Gay is the new black
Registered User
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 11,074
Likes: 0
From: All up in your inner tubes. Whatcha gonna do sucka?
Originally Posted by Quick2K,Nov 28 2008, 12:19 AM
My point is that society changes law, but law also changes society. Ordinary people only get a chance to change their mind about some group when they have the opportunity to interact with them in ordinary situations. Striking down laws which prevent such interaction breaks down stereotypes and confronts people with their prejudices.
I don't want to put all of my eggs in one basket, though. Certainly, changing minds through politics without involving the law is a better solution, because it undermines a lot of divisive counterarguments from the right: "Activists Judges," "States Rights," etc. Maybe that will work in some states, but certainly not in others.
I don't want to put all of my eggs in one basket, though. Certainly, changing minds through politics without involving the law is a better solution, because it undermines a lot of divisive counterarguments from the right: "Activists Judges," "States Rights," etc. Maybe that will work in some states, but certainly not in others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
my views happen to fall to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
why? we have amendments for a reason.
I just worry that a living constitution allows judges unfettered discretion to inject their personal values into constitutional interpretation.
I'm not only saying this in the context of gay marriage - it goes for all law. I just feel originalism helps ensure predictability and protects against arbitrary changes in the interpretation of the constitution.
If a constitution as interpreted can truly be changed at the decree of a judge, then "[t]he Constitution
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 8,504
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by thebig33tuna,Dec 1 2008, 01:38 PM
So in what part of 'the same' did they somehow get 'more' rights? That was what I had an issue with.
Heterosexual couples are NOT afforded the same protections, until they marry. A girlfriend and boyfriend can't get a state tax break, can't get health insurance, can't get death benefits, etc.
Ergo: More protection for the homosexual category. And, by law have all of the state legal protections already, don't need marriage for that.
The homosexual lobby did not ask for a repeal of the domestic partner act in lieu of marriage, they want both. Fine by me, extend those same protections to hereosexual domestic partners as well.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 32,283
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
??? saying 'all gay couples have to do to get X rights is become domestic partners' is exactly the same as saying 'all straight couples have to do to get X rights is get married'
you're acting like it is somehow easier for them to get one, or less important. they both require a significant level of commitment, both legally and otherwise. i do not see how you can argue that the domestic partnership is somehow an extra right, some kind of bonus above and beyond straight couples. they get the same legal rights and protections, not more legal rights and protections.
i understand your point about wanting BOTH domestic partnerships AND marriage - that would in fact be extra rights. but as it stands now, i believe they are 'separate but equal.'
you're acting like it is somehow easier for them to get one, or less important. they both require a significant level of commitment, both legally and otherwise. i do not see how you can argue that the domestic partnership is somehow an extra right, some kind of bonus above and beyond straight couples. they get the same legal rights and protections, not more legal rights and protections.
i understand your point about wanting BOTH domestic partnerships AND marriage - that would in fact be extra rights. but as it stands now, i believe they are 'separate but equal.'
