Evil Conservative French! (Homosexual Marriage Thread)

[Boris Godunov]

Armenian, Sloww, Armenian.

[Theben]

This is great. Now whenever I debate a conservative about gay marriage, I can say, "Yeah, the French think like you do," and watch their heads explode.

[Arrian]

I likey, Theben.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

In the US, inter-racial marriage was legalized nationally in 1967 with Loving v. Virginia. However, it was not until 1991 that Gallop recorded more Americans in favor of inter-racial marriage than against it.

My question(s): should inter-racial couples have instead waited 24 more years, until general public approval was higher? Was justice "short-circuited" when the courts approved of inter-racial marriage before the majority of the general public did?

The answer is that because the court stepped in so forcefully that it radicalized the debate so that it took so damned long for people to accept it. If it wasn't taken over by the courts the consensus would have been reached much earlier because of dialogue and discussion which was missing when the court stepped in.

Besides being 'in favor' of interracial marriage is not exactly the same as saying 'legalize' interrational marriage. Someone could be against it but want it to be legalized.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If it wasn't taken over by the courts the consensus would have been reached much earlier because of dialogue and discussion which was missing when the court stepped in.

That's a BAM if I ever saw one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, its actually common sense. Look at the abortion debate, after Roe v. Wade, the debate became amazingly radicalized. Where beforehand it was no where near that bad.

[Boris Godunov]

So obviously Truman's integration of the Army by fiat instead of consensus and discussion must have created an atmosphere of polarization and radicalization within the Army that hadn't existed before.

Oh, wait...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Truman was the President, he used the process of being Commander in Chief. We are talking about the Supreme Court, which ALWAYS has had to deal with problems of legitmacy because it is not an elected body. Many, many, many times the SCOTUS has been almost marginalized by the public because of the view of unelected judges taking over democracy when they streach to rule a certain way. So in short, it's totally different.

The SCOTUS in Loving was ruling based on 'race' (in a somewhat roundabout way), which is explicitly mentioned in the 14th Amendment, so that works. However, in things where the SCOTUS has had to reach (ie, substantive due process cases) it seemingly serves to radicalize debate instead of promoting a healthy exchange of ideas.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, its actually common sense. Look at the abortion debate, after Roe v. Wade, the debate became amazingly radicalized. Where beforehand it was no where near that bad.

Obviously the reactionary forces were displeased by the ruling, and that's why the debate radicalized. The sentiment driving the moral shock of a conservative is much stronger (and vicious) than the sentiment of progress driving a liberal (well, usually).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obviously the reactionary forces were displeased by the ruling, and that's why the debate radicalized.

Well duh! Also the fact that it was done by unelected judges had something to do with it.

The sentiment driving the moral shock of a conservative is much stronger (and vicious) than the sentiment of progress driving a liberal (well, usually).

Not so. There was similar outrage when the Court struck down New Deal legislation in the 1930s by the left... which almost led to the end of the independance of the court (at least at that time).

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well duh! Also the fact that it was done by unelected judges had something to do with it.

My point being that they had to be displeased someday.

Not so. There was similar outrage when the Court struck down New Deal legislation in the 1930s by the left... which almost led to the end of the independance of the court (at least at that time).

Well, weren't workers turning communist in the 30s because of the crisis? Honestly I don't think we can compare old-school industrial marxism with post-60s liberalism.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That's a BAM if I ever saw one.

How can facts qualify as a BAM? In the 5 years before Roe, 16 states including Reagan's California liberalized thier abortion laws.

[Imran Siddiqui]

weren't workers turning communist in the 30s because of the crisis?

I'm not talking about the few communists in the country . I'm talking about FDR and his backers (ie, the Democratic Party).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

weren't workers turning communist in the 30s because of the crisis?

I'm not talking about the few communists in the country

A million people is not a few.

[DanS]

In the US, inter-racial marriage was legalized nationally in 1967 with Loving v. Virginia. However, it was not until 1991 that Gallop recorded more Americans in favor of inter-racial marriage than against it.

My question(s): should inter-racial couples have instead waited 24 more years, until general public approval was higher? Was justice "short-circuited" when the courts approved of inter-racial marriage before the majority of the general public did?

As Imran points out, you're assuming that public opinion would have held out for 24 more years in the face of a determined debate. I think it would have been much better for our democracy had the debate been put to the people and their elected legislators to make the decision. This seems obvious to me.