Should we write laws without precedence?

In some cases, Yes. In Ca. we have the Brown Act that govern the way city council and ruling bodies public meetings should be run. It is a misdemeanor for the politicians to not abide by the Brown Act. Here's the kicker. It is a misdemeanor with no consequences. The worse that can happen is a "no no" letter for the D.A.. Another is the Eminent Domain laws. Many of the states have provided protection for home owners. In Ca. the developers lobby is the most powerful and largest in the state capitol. In Ca. Redevelopment agencies are the only branch of government that can issue Tax Allocation bonds without voter approval. This means that the property taxes we pay go to pay off these bonds that go to R.D.A's and then to developers to force you off your land for a Lowes or Home Depot or any other scheme that a developer brings to a city. The property taxes are diverted away from schools, fire and police protection and the services that your taxes are paid to provide. In Ca. and most other states any revenue that a R.D.A. project brings in, by law, goes back to the Redevelopment agency for more development not to the cities general fund. I feel these are laws that the hypothetical should have been considered before the pols sold us out.

The fact is, gay marriage is not illegal unless a law is written banning it. There was never anything put into the Constitution about marriage. People claim this means each state can decide. Fine, except that anything that is not outlawed by legislation is inherently legal until such legislation is written. That means that laws have been written all over this country in the past few years deliberately taking a basic human right AWAY from Americans.

And that is unConstitutional.

And that whole "they'll want to marry their pets next" is the most ignorant argument these people make. Sexual attraction to and romantic love for another human being is not a stepping stone to sexual attraction to and romantic love for a pet. It's ridiculous.

I prefer arguments based on logic and real-world effects, in addition to merely stating what has been done, or not done, in the past. If it's a good idea, the fact that it has not been done before is not in and of itself a reason not to do it. I have posted some thoughts on same-sex marriage elsewhere. And you said this was not the place for them. PS I can't help but notice the phrase "when it comes to law...the less the better." I myself cannot always apply that standard in a way others view as consistently, to the extent I even expressly try to. I think it is a tough task for anyone. (I prefer to say laws are necessary when the interest being promoted by the law outweighs whatever freedom interest is being abridged, and where the Constitution allows such regulation.) I have asked before what the libertarian position is on, for example, the FCC "Fairness Doctrine" and gun control. Maybe I will ask again, someday.

The vast majority of all laws are currently being written to protect various entities from law suits.

For a large and complete picture of this look at the environmental laws which were changed, modified, and codified during the Reagan years.

Despite intense opposition by the wealthy elitists who dominated America 's government, throughout much of the Twentieth Century groups and movements fought to utilize the mechanisms available through our Constitution to advance the cause of social justice. The Women's Suffrage Movement, the Wobblies, the Socialists, the ACLU, the Civil Rights Movement, and many others employed non-violent means to gain unprecedented rights for women, the working class, Black Americans, children, the poor, and other minorities. Many paid for their "crime" of standing up to the ruling elites through loss of their careers and reputations, prison time, beatings, deportation, and even assasination. Thanks to these brave individuals, the soulless worshippers of money were curtailed in their oppression of the people, at least for a time.

Richard Nixon was a felon, but the Watergate scandal was rather insignificant when one considers that his presidency marked the advent of a new "Gilded Age". Starting with the Nixon era, Social Darwinism began to recapture the hearts and minds of many Americans. While fancying themselves to be part of a pluralistic society resting on the pillars of freedom, equality, justice, and democracy, many denizens of the United States have willingly enabled their government to become one of the most avaricious, corrupt, and covertly repressive entities in history. Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II have worked feverishly to advance the "noble causes" of the enrichment of corporate America , the expansion of the American Empire, the steady erosion of the populist gains made during the Twentieth Century, and the substantial increase in the wealth chasm between the rich and the poor. When we see Ronald Reagan's face enshrined on the $50 bill, we will know that the tyranny of the wealthy elite has reached a milestone in convincing average Americans of the "righteousness" of their cause. Few worked harder than Reagan to advance their agenda and to bring the social justice movement to a screeching halt.

times change and the laws have to change with them. if the people feel a need to past laws for something that is happening in there lives at the moment.. then it should be looked at. its like the bible.. alot of people have read it in the king James version.. king James was king about 300 years ago, so people decided to update the bible.. its still the same bible but in modern words. slavery was good for those people at the time, but people wanted a change and laws had to be passed. later sweety

p.s I'm for gay marriage.. gay people should not be treated like second class citizens because of what they do in the bedroom.

I think you're the one who should try again. In some cases, yes we should but in the case of legal recognition for homosexual relationships, the answer is a clear no. We shouldn't ignore potential threats but we shouldn't make everything a threat either. The claim that 'gay marriage' is some sort of threat to society and straight relationships is not only disingenuous but ridiculous.

Laws should not be written/enacted without precedence. This is how our current "hate crime" legislation attempts is attempting to function. the SCOTUS (until the early 1960s and, especially, starting in 1973) always made its decisions with a strong eye on precedence and case law.

We have way too many laws. We need to start repealing laws.

In medieval Iceland, they had a "law-speaker." " His job was to memorize the laws, to recite them through once during his term in office."

http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland...

The laws that have been passed by the United States Congress fill 18 volumes.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsl.html

People might speed in cars should we ban them? This type of nanny state mentality for the religious right is the type of thing that undermines freedom and makes democracy look ridiculous. The gay marriage example is a good and shows what happens when you base laws on logical fallacies and religious dogma--freedom dies.

***we have marriage too. I guess that example was too sophisticated for you.

In some cases, yes, if the situation dictates it. In gay marriage, no, as the govt. has no place in people's sex lives, and I am against homosexuality becasue of religious beliefs.