Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Rule of law > "Justice"
Argumentatum ad populum does not apply to things that are actually related to popular will, such as laws determined by a vote. Saying that it should be determined democratically is not, in itself, ad populum. Saying that it should be decided democratically because that is what most people want would be.
Yes, and for many states the process ruled that it was perfectly Constitutional to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This judge violated the Constitution and spun it in order to impose his personal beliefs into law.
I think you misunderstand what it means to have right to contract. I want to enter into a marriage contract, which has many legal consequences and privileges, with Bob. But I can't because someone else said I cannot enter into that contract with another dude. You have thus infringed upon my right to contract. You don't get to dictate the terms to me, it's my right to contract. If y'all got together and said "Ikari cannot enter into a contract with another man over painting his house", you have infringed upon my right to contract. My right to contract isn't subject to the communities whims. Communities and societies do not have rights; only individuals have rights. The State cannot infringe upon my right to contract either. The one and only limitation to my right to contract is that I cannot infringe upon the rights of others while exercising it.
In this case gay marriage was not allowed so what right was lost?
You can enter a marriage contract with a dude whenever you want. The question is whether or not the government will recognize it.
Rule of law can only be valid when justice is applied.
Broadly, justice is the equal application of rules, to everyone.
I disagree.
I think democracy is a poor way to decide things.
I disagree.
I think democracy is a poor way to decide things.
Maybe it is unconstitutional. But people here don't seemed to be concerned about whether it is or not, they just want it struck down in the name of "justice".
If you think sovereignty rests with the people, its the only real way.
I don't care if gays marry, but it shouldn't be allowed in a Christian church. The bible specifically states that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. Considering that marriage is "holy matrimony" I think it is a complete and utter disrespect to the church for gays to marry there. Get married in a hall, or anywhere, but not a church. To me, that is NOT right.
My major gripe is that everyone seems to be saying that it's a good thing because they like the result, without actually providing a legal argument.
Rule of Law means that the law is upheld. If there is nothing in any law that would make Prop 8 unconstitutional, then it is violating the rule of law, in the name of justice, to strike it down as such.
Maybe it is unconstitutional. But people here don't seemed to be concerned about whether it is or not, they just want it struck down in the name of "justice".
I know, and we've already argued about this. But my point was that you misused the argumentatum ad populum accusation.
I don't care if gays marry, but it shouldn't be allowed in a Christian church. The bible specifically states that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. Considering that marriage is "holy matrimony" I think it is a complete and utter disrespect to the church for gays to marry there. Get married in a hall, or anywhere, but not a church. To me, that is NOT right.
Straight democracy is prone to manipulation by demagogues, which is why I believe that a constitutional republic is a superior form of government.
If you think sovereignty rests with the people, its the only real way.
Oh I agree, but the people should always be the ultimate authority.
Sovereignty over your life, should be solely left to you.
Sovereignty over the lives of others, no.
Actually, I tend to believe that the bill of rights and constitution should be the ultimate authority, but that if the people are truly united, they can amend these documents.
You can enter a marriage contract with a dude whenever you want. The question is whether or not the government will recognize it.
I go more with sovereignty over government.
As long as the people preside over the government with justice in mind, I have no problem.
(Justice being equity and harmony of the law, with fact based reasoning to back it up.)
Prop 8 is precisely why democracy can be incredibly dumb.
There is no factual reason to restrict gay marriage.
Yep. Another activist judge overthrowing the will of the people for a second time based on nothing but their own personal politics.
Sad but predictable.
I bet the people that practice polygamy are following this decision closely or any other group that is defined by their sexual orientation.....
Stay tuned..........
Prop 69, furry marriage!
Oh wait, that is already legal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?