Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dilbert San Diego
My point was that the decision isn't based on class, so the question of "what class is discriminated against?" has no play whatsoever.

The judge redefined the forms of "marriage" that the state must recognize. Where it used to be that the state would recognize only a union of one man and one woman, this judge says the "one of each sex" limitation is unconstitutional, because marriage is a fundamental right. It's arbitrary line drawing (and at some point, all law is just that, although it claims to have some deeper justification for imposing its will).

Anyway, not to say that somebody can't transmogrify the decision into a "protected class / civil rights" framework. My remarks above suggest that, with the protected class being those who desire to enter into homosexual "marriage." But that ends up being a tautology, they get protected status by dint of the action they want the state to endorse. The decision doesn't turn on any sort of protected class. This judge says everybody is entitled to homosexual marriage, and everybody is entitled to heterosexual marriage.

Somebody on here posted that they won't abide by the judge's rule. The "marriages", aren't, period. I'm of the same mind, plus I find that the court is flat out illegitimate. I'm not bound to follow an irrational person's rulings.

Marriage and family are a fundamental aspect of stable society. The judge is tinkering with dynamite.

10 posted on 06/07/2014 1:29:39 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt

You make some good points. And you touch on the fact that judges have to change the definition of marriage in their court rulings. I may be wrong, but I think that changing the definition of a legal term, as happens in homosexual marriage court cases, may be unprecedented.

Liberals compare the movement for homosexual marriage to former bans on interracial marriage, and against the old Jim Crow laws. But in court cases and legislation dealing with those forms of discrimination, judges didn’t change the definition of a legal term.

The definition of the right to vote, of the right to be served in public accomodation, the definition of marriage as man and woman, or the rights to own property in spite of racial covenants banning ownership by certain people, did not change with laws and court cases banning discrimination in those areas.


11 posted on 06/07/2014 1:37:30 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego (et)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson