Friday I had a record post. It was the shortest post I’ve ever written. The reason I didn’t add any more to the post is because I’ve finally reached the end of the logical and legal argument for judicial activism. I’m using gay marriage as this example but it goes well beyond that.
After debating gay marriage for over 10 years I’ve come to a few conclusions. Now I’m not going to go down the road of the societal impact gay marriage has on a civilization. That argument is too obvious and all the facts and history are on our side. Also, the legal argument is where we are today. Unfortunately we are really close to losing the emotional argument because our country is beginning to be made up of limp wristed pansies…
So on to the legal argument. Friday’s post ended with this question to the gay marriage proponents, “What marriage are you willing to restrict?” After 17 comments, I finally got the question answered. The commenter wrote that he would allow any marriage between two unrelated (legal definition of related) individuals who are of legal age. In an earlier comment, he also said, “We are drawing a new line in the sand, and allowing gays to get married.”
What the commenter failed to understand is that “we” are not drawing a new line in the sand, the Supreme Court of Iowa did. “We” already drew a line in the sand in the form of legislation – the way the Iowa constitution allows. The courts have no authority to draw a new line…that is left up to the legislature.
Now their argument must go back to the civil right of gay marriage. But once again, they can’t complete the legal argument. For if the Supreme Court finds it a civil right for gays, who is the state, court, or any other entity to restrict marriage for any other configuration anyone can dream up? They also call it discrimination. That is a hollow argument. I can’t find a law in the Iowa Code that doesn’t discriminate behavior. I would think that is almost the very definition of a law. Every law the Iowa legislature passes discriminates a behavior that “we” deem unhealthy for society.
This question of whose marriage are they willing to restrict is very similar to the pro-life question that also will never get answered, “when does life begin.” Because if they answer either of these questions, they know their goose is cooked.
blog comments powered by Disqus