Legal Recognition of Same Sex Marriage Slippery Slope Fallacy

[martybegan]

Disagree. All rights are already enshrined in the constitution. Limiting a right can only be done with a compelling reason.

Not sure what you are talking about in your second sentence.

I decide I have the right to murder someone every tuesday. Since I think its a right, and all rights are already enshrined in the consitution you now have to come up with a compelling reason to deny me said right.

My point is that if we give consitutional protection to anything we think is a "right" without actually importing it into the document via amendment, we make the document so pliable that the courts can pretty much then say, "well, we dont like amendment X, so we are going to rule against it using this, this and that."

Rights are funny in that they don't mean you can infringe on someone other person's rights without a compelling reason. Your scenario would certainly do that and therefore is invalid.

See my post above. I realize I am using reducto ad absurdum, the point is anyone can say something is a right, what protects it is the consitution when you add it to the document as an amendment. Without that you rely on legislatures, courts, and the tyranny of the majority (or the minority vis a vis the courts) to not go after what you see as a "right"

 

[PratchettFan]

And here is the crux where we disagree. Race is not enough of a difference to limit equal protection when it comes to marriage. Sex and number of people is. There is zero precedent of marriage ever being a contract between same sexed people, unless it was polygamy, and there the people of the same sex were married to the person of the opposite sex, not each other. If people want to modify the contract it should be done via the legislatures of the states, and yes that will take time, and be an inconvinence to some. The courts should not have the ability to dictate to the legislatures how they regulate said contract unless it falls foul of the 14th and 15th amendments. interracial marriage does, same sex does not.

However, the argument you are making was the very same argument made when it was interracial marriage. Today we don't even question that the prohibition of interracial marriage was a violation of the 14th amendment. I predict (and you can hold me to this) that 20 years from now we will not question that same sex marriage prohibition was equally a violation.

Still, I do agree with you. I don't think the courts are the proper venue for this - at this time.

If same sex marriage came up for a vote, I would vote for it. I have no issue with the States doing this as they see fit. In fact, I see DOMA being struck down, because States control the marriage contract, and the Feds have always recognized all State marriages.

I am a pathway critic, not a concept critic. To me the difference between same sex and heterosexual unions is different enough to not warrant equal protection. Mixed race marriages never had the same level of difference, and thus fall under equal protection, particularly so because miscogenation was a crime, not just not granted.

I understand, and really don't disagree with you. The only difference is that I see the two as exactly the same but perhaps that is because we have different ideas of what marriage is. I fail to see how the sex of the partners has anything at all to do with marriage. Marriage today is not what marriage was 150 years ago and I see no reason to apply the same standards.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I decide I have the right to murder someone every tuesday. Since I think its a right, and all rights are already enshrined in the consitution you now have to come up with a compelling reason to deny me said right.

Laws against murdering another human being have never been found unconstitutional, the right to end another human being's life is not a right that you possess.

While not serious of course, you could go murder someone and then make that claim in court - doubt it would work, but you could try.

My point is that if we give consitutional protection to anything we think is a "right" without actually importing it into the document via amendment, we make the document so pliable that the courts can pretty much then say, "well, we dont like amendment X, so we are going to rule against it using this, this and that."

The Constitution explicitly says that people have the right to equal treatment under the law, it's embodied in the 14th Amendment.


>>>>

I know I was using argumentum ad absurdum, but the point is someone may think something is a right, but it becomes a constitutional right only when enshrined in the document. Without that you leave it to the tyranny of the legislative majority and/or the potential tyranny of an out of control court.

I know you were.

The fact remains that the Constitution does not require that a right be enumerated in the Constitution for it to be held by the people, as a matter of fact it explicitly says they do not.

While the constitution says people have equal protection under the law, the argument becomes what consists of equal.

Article III provides that the SCOTUS is the ultimate authroity on what is Constitutional as to both law and fact.

If we go the argumentum ad absurdum route again all drinking age laws, driving age laws, and anything else relying on a certain level of maturity would be unconsititutional, because people are supposed to be "equal"

Nope, you are incorrect.

It is the responsibility to have a rational basis for such laws. I know that you think that "equal" means there can be no laws on a matter, that is not true. There can be. When laws are written that have general application, there must be a rational basis for such laws. If the laws are written with the purpose of denying equal treatment under the law to a targeted group, then a higher level of scrutiny is applied requiring the government to demonstrate a compelling interest for targeting such a group.


Drinking and Driving age laws - there is a rational basis for such a law and the law is written such that it applies to all equally. On the other hand if drinking age laws were written such that men could drink but women could not, then such a law would be suspect and the government would need to profer a compelling interest for targeting women.

If you disagree with the age limits, go for it, get an underage person to sue and pay the lawyers to take your case. I doubt if you will get very far, but it is your right to try.



>>>>

 

[Ravi]

I decide I have the right to murder someone every tuesday. Since I think its a right, and all rights are already enshrined in the consitution you now have to come up with a compelling reason to deny me said right.

My point is that if we give consitutional protection to anything we think is a "right" without actually importing it into the document via amendment, we make the document so pliable that the courts can pretty much then say, "well, we dont like amendment X, so we are going to rule against it using this, this and that."

Rights are funny in that they don't mean you can infringe on someone other person's rights without a compelling reason. Your scenario would certainly do that and therefore is invalid.

See my post above. I realize I am using reducto ad absurdum, the point is anyone can say something is a right, what protects it is the consitution when you add it to the document as an amendment. Without that you rely on legislatures, courts, and the tyranny of the majority (or the minority vis a vis the courts) to not go after what you see as a "right"

And the constitution protects someone's right not to be murdered. You're cracking me up here.