(Insert title here)
Baron Max said:
So, ...a bunch of liberal old farts from other countries get together and draw up a silly little paper, and you think that it means something????
Well, it meant enough to some when the Bush administration wanted to go into Iraq that many war supporters claimed that the United States already had UN authorization.
Now, whether or not
you support the war is irrelevant. The larger point is that part of the way the world works right now is that yes, when people get together and "draw up a silly little paper", often it does mean something.
Every time gays march in parades, or write articles, etc they're basically flaunting their sexual practices and perversions so as to gain special rights, and to attempt to force society to accept those sexual practices by granting the right to marry!
What "special rights" are you referring to?
"They" legalized... Just who the fuck are these "they" people, and why didn't other voters, or members of the society, have any say in it?
Two aspects of this question are important. In the first place, the People of Canada elected representatives who voted to legalize gay marriage. According to
Wikipedia, "Court decisions, starting in 2003, each already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada's population." According to the
International Herald Tribune, though, in an article published at the time of the Canadian legalization, gay marriage was legal in seven provinces. Nonetheless, according to the IHT article, "According to most polls, a majority of Canadians supports the right for gays and lesbians to marry."
The second aspect, though, pertains to Bells' question: "Why do you think it is never put to a vote ...?"
The answer is that it
has been put to a vote. As you're aware, Max, we don't have a national referendum process in the United States, owing to concerns about States Rights and the Tenth Amendment.
In 2004, twelve states voted to define marriage as something that occurs between a man and woman, effectively limiting the right of certain partners to marry on the basis of their sex. Some of these laws are now facing constitutional challenges, and are not expected to fare well. Indeed, a ban on gay marriage was struck down last year in
Iowa, of all places. How this sort of thing happens pertains to the various state constitutions and, in the longer view, the idea of equal protection. That latter is an issue I've already
made note of, although you have yet to offer any substantial consideration of the point.
Indeed, as the argument moves forward and more states strike down intentionally-discriminatory laws barring gay marriage, there will come a point when it is time to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act. DoMA is something that "they", as in the United States Congress passed. Do you protest this outcome? Would you demand a vote by the People?
Which brings us back to the problem. In the United States, the People cannot simply vote on whatever damn issue they want and expect the law to stand. There is the matter of the Constitution, which is, according to
Article VI, the "supreme law of the land".
Between Article VI, which binds judges "in every state", with "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding", and
Article III, which assigns to authority that "shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution", DoMA will inevitably fall. It is intended to exclude a specific class of people, thus violating the Equal Protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
The Connecticut decision was inevitable. The
first section of the
state's constitution is prohibits exclusive privileges to any group, and the
last is an equal protection clause. As
noted, the decision in Connecticut was based on that equal protection clause:
Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice. To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.
(
Kerrigan v. CPH)
And, indeed, the court majority addressed the dissent's complaint that the decision "short-circuited the democratic process". If the state's equal protection clause is insufficient, they also appropriately cited the United States Supreme Court (
Fronterio v. Richardson) and constructed an argument from that outcome, as well. (See footnotes 59 and 83 of the decision linked above.)
In the end, members of society only have so much say. If they choose to transgress the supreme law of the land, they will, eventually, be stopped.
____________________
Notes:
Wikipedia. "Same-sex marriage in Canada". Updated October 15, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada
"Canada passes bill to legalize gay marriage". International Herald Tribune. June 29, 2005. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/29/america/web.0629canada.php
United States Constitution. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
Constitution of the State of Connecticut. http://www.harbornet.com/rights/connecti.txt
Kerrigan et al. v. Commissioner of Public Health et al. (SC 17716). October 28, 2008. http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152.pdf
