“[The] sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more. On the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children. There are some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case don't you think?”— Justice Anthony Kennedy from today's Supreme Court case on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. Click here for the audio feed from the courtroom.
I don't see why this is even a debate among rational people. The government doesn't have the right to discriminate between its citizens, favoring one group over another. It's called "equal protection under the law." That's pretty much "the end" right there.
The only objection anyone could have against gay rights is that offends them in a religious sense. And that runs up against the First Amendment -- the state can't sponsor a religion, so they all have to be treated equally, too. In other words, you can't legislate your religion to where others have to follow your rules. So, you know, that's a dead end, too.
Not to mention an embarrassing position, which is why anti-gay-marriage types come up with increasingly absurd positions to avoid saying "it's all about religion." Like the guy today saying marriage is all about procreation. No, it's not, or there's a heckuva lot of heterosexual marriages that aren't doing their duty (like mine)! That was so ridiculous the gallery burst into laughter even before Sotomayor shot it down.
"We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more."
The Constitution is 2000 years old? Aren't our laws supposed to be based on our Constitution and not tradition?
This makes me hopeful.
However, on a separate note, I am quite tired of using the __ number of hundreds or thousands of years of the concept of marriage as a basis for squat. Marriage has been a socio-political arrangement for much of history. Marriage has been a way to settle disputes between families--by giving a daughter to the aggrieved party. Marriage has been an institution of obligation to continue bloodlines amongst nobility. Marriage has been a social contract, but not in the positive way it gets held up. Modern romantic marriage, as a concept, is just that--modern. Very modern. Let's dispense with the hyperbole of marriage throughout the ages as a positive basis for anything. (PS I am married.)
It should certainly not be used as justification to deny gay folks the right to legally marry.
@sacredh It's all about Jesus. When he said 'don't throw stones' he meant not at unmarried women. Two women together - throw stones.