Scalia's argument is not new and goes back to before the civil rights era. It was wrong-headed then and it's wrong-headed now.
> there's no way the federal court system would start mucking around with marriage.
And maybe if fed and state governments hadn't felt the need to placate the angry mobs by passing super discriminatory laws, the court never would have had the demonstrable harm necessary to step in and make a ruling.
> For a fundamental issue like this, it's not a good thing that nobody knows even whether it's relevant to the court or not.
That's kind of the hitch though, isn't it? We wouldn't even need the courts if there weren't always fairly smart people (smart enough to get elected, at least) who disagree that minorities should have Rights.
Court decisions to confer Rights are tricky because the procedural question is exactly the substantive question -- if Gay people have a Right to marry, then the court has no choice but to step in. And if they don't, then the court has no choice but to stay hand off. And whether they have that Right depends, basically, on your opinion. As Kennedy pointed out, the due process and equal protection clauses were written in an intentionally non-explicit way.
Edit: For example, it would be absolutely insane today for us to imagine the equal protection clause not providing a basis for banning discrimination based on race. Obviously, either our constitution forbids that practice under the Fourteenth Amendment or else our Constitution is seriously, seriously flawed. Right? Right. Now, go read the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.
Scalia's argument is not new and goes back to before the civil rights era. It was wrong-headed then and it's wrong-headed now.
> there's no way the federal court system would start mucking around with marriage.
And maybe if fed and state governments hadn't felt the need to placate the angry mobs by passing super discriminatory laws, the court never would have had the demonstrable harm necessary to step in and make a ruling.
> For a fundamental issue like this, it's not a good thing that nobody knows even whether it's relevant to the court or not.
That's kind of the hitch though, isn't it? We wouldn't even need the courts if there weren't always fairly smart people (smart enough to get elected, at least) who disagree that minorities should have Rights.
Court decisions to confer Rights are tricky because the procedural question is exactly the substantive question -- if Gay people have a Right to marry, then the court has no choice but to step in. And if they don't, then the court has no choice but to stay hand off. And whether they have that Right depends, basically, on your opinion. As Kennedy pointed out, the due process and equal protection clauses were written in an intentionally non-explicit way.
Edit: For example, it would be absolutely insane today for us to imagine the equal protection clause not providing a basis for banning discrimination based on race. Obviously, either our constitution forbids that practice under the Fourteenth Amendment or else our Constitution is seriously, seriously flawed. Right? Right. Now, go read the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.