California gets gay marriage and very hot weather

[Conan]

There is nothing philosophically unsound with "everyone should have the right to marry the one person they love."  Yes, it is somewhat arbitrary.  I'd argue that I can't find a convincing argument for it being more arbitrary than "everyone should have the right to marry the one person they love, as long as they are of the opposite sex."

That's precisely my point: There really is no philosophically sound argument for simply allowing same-sex marriage. It's really just an utterly arbitrary personal preference. At that point, I really don't see why the arbitrary preferences of a minority should be imposed, judicially or otherwise, on the majority.

Are you an american? Did you know that this country was founded on the majority not being able to impose it's will on the minority? Nothing is being imposed by the minority in this case anyway. It only affects them, not the majority. Also, you need to keep on your James Madison.

[Conan]

Are you an american?

No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did not "know" that the United States was founded on so implausible a principle, because, as it turns out, it was not.

The Constitution of the United States is ultimately a majoritarian document. It allows the majority, through its elected representatives, to enact such laws as it may desire, subject to only a handful of exceptions and limitations. And who adopted those exceptions? Who authorized those limitations? It was "We the People," that is to say, the majority. The majority decided to limit itself, but only in some cases. It did not set up the courts as super-legislatures, responsible for reviewing the wisdom of every single enactment. When judges stray beyond the words of the Constitution, they usurp power that the people never delegated to them; they take away authority that the people retained for themselves.

Now, of course, it is very convenient for leftists to praise judicial intrusion when that intrusion expands so-called "social rights"--abortion, same-sex marriage, and so forth. Needless to say, most of them would oppose the same judicial intrusion if it were designed to protect "economic rights" such as the liberty of contract. I doubt you would be very happy if the Supreme Court revived the doctrine of Adkins v. Children's Hospital (which held that minimum wage laws were unconstitutional because they violate the "right" of the employer and employee to negotiate with one another). In that case, too, the Supreme Court claimed that it was preventing the majority from infringing individual rights. Philosophically, I see no difference between those types of cases, and the case decided by the Supreme Court of California this month. The only distinction is that Adkins, decided in the 1920s, was favored by the right wing of the time, while the Marriage Cases are favored by the left. Each is a result-oriented expedient with no basis in the law.

But leave aside, for a moment, the issue of judging. You say that the majority should not have the power to impose its will on a minority. What alternative do you propose? Who shall decide the limits to the majority's ability to make laws--who shall decide what rights the minorities have?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These cases require the government of California to do something, to grant a particular type of official recognition to a particular type of union. Marriage is a civil institution, and any change to that institution not adopted by the people themselves is an imposition.

I guess you haven't learned about American history or constitutional law.

The constitution gives people their rights. Also, there is a reason we don't have national referendums Our founders didn't have trust in the masses, people like yourself, to make certain policy.  You're argument that gays achieving equal rights is imposing on the majority is just silly.

[Conan]

I really take a very libertarian position on this and many other social matters.  If it doesn't hurt anyone else....ok by me.

Here is going to be a headline very soon:

MARRIED GAY {WO}MAN DENIED EMPLOYMENT.  ALLEGES EMPLOYER DID NOT WANT TO PAY SPOUSAL BENEFITS TO GAY MARRIED COUPLE.  SEEKING $50 MILLION IN LAWSUIT JUST FILED.

And the sad part is it will probably be true.

That's well within her right to do that then.