Evil takes root in California
Judge Says Calif. Can’t Ban Gay Marriage
SAN FRANCISCO – A judge ruled Monday that California’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional — a legal milestone that, if upheld on appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County’s trial-level Superior Court likened the ban to laws requiring racial segregation in schools, and said there appears to be “no rational purpose” for denying marriage to gay couples.
No rational purpose. Exactly.
“For a single judge to rule there is no conceivable purpose for preserving marriage as one man and one woman is mind-boggling,” said Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver. “This decision will be gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as well as the rest of the country.
Soon the fire of the gay marriage movement will spread to the children of California! They’ll all catch the gay marriage!
It’s kinda funny that the quote is so matter of fact, like he was talking about a spread in domestic violence or something.
“The practical effect is the disregard of close to two-thirds of the people of California who used the initiative process to ensure that marriage would remain between one man and one woman,” said Robert Tyler, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund.
As much as civil rights comparisons can be overdone here, isn’t that like saying the segregatation of schools was ok because the people of this country thought otherwise?
The judge is correct. There is no rational purpose for denying marriage to gay couples.
But neither is there any rationale in judicially legislating the granting of emotions equal protection under the law.
As for civil rights comparisons, the people of this country didn’t think it was OK, it was just status quo. Or are we going to get into Eisenhower’s ordering the National Guard to protect the students as part of the reason the Repubs lost the Oval Office in 1960?
As much as we all my love democracy, our own history has shown us time and time again that the will of the people is often wrong. What? Ignorant masses? Go figure!
“But neither is there any rationale in judicially legislating the granting of emotions equal protection under the law.”
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. That marriage shouldn’t be the state’s business at all? I have some sympathy with that point of view.
“As for civil rights comparisons, the people of this country didnt think it was OK, it was just status quo. Or are we going to get into Eisenhowers ordering the National Guard to protect the students as part of the reason the Repubs lost the Oval Office in 1960?”
Does that really make a difference? I’m not quite sure what you mean here, especially the second part.
So what then now, Helio, we should just stand back and let our betters decide for us?
I would love to have the government out of the marriage business, but without the election of a large number of libertarians, thatll never happen.
Analog:
No, we should let our common sense decide for us. As you hinted, the popular will of the people isn’t often supportive of progressive movements. What we need is elected officials who a) don’t overstep their bounds when it comes to legislating culture and b) understand and apply basic precepts such as equanimity when making laws.