The Connecticut Supreme Court has just ruled that Connecticut must recognize same sex marriage, and must use the word "marriage."
That will make the natives restless:
Needless to say, the timing of the decision is awkward for gay-marriage supporters trying to fend off SSM bans on the November 4 ballot in Arizona, California, and Florida. Stoking resentment of judicial activism, the Connecticut Supreme Court has at the very least probably increased the likelihood that Prop 8 will pass in California
Volokh has more:
The Connecticut legislature had already created civil unions for same-sex couples, so the question in the case was whether there was any basis in the state constitution to refuse to call these legally equivalent relationships "marriages." It was very much the same issue in the California marriage decision from last May
Jamming this down the throats of the citizens is not only stupid, it's inflammatory. As usual, we have the Enlightened Ones showing the Unwashed Rabble their power.
Until the amendments hit the ballots, of course.
UPDATE: Anent the discussion a columnist declares that those voting against gay "marriage" in California are "haters."
Vox asks: if there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, then what is wrong with hate?
Damn good question.
HT: AmSpecBlog
11 comments:
Here is how it should work...
Marriages should be only recognized by an individuals CHURCH. The term "marriage" should be completely removed from any sort of public documents.
Anything sanctioned by the state is considered a CIVIL UNION, open to any two consenting individuals. Civil unions should hold all the current rights that are held by the current term of "marriage".
Ex: My wife and I were "married" in a church in Sturgeon Bay. But the state of Wisconsin recognizes us as a civil union.
I just find it amusing how the left always accuses the right of being tyrants and all. It always seems like it's leftist courts ramming this kind of tripe down people's throats, no matter how a vote by citizens may have come out.
"Anything sanctioned by the state is considered a CIVIL UNION ... (and) Marriages should be only recognized by an individuals CHURCH."
That seems to be a perfectly reasonably which should make everyone happy.
...courts ramming this kind of tripe down people's throats...
And, half a century ago, interracial marriage would have been considered another kind of tripe, I'd assume?
Spice
"Reasonable"?
Nope.
The state grants privileges to married couples in consideration of begetting and raising children, which is healthy for the state.
Notice I say "begetting" AND "raising."
"The state grants privileges to married couples in consideration of begetting and raising children..."
First, under that reasoning, couples who marry and do not "beget" should really, in all fairness, return all accrued tax benefits upon entrance of menopause of the wife, should they not?
Second, if the "begetting" part is necessary (as your capitalized "and" implies), should not infertile couples be ineligible for benefits, even if they were to adopt?
Finally, if my second point is indeed a misunderstanding, and adoption does indeed count, why, then, would gay couples not be allowed to marry?
I have a feeling it's all wrapped up in that "in consideration of" phrase, but I'm no lawyer, so I may be at a disadvantage here.
Spice
Obviously, there are exceptions.
As to adoptions: frankly, homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt, period.
"Obviously..."
Not so obvious; that's why there are courts.
"...homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt, period."
Why not?
spice
Actually, it IS obvious. Couples who are infertile--or past the age of conception--are obvious exceptions to me.
As to adoption, it is child abuse to expose children to the unnatural proclivities of homosexual couples.
But, Dad, you must legitimate this exception. Why are strait couples who are infertile kindof "grandfathered into" marriage rights? If the purpose of marriage is the begetting of kids, then why cannot aged or infertile strait couples just make their own legal (and spiritual) arrangements, and leave the State out of it?
I'll second virgil's request.
"...unnatural proclivities..."
I know from a quick search of your blog that you come down firmly on the nurture side of the whole nature v. nurture debate, and have stated there are no peer reviewed journal articles supporting the nature argument. There has, in fact, been a ton of scholarly research on the subject, by both sides. The wikipedia entry on Biology and sexual orientation does a fairly good job of breaking down the arguments as well as listing those journal articles at the end.
If it's simply a matter of your religion informing your opinion, there's no argument against that, but if you intend to use reasoning to back your position, this may be a good starting point.
spice
15 months with no retort: I win!
Post a Comment