Posted by
Playful Walrus on Friday, July 07, 2006 5:08:21 PM
This Los Angeles Times headline gets it wrong:
New York, Georgia Courts Rule Against Gay Marriage
The state rulings are seen as big setbacks for rights activists, and may have wide ramifications.
By Richard Fausset and Ellen Barry - Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
There is no such thing as "gay marriage", so it can't be ruled against. It's like saying the court ruled against dry water. Marriage, throughout history, even with polygamy and other variations, has always been something involving BOTH sexes together.
Quotes:
>>Opponents of [redefining] marriage see Thursday's rulings as evidence they are gaining the upper hand in state-by-state battles over one of the nation's most contentious cultural issues. They especially welcome the victories after the U.S. Senate last month did not approve a constitutional amendment banning [counterfeit] marriages nationwide.<<
The thing is, there shouldn't need to be an amendment to protect marriage. The legal definition of marriage should stay the same unless and until elected legislators vote to change it. And yet activist judges who want to counterfeit the most basic of human institutions have made such an amendment "necessary".
>>The Georgia case dealt with whether a state [counterfeit] marriage ban — approved in 2004 by 76% of voters — violated a state rule that ballot measures can address only one issue.
Lambda Legal and others argued that the ballot language appeared to ban [counterfeit] marriages as well as gay civil unions. The attorneys said that was unfair to voters who might oppose [counterfeit] marriage but support civil unions with some marriage-like benefits.<<
How is that unfair? You either like the way the measure is written or you don't. You can vote yes or no or abstain.
>>In a strong dissent, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, joined by Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, condemned the majority decision as a step away from New York's "proud tradition of affording equal rights."<<
Everyone has equal access to marriage. I know, I know... not everyone wants to exercise that access, but it doesn't make the statement any less true. I know it is hard for some people to accept, but there is a difference between men and women, and that difference has something to do with what makes marriage, marriage. Why is marriage the only institution where Leftists think it is okay to exclude one of the sexes?
>>Most New Yorkers, Kaye wrote, "can look back on, or forward to, their wedding as among the most significant events of their lives."<<
So who is stopping people from having ceremonies, exchanging rings, and throwing parties? If you want the memories, you can still have them. Just don't counterfeit something as important as marriage.
>>Though Congress passed a law banning federal recognition of [counterfeit] marriage in 1996, the conservatives believe that only a constitutional amendment would be certain to keep the issue out of judges' hands.<<
Don't forget that Bill Clinton signed that law. I guess Dizzy Dean thinks Clinton is a bigot, too.
>>For gay-rights advocates such as Buckel, the strategy is to chip away at anti-gay-marriage legislation state by state.<<
Translation: He wants to use radical activist judges to force all of the rest of us to accept counterfeits.
>>A San Francisco Superior Court judge last year struck down state laws that limited marriage to "a man and a woman" as unconstitutional, saying they violated a person's fundamental right to marry and illegally discriminated on the basis of gender.<<
A "right to marry"? There would be a lot more homeless cats if we really had a "right" to marry (it's an old maid joke). A marriage license means societal approval, and nobody has a right to societal approval for whatever they decide to do. If society decides to willingly grant that approval, that's one thing.