Quote:
|
Nor should it be. Nor should it be defined by law, unless that law fully and completely specifies the nature of the contract. What is protected by the Constitution is our right to live our lives the way we see fit, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. The sole purpose of the "definition" in this case is to prevent one segment of the population from partaking in what the population as a whole considers to be an important part of life. It is indeed tyrrany of the masses.
|
But I agree they should be allowed to partake if they so choose. (Actually, I really don't care one way or the other, but I do see a distinct injustice in things such as denied visitation rights.)
Quote:
|
Speaking of definitions, you haven't answered my question.
|
I apologize, I must have missed it. Are you referring to my definition of a Constitutional right?
If so, it's very simple: a right defined Constitutionally. Does that preclude other rights? Of course not. But I believe that even the rights explicitly granted within the Constitution must be realistically interpretted.
For instance, does the 2nd Amendment mean we all have the right to build nuclear arms? Naturally, no.
The 9th Amendment is tricky. It's definition seems to vary from one political ideology to the next. At its core it defends the rights not explicitly defined in the Constitution, but clearly implied (presumption of innocence, privacy, travel, choice of food and drink, judicial review, jury of peers, etc). Both sides regularly like to twist it to mean what they want it to mean.
For instance, the social liberals that want gay marriage to be applicable regularly ignore that one should have a right to own a resturaunt that uses sodium liberally.
The 9th Amendment has been used to create judicial precedence, which I find to be the most dangerous threat our republic faces. Regularly judges apply the 9th to a plethora of cases which somehow gives justification to further, similar cases regardless of whether or not the precedence is based upon a correct interpretation of the law.
Quite frankly, I believe the 9th Amendment has been used as a tool to legislate from the bench.
Going back to an earlier point, I refer to my analogy about Ramadan. Considering that even an explicit right (that one which allows us to bear arms) can be regulated in the name of common sense, why then can we not regulate the use of a term in order to advance a cause while preserving the meaning of a term which many hold dear? Hell, even most eveyone here believes in some restriction on marriages.
Ultimately, because the issue is unclear the authority should exist with the states to define marriage. However, the RIGHTS pertaining to the word would fall under the 9th Amendment - not the word itself.
Hopefully this better states my position. Sorry about the "wall of text".