Originally Posted by Flintc

This issue was debated vigorously when the US Constitution was being written to supercede Articles of Confederation. And it's worthy of those debates.

The context is important here. The American system of government was revolutionary in many ways, but mostly it was a revolution against the absolute power of kings who ruled by Divine Right. The experiment was, to transfer effective power away from such rulers and to the people.

But it was also recognized that majority rule has serious drawbacks. The notion of two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner wasn't lost on those debaters. And that meant that while the people should have as much power as possible, there were practical limits to that power. After all, they recognized (and we've seen it repeatedly around the world), if the people in their wisdom vote for an absolute dictator, that's the last time the people can ever exercise their power.

So the peoples' power was considered to have two important limitations: They shouldn't be able to vote to relinquish their power without going through really extraordinary efforts highly unlikely to succeed. And there should be some minimum set of fundamental rights belonging to ALL citizens that no vote could override.

But how big should this set of rights be? How could it be protected in the future? Could it be expanded, and if so, on what basis? Should there be exceptions, and if so what should they be?

The first 10 amendments, the bill of rights, was a compromise between those who wished to specify each and every conceivable guaranteed right, and those who worried that if you specified SOME of those rights, people might decide that those not specified don't exist. And you can't list them all. So the compromise was, they'd list what they knew from their experience to be critical, and hope their descendents had enough sense not to muck it up.

What has changed with respect to marriage since those days is, while we still give lip service to the three branches of government and the checks and balances, in truth we live in an administrative state. There are 535 Congressmen, one President, 9 Supreme Court Justices, and four million Federal bureaucrats comprising our government. The laws of the US are tiny compared to the mountain of rules, regulations, protocols, procedures, precedents, and other administrative guidelines. And marriage is embedded deeply into this mountain, a mountain that didn't exist at the start.

And because marriage is intertwined to that extent, it really has "just kinda growed" into a basic right - it matters in a way that has emerged from regulation of employment, insurance, finances, health, and really all we do in our lives.

And that's why I think it's just a matter of a little more time before we get past the emotional baggage, recognize that this is a right of all citizens, repeal discriminatory laws, and move on. Our descendants will look back at those who opposed same-sex marriage the way we look today at those who were adamant that women didn't have sense enough to vote and never would!

Originally Posted by Flintc

This issue was debated vigorously when the US Constitution was being written to supercede Articles of Confederation. And it's worthy of those debates.

The context is important here. The American system of government was revolutionary in many ways, but mostly it was a revolution against the absolute power of kings who ruled by Divine Right. The experiment was, to transfer effective power away from such rulers and to the people.

But it was also recognized that majority rule has serious drawbacks. The notion of two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner wasn't lost on those debaters. And that meant that while the people should have as much power as possible, there were practical limits to that power. After all, they recognized (and we've seen it repeatedly around the world), if the people in their wisdom vote for an absolute dictator, that's the last time the people can ever exercise their power.

So the peoples' power was considered to have two important limitations: They shouldn't be able to vote to relinquish their power without going through really extraordinary efforts highly unlikely to succeed. And there should be some minimum set of fundamental rights belonging to ALL citizens that no vote could override.

But how big should this set of rights be? How could it be protected in the future? Could it be expanded, and if so, on what basis? Should there be exceptions, and if so what should they be?

The first 10 amendments, the bill of rights, was a compromise between those who wished to specify each and every conceivable guaranteed right, and those who worried that if you specified SOME of those rights, people might decide that those not specified don't exist. And you can't list them all. So the compromise was, they'd list what they knew from their experience to be critical, and hope their descendents had enough sense not to muck it up.

What has changed with respect to marriage since those days is, while we still give lip service to the three branches of government and the checks and balances, in truth we live in an administrative state. There are 535 Congressmen, one President, 9 Supreme Court Justices, and four million Federal bureaucrats comprising our government. The laws of the US are tiny compared to the mountain of rules, regulations, protocols, procedures, precedents, and other administrative guidelines. And marriage is embedded deeply into this mountain, a mountain that didn't exist at the start.

And because marriage is intertwined to that extent, it really has "just kinda growed" into a basic right - it matters in a way that has emerged from regulation of employment, insurance, finances, health, and really all we do in our lives.

And that's why I think it's just a matter of a little more time before we get past the emotional baggage, recognize that this is a right of all citizens, repeal discriminatory laws, and move on. Our descendents will look back at those who opposed same-sex marriage the way we look today at those who were adamant that women didn't have sense enough to vote and never would!

Originally Posted by Joe Six-pack

In all seriousness -- that was one of the smartest posts I've read on this board.