Posted on 03/22/2013 7:50:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
For most Americans, the Supreme Court cases being heard on Tuesday and Wednesday next week are about same-sex marriage. But the cases—Hollingsworth v. Perry (the Proposition 8 case from California) and U.S. v. Windsor (the Defense of Marriage Act case)—also are a test of the nation's democratic and decentralized constitutional structure. These cases thus are not just about marriage. They are about how we reach decisions regarding matters of deep moral significance in our federal republic.
We learned from Roe v. Wade that the Supreme Court endangers its own legitimacy and exacerbates social conflict when it seeks to resolve moral-legal questions on which the country is deeply divided without a strong basis in the text of the Constitution. The court sometimes intervenes when the legislatures of the 50 states are approaching a consensus. When it jumps into a live political controversy, the justices look like they are acting like legislators.
The system today, without the Supreme Court's intervention, is working as it should. Representatives of the people are deliberating. "We the People" are thinking. So far, nine states have extended marriage to same-sex couples; many others chosen to explicitly endorse traditional marriage. Those choices distress advocates on either side of the matter when their wishes have been disappointed.
But when all of us have an equal right to be heard on an issue, and to participate through our representatives in making the decision, it is easier to accept the outcome than when unelected judges make moral pronouncements from the bench. Change that comes through the political process has greater democratic legitimacy.
Moreover, in states where same-sex marriage has been made legal, legislatures have taken care to provide generous protections for people and institutions—especially churches—that conscientiously disagree. This is good for civic harmony and for achieving long-term position of mutual respect.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
While it is nice for you to share your personal feelings with us, it sure isn’t relevant to the laws being changed and passed in America as marriage is being redefined.
I suspect the framers would find your approach queer.
Mentally ill sex perverts should not have a legal right to be heard in court.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
DaveyB said: The author is still operating under the presumption that the institution of marriage is a human convention and can be redefined legally by human agents. My presupposition is that marriage is instituted by an immutable creator.
Actually one can easily understand that marriage means a man and a woman even without religion. Biology and natural law also tell us the same thing. Biology and natural law also teach us that a mother is a woman and gives birth to children and a father is a man who inseminates a woman. And that children do not need a woman/mother and a man/father, but two or more sexual perverts can be the "parents". Fag "marriage" is an effort to overturn the very laws of nature and thus destroy human society by forcing everyone to accept the insane lie that a man can be a wife/mother and a woman can be a husband/father and thus nothing has any meaning at all. It's utter rebellion against reality, truth, natural law, God's law and human civilization. And just who is destroyed the most?
Children.
Anyone wanting on/off either list, FREEPMAIL me.
Well the first thing one ought do before advancing to activism, is to make sure what you believe is correct and ought be applied, and the second thing you should do is to make sure you know how to articulate it to others.
Now, if you have constructive suggestions for activism, I think they will be welcome, but that was not the subject of this particular discussion so far.
>> A very thoughtful discussion on a complex problem.
It’s not complicated.
Don’t pass law that forces the citizen to participate in, service, or otherwise support homosexual behavior.
Enough with the Catholic bashing.
LOL, Where did you find any Catholic bashing in that post, I would like to see what you see there.
Yeah my advice is to push for legal protection of marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.