I figured the Commerce Clause would be a buggeroo for you. The "right to privacy" is not in the United States Constitution nor is the right to a public education --yet, these (and others "rights") are found within our society and whether we disagree with them or not based on our ideologies is beside the point. They're constitutional in the sense that they are upheld by the Justices as being constitutional. That was the point I was trying to get at.
None of them are "rights" at all, in a constitutional sense. I thought you understood this subject matter Moniker. Unimpressive. Moniker, the alleged "libertarian", now drops her gaurd completely:
They're constitutional in the sense that they are upheld by the Justices as being constitutional. That was the point I was trying to get at.
No. They are constitutional
if and only if they are actually constitutional and can be shown to be so through an analysis of the original intent of the writers. What you really believe in Moniker, is rule by lawmakers, not rule of law, and the lawmakers you are defending here, the California Supremes,
have no constitutional authority to make law at all.I agree with you that behaviors can be the basis for what options (or breaks) are afforded to certain people in our society. I think the government should either get out of encouraging success of certain families or encourage it for all.
Astounding how a libertarian can consistently make statements indistinguishable from those of of egalitarian socialists. If one has it, all must have it. If one cannot have it, none may have it.
Fundamental philosophical proposition number one: homosexual cohabitation is not a family. A random assemblage of sexually involved human beings is not a family. The natural family and its acceptable, socially healthy (in relative terms) modifications, are known and have been known for a very long time.
I snipped the typical leftwing sob story because its of no relevance to the argument. A home composed of those practicing sexual perversions and living in the grossest violations of the Lord's commandments may be called a family in the manner Manson called his hippie cult a "family", or in some other sense, but not in a Gospel sense (which is what really matters), and not in the sense of what we know is optimum for children and for society as a whole.
What about the couple above, Coggins? Why does the dad still get to claim them as deductions every other year and get the EIC every other year if he so chooses and yet, the woman that actually raises his children can not legally marry these children's mother and be given parental rights that the father would gladly relinquish.
Sophistry like this will get you nowhere Moniker. We are not talking about dead beat dads, heterosexual divorcées, or out of wedlock fatherhood. We are talking about redefining the entire western concept of "family' to include homosexuals and, by extension, and as supported by many leading homosexual activists, virtually any combinations of gender roles or sexual preferences who claim to be "in love" and desireous of 'marriage".
Families already are different than the nuclear family in many instances. Kids have step-parents, are being raised by grandparents, foster parents, etc... and if we actually cared about the kids we would recognize these families and try to support them.
I find it difficult, in this context, to believe you actually used this argument. Step children, being raised by grandparents or foster parents etc., are variations on the same heterosexual theme engendered by divorce, death, or out of wedlock birthing that, while not optimum (mom and dad in a sexually faithful, commtted relatinship who stay together over the long haul), are natural variations on the same theme. Homosexuality is a complete disorientation of the core paradigm (and hence, a perversion of it) and has no basis from which to claim any similar treatment.
Homosexuals do have children, Coggins. They already have families in many instances! What do you do with these families? Why should the kids be punished 'cause others deem that their families are not what our society considers acceptable in terms of tax breaks, and economic help. Who does that help? Who does that hurt?
Homosexual cannot have children. If everyone was Gay, the entire populatin of the planet would, in time, vanish (which would be quite alright with the Sierra Club).
Society deems? Society (whatever that is), over many centuries, has come to understand what is optimal and what is not, and what is dysfunctional and destructive and what is not. There is no deeming about it.
The courts have the ability under our constitution and state constitutions to declare certain legislation unconstitutional. Do you recall amendments, Coggins? Can the citizens of any state or our republic actually be denied their ability to shape their state or nation? No. They can ratify those constitutions. Do you forget that every check has a balance?
The purpose of the federal judiciary is to interpret the laws made by accountable legislatures. Yammering on about unconstitutional legislation belies the very point at hand:
There is nothing in the California state constitution that requires this decision, any more than there is anything in the federal constitution that could possible be shown to require the
Roe decision. The judges are running on fumes here, as they (and the notorious Ninth Circuit) do on a consistent basis.
Perhaps this is why the dissenting mirority in this case said (italics mine):
Recent years have seen the development of an intense debate about
same-sex marriage. Advocates of this cause have had real success in the
marketplace of ideas, gaining attention and considerable public support. Left to its
own devices, the ordinary democratic process might well produce, ere long, a
consensus among most Californians that the term “marriage” should, in civil
parlance, include the legal unions of same-sex partners.
But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic
change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its
own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly
demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.
In doing so, the majority holds, in effect, that the Legislature has done
indirectly what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly. Under article II,
section 10, subdivision (c), that body cannot unilaterally repeal an initiative
statute, such as Family Code section 308.5, unless the initiative measure itself so
provides. Section 308.5 contains no such provision. Yet the majority suggests
that, by enacting other statutes which do provide substantial rights to gays and
lesbians — including domestic partnership rights which, under section 308.5, the
Legislature could not call “marriage” — the Legislature has given “explicit
official recognition” (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 68, 69) to a California right of equal
treatment which, because it includes the right to marry, thereby invalidates section
308.5.5
I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own
weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat
the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative
interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously
oversteps the judicial power. The majority purports to apply certain fundamental
provisions of the state Constitution, but it runs afoul of another just as fundamental
— article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause declares that
“[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial,” and that
“[p]ersons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the
others” except as the Constitution itself specifically provides. (Italics added.)
History confirms the importance of the judiciary’s constitutional role as a
check against majoritarian abuse. Still, courts must use caution when exercising
the potentially transformative authority to articulate constitutional rights.
Otherwise, judges with limited accountability risk infringing upon our society’s
most basic shared premise — the People’s general right, directly or through their
chosen legislators, to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves.
Quite.
You again forget that the Judiciary is again checked by the popular vote in the way of amendments.
Only before the fact. After the fact, the change in law is, for all intents and purposes, permanent and beyond democratic control.
I understand the issues, too, Coggins. Yet, I understand that only what the Justices rule creates what is deemed constitutional or unconstitutional. That earlier decisions are overturned shows how this process is not stagnant.
Then you do not understand the constitution as you claim to do. Again you turn over the fate of the nation to 3, 7, or 9 black robed human beings. The point is, Moniker, that what is constitutional or unconstitutional is already in the constitution. Therefore, that to which the constitution does not speak has no standing in court as to adjudication, and is, as the 10th Amendment implies, reserved to state legislatures and the people. The constitution says nothing about marriage, homosexual or otherwise, let along imply any kind of "right" associated with it. Nor does it say anything about convenience abortion on demand, praying around flag poles before school, or many other such things.