strong that it threatens our rights. That is, we must first give the government the powers necessary to control the governed, and then ensure that the government controls itself. The solution to this difficulty is limited constitutional government.
We know that the purpose of government is to protect rights; therefore we know that government should be limited in its powers. That is, based on the principles of the American Founding, legitimate government has only the power necessary to affect its end: the protection of our rights. In order to limit the powers of the government, the Founders offered a written constitution which specifies what government ought to do, and what it ought not do. This idea of limiting the powers of the government defines the structure of the American Constitution. For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the legislative branch of government, while the next section, Article I, Section 9 places restrictions on the power of the legislature. Article I, Section 10 then goes on to place restrictions on the powers of the various state governments.
Furthermore, as citizens we can know what the proper duties of the government are by referring to the fundamental law of the land, the Constitution. This idea of living under a written constitution is what is sometimes called "constitutionalism."
In a constitutional regime such as America, how should the government act towards citizens? Even if the government is exercising some power that is granted by the Constitution, should government be able to make arbitrary distinctions between citizens, and treat them differently? Here we must remind ourselves of the purpose of government: to protect the equal natural rights of all citizens.
The American constitutional system is based on the idea that the law, not individual men, reign supreme over both the government and over citizens. Put another way, we want government and society to act according to the rule of law. Society is best governed by the rule of law, rather than the arbitrary will of men, because law represents the reason of men divorced from the passions of men, and it aims at the common good of all citizens, not the good of one man or one group of citizens. The law is superior to the government in the sense that government can only do those things that the law (the Constitution) permits. At the same time, when government exercises power over citizens, it must do so by general laws that apply equally to all citizens similarly situated. If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of citizens, and all citizens possess equal rights by nature, then the government must treat citizens equally by passing general laws.
As Supreme Court Justice Harlan wrote in his dissenting opinion in the case Plessy vs. Ferguson, "In view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful."
If government is to protect the equal rights of citizens, it must offer every citizen the equal protection of the law. This kind of rule, and only this kind of rule - the rule of laws that offer equal protection - is compatible with the idea of human equality and equal natural rights.
The Theory of the American Founding, Part Three: Why Equal Protection of the Law?
The cornerstone of the American political system is the principle of human equality enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration begins with a simple yet profound articulation of this principle: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." All human beings possess equally the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Declaration goes on to state the purpose of government: "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Since all men possess equal rights by nature, the purpose of government is to secure those rights.
The purpose of government - securing rights - points to the inherent limits placed on a just government. That is, if the purpose of government is to protect rights, then government must be limited to those things necessary for the protection of rights. If the government itself becomes too large and powerful, it becomes a threat to the rights and liberties of the people, the very things government is supposed to protect. This underlies Madison's famous statement in Federalist 51:
"But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself."
Madison's point is that human nature is not angelic: human beings are not wholly good. Sometimes they follow the baser elements of their nature and violate the rights of others. Thus government is instituted to protect its citizens against those who would violate their rights. But at the heart of the idea of just government lies a great difficulty: government must be at once strong enough to protect our rights, but not so strong that it threatens our rights. That is, we must first give the government the powers necessary to control the governed, and then ensure that the government controls itself. The solution to this difficulty is limited constitutional government.
We know that the purpose of government is to protect rights; therefore we know that government should be limited in its powers. That is, based on the principles of the American Founding, legitimate government has only the power necessary to affect its end: the protection of our rights. In order to limit the powers of the government, the Founders offered a written constitution which specifies what government ought to do, and what it ought not do. This idea of limiting the powers of the government defines the structure of the American Constitution. For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the legislative branch of government, while the next section, Article I, Section 9 places restrictions on the power of the legislature. Article I, Section 10 then goes on to place restrictions on the powers of the various state governments.
Furthermore, as citizens we can know what the proper duties of the government are by referring to the fundamental law of the land, the Constitution. This idea of living under a written constitution is what is sometimes called "constitutionalism."
In a constitutional regime such as America, how should the government act towards citizens? Even if the government is exercising some power that is granted by the Constitution, should government be able to make arbitrary distinctions between citizens, and treat them differently? Here we must remind ourselves of the purpose of government: to protect the equal natural rights of all citizens.
