Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Senate Bill 27
Everybody needs to remember that homosexual marriage is already illegal in Delaware and will be for the foreseeable future. This bill would not "illegalize homosexuality" it would just move the definition of marriage (which isn't going anywhere in this state) from the civil code to the State Constitution so that the people, and not the courts, can change it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Whichever side of the issue you fall on (pro- or anti- gay marriage), the whole idea of making it a part of any sort of state or federal constitution is just hilarious.
Most of the information in Constitutions is information about the structure of government, things that by their very nature must be laid out on a higher plane since you can't have, for example, Congress passing laws about what laws Congress can pass.
The small remainder is laying out inherent rights that people have, rights that are never supposed to be trodden upon by the government even though they are likely to come under fire from a majority (i.e. "Well if you have nothing to hide why are you worried about an illegal search? What are the police gonna find?") Alternatively, you might consider these to just be rights that are necessary for a functioning government, to tie in with the first point.
A "No gay marriage!" amendment is neither of these. It doesn't fit in at all with anything a Constitution is supposed to do, and it's basically people saying "What, I can't get what I want using normal methods? Oh look a convenient loophole!"
It's the equivalent of the guy who exploits a video game by camping out where players respawn so he can kill them before they can do anything. Whether or not he protests and says "But anyone can do it!" that's not how the system is intended to work.
Plus the way you say "So that the people and not the courts can change it," it makes it very obvious the ways in which this is just meant to skirt the courts' power to protect against tyranny of the majority.
"Most of the information in Constitutions is information about the structure of government"
Arguably, this would just elaborate on what powers the government will have.
"It doesn't fit in at all with anything a Constitution is supposed to do, and it's basically people saying "What, I can't get what I want using normal methods? Oh look a convenient loophole!""
I must disagree wholeheartedly, sir. The people have already gotten what they want through normal methods and are worried about it being taken away by activist judges. Looking at what has happened in Massachusetts and California and Connecticut I think you'd be hard pressed to tell me with a straight-face that it isn't a logical fear.
"Plus the way you say "So that the people and not the courts can change it," it makes it very obvious the ways in which this is just meant to skirt the courts' power to protect against tyranny of the majority."
While tyranny of the majority is something to protect against I'm rather afraid of conventional tyranny at the moment, something which you seem to be overlooking.
Man that's totally not cool, I figured Blogger would email me if you/anyone responded. Guess not.
You however, are arguing as though the "activist" ability to review laws is abnormal, which is clearly not the case since it has been going on since the 1790s.
I'm not saying that the possibility of marital law changing is an illogical fear, I'm saying that if your problem is the normal methods then you should be trying to alter those methods rather than just looking for a loophole.
Post a Comment