In England (and Canada) it is an extremely serious offence to affront the queen ... it's right up there with murder and ... treason (because you know how many people are plotting to blow up parliament >.>).
Re-summarizing your argument: A law is immune to criticism or change, because it has historical reference. There is no need to actually legitimize it, because any legal practice that has been continuously and widely accepted throughout American history, is unquestionably immune from due process condemnation. Today however, a great many judges (including the majority on your supreme court), lawyers and scholars now prefer a different interpretive strategy: They believe that all abstract clauses should be understood as incorporating certain fundamental principles of individual freedom and equality, principles that are honored in the general structure of the Constitution and legal practice. Of course, these principles have historically, and continuoulsy, been dishonored, from time to time, in more specific practices. On that view, a constitutional challenge to long-established laws, like any anti-homosexual law, asks judges to consider whether those laws, in spite of their long history, can nevertheless now be seen to offend more general principles to which the Constitution commits the nation.Cheerio!
Obama is anti-gay marriage because he wants to get voted in again. Lets get real here. Politicians always surf the status quo when it comes to civil liberties. They avoid it like a plague, and try their best to create safety-nets for themselves. This whole crap about civil unions is nothing but a safety-net. It doesn't matter anyway, because last election there was not one politician (Ron Paul included) that was consistently pro-civil liberties.
I think when a law is not general, or that it picks on a certain minority group's civil liberties, said law should be suspect. We have many examples of these laws in society, ranging from attacks made against particular religious groups, to attacks against unpopular opinions, to euthanasia, and gay rights. Clearly this issue interests you Perez, so my suggestion would be to talk about other topics that share the same underlying principle in law. It gets a bit tiring to read your constant ... frustration about gay marriage. It doesn't look good when you are a one-topic man.
I think when a law is not general, or that it picks on a certain minority group's civil liberties, said law should be suspect. We have many examples of these laws in society, ranging from attacks made against particular religious groups, to attacks against unpopular opinions, to euthanasia, and gay rights. Clearly this issue interests you Perez, so my suggestion would be to talk about other topics that share the same underlying principle in law. It gets a bit tiring to read your constant ... frustration about gay marriage. It doesn't look good when you are a one-topic man.
Are you kidding me? The conduct of the police throughout the process of a trial is always an issue.