> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of pencimen > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:20 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet > > JDG wrote: > > > recognizing that the law > > may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad idea > > So we agree then that the NJ ruling was legit? Or is it moral, just > and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual > orientation? I think his point is that the principal of rule by law indicates that sometimes we must accept laws that are immoral, unjust, or bad ideas. There's the classic statement by Sir. Thomas Moore in "A Man for All Seasons" that addresses this:
<quote> Roper: "So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!" Sir Thomas: "Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?" Roper: "Why, yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that!" Sir Thomas: "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it, Roper!--do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?" "Yes," Sir Thomas concludes: "I'd give the Devil the benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!" <end quote> I think JDG's argument is that we should not undermine democratic principals by letting unelected judges make laws by reading what they know is right into constitutions....even thought we think that what they do is supporting fundamental morality. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
