View Single Post
Old 05-11-2004, 14:55:36   #49
Tau Ceti
G8 star
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oslo, Norway
Possibly repeating some of the above points, and I admit to ignorance about how the US legal system works, but the way I see it, there are three possible cases:

1) No specific mention in any law; there are no provisions, so even if it is not expressly forbidden (or allowed), the actual act of a "marriage" has no meaning. This I would assume is the default case.

2) Gay marriage forbidden or allowed by state (or federal) law

3) Gay marriage forbidden or allowed by state (or federal) constitution

Assuming that people are against gay marriage, given 1), I do not see the need for 2 or 3 except as an expression of hatred and prejudice. I would find 2) wrong and disturbing but still legitimate. 3), however, is an abuse of power and of the concept of a constitution. A constitution should contain the founding and governing principles of a state, and an issue such as this has no place there. Indeed, it is the precise opposite of the usual protection of minority rights that is found in many constitutions. Surely the proponents of amendments must also see this, and the primary reason for wanting a constitutional ban is to make it harder to repeal. It is disgusting.

I don't see why allowing the public to vote for banning it is worse than havnig it illegal due to ancient laws in the UK and not even having a vote to see if it should be made legal?
It is not. My objection is mainly to making constitutional amendments on the issue, although ultimately, I believe it is an issue of basic rights that should not be subject to the whim of the majority.
Tau Ceti is offline