What could be the next front in this SSM war?

[_Droopy]

The Supreme Court established that marriage is a fundamental right. The 14th Amendment states:

Where in the constitution is the judiciary given this power or prerogative (to establish "rights")?

[_Droopy]

Times, they are a changin’.

Push a liberal just far enough, and this is what you will usually get. "Its right because a critical mass of the culture says its right". No critical, logical argument. No systematic philosophical analysis. Just "if its popular, it must be true".

The Nehor wrote:

I don't think the federal government can or should attempt to redefine it's meaning.

But they can. If the Supreme Court decides that the restriction on the participants’ gender is arbitrary, then statues prohibiting marriage based on such are unconstitutional.

Others (I believe it was moniker) have made precisely this argument elsewhere. The Supreme Court is a de facto oligarchic lawmaking body immune from political accountability and constitutional oversight. They are oracular in nature; not interpreting the law but creating it by acts of judicial will.

The consitution is what the Supreme Court justices say it is, and means what they say it means. This of course, turns the entire founding on its head, making this a country ruled by men, and not by law.

The Nehor wrote:
As a society we need to decide IF we want to expand the definition and I think it will and should be decided in individual states.

Allowing same sex marriages is not an expansion of the definition. Rather, it is a streamlining.

This is sophistry. SSM is the complete transformation of the concept of the purpose and nature of human sexuality and gender roles on both an individual and societal level, and much of the activist and academic homosexual rights literature has been saying as much for quite sometime (especially the postmodern or "queer" theory movement).

Currently each state has a set of requirements that must be met for individuals to enter into a marriage. Some of the requirements are arbitrary, and some are in place to protect the participants. If the requirement that the participants be of the opposite sex is determined to be arbitrary (as was the case with race) then that requirement for marriage is simply removed (or not allowed to be employed). From a religious stand point this is an expansion, but religious based legislation is arbitrary.

Here we meet yet again the attempt to equate race (an immutable, inherent genetic characteristic), with homosexual attraction, a bio/psycho/social phenomenon who's origins are are rooted in a dynamic and interconnected system of psychological, social, and biological variables that ideology, or supreme court justices, would do well not to try to disentangle.

What are different things? Race and sexual orientation? Well, yes and no. Yes, because one has to do with who your ancestors were and the other has to do with who you like to do it with. No, because they are a facet of one’s identity completely out of our control.

This assertion with regard to homosexuality is made on what basis?

[_ludwigm]

...
Yeah, marriage is a fundamental right but marriage in the United States and the Western world has always meant a man and a woman joining in a legal relationship.
...

Does "a man and a woman" mean one man and one woman? You know, I am not a native english. (Please don't forget D&C 132.)

Legal:
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or concerned with law: legal papers.
2.
. . 1. Authorized by or based on law: a legal right.
. . 2. Established by law; statutory: the legal owner.
3. In conformity with or permitted by law: legal business operations.
4. Recognized or enforced by law rather than by equity.
5. In terms of or created by the law: a legal offense.
6. Applicable to or characteristic of attorneys or their profession.
n.
1. One that is in accord with certain rules or laws.
2. legals Investments that may be legally made by fiduciaries and certain institutions, such as savings banks and insurance companies. Also called legal list.

This means if the law changes then it changes what is legal and what is not.

The whole hubbub is about changing the law ...

[_Mad Viking]

The Supreme Court established that marriage is a fundamental right. The 14th Amendment states:

Where in the constitution is the judiciary given this power or prerogative (to establish "rights")?

Ooooh... a trick question. I never said it was. But you can bet your smart ass that when this issue makes it to the Supreme Court they will be using precedent set by past courts (e.g. Loving V Virginia) to interpret what our rights are based on what the constitution says. Don't like the way the system is set up?

[_Mad Viking]

Push a liberal just far enough, and this is what you will usually get. "Its right because a critical mass of the culture says its right". No critical, logical argument. No systematic philosophical analysis. Just "if its popular, it must be true".

Nice try Droopy. I said nothing of the sort. I have never followed any of your posts before, but this is spin at its best. The Nehor stated that the definition of marriage would be changing from what it had traditionally been in western society if same sex couples are allowed to marry. Definitions and institutions do change. I was simply pointing that out. Sometimes they change due to popular opinion. Proposing that marriage should exclude gay couples based on tradition is not an argument that deserves a logical reply since it is not a logical argument. Again… Nice try.

…If the Supreme Court decides that the restriction on the participants’ gender is arbitrary, then statues prohibiting marriage based on such are unconstitutional.

Others (I believe it was moniker) have made precisely this argument elsewhere. The Supreme Court is a de facto oligarchic lawmaking body immune from political accountability and constitutional oversight. They are oracular in nature; not interpreting the law but creating it by acts of judicial will.
The consitution is what the Supreme Court justices say it is, and means what they say it means. This of course, turns the entire founding on its head, making this a country ruled by men, and not by law.

This is an argument regarding the structure of our government, not gay marriage.

SSM is the complete transformation of the concept of the purpose and nature of human sexuality and gender roles on both an individual and societal level, and much of the activist and academic homosexual rights literature has been saying as much for quite sometime (especially the postmodern or "queer" theory movement).

And? Does change scare you?

[_The Nehor]

Proposing that marriage should exclude gay couples based on tradition is not an argument that deserves a logical reply since it is not a logical argument. Again… Nice try.

I disagree here. It's not so much a tradition as what the word marriage has always meant. To expand that definition is a change, not a logical consequence. If a man happens to want to have sex with a fish, a child, a corpse, or his imaginary friend does that mean that logically marriage rights should be offered. Again, if there is to be change the question should be asked, "Why?" not "Why not?"

If nothing else, interesting times are ahead.

[_EAllusion]

I think Droopy is just denying that the Supreme Court has the right of judicial review. It's an extreme view with wide implications found among some far-right conservatives. It's controlling precedent is one of the most famous cases in our country's history: Marbury vs. Madison. The case for judicial review is long and compelling, but I wouldn't bother. I'd just say it is the Supreme Court's job to strike down laws that violate the rights of the people as outlined by the United States Constitution and make him say what he's saying more explicitly.

[_collegeterrace]

I disagree here. It's not so much a tradition as what the word marriage has always meant. To expand that definition is a change, not a logical consequence. If a man happens to want to have sex with a fish, a child, a corpse, or his imaginary friend does that mean that logically marriage rights should be offered. Again, if there is to be change the question should be asked, "Why?" not "Why not?"

If nothing else, interesting times are ahead.

Nehor, do you have any experience with marriage?

Oh yeah, I forgot, you have never been married.

What next? Your great knowledge of raising children will be shared with us?

Stick to things you know, which should be easy since that list is pretty short.

[_Mad Viking]

I disagree here. It's not so much a tradition as what the word marriage has always meant. To expand that definition is a change, not a logical consequence. If a man happens to want to have sex with a fish, a child, a corpse, or his imaginary friend does that mean that logically marriage rights should be offered.

The tradition I was referring to is the defintion of the word.

I already addressed why those other marriages could not be recognized by the government.

[_Mad Viking]

Nehor, do you have any experience with marriage?

Oh yeah, I forgot, you have never been married.

What next? Your great knowledge of raising children will be shared with us?

Stick to things you know, which should be easy since that list is pretty short.

in my opinion I don't think The Nehor needs to be married to discuss legal issues regarding marriage.