[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
Note: I don’t give a shit whether gays get married or not. I am however, VERY concerned about the legal process that allows the will of the people of CA to be overturned by a FEDERAL judge on multiple occasions. [/quote]
that is the real danger in this particualr scenario . . . well said
[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
oh and civil unions can be given reciprocity just as marriages are. You do realized that marriages do not technically exist outside of the state in which they were licensed, right? States grant reciprocal recognition of marriages established in other states based on the same recognition for their own. So the exact same arrangement for civil unions is available (and generally granted reciprocity) across the country.[/quote]
not really true. There are some benefits only available to married couples such as Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship.
Also some inheritance issues are assumed via marriage. Same thing with Death Benefits, I can’t will someone my social security.
I just don’t understand why someone else has the right to deny another person’s right to marriage. Why would you care?
If the issue is that due to your religious beliefs these couples should not have a “marriage”, would you be okay with them having a “civil union” that is held to the same standard as a marriage?
[/quote]
Sorry, but I work daily with annuities and financial insturments, JTWRS are not limited to married couples . . . . my point was - if there are limitations to civil unions that are adversely affecting gay couples - fix the civil union law.
Marriage for all of human history has been clearly and easily defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman - thousands and thousands of years. It is a standard, it is the norm.
it has nothing to do with religion - it has to do with human existence. It is an anthropological constant.
Homosexual relationships are and always have been an abberational behavior. Since they are not the norm and have never been a standard, they deserve a classification commiserate with their behavior - something outside of the normal standard.[/quote]
It’s great that your state allows non-married couples to enter into Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship, that is not the case in California.
You are okay with civil union, just not marriage?
In history there have been norms that have changed because society has changed. Societal mores do change. Why can’t this one change?
[/quote]
But the norms DIDN’T change, thus the vote FOR prop 8. One judge (who happens to be openly gay with a long-term partner, and therefore should have recused himself) can’t decide what society’s norms are. The people of CA decided.
Note: I don’t give a shit whether gays get married or not. I am however, VERY concerned about the legal process that allows the will of the people of CA to be overturned by a FEDERAL judge on multiple occasions. [/quote]
Well you could say the same thing about a hetero judge who believes marriage is just between a man and woman should recuse himself.
Laws do get overturned as unconstitutional. Here in Calif we’ve voted on immigration issues that keep being over-turned.
I am not sure I agree with you about the norms staying constant. The only thing constant is change.
I am not gay, but if I were I am not sure I would want to be married in a church that would disavow me. I would prefer a equal civil union that holds all the benefits and liabilities as does being married.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Well you could say the same thing about a hetero judge who believes marriage is just between a man and woman should recuse himself.
[/quote]
I don’t see the comparison. The argument being made is that gay couples are missing out on something if they are denied the ability to marry. In that case, this judge has a personal vested interest (with potential personal gain/loss) in the outcome. A heterosexual judge would have no such bias.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Laws do get overturned as unconstitutional. Here in Calif we’ve voted on immigration issues that keep being over-turned.
[/quote]
Don’t you think that’s a problem? The process of the state constitution of CA allows for ballot measures voted on by the people to make law. But now, any of those laws can and will be struck down as long as the opposition can find a judge who doesn’t like it. No legal basis required.
Using children and a “good home” as the basis for protecting “traditional” marriage is bullshit. So many children are born out of wedlock nowadays that marriage is irrelevant to having kids and providing a good home. Stop using that as the basis for your arguments. This whole gay marriage argument is null and void if you take children and religion out of the equation.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Using children and a “good home” as the basis for protecting “traditional” marriage is bullshit. So many children are born out of wedlock nowadays that marriage is irrelevant to having kids and providing a good home. Stop using that as the basis for your arguments. This whole gay marriage argument is null and void if you take children and religion out of the equation. [/quote]
i didn’t, not sure who did . . .
and you’re wrong - there are anthropological and human identity issues as well as foundational issues of development, genetic causation, behavioral components, national identity, culutral consequence and societal values/norms/mores and many many other issues involved here that go far beyond just the basic religious or procreational aspects of the debate.
this is not a simple issue and to try to throw a straw man argument at it as the end-all of the debate is disingenious and disrespectful to ALL parties involved.
It is a general lack of respect on all sides of the issue for any opposing view that causes most of the impass on this debate.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Marriage for all of human history has been clearly and easily defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman - thousands and thousands of years. It is a standard, it is the norm.
