>I wish it were much easier to amend the constitution.
>This would seem a pretty poor "benefit" in exchange for the problems
>created by having a constitution that
>is nearly impossible to amend.
>This is tongue-in-cheek or you really believe this?
>
>John Thornton
>
>
>On 18 May 2006 at 0:00, BklynMagus wrote:
>
> > http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Senate-Gay-Marriage.html
I suspect it's a classic instance of being grateful for "checks and balances" when it's the other guy's ox being gored.
I'm a little mystified by Brian's position. On matters of musical taste, he argued forcefully a few months ago that one can't declare Beethoven "better" than Kander & Ebb - but on matters of public policy, one can think gay marriage to be the "right" position, even though the public is largely against it. No one ever argued that taste should be democratic, but what about government? And on what grounds is gay marriage "right," if it's not some philosophical position that's not open to a vote?
Doug