Quote:

the G-man said:

Actually, your attempt to draw an analogy to slavery proves, rather than questions, my point.

Slavery, sadly, existed at the time of the passage and ratification of the constitution. Therefore, a prohibition against it was contrary to the founders' intent. As such, it required an amendment to prohibit it.


Actually Jefferson was torn on the issue of slavery and it is now believed he considered banning it but chose not to due to the fragile nature of the union.
My point stands that they never would have written an amendment limiting someone's freedom. You can not argue that the founding fathers wanted later generations to write discrimination into the constitution.

Quote:

You, on the other hand, are arguing that gay marriage, something that did NOT exist at the time of the constitution's passage, something that was, in fact wholly outlawed, is somehow consistent to the founders' intent.

I have said in the past that I think the issue of gay marriage should be decided by legislation and that, if the appropriate legislature approves gay marriage, I have no problem with that.


then why are you bitching about whether it existed in 1776? My point has been about putting discrimination into the constitution.

Quote:

However, I continue to oppose "legislation from the bench." Such judicial activism is, I would submit, wholly and clearly inconsistent with the framers' intent that there be a "separation of powers" between the judicial, executive and legislative branches.


Judges entire role is to determine if something violates the law or, in the case of higher courts, if the law violates the constitution. So if a judge reads "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" they can determine that banning two adults from marrying (especially based on religious reasons) in a City Hall is unconstitutional. That's not legislating from the bench, its not judicial activism, its a judge doing their duty and following the law/constitution as they see it.


Quote:

If an amendment is necessary to prevent the courts from exceeding their authority, I would submit that the amendment is more consistent, not less, with the intent of the constitution to separate powers.


you're way off. Once a discriminating law is put in the Constitution then it opens the door for other discrimination. Once you throw in that there are limits to personal freedom in regards to marriage then someone can argue before the supreme court that another discrimination is okay and the judges will have to agree because its in the constitution.
Also, unless there's some fancy legal trick I'm missing, if its in the constitution then no state can legalize gay marriage no matter how much they want to. The legal marriages in Mass. become void and it prevents anyone from passing any sort of law allowing gays to marry.

And again I point out the main topic of MY thread that you deleted to avoid the point that you can't really argue which is that Bush is only making this an issue in election years.

Bow ties are coool.