CA Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[Stella_Omega]

Professionally, I'm less concerned with the question of biological vs. step- parent and much, much more concerned with the problem of the functional parent. In general, it is usually agreed that a child with two functional parents (whether blood related or not) will turn out okay. A child with one functional parent has a chance but it won't be easy. The poor little thing with no functional parents has the entire deck stacked against him/her and no chips to play with.

There is no reason in Hell why those functional parents have to be married to each other. I've seen divorced couples do a bang-up job of raising kids. Equally, there is no reason in Hell why those functional parents have to be different sexes, so long as one plays the "mommy" role and the other acts as "daddy". It's easier if Dad is male and Mom is female, but it's not required. We can all learn different parts for a play and "all the world's a stage."

Thanks, Bear-- common-sense concerns instead of legal quibbles.

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

Look, your philosophy and mine are right on the same wavelength. But my philosophy bends for reality. And the reality is that there is a dichotomy and there will be for a long time to come. And since that dichotomy works to the benefit of the hetero majority, it is, indeed, discrimination.

I think what the courts ought to be doing is looking at the issue from a slightly different angle. The miscegenation laws were discriminatory because if John were black and Shirley were white, John couldn't marry Shirley... but could if he were white. The law was discriminatory on the basis of color. If Sally can't marry Shirley simply because Sally has a vagina, the law is likewise discriminatory.

THAT is a solid application of equal protection.

If you care about this issue, and you want a legal basis for same-sex marriage, it's a bad idea to build that edifice on a shaky legal foundation.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think what the courts ought to be doing is looking at the issue from a slightly different angle. The miscegenation laws were discriminatory because if John were black and Shirley were white, John couldn't marry Shirley... but could if he were white. The law was discriminatory on the basis of color. If Sally can't marry Shirley simply because Sally has a vagina, the law is likewise discriminatory.

THAT is a solid application of equal protection.

If you care about this issue, and you want a legal basis for same-sex marriage, it's a bad idea to build that edifice on a shaky legal foundation.

Huh. yeah, that is the reason, and always has been the reason, why marriage laws are discriminatory. Cunts and cocks. A lesbian will tend to not fall in love with a man, because a man does not have a cunt (nor many of the things that goes with that). 'Marital love' I think, is inclusive of sex.

It might be useful to have a specific statement such as yours. You might be right, and it would be a better legal argument because of its specificity and its physical proveability.