It's nice to finally see sanity prevail; and this was from a conservative judge. But ultimately it will be decided a few years down the road by the supreme court of the country. It is a civil rights issue. Many years ago whites and blacks couldn't marry, but it was overturned because it was ultimately unconstitutional and even though 80% of the country was against it. I am very happy to see gay marriage happen but most of all I am happy for all the young gays out there who are made to feel like second-class citizens. Here in Canada gay marriage was made legal I think 5yrs ago and gays were integrated into the military and the sky hasn't fallen. As a matter of fact, there has been little fallout over it and no noticeable difference in society other than LBGT people being happy. bfn - Wayne :)
It is one more step in the replacement of popular sovereignty by judicial tyranny. Of course a tyrant can sometimes give you what you want, but when the people are not permitted to adopt their own constitution, republican democracy is dead.
The CA State Constution was found to be in violation of the United States Constitution. It is NOT "judicial tyranny" to uphold the US Constitution. If you hate our constitution, you're welcome to leave.
I don't hate our Constitution. What I hate is seeing judges ignore reason in order to achieve the results they want.
Marriage, as a stable partnership of man and woman to produce and rear children, was not created by the state. But a politically organized society can see how essential it is for the future of society. As Aristotle said in the Politics, "Male and female must unite for the reproduction of the species." Judge Walker airily dismisses this factual basis for treating heterosexual marriage differently from other relationships by saying that California does not require that specific couples be able to procreate in order to marry. But that is beside the point. The point is that only opposite-sex couples have any possibility of procreating. Without requiring intrusive testing (with the possibility of error in some cases) it makes continuing sense to treat the union of man and woman as something different from other relationships, because it is different in that important respect.
What I hate is judges abusing the Constitution to produce a result which they want. It is judicial tyranny to ignore valid arguments in order to satisfy the judge's personal preferences about how the law should be.
In Massachusetts a few weeks ago, a federal judge went to great lengths to explain that under the U.S. Constitution defining and regulating marriage was left entirely to the individual States. On that basis he ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional. Now a judge in California rules that the U.S. Constitution does not allow States to define marriage as they wish. The point of agreement in these two cases is, it's not the legislative bodies or the people who get the question. The judges get to impose their will, and they will adopt any reading of the Constitution and misrepresent any arguments they need to in order to get their way.
Both judges were applying the Constutition as it was meant to be: equal protection and rights for all. If I am restricted from legally marrying the man I love, I do not have equal rights. And please spare me the absurd and irrelevant argument that I have the right to marry a female.
I see someone is dragging out the old saw about 'procreation' as the only basis for marriage. Please spare me this bullcrap. This grossly over-populated planet could use a hell of a lot more MARRIED homosexuals. Incidentally both lesbians and gay men can easily arrange to have kids if they want to in this day-and-age. The US constitution is about equality and equal rights for ALL the people not for a group who happens to be in the majority. It was a rejection of the class structures of England and Europe at the time. bfn - Wayne :|
@ LB — The Constitution is about a whole lot of things. It is essentially about how a free people will arrange their government. When it comes to equal protection of the laws, that means treating equals alike. But different things do not have to be treated alike. And it is simply a fact of biology that the union of two men or two women can never be the same as the union of a man and a woman. There can be many similarities, but they are not identical.
You lose. ;) jk
@ wayner — I never said procreation is the only purpose of marriage. Please don't misrepresent what I said. There are other purposes of marriage, and same-sex relationships may well achieve some of them. But the possibility of procreation and the maintenance of a stable environment for the raising of any children who may be produced are the principal reason it's any of the state's business.
And the only way gay or lesbian couples can "have" children is by involving a sperm donor or a surrogate mother. In other words, they can't "have" the children. They and someone else, very possibly with the involvement of even more people as technicians who facilitate the conception, "have" the children. It's quite different from the two individuals, and themselves alone, conceiving the new child. This illustrates what I said to LB: a same-sex union can never be the same as the marriage of a man and a woman. To insist that the law call both by the same name is to insist that the law misrepresent reality. To insist that the law treat them equally is to insist that the law treat inherently unequal relationships as if they were equal.
hasta luego
Note: This is a very slightly revised copy of the comment I deleted. I realized that my closing words to LB might not come across as the light-hearted banter I intended, so I added the emoticon and the "jk"
There is nothing "light hearted" about your dismissal of the right of LGBT citizens to marry. Your j/k means nothing.
I've not read all of the ruling yet, but your arguments are all refuted, I believe.
Furthermore, penis + vagina is your only criteria for marriage, functioning or not, used to procreate or not. You deny an incredible number of legal protections to LGBT couples simply because they don't have complimentary baby-making equipment. It's disgusting.
