Homosexual Discussion ForumInterracial marriage, the Supreme Court, and civil unionsNot <I>today.</I> Are you sure the same was true at the time when the Supreme Court made its decision on the Loving case? They were, after all, overruling a law that had presumably been established by a lawfully elected majority. But I'm getting sidetracked. I asked you: Why does the 14th Amendment apply to <I>race</I> in the area of marriage, but not to sex? And you haven't answered, except to invoke "democracy," and to once again insult the Supreme Court. But it isn't within the duty or the power of "the people" to interpret the Constitution, or determine whether a given law violates it. We may not be an oligarchy, but we're not a direct democracy, either. Congress exists for a reason. The Presidency exists for a reason. And the Supreme Court exists for a reason, too. It <I>does not matter</I> if "the majority" thinks that gay people should be unequal in the eyes of the law. The 14th Amendment says we are not. And if the laws of our respective states prohibit us from marriage, then it is the duty and power of those nine judges -- liberal and otherwise -- to rule that they have violated our Constitutional rights. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame