No. of Recommendations: 1
Albaby (I think on TMF) once laid-out the argument of Roe, and it did make sense. I still think using the 13th Amendment is a better argument, but he disagreed. Either way, it wasn't on a "whim". The Constitution is silent on abortion, but it is not silent about issues (e.g. privacy, being secure in your person, etc) surrounding topics the Founders didn't know about (e.g. abortion, the internet, etc). When those were applied, Roe made sense. I'm not sure about the specifics of the argument about gay marriage, so won't comment there. The Constitution never speaks of marriage, either.
Yes, there are proper ways to change the document. But it is also a living document, as opposed to the bible which is dead. You can never change it, so you can't repeal (for example) Ex 21 which explains how to treat slaves. You can ignore that bit, if you like. But it's there. Our Constitution refers to "men" exclusively, so are we to take it as saying women have few rights (other than the 19th Amendment)? Or, despite the ERA not passing, should we say "where it says 'men' we can assume 'and women' applies"? I favor the latter because it is common sense, and more reflective of our inclusive society. And that is NOT destroying the country, and it isn't really a whim.
In any event, we are starting to get into the weeds about specific policies and interpretations. Which is fine. I'm up for it. But I think we are on the same page that neither of us intends to destroy the country, and we both want to make it better. Where we will disagree, one may think the other is unintentionally destroying the country while trying to make it better (we may also disagree on what "better" is :-).
So I will try to refrain from generalities (like "Republicans want to destroy this country"), and stick with specifics (like "Trump admired and envied dictators, and wanted to be one himself" - which would have destroyed this country). Hopefully that sounds reasonable to you.
