Comments on: Is history unidirectional? http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/01/12/is-history-unidirectional/ A website for LGBT folks who support marriage as the union of husband and wife—and getting the gay leadership to return to more pressing LGBT issues for our community. Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:49:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Fitz http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/01/12/is-history-unidirectional/#comment-1971 Fitz Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:32:07 +0000 http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/?p=118#comment-1971 There is also the very real possibility of legal rulings overturning same-sex "marriage'- even when enacted democratically. The fact of the matter is that multiple SCOTUS opinions posit marriage quo "marriage" as a constitutional right. This is much ignored but very real possibility. States no more have the ability to change the definition of a constitutional right than they can redefine "speech" or "religion" or "arms" in an attempt to achieve a desired policy. Simply put gay 'marriage' is transparently unconstitutional. There is also the very real possibility of legal rulings overturning same-sex “marriage’- even when enacted democratically. The fact of the matter is that multiple SCOTUS opinions posit marriage quo “marriage” as a constitutional right.

This is much ignored but very real possibility. States no more have the ability to change the definition of a constitutional right than they can redefine “speech” or “religion” or “arms” in an attempt to achieve a desired policy. Simply put gay ‘marriage’ is transparently unconstitutional.

]]> By: Mark Barton http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/01/12/is-history-unidirectional/#comment-1965 Mark Barton Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:19:26 +0000 http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/?p=118#comment-1965 DB: "The idea that previous generations always have fewer rights and freedoms than subsequent generations is demonstrably historically false." Sure, as I was saying to Fitz in the original thread, it _is_ crude math, but there's no particular reason to suppose that anything more complicated is required to predict California in particular because it's a 50% threshold to undo Prop 8, and there's a lot more low-hanging fruit in the vicinity of 50%. If you ask me when we're going to get to 70% in California and/or deliver SSM to the plantation states, I'm not nearly so sanguine. DB: “The idea that previous generations always have fewer rights and freedoms than subsequent generations is demonstrably historically false.”

Sure, as I was saying to Fitz in the original thread, it _is_ crude math, but there’s no particular reason to suppose that anything more complicated is required to predict California in particular because it’s a 50% threshold to undo Prop 8, and there’s a lot more low-hanging fruit in the vicinity of 50%. If you ask me when we’re going to get to 70% in California and/or deliver SSM to the plantation states, I’m not nearly so sanguine.

]]>