Quote:
Quote by: CoffeeSaint  Now address the other examples: segregation and "separate but equal," the right to bear arms, income tax. As I understand it, the Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and yet people are not allowed to have any arms they desire. That is a contradiction which is either unconstitutional (which would make the NRA very happy, I'm sure) or signifies a redefinition of the right as technology advanced. I see it as a redefinition, and yet our world has not collapsed around us. So why would it happen if we did redefine marriage?
But if we take your point of view on this: The anti-miscegenation laws did redefine marriage because before that marriage had been defined as the union of two people of the same race, and afterwards it was the union of two people of any race. That is a redefinition. If it is not a redefinition, then neither would it be a redefinition to include another group, the homosexuals who wish to marry someone of their own gender.
I ask you yet again: where in the Constitution does it define marriage? If marriage was defined by judicial fiat, as indicated by your case law example, then it can be redefined just as easily, without changing the fundamental rights. I believe that marriage as a concept has always permitted the inclusion of homosexuals, and so it would not in any way be changing the basic rights now to legitimize their marriages under the law. |
You are correct, Coffee.
The right to bear arms is one of the only rights that is undergoing redefinition, or attempts at redefinition, much to the horror of many conservatives.
Just to speed things up:
Other rights that are being redefined, or have the distinct possibility of doing so are the right to privacy and states rights. States rights, however, has always been under redefinition, and is a continual battleground between the federal government and the states. They did, in fact, fight a war over it (read: the Civil War, the War Between the States; personally, I prefer the Second War of Independence).
The right to privacy is as we speak being bastardized. I don't think I need to elaborate; I'm sure you're aware of how much "privacy" is being redefined, how it's boundaries are growing to incredible realms. It mostly gained speed with Roe v. Wade.
As to the right to bear arms specifically, the government is fully allowed to regulate the right to bear arms. That's quite good, since otherwise, people in a rage could buy a fire arm the day of their anger, or people could own bazookas and machine guns and even heavier weaponry. I seek to protect the government's capability to regulate our rights, as in the case of the right to bear arms. If marriage is redefined, the crisis of rights bastardization will spread to one more area of our lives, and rights bastardization, and corruption of the Equal Protection Clause, will only worsen.
==
I've already addressed racial marriage laws. They were unjust. They ignored the definition of marriage for the sake of discriminating against minorities. The definition of marriage allows a man to marry a woman, regardless of race.