Posted on 04/15/2005 4:56:59 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Since I think natural law is a figment of your imagination, absolutely. What I do favor, is folks agitating in the public square, for what they in good conscience, think is right. That is what I favor, and in general, without interference from the robes. Have I made that clear yet?
So you admit it: the minority is demanding approval from the majority for something the majority finds immoral. If the minority can't persuade the majority to concede on its "backward" and "prejudiced" positions, then it is hoped that the sovereign authority of the courts or the legislatures can be used to enforce this new set of values on the majority.
Don't you see the threat to the consensus of the governed in this strategy?
Yes, the decision had broad reach, in fact far broader than you describe. If fact, the breadth of the decision was cosmic - literally. But I simply responded to what you posted.
Was your conflation of the two, accidental, or deliberate?
I'm citing the relevance of natural reproduction to a debate concerning the revolutionary redefinition of marriage. This is not just my imagination. Nature does it every day, all around us. You're having this argument with me because a pair of people mated and procreated. It's highly relevant to this issue.
I think you are confusing natural biology with natural law. And natural biology gets ever more problematical.
I'm asking you if either one have the automatic right to override natural law in favor of any arbitrary notion of "the commons?" I don't think they do.
I guess democracy is just not your bag, if it violates your notions of natural law. You seem to be an ideal SCOTUS judge, in this day and age. I suggest you send your resume to Biden.
Hey, I'll debate you any time, any place on any topic. (except social secuirty, it bores me to death. :-})
BTW, google "previous question motion" and 1789 if you're interested in the history of the filibuster.
I doubt you are but what the hey.
I think you've already indicated that natural law is an abstraction that is irrelevant to this discussion. It's just a dodge to suggest that the laws of biology don't have any relevance to the Enlightenment's discussion of natural law, or even the Roman.
And yes, I'm aware of the threat laboratory reproduction poses to my position. It's no accident that religious leaders are warning us that our efforts to redefine the human race are going to bring nothing but sorrow and suffering.
The Constitution of the United States and the statutes passed by Congress are. That's the simple fact of the matter.
But don't take umbrage, there are several SCOTUS justices who don't know that either.
I think you're right. Those who want to completely separate the Laws of Nature from the Laws of Nature's God had better be prepared to confront the occurrence of homosexuality in nature.
One more time. I favor laws about marriage that don't have as their raison d'etre, as a matter of limitation, procreation. Marriage is a legal status, and is what we choose to define it as. If you think invoking natural law and biology, advances your case, fine. It has zero relevance to me, zero. But if you think it is persuasive with others, go for it.
I might have missed it, but did you explain how we Californians should democratically express our desires that legislatures and judges not redefine marriage for us?
I have said repeatedly that when the majority of citizens agrees that marriage means something other than it has in tradition, that I will stand aside. Meanwhile, judges and selected legislatures across this land which claim to have the authority to do otherwise are just violating the will of the majority of Americans, as far as I'm concerned.
Initiatives are law. Legislatures cannot ignore the law. Well they can't, unless if it relates to ignoring the balanced budget law in California. We are not making much progess here risk. It is probably my fault.
I'm making a very narrow argument that marriage was intended to support families, and families come from ordinary mating. My main concern is the legal redefinition of the English word marriage. It seems America's judges and some legislatures too weak to point out that only males and females procreate, and that marriage is basically government involvement in procreation.
Rousseau claimed that representative governments are based on the "general will," which could somehow be different from the conscious will of the people themselves. "The general will is always right and tends to the public advantage," he wrote. "But it does not follow that the deliberations of the people are always equally correct...the people is never corrupted, but it is often deceived." - LINK
That's fine, your perspectives have expanded my understanding of just what we're up against. I'm happy to have your point of view.
Torie has already pointed out the weakness in your argument. Marriage is not only about procreation, and need not even have anything to do with it. I get frustrated when liberals say that marriage is about love and what business is it of the government if two people love each other. Marriage is not just about love.
And yes, Rousseau's ideas abandon the critical notion that laws must respect the rights of man. Man cannot redefine those rights. The right which I claim is not to have my approval forced out of me with a rubber stamp in a courthouse. I will not grant that approval. If the majority of my fellow Americans also reject that approval, the government has exceeded its authority, and therefore it has lost it.
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.