How Supreme Court conservatives could...

How Supreme Court conservatives could support gay marriage: A modest proposal

There are 6 comments on the features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com story from Nov 12, 2012, titled How Supreme Court conservatives could support gay marriage: A modest proposal. In it, features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com reports that:

The court has tied itself up in intellectual knots that could make it hard to support gay rights. But there is a way even the most conservative members could come around.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Nov 12, 2012
I wish the author had provided a link to the Michael McConnell Law Review article mentioned in the piece.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._McCon...

The Originalist Case for Brown v. Board of education, 19 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 457 (1995)

The Originalist Justification for Brown: A Reply to Professor Klarman, 81 Virginia Law Review 1937 (1995)

Originalism and the Desegregation Decisions, 81 Virginia Law Review 947 (1995)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2 Nov 12, 2012
"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." (Justice Kennedy in Lawrence.)

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#3 Nov 12, 2012
The article is pretty much nonsense. It never answeres the question it posed.

The 4 conservative justices aren't going to find a right for same-sex couples to marry.

Simply not going to happen.

The only way we get a majority is when the liberals have a majority on the court. Hopefully that happens in the next 4 years.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Nov 12, 2012
I don't WANT our constitution to be interpreted according to the average mindset in 1800 or 1900.

It's 2012; the country has changed. We no longer own blacks. We no longer treat women as the property of her husband. We no longer deny Asians the ability to onw property. We no longer confine Native Americans to their reservations. We no longer forcibly sterilize the menatally retarded. And we no longer ban gays & lesbians from existing.

The founders has the right IDEA of freedom, liberty, & equal treatment. Unfortunately they were limited by their own prejudice & biases so that the CONCEPTS they espoused ended up applying only to straight white christian male property owners.

We need to bring the ideas & concepts of freedom, liberty, & equal rights into the 21st century and apply them to our CURRENT society; not the society of 1865.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#5 Nov 13, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
I don't WANT our constitution to be interpreted according to the average mindset in 1800 or 1900.
It's 2012; the country has changed. We no longer own blacks. We no longer treat women as the property of her husband. We no longer deny Asians the ability to onw property. We no longer confine Native Americans to their reservations. We no longer forcibly sterilize the menatally retarded. And we no longer ban gays & lesbians from existing.
The founders has the right IDEA of freedom, liberty, & equal treatment. Unfortunately they were limited by their own prejudice & biases so that the CONCEPTS they espoused ended up applying only to straight white christian male property owners.
We need to bring the ideas & concepts of freedom, liberty, & equal rights into the 21st century and apply them to our CURRENT society; not the society of 1865.
Agreed. While they had some good ideas, they were far from perfect, and I suspect many if not most of them knew it, and that is why they stated basic universal principals rather than trying to preserve and enshrine society as it was in their time. As Justice Kennedy stated: "They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress."

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Nov 13, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. While they had some good ideas, they were far from perfect, and I suspect many if not most of them knew it, and that is why they stated basic universal principals rather than trying to preserve and enshrine society as it was in their time. As Justice Kennedy stated: "They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress."
Yep. Notice most of the supporters of "originalism" or "textualists" are old straight white christian men. They long for the good old days when they ruled all. They see equal rights as a DECREASE in the privilege they've had all these decades.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Criminal Defense Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hazleton could see tax hike because of immigrat... 40 min Memo From Turner 8
News City administrator aims to put TIF issue to rest 56 min Dr David 7
News Push for "Open Carry" in Arkansas (Jan '11) 15 hr got em 27
News Madoff Sentenced to 150 Years for Ponzi Scheme (Jun '09) 22 hr Swedenforever 31
News 'Sister Wives' family humbled by polygamy ruling (Jan '14) 22 hr Swedenforever 29
News Support DA Tonkin for another term Mon Dan 1
News Second individual convicted of 2001 Harrison Co... Sun Die Adam Bowers 17
More from around the web