Quote:
Originally posted by lifesaver
I agree, it is a step in the right direction.
A couple of points tho. (It seems like we agree on the issue so I'm just splitting hairs here). You have to agree that strictly interperted, yes, its only the rights granted to the minority by the majority that they enjoy. HOWEVER, through the evolution/interpertation of the constitution, rights of the minority (not religious or ethnic in this case, simply the non-majority) have been expanded, not contracted, so it would seem that in keeping with that trend, the natural extention of those protections will continue.
|
I agree in principle. The reality, though, is that the 'natural extensions' we've been enjoying are not guarantees, as you pointed out - and thus strict review can prove dangerous to these rights.
Especially in a subject as divisive as this, and as constitutionally complex, there's always the chance of strict interpretation being utilized . . .
Quote:
Originally posted by lifesaver
I dont advocate the elimination of the representative democracy or anything. (far from it, see my other posts on how I dont think stupid people should even be alowed to vote). My point about voting as a nation to ban gay marrage was a rhetorical statement to RUgreek's statement of "well thats what we voted for." Only in the most liberal of interpertations coudl it be said that we voted for it. All bans on gay marrage have been at the state or local level. The 1996 DOMA law didnt ban gay marrage on the federal level, one part of it (and the part relevant to this debate) said the governmet would not be recognizing it if a state were to legalize it.
|
Agreed, and I wasn't piggybacking on RUgreek's point at all - just pointing out that we effectively lose the right to claims such as "I never voted for that!" as soon as the ballot hits the box. This wasn't so much geared toward you, as at others in the thread to prevent widespread whineyism.