I really, really don't want to talk about gay marriage, because of all the things that are going on right now, it's way down the list of issues that matter. But this needs to be said -- if we're going to have gay marriage, this is how it should be brought about:
The Washington legislation cleared the state House of Representatives by a vote of 55-43, a week after the state Senate passed it by a 28-21 vote. Democrats, accounting for the lion's share of support for the bill, control both legislative bodies in Olympia.Legislators pass laws. Governors sign them. If the state of Washington wants gay marriage, and the citizenry there elects officials who write it into law, more power to them.
4 comments:
Haven't read through all the dustup response I triggered yet, but for somebody who doesn't want to talk about it, you sure put out a lot of incendiary snarky comments about the issue. It may not matter to you, who has the benefits of marriage (best regards from me to Mrs. D, btw), but it sure matters to those whose rights are being denied, and that should matter to all citizens. I can respect your position about legislatures voting on things to make a transition easier, but my stand is that rights should not be up for a vote. That's why they are called rights, and what we need the judiciary branch to make clear.
you sure put out a lot of incendiary snarky comments about the issue.
I don't think I've been particularly snarky or incendiary on this issue. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.
As for your view of the courts, all I’d say is this — relying on the courts to provide protection of your rights, however you choose to define them, is a mistake. Ask Susette Kelo if you doubt that.
Mark,
I think been pretty consistent about your position on marriage equality, which is a classic libretarian approach of removing the role of government from marriage, which is essentially, a religious institution (and, as Catholic's and many other sects see it, a religious sacrament). I completely agree with you on this. So, know quibble there ata all. I would also agree that legislating is the preferred change agent. But your statement that "relying on the courts to provide protection of your rights, however you choose to define them, is a mistake." seems overbroad and ill informed.
Do you deny the validity of judicial review? This is pretty well established in American Common Law. Starting with Justice Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been excepted and expanded and become solidified at the core of constitutional jurisprudence.
Please don't tell me you reject it outright because it isn't specifaly stated in the Constitution. Judicial review is consistent with several provisions of the Constitution and the argument for its existence can be readily derived from these provisions. If not, then what is the point of the Bill of Rights?
The Courts are the point of last review. This is a democratic Republic. It is not majority rule. If individual rights could ALWAYS superceded by a majority, this would be a very different place. Just wondering...are you upset that Obamacare is being challenged in the courts?
Regards,
Rich
Do you deny the validity of judicial review?
Of course not, Rich.
The Courts are the point of last review. This is a democratic Republic. It is not majority rule. If individual rights could ALWAYS superceded by a majority, this would be a very different place. Just wondering...are you upset that Obamacare is being challenged in the courts?
You're reading a lot more into my comments than is there. Let's see if you can agree with these propositions:
1) Judicial review exists.
2) It doesn't mean that judicial review is always a good thing. See Plessy v. Ferguson and Kelo v. New London.
3) While the courts provide a necessary brake on legislative and executive excess, there really isn't a brake on judicial excess.
4) As a result, judicial review ought to be taken exceptionally seriously and when a reversal of law occurs, there ought to be an awfully good reason for it.
5) If a law is based on a vote of the people and is codified into a state constitution, it really ought to take more than 3 federal judges to overturn it, especially when one of the judges has a conflict of interest, as the initial Prop 8 judge did.
There's always an intersection between lofty principle and the actual application of things. Right now, because of the historical moment we are at, the Supreme Court is essentially in the hands of one jurist, Anthony Kennedy. He will likely decide the fate of Obamacare, and gay marriage, and other issues that will come before the Court in the next few years. Are you comfortable with that? I'm not, even if he decides the cases in accordance with my views on the issues in question.
If Barack Obama misbehaves, I can vote against him. I can't do a damned thing about Anthony Kennedy, or any other federal judge for that matter.
Judicial review will not go away, nor should it. But there are inherent dangers in it and we need to recognize them.
Post a Comment