8 ms·

> Appealing to the Constitution isn't really a valid line of argument, though. I disagree. Right or wrong, it is the document against which we supposedly make

by bmelton 13y ago

> Appealing to the Constitution isn't really a valid line of argument, though. I disagree. Right or wrong, it is the document against which we supposedly make all laws. I'm not suggesting that we appeal to it as it is, rather, appeal to its defined measures for ensuring that it is kept current. Put simply, in football, they have a rule book. That rule book is what we consult on matters of the rules. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong, and sometimes the rules need updating -- but suggesting that we disregard the rule book while playing football seems naive. The rules are necessary. The Constitution is that rule book. Either follow the rules or write new ones. Why is that so untenable? > The Constitution isn't the Bible. It cannot, and should not, prescribe morality, which is what should drive law-making; I disagree that law-making should be driven by morals. The Constitution, in theory at least, should work as a bulwark ensuring that minority opinions are upheld. Just as homosexuals are fighting for equal rights under the law because their moral values aren't shared by enough people, the Constitution is their prescriptive measure. They have equal rights because they are people, and deserving of equal rights, regardless of their or others' morals. We're still niggling over the details of it, but ultimately, I have hope and faith that gay rights will eventually achieve parity in law that the rest of us enjoy. > nor should any part of it, including the Bill of Rights, be sacrosanct. ... until it is ratified, I disagree. > The Constitution, and its derivates the US Code and state constitutions, are authoritative only to the point that they usefully represent their constituents' morality. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the statement, but by your argument, gays shouldn't have rights if the majority of constituents agree they shouldn't? I disagree here, and I would expect that every minority group should. It's very possible that I've misconstrued your intent though, so please feel free to correct me if I'm in error.

saraid216 13y ago
> The Constitution, in theory at least, should work as a bulwark ensuring that minority opinions are upheld. That's not what pluralism is. The key is in ensuring that minority opinions are heard and reasonably considered, not "upheld". > They have equal rights because they are people, and deserving of equal rights, regardless of their or others' morals. And yet, that's not actually what the Constitution says. Nothing in the Constitution actually says that people have equal rights. That's why, when they tried to write an amendment to ban gay marriage, they didn't have to include any deletions, because it would have contradicted nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment This is the example you chose; it's not helping your case. :P Edited to add: > suggesting that we disregard the rule book while playing football seems naive That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm saying that "because Constitution" is not the right reason to write law. Gays shouldn't have rights because the Constitution says they should; it doesn't. Gays should have rights because we say they should, and if the Constitution doesn't, then maybe it fucking should. > Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the statement, but by your argument, gays shouldn't have rights if the majority of constituents agree they shouldn't? I disagree here, and I would expect that every minority group should. It's very possible that I've misconstrued your intent though, so please feel free to correct me if I'm in error. Your error is that you think moral opinion is static. If the majority is wrong, then we (1) act to protect the minority and (2) convince the majority that they are wrong. Not sure if you noticed, but the last several years have been full of "LOOK! GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT EVIL! ISNT THAT GREAT!". This is part of the process.
- bmelton 13y ago
  > That's not what pluralism is. The key is in ensuring that minority opinions are heard and reasonably considered, not "upheld". I disagree, but only slightly. Civil liberties are upheld on Constitutionality, on strict (or in today's society, intermediate) scrutiny. This means that the rights of minorities are to be upheld, unless there's a really damn good reason why they shouldn't be. Religious freedom is held fairly paramount in this country, but if I established a religion that allowed me to kill others, it would not be, because of its conflict in relation to the rights of others; it wouldn't uphold even strict scrutiny. However, in regards to gay marriage, the Winstead case was upheld because the state could not even issue plausibility of a rational basis for why the rights of gays should be curtailed. In short, it didn't harm anyone, and as such, the state could not curtail her civil liberties on grounds of Constitutionality. > Nothing in the Constitution actually says that people have equal rights. The fourteenth amendment says exactly that, actually. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." > That's why, when they tried to write an amendment to ban gay marriage, they didn't have to include any deletions, because it would have contradicted nothing. That's not really why. I've got another very long argument on here about this subject, but in short, the legal theory behind that is implied repeal, or "leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant", which means that newer laws supersede older laws where they conflict with each other. As a result, a new amendment needn't specifically repeal a prior provision of the Constitution to have full weight. > Gays should have rights because we say they should, and if the Constitution doesn't, then maybe it fucking should. I disagree that it doesn't, but if it should (and I agree that it should), there's a ratification process for that, which means that it can. > Your error is that you think moral opinion is static. Respectfully, I disagree there completely. > but the last several years have been full of "LOOK! GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT EVIL! ISNT THAT GREAT!" And the problem is that the Constitution has been inequally applied for so long that we even had to. It should have been de facto applied as a matter of course that of course they have the right to marry. The problem is that, for too long, people weren't advocating for gay rights because they had moral objection to homosexuality. Whether or not someone is uncomfortable with someone else's sex life should not give them the authority to disallow them from exercising that behavior in whatever they see fit.

