While the 6th Circuit's opinion upholding State bans on same-sex marriage does not name any names, it behooves me to mention a couple of excerpts from the ruling which........ahhhh......are pointed.
A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally
irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in
the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared
still today by a significant number of the states.
Yah, well. Neither Crabb nor Posner could be sullied by the adjective "humble," could they?
There are also some fatal weaknesses in the argument of the "pro-gay-marriage" claque:
... “if it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman
definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand
by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to
You heard that before, from Scalia. Funny thing about What Is True: it doesn't change over time.
As to the self-beclowned Posner:
... As the court rightly notes, the Supreme Court decision that struck down bans on interracial marriage, Loving v. Virginia,
“addressed, and rightly corrected, an unconstitutional eligibility
requirement for marriage; it did not create a new definition of
As to the Supremes, some useful advice:
...The court argued that it “is dangerous and demeaning to the citizenry to assume that we, and only we, can fairly understand the arguments for and against gay marriage.”...
So. Which four members of SCOTUS actually have a humility-quotient greater than zero?
Tune in next June.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
No more than 3, sadly.
Post a Comment