The Gay Marriage Debate
Here is an insane argument against the California Supreme Court ruling:
How, then, can a court invalidate the referendum and over-rule the will of the people? Basically through a kind of legal fraud. The court has to pretend that there is a right to gay marriage even though it is nowhere evident in the state constitution. Read the constitution, hold it up to the light, squeeze lemon juice on it–you won’t see a right to gay marriage in there. It is simply not an enumerated right, nor is it a right that can be clearly derived from other enumerated rights.
And here is that argument torn to pieces:
I bet there’s a whole range of unenumerated rights the court has rightly protected that D’Souza is all for. Nowhere in the constitution does it mention any right to travel from state to state, or to send one’s children to private school (or to homeschool them, for that matter), or the right to read a book if one chooses to. Read the constitution, hold it up to the light, squeeze lemon juice on it - you won’t see any of those rights mentioned. Yet the courts have rightly protected them anyway.
Supreme Courts exist precisely in order to counter democracy. The Founding Fathers feared unfiltered democracy (mob rule) more than just about anything. Those Courts’ function is to protect minorities from the whims of majorities. The so-called Conservatives only remember this principle when it happens to suit them to remember it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.