11 comments:
It's nice to finally see sanity prevail; and this was from a conservative judge. But ultimately it will be decided a few years down the road by the supreme court of the country. It is a civil rights issue. Many years ago whites and blacks couldn't marry, but it was overturned because it was ultimately unconstitutional and even though 80% of the country was against it. I am very happy to see gay marriage happen but most of all I am happy for all the young gays out there who are made to feel like second-class citizens. Here in Canada gay marriage was made legal I think 5yrs ago and gays were integrated into the military and the sky hasn't fallen. As a matter of fact, there has been little fallout over it and no noticeable difference in society other than LBGT people being happy. bfn - Wayne :)
It's great news. Here's hoping your supreme court will have the correct balance to uphold that judge's ruling!
Hugs
Adi
It is one more step in the replacement of popular sovereignty by judicial tyranny. Of course a tyrant can sometimes give you what you want, but when the people are not permitted to adopt their own constitution, republican democracy is dead.
The CA State Constution was found to be in violation of the United States Constitution. It is NOT "judicial tyranny" to uphold the US Constitution. If you hate our constitution, you're welcome to leave.
I don't hate our Constitution. What I hate is seeing judges ignore reason in order to achieve the results they want.
Marriage, as a stable partnership of man and woman to produce and rear children, was not created by the state. But a politically organized society can see how essential it is for the future of society. As Aristotle said in the Politics, "Male and female must unite for the reproduction of the species." Judge Walker airily dismisses this factual basis for treating heterosexual marriage differently from other relationships by saying that California does not require that specific couples be able to procreate in order to marry. But that is beside the point. The point is that only opposite-sex couples have any possibility of procreating. Without requiring intrusive testing (with the possibility of error in some cases) it makes continuing sense to treat the union of man and woman as something different from other relationships, because it is different in that important respect.
What I hate is judges abusing the Constitution to produce a result which they want. It is judicial tyranny to ignore valid arguments in order to satisfy the judge's personal preferences about how the law should be.
In Massachusetts a few weeks ago, a federal judge went to great lengths to explain that under the U.S. Constitution defining and regulating marriage was left entirely to the individual States. On that basis he ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional. Now a judge in California rules that the U.S. Constitution does not allow States to define marriage as they wish. The point of agreement in these two cases is, it's not the legislative bodies or the people who get the question. The judges get to impose their will, and they will adopt any reading of the Constitution and misrepresent any arguments they need to in order to get their way.
Both judges were applying the Constutition as it was meant to be: equal protection and rights for all. If I am restricted from legally marrying the man I love, I do not have equal rights. And please spare me the absurd and irrelevant argument that I have the right to marry a female.
I see someone is dragging out the old saw about 'procreation' as the only basis for marriage. Please spare me this bullcrap. This grossly over-populated planet could use a hell of a lot more MARRIED homosexuals. Incidentally both lesbians and gay men can easily arrange to have kids if they want to in this day-and-age. The US constitution is about equality and equal rights for ALL the people not for a group who happens to be in the majority. It was a rejection of the class structures of England and Europe at the time. bfn - Wayne :|
@ LB — The Constitution is about a whole lot of things. It is essentially about how a free people will arrange their government. When it comes to equal protection of the laws, that means treating equals alike. But different things do not have to be treated alike. And it is simply a fact of biology that the union of two men or two women can never be the same as the union of a man and a woman. There can be many similarities, but they are not identical.
You lose. ;) jk
@ wayner — I never said procreation is the only purpose of marriage. Please don't misrepresent what I said. There are other purposes of marriage, and same-sex relationships may well achieve some of them. But the possibility of procreation and the maintenance of a stable environment for the raising of any children who may be produced are the principal reason it's any of the state's business.
And the only way gay or lesbian couples can "have" children is by involving a sperm donor or a surrogate mother. In other words, they can't "have" the children. They and someone else, very possibly with the involvement of even more people as technicians who facilitate the conception, "have" the children. It's quite different from the two individuals, and themselves alone, conceiving the new child. This illustrates what I said to LB: a same-sex union can never be the same as the marriage of a man and a woman. To insist that the law call both by the same name is to insist that the law misrepresent reality. To insist that the law treat them equally is to insist that the law treat inherently unequal relationships as if they were equal.
hasta luego
Note: This is a very slightly revised copy of the comment I deleted. I realized that my closing words to LB might not come across as the light-hearted banter I intended, so I added the emoticon and the "jk"
There is nothing "light hearted" about your dismissal of the right of LGBT citizens to marry. Your j/k means nothing.
I've not read all of the ruling yet, but your arguments are all refuted, I believe.
Furthermore, penis + vagina is your only criteria for marriage, functioning or not, used to procreate or not. You deny an incredible number of legal protections to LGBT couples simply because they don't have complimentary baby-making equipment. It's disgusting.
Post a Comment