The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, the federal judge presiding in Proposition 8 case, is himself gay.
Hmmm. Wonder how that decision will turn out.
Monday, February 08, 2010
2 comments:
You are welcome to post at this blog. You are asked, however, to refrain from the following:
1. Name-calling;
2. Questioning the motives or integrity of people you have never met just because you disagree with them;
3. Using obscenities or other expressions not appropriate or necessary to civilized discussion;
4. Taking disagreement personally;
5. Demeaning or insulting remarks.
The host will attempt to abide by the same rules and only asks that you not provide him with the temptation to do so in return by violating them.
Failure to comply with these rules can result (depending solely on the arbitrary and inscrutable will of the host) in the deletion of offending posts and suspension of posting privileges. Such measures are more likely if you post anonymously.
Dave Scott writes:
ReplyDelete"It should go without saying that a person should be allowed to marry whomever they choose."
There are many people I can't marry, and the prohibition does not seem unjust. I can't marry myself, my sister, my mother, my neighbor's wife or husband, my brothers, my neighbor's German shepherd, or dead people.
Thus, marriage does not seem to be the sort of thing that is the object of one's will. It seems to be the sort of thing under which one binds one's will. And it is the only place in which the two halves of humanity--male and female--can join to create something more than themselves. "Same-sex marriage" dilutes the uniqueness and beauty of the only institution by which the wholeness of humanity may become one.
If you're looking for libertarian freedom, marriage is not for you. But if you are looking for love and liberty within the confines of binding commitment, marriage is a wonderful gift.
David,
ReplyDeleteCivil rights cannot simply be "voted away," that is the purpose of the Bill of Rights.
Isn't this the very question at issue--whether it is, in fact, a civil right--and whether the California voters have a right to to change their constitution?
Aren't there established procedures for changing Constitutions that provide citizens with the "right" to change them?
Where is this civil right enumerated?