Are we obligated to enshrine something into law simply because a minority has asked us to?
The answer, of course, is no. Even if that group thinks it is their right, that does not obligate us to do anything and should not obligate a court to rule in their favor. Any group can get organized and ask for something, and then claim that their group is being treated unfairly if they don't get what they want. Any group can claim that something is a right, but it doesn't make it so.
When someone asks for a change in how a state issues licenses, such as marriage licenses, they are asking us (the people of the state) for something. We have the freedom to say "no".
People have a right to form voluntary associations - or not - and to offer their consent - or not. So, if two women want to share a life together, they are free to do so, and if they can convince someone else to perform a ceremony for them, they can have one or they can even do one themselves. However, just as one woman can't force another woman to live with her, no group can force someone else - such as the people of a state - to consent to change marriage licensing.
Judges are representatives of the people. However, if the people, through their direct vote, have made their nonconsent clear, judges should not counter that.
There simply is no right to a state-issued license, and equal access to that license is already provided.
No means no. No court should force your belief – the belief that you should get a marriage license from us even though you are without a groom or without a bride - on the rest of us.
The answer, of course, is no. Even if that group thinks it is their right, that does not obligate us to do anything and should not obligate a court to rule in their favor. Any group can get organized and ask for something, and then claim that their group is being treated unfairly if they don't get what they want. Any group can claim that something is a right, but it doesn't make it so.
When someone asks for a change in how a state issues licenses, such as marriage licenses, they are asking us (the people of the state) for something. We have the freedom to say "no".
People have a right to form voluntary associations - or not - and to offer their consent - or not. So, if two women want to share a life together, they are free to do so, and if they can convince someone else to perform a ceremony for them, they can have one or they can even do one themselves. However, just as one woman can't force another woman to live with her, no group can force someone else - such as the people of a state - to consent to change marriage licensing.
Judges are representatives of the people. However, if the people, through their direct vote, have made their nonconsent clear, judges should not counter that.
There simply is no right to a state-issued license, and equal access to that license is already provided.
No means no. No court should force your belief – the belief that you should get a marriage license from us even though you are without a groom or without a bride - on the rest of us.
PW: "Are we obligated to enshrine something into law simply because a minority has asked us to? The answer, of course, is no."
ReplyDeleteOf course. But that isn't the reason the courts considered when deciding whether same-sex marriage ought to be recognized in California or in the Federal sphere. The courts found an obligation, not simply because a minority has asked then to. Rather, that obligation stems from the constitutional rights that apply to majority and minority alike.
PW: "There simply is no right to a state-issued license, and equal access to that license is already provided."
That's like putting a 1-foot-wide door on city hall, then claiming that everyone has equal access to their local government. Put what about people whose inherent characteristics make it virtually impossible for them to fit through that narrow door? Offering them access that is unsuitable isn't really equal access, is it?
PW: "No court should force your belief – the belief that you should get a marriage license from us even though you are without a groom or without a bride - on the rest of us."
But a court should force YOUR belief, that marriage licenses should be denied to same-sex couples, on the rest of us?