By the way…at least this was an act of legislation instead of judicial fiat.
David K.
So by your standards gahrie Loving vs. Virginia should have waited until the state legislatures decided its ok for interracial marriage? Or Brown vs. Board of Education? If the courts can’t interpret the laws why bother having courts at all? When is it judicial fiat and when is it a good ruling? Far too often the answer is that so-called legislating from the bench means “issuing a decision I disagree with”.
David K–Loving vs. Virginia was based on the 14th Amendment. As was Brown vs. Board of Education. I’m still looking for that Constitutional amendment that says homosexuality anywhere in it. (“B-b-but it’s implied!” “Yeeeeaaahhhh, and it immediately made everyone else full citizens then by that logic. right? Don’t know why they added that tricky 19th Amendment then…guess they just wanted more Roman Numerals.”) Good try though. Oh, and btw, Brown didn’t _really_ stick until the Civil Rights Act, i.e. reinforced by Federal legislation. Try reading a couple books on the Civil Rights Movement (I can give you some suggestions) or, hey, keep spouting the usual “I will shame you by trying to equate your stance with a nasty -ism!” talking points and looking like an ignoramus.
The reason I’m glad it was done by the legislature is that _it will stick_. By the time the next election rolls around people will wonder what all the fuss was. You know, as opposed to stuff going down like Iowa and then you get state supreme court justices ousted in retention elections (thus politicizing the judiciary even more than it already is).
I think it’s a crock that homosexuals don’t have _some_ recourse. Especially when people whose daughters are shacked up with Baby Daddy #3 without ever having signed a marriage certificate try to claim stopping gay marriage is based on some religious morals. (“Still looking for that part in the Bible that says f*ck everything which can give you child support. Maybe it’s in Leviticus as well?”)
Alasdair
gahrie #1 – isn’t it illegal to cause the heads of the D-list folk to explode by citing an article like that ?
(Great article, by the way ! I wonder how many of the folk loudly *requiring* Gay Marriage be legalised have given any thought to what the Gay Community may lose by “winning” that result ? Back in the days of DOMA, by getting married, as a couple, they were just going to pay extra taxes (the “marriage penalty”) in exchange for gaining all the other benefits …)
Hmm..too soon?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/opinion/24franke.html?_r=1
By the way…at least this was an act of legislation instead of judicial fiat.
So by your standards gahrie Loving vs. Virginia should have waited until the state legislatures decided its ok for interracial marriage? Or Brown vs. Board of Education? If the courts can’t interpret the laws why bother having courts at all? When is it judicial fiat and when is it a good ruling? Far too often the answer is that so-called legislating from the bench means “issuing a decision I disagree with”.
David K–Loving vs. Virginia was based on the 14th Amendment. As was Brown vs. Board of Education. I’m still looking for that Constitutional amendment that says homosexuality anywhere in it. (“B-b-but it’s implied!” “Yeeeeaaahhhh, and it immediately made everyone else full citizens then by that logic. right? Don’t know why they added that tricky 19th Amendment then…guess they just wanted more Roman Numerals.”) Good try though. Oh, and btw, Brown didn’t _really_ stick until the Civil Rights Act, i.e. reinforced by Federal legislation. Try reading a couple books on the Civil Rights Movement (I can give you some suggestions) or, hey, keep spouting the usual “I will shame you by trying to equate your stance with a nasty -ism!” talking points and looking like an ignoramus.
The reason I’m glad it was done by the legislature is that _it will stick_. By the time the next election rolls around people will wonder what all the fuss was. You know, as opposed to stuff going down like Iowa and then you get state supreme court justices ousted in retention elections (thus politicizing the judiciary even more than it already is).
I think it’s a crock that homosexuals don’t have _some_ recourse. Especially when people whose daughters are shacked up with Baby Daddy #3 without ever having signed a marriage certificate try to claim stopping gay marriage is based on some religious morals. (“Still looking for that part in the Bible that says f*ck everything which can give you child support. Maybe it’s in Leviticus as well?”)
gahrie #1 – isn’t it illegal to cause the heads of the D-list folk to explode by citing an article like that ?
(Great article, by the way ! I wonder how many of the folk loudly *requiring* Gay Marriage be legalised have given any thought to what the Gay Community may lose by “winning” that result ? Back in the days of DOMA, by getting married, as a couple, they were just going to pay extra taxes (the “marriage penalty”) in exchange for gaining all the other benefits …)