tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post2785639347737891507..comments2023-10-29T06:41:23.910-07:00Comments on Halfway There: Anthony Kennedy and Proposition 8Zenohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09058127284297728552noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-9732839832780406682013-03-18T21:54:47.409-07:002013-03-18T21:54:47.409-07:00"The present case does not involve...whether ..."The present case does not involve...whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." - Justice Anthony Kennedy - Opinion - 02-102 (Lawrence v. Texas)<br /><br />"One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical con- clusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homo- sexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual actsóand may legislate accordingly. The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar free- dom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial impo- sition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada (in a decision that the Canadian Government has chosen not to appeal). See Halpern v. Toronto, 2003 WL 34950 (Ontario Ct. App.); Cohen, Dozens in Canada Follow Gay Coupleís Lead, Washington Post, June 12, 2003, p. A25. At the end of its opinion, "after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence", the Court says that the present case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." Ante, at 17. Do not believe it....This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so." - Antonin Scalia - Dissent - 02-102 (Lawrence v. Texas)<br /><br />It would certainly appear that Justice Kennedy's assessment was either naive, mistaken or misleading; while Justice Scalia was correct, logical and eerily politically prophetic.<br /><br />It's difficult to believe that the institution of marriage and 310,000,000 Americans both rest on the vote of one so naive, mistaken or misleading.Rich Zawadzkihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01603322335020416448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-7399102547348849462013-03-02T17:00:44.742-08:002013-03-02T17:00:44.742-08:00Re "Justice Scalia is an intemperate bully wh...Re "Justice Scalia is an intemperate bully who has roundly abused his colleagues when they disagree with him": This is nothing compared to Nino's most recent pronouncement that he knows better than the Senators who voted 98-0 and the Representatives who voted nearly unanimously in 2006 to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which Bush 43then signed into law. Scalia is apparently no longer a strict constructionist.Kathienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-92062826675215859732013-02-27T11:06:56.678-08:002013-02-27T11:06:56.678-08:00In Portugal (and some other European nations) a co...In Portugal (and some other European nations) a couple has to have a civil ceremony in order for a marriage to be legal. Church ceremonies are strictly for religion's sake, so couples who want one must have both.Kathienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-30834992348843923562013-02-26T16:41:38.099-08:002013-02-26T16:41:38.099-08:00Marriage isn't "sacred" for a lot of...Marriage isn't "sacred" for a lot of people. It's a civil contract. In fact, churches can "marry" anybody they like; the legal standing is only conferred by the state. Which is why preachers always say "By the authority vested in me by the state of Wherever"...<br /><br />But yes, sure. Take the legal bit away from the church for everybody.The Ridger, FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01538111197270563075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-46910498056092342392013-02-23T16:35:10.808-08:002013-02-23T16:35:10.808-08:00I hope Kennedy does vote to reject Prop 8 just bec...I hope Kennedy does vote to reject Prop 8 just because marriage confers numerous benefits under law and because I'd like my nieces to live with parents who are "legitimately" married.evlunclbudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16198119284093699151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-57454744191371165802013-02-23T12:28:54.626-08:002013-02-23T12:28:54.626-08:00Bet you to it, Chris. Ages ago (back in 2005).Bet you to it, Chris. <a href="http://zenoferox.blogspot.com/2005/10/let-slip-sharks-of-love.html" rel="nofollow">Ages ago</a> (back in 2005).Zenohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09058127284297728552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-40583812346776621592013-02-23T12:20:13.147-08:002013-02-23T12:20:13.147-08:00I finally figured out why I've always been unc...I finally figured out why I've always been uncomfortable with gay marriage. I dislike the idea that something as sacred as marriage is going to be created by the government. As if government approval makes it real. <br /><br />Of course, the same objection applies to straight marriage.<br /><br />How's this for an idea? Get government out of marriage altogether. Kithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02713155636288221032noreply@blogger.com