Here is an excerpt from last night's debate on KET's Kentucky Tonight, on which I was a guest:
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
5 comments:
You are welcome to post at this blog. You are asked, however, to refrain from the following:
1. Name-calling;
2. Questioning the motives or integrity of people you have never met just because you disagree with them;
3. Using obscenities or other expressions not appropriate or necessary to civilized discussion;
4. Taking disagreement personally;
5. Demeaning or insulting remarks.
The host will attempt to abide by the same rules and only asks that you not provide him with the temptation to do so in return by violating them.
Failure to comply with these rules can result (depending solely on the arbitrary and inscrutable will of the host) in the deletion of offending posts and suspension of posting privileges. Such measures are more likely if you post anonymously.
Y'know, it's a blatant appeal to authority when you ask whether or not the drafters of the 14th intended for it to cover same sex marriage. You're not making any argument about what SHOULD be, only what IS under the law. Not to mention the bad outcomes that would result if we only considered the applicability of laws based on what their authors meant at the time. The Bill of Rights was written before radio or internet, but that does not and should not mean it doesn't apply to these forms of communication that the framers could not forsee.
ReplyDeleteEd,
ReplyDeleteI've got other responses to your point, but one is simply this: What is the problem with appealing to authority? Appealing to judicial precedent is an appeal to authority; appealing to research is an appeal to authority; appealing to the language of the Constitution is an appeal to authority.
What's your problem with authority?
Sadly, if the excerpts are any indication, conservatives lost this debate. However, winning a debate does not necessarily mean that the winning side was right, only that it was more appealing to the majority. In this case I believe that the majority of viewers base their beliefs on whatever flows with the mainstream of media and manipulated culture.
ReplyDeleteAnthony,
ReplyDeleteI'd watch the whole thing.
This issue will probably come down to Justice Kennedy, and we already know from his prior opinions protecting the constitutional rights of homosexuals that he doesn't give a fig about what 19th century white men might have thought about gay rights if the question had ever been put to them. So this whole issue is likely to be permanently resolved next year.
ReplyDelete