Chief Justice of the United States

[??????????]

Let me remind you that what the founding fathers might have thought about religion in public life is irrelevant. Contemporary jurisprudence must recognize that the phrase "an establishment of religion" might have a distinctly different meaning. The role of our courts is to occasionally redefine the boundaries of Constitutional protections so that they may always encompass the freedoms of all Americans, even as our nation grows and changes. A Supreme Court that can do just that prevents the necessity of adopting a new Constitution every twenty-five years. I, for one, think that this new understanding of government and religion is fundamental to a modern society, and can only benison religious liberty by keeping the government neutral on questions of faith.

Isn't the whole point of this "experiment" called the United States is to stick by the constitution as close to the original document as possible.

[migrendel]

No.

[??????????]

I think we can agree to disagree on this issue. I am what they would have called a "strict constitutionalist". Many judges in this country are getting a little out of control allowing Gay Marriage when it's against the law.

[migrendel]

I would simply say that the truly binding law, the Constitution, makes forbidding it illegal, and no Frankfurteresque obsequiousness to legislatures in the name of judicial restraint can change that.

[classical liberal]

What clause makes forbiding it illegal?

[migrendel]

Well, the Equal Protection Clause and the right to privacy, whether found in the Due Process Clauses, the Ninth Amendment, or penumbrae of the Bill of Rights, depending upon your theory.