The American constitutional system is based on the idea that the law, not individual men, reign supreme over both the government and over citizens. Put another way, we want government and society to act according to the rule of law. Society is best governed by the rule of law, rather than the arbitrary will of men, because law represents the reason of men divorced from the passions of men, and it aims at the common good of all citizens, not the good of one man or one group of citizens. The law is superior to the government in the sense that government can only do those things that the law (the Constitution) permits. At the same time, when government exercises power over citizens, it must do so by general laws that apply equally to all citizens similarly situated. If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of citizens, and all citizens possess equal rights by nature, then the government must treat citizens equally by passing general laws.
As Supreme Court Justice Harlan wrote in his dissenting opinion in the case Plessy vs. Ferguson, "In view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful."
If government is to protect the equal rights of citizens, it must offer every citizen the equal protection of the law. This kind of rule, and only this kind of rule - the rule of laws that offer equal protection - is compatible with the idea of human equality and equal natural rights.
Judicial Review, and if they decide that equal protection is not extended, then we will elect representatives to amend the constitution.
Kirby
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2006
- 12,028
- 2
- 0
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
If someone wants to claim that it doesn't, it will be his burden to demonstrate as much to the court. It's incredibly humorous to imagine someone trying to argue that equal protection only applies in some circumstances, for particular people and not others. It reveals a lot about you that you implicitly think it should.
I answered your question with completeness.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,108
- 18,636
- 146
When it comes to civil rights, the courts have the final say. Unless, of course, the electorate through congress amends the Constitution to specifically outlaw that civil right. Then the courts have no choice but to honor the Amendment and make rulings that abide by it.
NEVER should the popular vote have a say on individual rights. Mob rule is tyranny of the majority. It is, quite simply, two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
The greatest minority is the individual. When one speaks of civil rights for minorities, they are, in fact speaking of the individual.
NEVER should the popular vote have a say on individual rights. Mob rule is tyranny of the majority. It is, quite simply, two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
The greatest minority is the individual. When one speaks of civil rights for minorities, they are, in fact speaking of the individual.
Last edited:
But it kind of does..well, at least classifications of people are afforded different levels of judicial scrutiny.
Racial classifications go under strict scrutiny. Gender is intermediate scrutiny. There's never really been anything for sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't get some level of higher scrutiny.
I guess you can also say that a fundamental right is at stake with marriage - that marriage is a fundamental right. That would apply strict scrutiny, too.
Anyways, I think that the Courts should clearly have the final say, but it's all part of the political process. The Courts are basically the last resort.
dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
There is not one human alive who has the morality to regulate who can love each other.
Anyone that wants married can get married
Religious people need to either go kill themselves and start over.. SINCE THEY DON'T KNOW LOVE... sick sick sick humans..
If Jesus was here those punkass bitches would fucking run for their lives if they were caught trying to regulate love..
Anyone that wants married can get married
Religious people need to either go kill themselves and start over.. SINCE THEY DON'T KNOW LOVE... sick sick sick humans..
If Jesus was here those punkass bitches would fucking run for their lives if they were caught trying to regulate love..
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
You are completely backwards on this debate.
If it was as easy as claiming 'equal protection' then this whole thing would have been settled years ago, but it isn't and it continues to be fought out across the country.
Just because a group of people proclaim that they are protected by 'equal protection' does not make it so.
Right now gays don't have the right to marry in most states and it is up to them to prove that this right should be extended to them. They are the ones who have to prove that equal protection should be extended to them and their right to marry.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
When you start screaming about everyone around you being crazy, you should instead look in the mirror and realize that it is you.
Right, because it was soooo easy for women and minorities to get their rights upheld in the past.
Are you not from this country?If they are denied the rights that others enjoy, it does.
Here you have it backwards. Rights are not "extended" or "granted." All rights are inherent. When the courts decide that a same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, they are recognizing the rights that those people always had yet were denied from exercising.
In dubio pro libertate. If nobody can demonstrate a compelling reason to deny their rights, then their rights are inviolate. The inequality is easy enough to demonstrate, anyway. Allow me to quote myself, thusly, and like so...
Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. Voters do not interpret the Constitution. That is the role of courts.
- wolf
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter