Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: hysperion
Please don't tell me that you truly believe the laws and values of our country at the time of it's foundation would have accepted and allowed homosexual marriage. This country definately was not founded on those values and you're smart enough to know that
What has this got to do with anything?
The prevailing attitude at the time the U.S. was founded was that whites should not marry blacks. Every single state in the union, with the exception of Vermont, either enacted or tried to enact anti-miscegenation laws. Many such laws were still on the books - and still enforced - in 1967 when the Supreme Court, in the the landmark case Loving v. Virginia, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional.
By your reasoning, that was judicial activism. By your reasoning, the Constitution is written in concrete, and if (for example) words in the Constitutional refer to "public utilities," that must not be interpreted by modern courts as including electric companies, since there were no electric companies at the time the Constitution was written.
By your reasoning, "arms" (in the 2nd amendment) refers to flintlocks. So no 2nd-amendment-advocate's argument that modern pistols and rifles be included under the modern umbrella of "arms" should be given credence by the courts. The same right-wingers who so loudly advocate original intent seem to have a change of heart when it comes to the 2nd amendment.
What I find so despicable about "original intent" is that it's just a scam. Almost all of these so-called strict-constructionists in fact interpret the Constitution tendentiously, to support the conclusions they've already made.
If you want proof, just look at what happens when a court makes a "liberal" decision: Right-wingers immediately label the DECISION activist, not realizing that it's the METHODS of reasoning that are originalist, or activist, or whatever. How is it that (for example) every single time Zendari makes a pronouncement on a decision supporting some gay right, he labels it activist without even bothering to read the reasoning underlying the decision?
Zendari's shrill inanities pass for discourse among the mentally challenged. But I know cow patties when I smell them.