tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16811369.post3715998012549538769..comments2023-10-24T01:23:36.470-07:00Comments on Thin Places: Prop 8 yet again...royhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00508828835908673347noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16811369.post-90141000265165690932010-08-05T11:37:00.183-07:002010-08-05T11:37:00.183-07:00I think you may be right... that the argument will...I think you may be right... that the argument will hinge on the fact that a gay person is not barred from marriage, only from marrying the person they love. I <i>think</i> the argument will go the same way it did for mixed race couples, that telling someone they cannot marry the person of their choice is the same as telling them they cannot marry, but time and the courts will tell.royhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00508828835908673347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16811369.post-36954874635048517902010-08-05T10:34:36.531-07:002010-08-05T10:34:36.531-07:00Your basic argument has a couple of flaws. The bi...Your basic argument has a couple of flaws. The biggest one is your claim that rights are not given in a democratic process. Of course they are. How do you think the 14th Amendment was passed? By a majority of Congress and two-thirds of the states. <i>By vote.</i> It was not - <i>not</i> by the courts. <br /><br />Regardless of where one stands on the issue of gay marriage, it's very easy to see that the district court is overstepping here. The opponents of this law may find a different climate when the get to the Ninth Circuit, although I doubt it. The 9th is notoriously liberal; there are, however, quite a few conservative judges on it, and a random three-judge panel can really have any makeup at all. <br /><br />The district court did leave the ruling vulnerable. It ruled that the Calif. law barred people from a fundamental right. However, the law does not bar "some people" from getting married. It bars all people from marrying someone of the same sex. There's a difference. It may be a technicality, but this law does not prevent a gay person from marrying someone of the opposite sex, and that may be enough to satisfy the legal requirement, as illogical as that sounds. <br /><br />The 9th, or the Supreme Court, may not agree that specifically marrying someone of the same sex is a <i>fundamental</i> right, and would thus overturn the district court. <br /><br />Of course, none of that effects states outside of California right now, until and if the Supreme Court rules. <br /><br />I'm glad that this is getting hashed out this way, though. This needs a definitive answer, although we still may not get one in our lifetime.Michael J Mahoneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06239057043899114566noreply@blogger.com