December 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

Blogs & Sites We Read

Blog powered by Typepad

Search Site

  • Search Site
    Google

    WWW
    http://accidentalblogger.typepad.com

Counter

  • Counter

Become a Fan

Cat Quote

  • "He who dislikes the cat, was in his former life, a rat."

« Fast Track To Merriam-Webster | Main | It Is Italia! »

July 08, 2006

Comments

Joe:
I don't mind at all. Anything of sense is welcome here. Best of luck to Justin with his blogging efforts. Please invite him to visit here.

The supreme court decision is, to put it mildly, lame.

- if both a mother and a father are required to raise kids, what about single mothers (or fathers) raising kids alone? what about widows/widowers? what about the children of soldiers posted in Iraq for 2 and 3 tours of duty? In such cases does the state then NOT have an interest in mandating/providing the missing spouse?!

- who said marriage - hetero or homo - is undertaken only to facilitate the raising of kids? What about other dimensions of marriage?

- If a couple decides not to have kids (or cannot have kids) does their marriage become null or irrelevant? Does a marriage become irrelevant after the kids grow up and move out?

If the end result is a ruling based on such flimsy logic, why do we need a Supreme Court? Why not just say, "because I said so"? This decision has even less logic in its favor than a Magic 8 ball. At least with a Magic 8 ball we have unassailable randomness.

PIAW:
You are absolutely right about the leaky logic here. The state of heterosexual marriage doesn't arouse much confidence for child rearing either if those are the criteria. But in the end, as you said, this is not about logic or fairness. It is about "I said so" because "I don't like you."

Thank you for the warm welcome; I look forward to reading entries and engaging in discussion.

The court in this case was just trying to avoid a decision. Saying "the legislature will have to decide this" is the new States' rights.

Phil:
Probably true. The courts may be washing their hands of culturally divisive issues so as to be free of charges of left leaning social activism a la Roe vs Wade. The state legislatures will most certainly go with the safe choice of legislating against gay rights. For the right wing, judicial activism is okay when it enables their candidate to win a highly contested presidential election but not in granting equal rights to a small and beleagured minority.

i don't see why gay issues have to reach legislature.. a lot of gay couples i see in websites like webdate.com are not particularly too disturbed and they would sometimes laugh at the people making it a big deal.
just as long as they are happy with each other it doesn't bother them anymore...

The comments to this entry are closed.