You're confusing "common" with "rational". It's common for 15-year-old girls to dress like prostitutes and have unprotected sex, but that doesn't make such behaviour rational, does it?<quoted text>
no, I didnt dodge, you would need a rational reason...
that the sky is blue is not a rational reason, that they are a religion is not rational, that they cannot procreate, as to a marriage, is a rational reason. that gays cannot provide both a mom and dad is rational. In fact that we understood marriage at all to be between man and woman is rational!
It's the same with marriage. Just because it may be common for straight, fertile couples to marry, that's not a rational for banning everyone else (or anyone else) from doing it.
What if they voted that people that post to Topix under the name "Jane Dough" should be imprisoned for life. Rational?? Correct?? People's vote!! Sacred?? Defensible?? You don't think that should be overturned by a court? Or would you just show up and jail and turn yourself in?<quoted text>
that aside, yes, the will of the people should not be disregarded...
See above. What makes you think that all the voters are schooled in constitutional law to the point of refusing to vote for anything that wouldn't pass constitutional muster? And how is that even possible since MANY issues are far too complex for anyone outside of a court of law to even figure out if it IS constitutional or not?<quoted text>
Even more so in CA where they amended the constitution, not just legislation but CHANGED the constitution...I find it hard to believe an amendment can be unconstitutional!
First off, no one is forcing anything onto anyone, let alone down anyone's throat.<quoted text>
If you are so sure people's minds are changing, why then is your tactic to force it down people's throats?
Second, historians have long thought, and with lots of good support, that slavery in the United State would have likely faded away as the industrial revolution gradually made keeping slaves far more expensive than purchasing machinery and hiring workers. In fact, it was fairly common knowledge among people before the Civil War that such a progression was already under way. Many Confederate politicians made that argument in their attempts to stave off abolitionist's attempts at outlawing slavery.
Do you think it would have been rational and fair to simply tell all those slaves that all they would have to do is wait another generation or two and slavery would be gone?? Or do you think ending it all at once with the 14th Amendment was a better plan?