Judges have to provide Constitutional justification for allowing same sex couples to marry. They can do so under the grounds that they are providing for the general welfare of the country (the same sex marriage creates stable relationships and homes for children) and under the 14th amendment equal protection clause since gays and lesbians are recognized as a protected class. That justification does not extend to the other forms of marriage you have described.
first, that would be a debate worth having. but look ye back - how many bring up the 14th Amendment and how many people fundamentally boil down to simply assuming their
personal preferred definition of marriage.
second, all you have done is repeat my argument except that you take it one more step. the American people do not have the right to define marriage; Judges do.
frankly; i would
love to see someone argue that anyone who wrote, argued for, or voted on the 14th Amendment understood it to apply to marriage licenses, specifically with regards to sexual orientation, specifically with regards to homosexuality (as opposed to all the other orientations that we will also discuss).
Also, we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
we live in a Democratic Republic; as Samsmart points out.
We have a system of checks and balances, whereby the tyranny of the majority cannot rule over minorities.
of course it can. for two reasons:
1. we have destroyed the balance of power between states and the federal government, and heavily tilted the balance at the federal level towards the executive and the judiciary, away from the legislature. as Hamilton (easily the most Centralist of the Founding Fathers) put it: “Since power is almost always the rival of power, the national government will always stand ready to check the usurpations of the State governments. And the States will be in the same position towards the national government. Whichever side the people support will infallibly be the stronger."
balance between multiple foci of power, the difference between them to be decided
by the people. tell me where you see that in the notion of judges thumbing their noses at
state constitutions and reshaping society as they see fit.
2. it is a majority (specifically a supermajority) that establishes the Constitution in the first place. we live under their rules until enough Americans (a supermajority) see fit to alter them. so if you can establish that a Supermajority of the United States intended for the Federal Government to now extend it's power over Marriage via the 14th Amendment, I would be obliged to hear it. if not, however, the 10th Amendment applied, and the National Government has no business interfering in the states.
That was specifically envisioned by the founders of the country, and in part, why it is difficult to pass amendments to the Constitution.
you are correct. they were fully aware that they had a brilliant system set up, and were (rightly) suspicious that grasping power players would later want to toss it out.
The power to interpret the Constitution lies in the hands of the court
really. where does the Constitution say that?
and a strong argument can be made that gays and lesbians deserve marriage under promoting general welfare and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
:shrug: i have yet to see one.
Can you make a Constitutional argument for why gays and lesbians should be denied same sex marriage?
yup. the people acting under their own authority in the multiple states that have chosen to do so have defined marriage so that unions between two people of the same gender do not rate a marriage certificate. just like (for example) some states allow cousins to marry and others don't. it's a state matter.
Can you make a Constitutional argument for why polygamy or incest should be accepted forms of marriage?
only if our Constitution get's changed for us to suddenly make receiving a marriage license from the state a
right.
