|
Glad to hear its going to be debated over in court where emotion and personal agendas (ideally) are taken out of the equation. The real question all along has been weather or not its constitutional to deny American citizens the right to marry who they want to and take part in the benefits involved. Personal definitions of marriage, religious view points, bigotry and being "grossed out" simply have no place in deciding weather or not something is either constitutional or weather the state has a compelling reason to deny the rights involved. I'm sure some people who voted on prop 8 really did their homework and came up with a rational, well thought out position based on legal history and the wording of the constitution, however can we trust that all took that same care or even had the aptitude to?
Unfortunately all to often when an issue like this comes up before voters gut feelings, prejudices and emotional reactions play just as big a roll as level headedness and rational thinking. Which is why time and time again in our nations history issues about civil rights had to be decided in the end by congress or supreme court. Complex constitutional issues simply have no place in the voting booth to be dictated by the will of the (in some cases uninformed) majority. I would argue the same when it comes to any issue that questions peoples rights especially when it may deal with interpreting the constitution.
This is an important issue and it deserves a proper forum to be debated carefully by legal scholars unimpeded by propaganda and public tastes.
"“We wouldn't need a Constitution if we left everything to the political process,” replied Mr. Olson." Indeed Mr, Olson, indeed.
__________________
“My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”
|