Karen:
I hardly think not approving homo-sexual marriage, especiallly given the history of marriage, amounts to "coming to get" homosexuals. I think our society has changed a lot in recent times, so I don't particularly object to the notion that legislatures ought take a look at the issue and make appropriate changes. What I object to is that these changes are being imposed by courts who are uniquely unfit to make these kinds of decisions.
Karen, I am a lawyer, when an appellate court considers a matter on appeal they are bound to decide the issue on the "record". This means that if evidence or testimony was not provided by the lawyers who tried the case, the court can't consider it. While there are good reasons for this in cases where the court is not legislating, it is a horrible way to make societal decisions.
Under our legislative process our elected leaders can listen to whatever testimony, experts, studies, etc. and make far more reasoned decisions.
The mere fact that the court tried to couch the issue in terms of equal protection is absurd given the long history of the court not questioning any law based upon a rational basis, unless it is a special right. No matter where you stand on the issue it is inconceviable to me that the court could find no rational basis, whether it agreed with it or not, upon which legislatures could withold approval of homosexual marriages.
Littl joe |
