Thread: Gay Marriage
View Single Post
Old 04-22-2009, 08:37 PM   #171
SW01
3 Years in the Lurk
 
SW01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Northern Ireland, UK
Posts: 1,075
Current Game: Real Life
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil View Post
That's what I'm saying I do think there needs to be an amendment that gives both sides a chance
Personally, I am highly sceptical that such a thing could ever be achieved. Where there are 'sides' opposed to such a right, where one side desires its implementation and the other is opposed to its implementation, it will be impossible without creating some useless and ineffective breed of law - one that would do harm to the need for legal certainty. Either the right should be granted, with all certainty that it will be active and relevant for the forseeable future, or it should not be granted. Though, as discussed at great length, more and more now the latter would be consistent with denying a fundamental right.

Withdrawing a right at a later stage would be, if anything, worse than never acknowledging it. All that would come out of it would be a large group of enraged people.

Quote:
I want to be fair. You have a better idea please share. It was just an idea. I'm just trying to think of some way to make it fair for both sides while trying to make the wishes of the majority count
Which is admirable, but possibly fundamentally unworkable. Had it been two groups at odds over an issue of construction or some issue of legal framework, compromise would possibly be available. However, as I wrote above, where the argument is over the very existence of the right in the first place, compromise would seem impossible.

Should the will of the majority be able to override the rights of the (growing) minority? It is an awkward question, for the sole reason that it involves the claim of a right held by another group. I find the argument of discrimination to be a powerful one - and whether I personally agree with it or not (it is an issue that I am uncertain of at this time), it seems to be becoming indefensible from a legal standpoint to continue to deny it.

Quote:
at the same time giving others a chance next time. If you think the time between each vote should be lengthened please tell what you'd have it be. Let's hear your idea that makes it fair for both sides.
I think allowing the country to vote once every four years for a person that shares their opinions over the matter is sufficient. Rule by plebiscite is interesting as an exercise in pure democracy, but it doen't always help provide a coherent legal perspective.

My suggestion would be that the government should take a bold stance one way or the other. Though that is unlikely. The next option would be the courts, but they did take a bold step and were swiftly overruled by plebiscite.

All other possibilities - including the EU model (if a marriage is legally binding in the State of origin of a couple, any other State to which they move must also recognise their union) seem to be rather weak half-measures. At least to me.


SW01 is offline   you may: quote & reply,