SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decisions Should be Out Today

[MiM]

Don't mix democracy and absolute majority rule. They are not the same thing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Don't mix democracy and absolute majority rule. They are not the same thing.

Pontificating without sufficient expertise to make sense is quite common.

[NineBerry]

Courts should stick to the original intention of those that passed the law.

Get something passed by two-thirds majority of both Houses AND have three quarters of States ratify it, or just convince a simple majority of nine judges

Don't worry. Don't misunderstand this ruling. Gay sex is still legal outside marriage even after the ruling.

[Robert_S]

A tyranny of a majority is a contradiction in terms only minorities can ever rule by absolute power

If you're the one who's rights are being stepped on, does it make that much difference whether or not it's a majority or minority that made the decision?

...assuming you're a person and not part of some borg hivemind that is.

[MrJonno]

A tyranny of a majority is a contradiction in terms only minorities can ever rule by absolute power

If you're the one who's rights are being stepped on, does it make that much difference whether or not it's a majority or minority that made the decision?

...assuming you're a person and not part of some borg hivemind that is.

Rights are defined by a majority, its not as if you are born with any, you can just be lucky and be into a society that has them

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do you by any chance live in an enclave?

[Seth]

Courts should stick to the original intention of those that passed the law.

Get something passed by two-thirds majority of both Houses AND have three quarters of States ratify it, or just convince a simple majority of nine judges

Fucked-up judicial activism at it's worst.

All they had to do was rule it unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the Full Faith and Credit provision of the Constitution.

They could have said that without editorializing on the subject of gay marriage AT ALL.

I said it before, the FF&C provision rendered DOMA unconstitutional from the get-go because it purported to give states permission to disregard the "offical acts" of other states.

Flatly unconstitutional on its face.

Fucking judges need to learn their place...and it ain't being a SuperLegislature.

[Seth]

The structure is in our Constitution, so it's not some weird tyrannical enactment.

Constitutions are not the ultimate authority people are and if they aren't elected its tyranny

Your opinion.

When pieces of paper become sentient and starts talking a constitution may become authority until then its people

That paper reflects the will of the people. If the will of the people changes, then they can change the document. They haven't.

[pErvinalia]

Awesome... Jonno's rabbiting on about the constitution. I haven't heard it for a while. I'm not going to miss this!

[JimC]

I think that when 2 Supreme Court judges love each other, their should be no impediment to their marriage...

[Collector1337]

Rights are defined by a majority

Wrong.

[Coito ergo sum]

A tyranny of a majority is a contradiction in terms only minorities can ever rule by absolute power

If you're the one who's rights are being stepped on, does it make that much difference whether or not it's a majority or minority that made the decision?

...assuming you're a person and not part of some borg hivemind that is.

Rights are defined by a majority, its not as if you are born with any, you can just be lucky and be into a society that has them

If an individual right is defined by the whim of the majority, then it is not a right at all. All you're saying is that there are no such thing as rights.

But, in any case, we can avoid this round-and-round by simply acknowledging that what is meant by "rights" in the US constitution is "limitations." A constitution is formed in circumstances of relative sober judgment, and in such times a balance is struck wherein there are powers delegated to the government, and limitations set on those powers together with checks and balances to distribute and disburse power.

There is no magic in the number "51%" -- in our system, certain concepts are set forth in the constitution as requiring more than a mere majority to change, and among these things are things like "freedom of speech," which is an area of individual liberty that we as a society remove from the auspices of majority rule. It doesn't matter if 51% of the people think what Mr. Jonno says ought to be unlawful. Mr. Jonno gets to say what he wants, free from State power. So, that's the idea. It's a check on the majority, a check on the legislature, etc. Could it be changed? Sure. But not by a mere majority. We need to really want to get rid of it, as evidenced by a supermajority of the States, or a new constitutional convention.

The reason a simple majority is not enough is that during a sober, relatively calm moment, the people see that during more difficult times the vicissitudes of man and the whims of the mob may well act to oppress. Mobs can oppress. And, to suggest that it's not oppression if the mob is a majority is just plain wrong.

[pErvinalia]

Good post.

[Tyrannical]

I wonder if any of those Justices made mention that the Federal government has long had a hand in marriage laws, most notably against bigamy.

[MiM]

Rights are defined by a majority

Wrong.

...because they are defined by those with the most guts and fire power.