Letters to the Editor
-
Marriage as 'religious"
I obviously didn't read the decision, but the idea that marriage is "religious" as opposed to civil unions seems ridiculous. there are faiths that have no marriage ceremony (e.g., the Theravada branch of Buddhism) and city hall has long been a place to have a marriage ceremony (not to mention drive throughs in Vegas).
-
What, Me Worry?
I've got this whole thing so covered. I'm all over it. If my wife becomes a man, and gay marriage is not upheld, I have already made sure my health insurance covers sex change operations, and Tah-Da!; I switch, to the distaff, and unity and balance are restored!
You have to plan ahead!
-
I've often asked
What part of "Equal Protection Under the Law" should not apply to somebody simply because of their sexual orientation?
About the most "thoughtful" retort I've received was along the lines of "You're not actually suggesting gay marriage is a civil rights issue, are you?"
My response was, that's precisely what it IS, I'm not "suggesting" anything.
Blank stare.
-
Congratulations!
Now same sex couples have the right to be as stupid as opposite sex couples and legally bind their affairs of the heart with a legal contract.
Instead of encouraging marriage we should be discouraging this antiquated and farcical form of civil action. It would be far better for society to develop better property rights and child care laws.
-
Reassuring Analysis
I will definitely keep these points in mind.
It'll be interesting to see how McCain, Clinton and Obama handle the issue.
-
Activist judges!
The Court is composed of six out of seven Republican-appointed judges. [Emphasis added]
Heh, gotta love that.
I said the following over in the War Room, and I'll say it again here:
[F]or those of you boo-hooing over November, grow a friggin' spine already. If you can't manage to stand up and say "equal treatment under the law" without stuttering, then for crissake just sit down and shut up while the rest of us handle it.
But then, I live in Massachusetts, where the sky still hasn't fallen. When the rest of you folks want to join us (and Canada and Spain and South Africa and now California) in the 21st century, we'll be here to welcome you.
-
OTOH, you have States like Texas
Where A. Virtually every judicial decision of which I become aware cleaves, oddly enough, to the "conservative" caricature. So there's no chance of a similar decision.
and B., The State Constitution is amended at the drop of a hat, so any "problem" caused by such a decision would be rectified post-haste.
-
Kudos to Arnold
I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling Gov. Arnold
Well I have to hand it to Gov Arnold for behaving like an adult. If this had been Bush, he'd just say I don't care what the courts say, I'm boss. We will continue to discriminate aganist gays and not allow them to marry, courts be damned. Maybe Since Arnold had to study the constitution and our system of gov't to become a citizen, he actually has more respect for it. Unlike our golf-sacrificing decider. I just wish there were more repugs like Arnold then there were Bush.
-
Deafening silence
This is not an attempt to threadjack, but in anticipation of the inevitable objecting letters about how marriage is between 'one man and one woman', I would like to know why there has been ZERO outcries about one man one woman and the sanctity of marriage regarding the polygamist LDS sect?
It's not about preserving marriage, it's about discriminating against Homosexuals ONLY.
-
We're getting the coasts
now we just have to fill in the middle...
-
Thank you, Mr. Greenwald
... for your timely and cogent commentary. The hysteria was getting a little thick for my taste.
-
I would like to know why there has been ZERO outcries about one man one woman and the sanctity of marriage regarding the polygamist LDS sect?
I was under the notion that it was already against the law. The real question is why aren't all the same-sex marriage proponents arguing FOR the polygamy sects?
Aren't polygamists entitled to equal protection under law as well? Why is it okay to deny them their "pursuit of happiness"?
-
Take My Wife, Please
Now same sex couples have the right to be as stupid as opposite sex couples and legally bind their affairs of the heart with a legal contract.
Do you really want to tell us that much about yourself just yet? We hardly know each other.
-
"polygamy sects"
Actually, I have spoken out in favor of legal recognition of some sort for polygamous relationships. (Which BTW does not make me in favor of statutory rape, any more than supporting GLBT rights means I'm in favor of pedophilia.)
-
@bamage
Agree with you, all the way. It's simply basic civil rights.
And, now I think of it, the State has a much more compelling interest in preventing heterosexual marriages which may, say, produce children likely (by the State's standards) to become dependent on the State.
And we arrive, by way of circumlocution, at eugenics again.
A person should no more be prevented from marrying than they should be prevented from taking out a HELOC.
-
@kufir77
I was under the notion that it was already against the law. The real question is why aren't all the same-sex marriage proponents arguing FOR the polygamy sects?
I thought the fight was for equal rights for ALL, not just Homosexuals. Why would those proponents include Polygamists specifically? Equality is supposed to include all.
Again, the question is, if those opposing this ruling really were concerned about preserving one man one woman marriage, why no outcry about Polygamy?
-
Kufir77
Are you advocating homosexual polygamy?
The court's ruling means that if California legalizes heterosexual polygamy, it will also have to allow homosexual polygamy. Polygamy is totally irrelevant to treating all those who wish to enter into monogamous marriages equally.
-
But, Glenn, what about FF&C?
Overall a great and very thoughtful post, but I do think you glossed over one minor legal issue:
"Numerous states have already adopted laws declaring that they will not recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Moreover, the Defense of Marriage Act makes clear that states are not required to do so."
True, unless the Full Faith and Credit Clause trumps DOMA, which it may well do.
Like you, I am not overly concerned about the effects of this decision on the nation as a whole, but I do worry about what happens when some well-meaning gay activists make the FF&C argument and take it to the Supreme Court. At that point we would be looking at a proposed Federal Marriage Amendment...again.