re: #517 lostlakehiker

We are talking about the rule of law. I can see the writing on the wall; you will get your way on gay marriage. You can get it by way of votes, if you are patient. The other way is based on the principle that votes are for minor choices while important matters get left to judges.

If, after all, the State may not make any law for which, in the opinion of some judge, there is not good reason, then that’s little different from saying that judges have sole authority to enact or rescind laws. Who else, after all, has command of sufficient rational faculties to know whether or not there is a rational basis for a law?

Actually - one of the jobs judges must perform is to decide if a particular law is constitutional, so judges do legitimately have authority to rescind laws that they find do not meet the requirements of the constitution.

Seeing the writing on the wall, here’s what I’d like: A constitutional amendment that explicitly legalizes the marriage of two, and no more, consenting, unrelated adults. This would put all these other questions that your camp says are not on its agenda out of play. You win what you say you want, and we get insurance against the rest of the agenda that we fear waits in the wings.

If a constitutional amendment is not possible, then at least replace the current “defense of marriage” act with language along those lines.

The worst path to defeat for my camp is a defeat that lays the seeds of further defeats, and defeats that go far beyond issues involving marriage.

I agree there are many issues to consider. I fear you are going to be roundly criticized here for bringing them up - a “head in the sand” sort of philosophy, IMO - “the others” cannot possibly have legitimate concerns, so instead of trying to work them out, let’s just criticize in the ugliest terms possible. Sort of what our politicians in Washington do to each other a lot.