Same sex marriage, the debate rages - arguably. As to another Uber driver's views
Senator Aberz is criticised for referring to Justice Thomas as 'himself a negro' to endeavour to assert that a member of an historically prejudicially affected minority holds an opinion that same sex marriage is either unconstitutional or otherwise wrong.
The difficulties with our Senator's arguements are many.
Some difficulties are
1 It is considered by many perjorative language to refer to an Afro American USA citizen as a negro in this context. However, the Senator undoubtedly had no intention of denigrating or being rude or offensive to or about the Judge. On the contrary, he was enlisting the Judge's decision against same sex marriage as support for his own, and implying the negative argument is stronger because supported by one of a minority (not minority on the court, but minority in society due to colour and ethnicity).
2 Nevertheless it confounds 3 issues. First, the Judge's colour and ethnic origin is irrelevant. Second, he is American, and making a decision in a singularly different context: about the US constitution and its hustorical amendments, decisions of the US people, and their courts. It is not a decision by a person in his capacity personally, but as a justice of a court. Third, notwithstanding the undoubted desire of our Senator to endorse the Judge's decision, the endorsement is weakened by the unnecessary and irrelevant racial, ethnic, and perjorative references.
Attached https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-556/
is a copy of the decision by the Judge, in the minority and overruled by the majority (whose decision us also attached). Clearly, within the decisions are many arguments supportive of the fundamental liberty of same sex couples to marry. Likewise within the minority, are arguments for such a matter, within the US legal constitutional framework and history, to be a matter not for interpretation but for the people by constutional amendment, to be the repository of the power to decide.
Senator Abetz is endevouring to translate the American experience and a minority overruled court argument to the Australian historical, cultural and constitutional situation. It may be appropriate to develop the same arguments but there is no support gained by referring to one of the dissenting judge's colour and ethnic origin.
The debate will continue. Our own court has ruled, unanimously, that it a matter for our federal parliament to amend the current Marriage Act, and not a matter requiring constitutional amendment.
The Senator wishes to prevent a legislative change. That is his opinion and it his power to support prevention of change, as an elected member of one arm of our parliament. However, the relative strength of the pieces of his argument viz a viz the alternative view supporting legislative change is critical to the integrity of his case.
Thus he has demeaned his own argument.
Footnote: this 3am issue is the result of jet lag and Guinness, hence, as Douglas Adams would project, Deep Thought. The answer is if course, 42.
The difficulties with our Senator's arguements are many.
Some difficulties are
1 It is considered by many perjorative language to refer to an Afro American USA citizen as a negro in this context. However, the Senator undoubtedly had no intention of denigrating or being rude or offensive to or about the Judge. On the contrary, he was enlisting the Judge's decision against same sex marriage as support for his own, and implying the negative argument is stronger because supported by one of a minority (not minority on the court, but minority in society due to colour and ethnicity).
2 Nevertheless it confounds 3 issues. First, the Judge's colour and ethnic origin is irrelevant. Second, he is American, and making a decision in a singularly different context: about the US constitution and its hustorical amendments, decisions of the US people, and their courts. It is not a decision by a person in his capacity personally, but as a justice of a court. Third, notwithstanding the undoubted desire of our Senator to endorse the Judge's decision, the endorsement is weakened by the unnecessary and irrelevant racial, ethnic, and perjorative references.
Attached https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-556/
is a copy of the decision by the Judge, in the minority and overruled by the majority (whose decision us also attached). Clearly, within the decisions are many arguments supportive of the fundamental liberty of same sex couples to marry. Likewise within the minority, are arguments for such a matter, within the US legal constitutional framework and history, to be a matter not for interpretation but for the people by constutional amendment, to be the repository of the power to decide.
Senator Abetz is endevouring to translate the American experience and a minority overruled court argument to the Australian historical, cultural and constitutional situation. It may be appropriate to develop the same arguments but there is no support gained by referring to one of the dissenting judge's colour and ethnic origin.
The debate will continue. Our own court has ruled, unanimously, that it a matter for our federal parliament to amend the current Marriage Act, and not a matter requiring constitutional amendment.
The Senator wishes to prevent a legislative change. That is his opinion and it his power to support prevention of change, as an elected member of one arm of our parliament. However, the relative strength of the pieces of his argument viz a viz the alternative view supporting legislative change is critical to the integrity of his case.
Thus he has demeaned his own argument.
Footnote: this 3am issue is the result of jet lag and Guinness, hence, as Douglas Adams would project, Deep Thought. The answer is if course, 42.
Comments