by bmelton 13y ago

saraid216 13y ago

> The Constitution, in theory at least, should work as a bulwark ensuring that minority opinions are upheld. That's not what pluralism is. The key is in ensuring that minority opinions are heard and reasonably considered, not "upheld". > They have equal rights because they are people, and deserving of equal rights, regardless of their or others' morals. And yet, that's not actually what the Constitution says. Nothing in the Constitution actually says that people have equal rights. That's why, when they tried to write an amendment to ban gay marriage, they didn't have to include any deletions, because it would have contradicted nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment This is the example you chose; it's not helping your case. :P Edited to add: > suggesting that we disregard the rule book while playing football seems naive That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm saying that "because Constitution" is not the right reason to write law. Gays shouldn't have rights because the Constitution says they should; it doesn't. Gays should have rights because we say they should, and if the Constitution doesn't, then maybe it fucking should. > Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the statement, but by your argument, gays shouldn't have rights if the majority of constituents agree they shouldn't? I disagree here, and I would expect that every minority group should. It's very possible that I've misconstrued your intent though, so please feel free to correct me if I'm in error. Your error is that you think moral opinion is static. If the majority is wrong, then we (1) act to protect the minority and (2) convince the majority that they are wrong. Not sure if you noticed, but the last several years have been full of "LOOK! GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT EVIL! ISNT THAT GREAT!". This is part of the process.

bmelton 13y ago
> That's not what pluralism is. The key is in ensuring that minority opinions are heard and reasonably considered, not "upheld". I disagree, but only slightly. Civil liberties are upheld on Constitutionality, on strict (or in today's society, intermediate) scrutiny. This means that the rights of minorities are to be upheld, unless there's a really damn good reason why they shouldn't be. Religious freedom is held fairly paramount in this country, but if I established a religion that allowed me to kill others, it would not be, because of its conflict in relation to the rights of others; it wouldn't uphold even strict scrutiny. However, in regards to gay marriage, the Winstead case was upheld because the state could not even issue plausibility of a rational basis for why the rights of gays should be curtailed. In short, it didn't harm anyone, and as such, the state could not curtail her civil liberties on grounds of Constitutionality. > Nothing in the Constitution actually says that people have equal rights. The fourteenth amendment says exactly that, actually. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." > That's why, when they tried to write an amendment to ban gay marriage, they didn't have to include any deletions, because it would have contradicted nothing. That's not really why. I've got another very long argument on here about this subject, but in short, the legal theory behind that is implied repeal, or "leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant", which means that newer laws supersede older laws where they conflict with each other. As a result, a new amendment needn't specifically repeal a prior provision of the Constitution to have full weight. > Gays should have rights because we say they should, and if the Constitution doesn't, then maybe it fucking should. I disagree that it doesn't, but if it should (and I agree that it should), there's a ratification process for that, which means that it can. > Your error is that you think moral opinion is static. Respectfully, I disagree there completely. > but the last several years have been full of "LOOK! GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT EVIL! ISNT THAT GREAT!" And the problem is that the Constitution has been inequally applied for so long that we even had to. It should have been de facto applied as a matter of course that of course they have the right to marry. The problem is that, for too long, people weren't advocating for gay rights because they had moral objection to homosexuality. Whether or not someone is uncomfortable with someone else's sex life should not give them the authority to disallow them from exercising that behavior in whatever they see fit.