SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dayuhan who wrote (87823)11/23/2004 1:35:45 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 793618
 
I don’t think public support for same-sex marriages is any worse than public support for childless marriages.

If you want to add support for same-sex marriages or remove it from childless marriages then go for it. If you can convince enough people you can get your ideas enacted.


The reason is that if someone wants to do something, they should be allowed to do it unless they infringe upon the rights of others in the process.


I pretty much agree with that idea but I find it almost entirely irrelevant to this issue. Refusing to recognize same sex marriages is not preventing people from doing what they want, its just saying you won't consider their actions and relationship to be a marriage. That was my main point from the beginning. If you disagree you can tell me I'm wrong and ideally show how I am wrong but you seem to just ignore the point instead.

One of the primary functions of the courts is to prevent the majority from placing unwarranted restrictions on the liberties of a minority. I see no reason why the courts should not fulfill that function.

The court exists to enforce the law, including the constitution. It doesn't exist to prevent the majority from placing unwarranted restrictions on the liberties of a minority if the restrictions are not unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. In any case there are no restrictions being placed on the minority in this situation, warranted or not.

Tim