[/quote]
Nonsense.
The standard has always been polygamy.
There are also cultures with polyandry, geryandry (ze old ones get ze wimmenz) and so on.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Using children and a “good home” as the basis for protecting “traditional” marriage is bullshit. So many children are born out of wedlock nowadays that marriage is irrelevant to having kids and providing a good home. Stop using that as the basis for your arguments. This whole gay marriage argument is null and void if you take children and religion out of the equation. [/quote]
i didn’t, not sure who did . . .
and you’re wrong - there are anthropological and human identity issues as well as foundational issues of development, genetic causation, behavioral components, national identity, culutral consequence and societal values/norms/mores and many many other issues involved here that go far beyond just the basic religious or procreational aspects of the debate.
this is not a simple issue and to try to throw a straw man argument at it as the end-all of the debate is disingenious and disrespectful to ALL parties involved.
It is a general lack of respect on all sides of the issue for any opposing view that causes most of the impass on this debate. [/quote]
I was using “you” in general. There are a lot of people who base their argument against gay marriage on procreation and that gay marriage will ruin traditional family values and that if gay people are allowed to marry that humans will cease to exist (I’m being facetious when I say that). The fact of the matter is that there are so many unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children born every DAY that having marriages that don’t produce children is not going to effect human population growth. If you use children as the basis of marriage then all the heterosexual married people I know who have chosend to NOT have kids should not have been allowed to marry.
I understand the “anthropological and human identity issues as well as foundational issues of development, genetic causation, behavioral components, national identity, culutral consequence and societal values/norms/mores” associated with this issue, I was just addressing those people who use ONLY procreation as their argument against something this complex. I mean, how can we as a society accept alternative lifestyles if we don’t allow them all the rights of living in this society?
I am for gay marriage. I don’t see why we have to discriminate.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Marriage for all of human history has been clearly and easily defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman - thousands and thousands of years. It is a standard, it is the norm.
[/quote]
Nonsense.
The standard has always been polygamy.
There are also cultures with polyandry, geryandry (ze old ones get ze wimmenz) and so on.[/quote]
LMAO - no you misread the statement . . . human relationships have indeed had many nuances, but MARRIAGE throughout human history has been easily and clearly defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and woman . . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Marriage for all of human history has been clearly and easily defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman - thousands and thousands of years. It is a standard, it is the norm.
[/quote]
Nonsense.
The standard has always been polygamy.
There are also cultures with polyandry, geryandry (ze old ones get ze wimmenz) and so on.[/quote]
LMAO - no you misread the statement . . . human relationships have indeed had many nuances, but MARRIAGE throughout human history has been easily and clearly defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and woman . . . .
[/quote]
That is circulqar reasoning, you define marriage as monogamous and conclude that all marriages must be monogamous.
For all intents and purposes polygamous marriages pursue the same goals as monogamous ones, these are legitimate marriages.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
It’s great that your state allows non-married couples to enter into Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship, that is not the case in California.
[/quote]
Are you sure about this, OG? You may be confusing JTWROS with a tenancy by the entireties, which is a somewhat archaic way to hold property that survives in some states limited only to married couples. There are plenty of reasons why non-married and non-gay persons would hold property JTWROS. For example, business partners might hold certain property this way.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
oh and civil unions can be given reciprocity just as marriages are. You do realized that marriages do not technically exist outside of the state in which they were licensed, right? States grant reciprocal recognition of marriages established in other states based on the same recognition for their own. So the exact same arrangement for civil unions is available (and generally granted reciprocity) across the country.[/quote]
not really true. There are some benefits only available to married couples such as Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship.
Also some inheritance issues are assumed via marriage. Same thing with Death Benefits, I can’t will someone my social security.
I just don’t understand why someone else has the right to deny another person’s right to marriage. Why would you care?
If the issue is that due to your religious beliefs these couples should not have a “marriage”, would you be okay with them having a “civil union” that is held to the same standard as a marriage?
[/quote]
Sorry, but I work daily with annuities and financial insturments, JTWRS are not limited to married couples . . . . my point was - if there are limitations to civil unions that are adversely affecting gay couples - fix the civil union law.
Marriage for all of human history has been clearly and easily defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman - thousands and thousands of years. It is a standard, it is the norm.
it has nothing to do with religion - it has to do with human existence. It is an anthropological constant.
Homosexual relationships are and always have been an abberational behavior. Since they are not the norm and have never been a standard, they deserve a classification commiserate with their behavior - something outside of the normal standard.[/quote]
It’s great that your state allows non-married couples to enter into Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship, that is not the case in California.
You are okay with civil union, just not marriage?
In history there have been norms that have changed because society has changed. Societal mores do change. Why can’t this one change?
[/quote]
yeah, Cali and NY have some screwed financial rules for being so “progressive” minded . . .
Yep - perfectly fine with civil unions
This is far beyond a societal issue - it goes to the heart of soul of defining the meaning and identity of humanity. And anytime we venture into any deeper of a discussion on the values, mores, morality, spirituality, etc issues surrounding theidea, then the divisiveness of this issue only expands and increases. PC mentalities will not soften or improve the views on the issue, so it is best to find the working compromise that is a win/win rather than forcing the issue to the point that there are winners and losers in the cultural debate.
What do gay couples actually want? the same rights and freedoms enjoyed by the traditional married couple. what do those opposed to the idea of gay marriage want? for the institution of marriage to remain defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman.
what is the the win/win - civil unions for same-sex couples . . . they can have the ceremonies, the rights, the freedoms and live happily ever after. Those opposed can hold on to the tradition of monogamous heterosexual marriage. NO ONE LOSES! [/quote]
See that sounds logical to me
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
It’s great that your state allows non-married couples to enter into Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship, that is not the case in California.
[/quote]
Are you sure about this, OG? You may be confusing JTWROS with a tenancy by the entireties, which is a somewhat archaic way to hold property that survives in some states limited only to married couples. There are plenty of reasons why non-married and non-gay persons would hold property JTWROS. For example, business partners might hold certain property this way.[/quote]
Thanks Mike, I was wrong and I had actually meant Community Property with Right of Survivorship but it has been extended to Domestic Partners. So I struck out in two ways regarding that issue.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Marriage for all of human history has been clearly and easily defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman - thousands and thousands of years. It is a standard, it is the norm.
[/quote]
Nonsense.
The standard has always been polygamy.
There are also cultures with polyandry, geryandry (ze old ones get ze wimmenz) and so on.[/quote]
LMAO - no you misread the statement . . . human relationships have indeed had many nuances, but MARRIAGE throughout human history has been easily and clearly defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and woman . . . .
[/quote]
Hm, no. While a mainly heterosexual theme persists for marriages throughout history and different cultures (although not exclusively), the relationship in general tends to be defined as a convergence of two families, not the individuals involved. The focus tended to be on either continuing an estate over generations or some form of bloodline (which could follow all sorts of patterns, such as patrilinear, matrilinear, cousin marriages, systematic adoptions etc.).
This was (and is) often reached through arrangements - and sometimes involved/s for our tastes rather unsavoury age differences and a healthy dose of ignorance with regards to the invididuals’ (especially the womens’) wishes. The romantic western concept of a union based on love is basically a modern attitude formented around the age of English romanticism and emerging in tandem with the concept of individualism which started revolutionising societies from the 18th century onwards.
While heterosexual monogamy was often an official requirement, it certainly wasn’t the norm, and depending on cultural acceptance of (homosexual) promiscuity (normally by the male partner) outside marriage was often tolerated or perceived as normal.
To summarise: people have defined marriage in various cultural contexts in all sorts of ways thoughout history. Our current concept (a legal and often religious union of two consenting and equal heterosexual partners of mostly similar age, without family intervention based on a romantic attachment, which can be legally ended) goes back about 250 years - and was seen as revolutionary back then. And that’s just us here in the ‘west’. A single definition of marriage ‘throughout history’ (and cultures) would be as useless as it would be inaccurate. I wouldn’t rely on it for setting policy, as it would miss the point that practices have been as fluid as most of what we perceive as historical traditions and values.
Makkun
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Marriage for all of human history has been clearly and easily defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman - thousands and thousands of years. It is a standard, it is the norm.
[/quote]
Nonsense.
The standard has always been polygamy.
There are also cultures with polyandry, geryandry (ze old ones get ze wimmenz) and so on.[/quote]
LMAO - no you misread the statement . . . human relationships have indeed had many nuances, but MARRIAGE throughout human history has been easily and clearly defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and woman . . . .
[/quote]
there have been many societies that sanctioned marriages between men.
"Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[37] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[38]
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[citation needed] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[39]
An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.[40]
The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[41] For instance, Emperor Nero is said to have married one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus married a Carian slave named Hierocles.[42] While there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, the exact frequency and nature of same-sex unions during that period has been obscured.[43] In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married."
Setting aside the legal aspects and focusing on the political aspects, I think this sums it up just so:
[i]It’s not about couples and love. The marriage ruling is all about you.
By Patrick McIlheran of the Journal Sentinel
Aug. 5, 2010 |(157) Comments
Let’s look at how the gay-marriage thing in California has unfolded so far:
The stateâ??s Supreme Court in 2008, on a one-vote margin, decides to redefine marriage to dump one key parameter that had always and everywhere in human history been part of marriage: that it be between complementary sexes, not identical ones.
Within months, the voters of the state overrule the court, amending their constitution to say that, no, you canâ??t redefine basic social institutions against the will of the people. The losers sue the state.
And Wednesday, a federal judge â?? a judge, as in one â?? overrules the people, ruling, among other things, that â??gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.â?? It doesnâ??t?
Gay â??marriageâ?? advocates cheered, of course, saying itâ??s a great advance for equality. Ask yourself, however, this: What changed, precisely, because of the decision (presume, for a moment, that all appeals courts agree with Judge Vaughn Walker).
Does this, as gay â??marriageâ?? advocates often say, remove some impediment to their preferred relationships?
No, it doesnâ??t. The fight isnâ??t about the freedom to love, since the law says nothing (nor should it) about who can love whom, a fundamentally private matter.
Does this change practicalities, such as the right to co-own a house or leave legacies to a gay lover?
No, it does not. Even in places that, like Wisconsin, have not redefined marriage, one may make wills, mortgages, adoptions, benefits arrangements and the like with whom one wants. For its part, California had civil unions carrying all the benefits of marriage.
Does this alter the ability to a couple to tell each other theyâ??ll be faithful unto death, of one flesh, as married couples (ideally) do?
No. People have always been able to say and mean whatever they wish to each other. Again, the law has no say in such private matters.
Does this allow gay couples to be regarded as if they were married by friends? Does it allow acquaintances to think of long-time lovers as being married?
Again, no. People have long done this, and some churches have long been blessing such couples. Thatâ??s their right, of course. They require no judge to do so.
Does this mean that everyone else, including especially perfect strangers, must also now grant gay relationships the same unique and special public respect that until now society has always and everywhere reserved for married couples?
Yes, it does. Thatâ??s what the decision was exactly about: Commanding society to view homosexual relationships with a favor that society has been unwilling to grant.
Donâ??t take my word: As the New York Times explained it, gay-rights activists have increasingly sought same-sex marriage not simply to â??lessen discriminationâ?? but also as â??an emotional indicator of legitimacy.â?? The paper quoted one activist as saying that to not redefined marriage â??is to deny respect for the essence of who we are as gay people.â??
Which is why the stateâ??s civil unions, which conferred the practical benefits of marriage, werenâ??t enough: They sealed the relationship privately, while only marriage itself could mandate public approbation.[/i]
There’s more, read the whole thing at: It's not about couples and love. The marriage ruling is all about you.
But the main point is perfectly accurate: the number one goal of gay marriage is achieving emotional satisfaction of equality and a (now commanded) public affirmation that homosexual relationships are “just as good” as heterosexual ones. Whether or not this is a good thing or bad is a different question, but unquestionably this is what this has always been about.
I just don’t see why anybody who is not homophobic should care. I don’t see how gay marriages take anything away from straight ones.
[quote]molnes wrote:
I just don’t see why anybody who is not homophobic should care. I don’t see how gay marriages take anything away from straight ones. [/quote]
OK… have you read this thread?
From HG Thrower:
“Note: I don’t give a shit whether gays get married or not. I am however, VERY concerned about the legal process that allows the will of the people of CA to be overturned by a FEDERAL judge on multiple occasions.”
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
I just don’t see why anybody who is not homophobic should care. I don’t see how gay marriages take anything away from straight ones. [/quote]
OK… have you read this thread?
From HG Thrower:
“Note: I don’t give a shit whether gays get married or not. I am however, VERY concerned about the legal process that allows the will of the people of CA to be overturned by a FEDERAL judge on multiple occasions.”[/quote]
The idea that courts can check other branches of government (by declaring a law unconstitutional) has been around since 1803 and was established by the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison. That case does have its critics, and the whole idea of judicial review has obviously been criticized extensively.
Judicial review is a double-edged sword. With it, laws that people want can get overturned. Without it, there really is no way to enforce the provisions of the Constitution. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court reversed Virginia’s law that prohibited interracial marriages. Yeah, I know - race and homosexuality are different. That’s not my point. My point is that without judicial review, how long would it have taken for Southern states to allow interracial marriages? Hard to say, but I’ve met people who to this day believe that people should marry “their own kind.”
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The following is from an above link:
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll simply ask: Is there a constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis as he claims? If so, does that impact the “rational basis” argument? If so, how? Further, you seem to have advanced a “rational basis” for the argument, but, by the wording of this anyway, he is claiming that prop 8 fails to do so. Does prop 8 do so? Does it need to? Again, I’m no lawyer, so I guess I’m asking for someone who is to explain the process a bit here. [/quote]
No, there is not a constitutional right to marriage as he states it - that is not what Loving v. Virginia states. New York’s court of appeals has dealt with this attempted justification, and it deserves quoting:
Plaintiffs’ reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental “right to marry the spouse of one’s choice” outside the male/female construct is misplaced. In Loving, an interracial couple argued that Virginia’s antimiscegenation statute, which precluded “any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian” (id. at 5 n 4), violated the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The statute made intermarriage in violation of its terms a felony carrying a potential jail sentence of one to five years. The Lovingsâ??a white man and a black womanâ??had married in violation of the law and been convicted, prompting them to challenge the validity of the Virginia law. The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that “[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States,” the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding “no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification” (id. at 10, 11). It made clear “that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause” (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendmentâ??to combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right “fundamental to our very existence and survival” (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)â??a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation. It reasoned: “To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes . . . is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law” (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a “choice,” it did not articulate the broad “right to marry the spouse of one’s choice” suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations” (id. [emphasis added]). Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.
Hernandez v. Robles.
Moreover, there has never been an overarching “right” to marriage as defined by anyone - the “right” to marriage (which cannot be restricted by invidious discrimination) only exists to marriage as it is defined - which is why age restrictions and restrictions against polygamy are not unconstitutional.
No, this judge had to reach to get to his conclusions. Proof? In his findings of fact, he doesn’t “find” a single “fact” presented in favor of the defendant’s argument. Not one.
As for the result and California, it isn’t really surprising, and what is interesting is how exactly a plebiscite referendum is defended when it is challenged - who is the defendant? Certain interest groups certainly stepped up, but the vote was determined by California voters on a referendum ballot. Who defends the law? It’s quirky, but certainly because the state itself backed out (as it should have, it’s really not their law), it affected the outcome.
This is the worst aspect of all - people genuinely believe that a court should simply generate policy conclusions that they want no matter how it arrives that conclusion. If someone thinks gay marriage is a great idea, it wouldn’t (and doesn’t) matter if the court gets it right as a matter of law - it only matters that they got their way.
I’ve seen this on both sides of the aisle, but certainly the Left is far more guilty, as they have no pretenses about thinking courts should be agents of “progress”, especially when certain “progressive” ideas continue to fail in the arena of democratic politics.
The 9th Circuit - a notably wacky appeals court - may not overrule this decision, but the Supreme Court, I’d suspect, most certainly will.
And, of course, the great irony is that continuing to have this policy commanded from courts only hardens the opposition against it - even people sympathetic to the idea don’t like the “top down” paternalism of courts mandating gay marriage. If courts keep mandating it, expect to see more and more support for amendments to overturn the judges’s decisions - and fitfully, the gay marriage movement, by pressing this through the courts instead of the legislature, will continue undermine their own efforts.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But the main point is perfectly accurate: the number one goal of gay marriage is achieving emotional satisfaction of equality and a (now commanded) public affirmation that homosexual relationships are “just as good” as heterosexual ones. Whether or not this is a good thing or bad is a different question, but unquestionably this is what this has always been about.[/quote]
And what’s wrong with homosexual relationships being “just as good” as hetero ones? Why shouldn’t they be “just as good” as hetero ones?