About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Wednesday, November 19, 2003

Thoughts: More on the Same Sex Marriage Decision, Feith Memo on Al Qaeda links (link to Talking Points Memo, see also, BTC News today), a response to comments on juries determining sanity, and to thoughtful comments on dividing the Ninth Circuit and judicial nomination wars per se.

[Update: I got some interesting replies to my Same Sex Marriage Post, many in opposition, leading me to try to defend my case. I was clearly annoyed with some of the arguments, since they went much further than the case at issue, and were on some level just plain wrong. Still, I understand the argument against judicial involvement, but basic equality is at stake here. The argument (or fear) that the net result will be a backlash is understandable as well, though is not the state involved more liberal than most? And, back in the 1940s, a California court struck down a miscegenation law, long before the Supreme Court did. The sky did not fall. Perhaps, the public debate (yes, even in an election year) this forces is a good thing.

On the other hand, another reply reflected the fact that many are deep down willing to accept equity for homosexuals, but are hesitant to "legitimatize" them. Thus, perhaps, "marriage" is a too culturally laden term, and the Vermont "domestic unions" path is a better way to go. Cultural acceptance cannot be supplied by the courts, only legal rights, and "marriage" is as symbolic/cultural as it is legal. I hope this would be acceptable to the court, especially since their is rumblings of a constitutional amendment to overrule the decision.

Finally, one reply supplied an interesting reason against the ruling ... I didn't buy it, but interesting all the same. It was a natural law argument, but that can be used to support the ruling too. It is only selective argument that allows natural law or religion to only be used to oppose this sort of thing.]