John writes:
> I think there is a definite benefit to not amending the constitution to
> preventing any two people from marrying. This is however a side benefit
> that derives from the problem of having a constitution that is too
> difficult to amend.
No, it is a direct benefit of having a cumbersome amending process. The cumbersomeness allows the idiot passions time to cool and rationality to regain its rightful control.
> The constitution serves to prevent 'excess democracy'.
Excess anything is dangerous. Extremes are best avoided in my view.
> The constitution is not the best tool to use to check the problems that
> can arise in a
predominantly majoritarian government.
Agreed. But do you see any other tool on the horizon that is capable of preventing majoritarianism from gaining power?
> This issue, as Brian points out, has already been resolved. As a nation we
> have already decided not to descriminate on the basis of sex.
But oddly enough (to me), this is not the argument used by queer lawyers. They base their arguments on the right to privacy and the freedom to choose one's intimate life partner that this right protects. This reasoning has always seemed to me to be a bit of a stretch, and no one has ever been able to give me a valid reason why the argument for same-sex marriage wasn't grounded in the 14th Amendment. Can anybody on the list who knows the law better than I think of a reason to shun this approach? Full disclosure: I heart the 14th Amendment.
> If in agreeing to that people did not fully realize its implications,
> well that's just too fucking bad.
I agree.
> Democracy isn't perfect and there should be checks to prevent right-wing
> moralizing from sweeping away progress in the name of majoritarianism.
Right and at this moment the only check that exists is the difficulty in amending the Constitution. As soon as someone a) comes up with a better restraint and b) gets it implemented successfully, I will gladly agree that it is now time to make it easier to amend the Constitution. But until the rescue ship comes along, you don't abandon the life raft (unless you are already protected by other forms of privilege).
> That's a long way away from being glad an instrument of oppression like
> the constitution is difficult to change because I can find one or four
> 'benefits' that do not even come close to balancing it's multiple
> deficiencies.
>From where you sit this may be true.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister