> That's the essence of democracy; the Constitution and country are now ours
But isn’t that exactly the point? As I understand the various previous posters, the main argument is not whether the constitution should ensure a right to marry for everyone, but whether it does give out this right.
Further (again my interpretation), it seems that the issue is that the previous interpretation of the constitution did not allow for homosexuals to marry – otherwise it would have been allowed before. ‘The People’ now want to give out this right, but: should it be granted by a court deciding “This sentence, which previously was interpreted as X, now means Y” or should it be done by a change of the actual constitution?
Additionally, does this ruling imply that homosexuals were always allowed to marry (i.e. the constitution/law always allowed it, it was just misinterpreted by the courts) or does it mean that the law has now suddenly changed? Then, should such a change of law be implemented by a court or via the usual democratic process?
(I don’t understand the common law system and the US enough to give any answers to these questions, but they do seem interesting.)
But isn’t that exactly the point? As I understand the various previous posters, the main argument is not whether the constitution should ensure a right to marry for everyone, but whether it does give out this right.
Further (again my interpretation), it seems that the issue is that the previous interpretation of the constitution did not allow for homosexuals to marry – otherwise it would have been allowed before. ‘The People’ now want to give out this right, but: should it be granted by a court deciding “This sentence, which previously was interpreted as X, now means Y” or should it be done by a change of the actual constitution?
Additionally, does this ruling imply that homosexuals were always allowed to marry (i.e. the constitution/law always allowed it, it was just misinterpreted by the courts) or does it mean that the law has now suddenly changed? Then, should such a change of law be implemented by a court or via the usual democratic process?
(I don’t understand the common law system and the US enough to give any answers to these questions, but they do seem interesting.)