- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,809
- Reaction score
- 53,594
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]
I did ask that question, and it does merit this interpretation. You blather about the means, but you haven't actually provided any rebuttal to the actual legal argument being made. Same-sex marriage bans definitely do not pass the test of intermediate constitutional scrutiny.
So, the state's right to decide who we can marry is being oppressed? Oooh, I'm quivering.The Orwellian aspect is that by declaring it unconstitutional based off an amendment that has existed for nearly 150 years they are, in effect, saying it was always unconstitutional for states to only extend legal recognition to traditional marriages. Given that the people who wrote the amendment sure as hell were not desiring or envisioning forcing recognition of gay marriage on the states, this is effectively rewriting the amendment to say something it never said and was never meant to say.
You are asking the wrong question, especially since I have no problem with it being legal as this is about the means rather than the end result. How many ways could the Supreme Court "reinterpret" the constitution in an unprecedented fashion that would affect your life? If you endorse these decisions because they favor your political views, without considering whether a faithful application of the constitution truly merits the reinterpretation, then you should consider whether there are any ways the Supreme Court could act against your political views using the same sort of legal gymnastics.
I did ask that question, and it does merit this interpretation. You blather about the means, but you haven't actually provided any rebuttal to the actual legal argument being made. Same-sex marriage bans definitely do not pass the test of intermediate constitutional scrutiny.