Everyone’s talking about one pending court case in America, after Congress intervened to allow a right of appeal by the parents of Terri Schiavo. Another important case was decided by a Republican judge in San Francisco striking down California’s “marriage between a man and a woman” laws:
It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this State to opposite-sex partners.
The state’s protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional.
. . . a statute lacking a reasonable connection to a legitimate state interest cannot acquire such a connection simply by surviving unchallenged over time.
The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal.
The idea that California’s marriage law does not discriminate upon gender is incorrect.
To say that all men and all women are treated the same in that each may not marry someone of the same gender misses the point.
The marriage laws establish classifications (same gender vs. opposite gender) and discriminate based on those gender-based qualifications.
The argument that the marriage limitations are not discriminatory because they are gender neutral is similar to arguments in cases dealing with anti-miscegenation laws.
. . . the parade of horrible social ills envisioned by the opponents of same-sex marriage is not a necessary result from recognizing that there is a fundamental right to choose who one wants to marry.
. . . this court has determined that the State’s two rationales (tradition and tradition plus marriage rights without marriage) do not constitute a legitimate governmental interest for the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Under our present opposite-sex only law, marriage is available to heterosexual couples regardless of whether they can or want to procreate. As long as they choose an opposite-sex mate, persons beyond child-bearing age, infertile persons, and those who choose not to have children may marry in California. Persons in each category are allowed to marry even though they do not satisfy any perceived legitimate compelling government interest in procreation.
. . . the denial of marriage to same-sex couples appears impermissibly arbitrary.
yay! SanFran – my old town!
yay! SanFran – my old town!
Of course the other option is to give all marriage-like rights to defacto same-sex couples, the path Australian legislation has been treading.
Anthony Albanese has a much-rejected private member’s bill he keeps in a drawer that wouuld equalise many social welfare provisions—superannuation especially.
Of course the other option is to give all marriage-like rights to defacto same-sex couples, the path Australian legislation has been treading.
Anthony Albanese has a much-rejected private member’s bill he keeps in a drawer that wouuld equalise many social welfare provisions—superannuation especially.
yeah, but Liam, the ALP didn’t exactly cover itself in glory with its support for the Marriage Act amendments last year…
yeah, but Liam, the ALP didn’t exactly cover itself in glory with its support for the Marriage Act amendments last year…
Tell me about it, I was ropeable. Though then I calmed down, pencilled it in under the imaginary ledger against ‘sins of my Party’, closed the cover and put the ledger back in its imaginary filing cabinet. Three imaginary drawers full and counting…
Tell me about it, I was ropeable. Though then I calmed down, pencilled it in under the imaginary ledger against ‘sins of my Party’, closed the cover and put the ledger back in its imaginary filing cabinet. Three imaginary drawers full and counting…
I’m sure Nicola Roxon also did herself no favours on that one…
I’m sure Nicola Roxon also did herself no favours on that one…
Particularly after that Christian fundy fest she addressed in Parliament House and where she got a rousing cheer at the end of her speech. >
Particularly after that Christian fundy fest she addressed in Parliament House and where she got a rousing cheer at the end of her speech. >
Hmm….just remembered I emailed Roxon after the Marriage Act amendments were passed. In return I got one of those emails notifications similar to an email read receipt that said, “Your message was deleted without being read on…”.
Next time I email her perhaps I should use a different address.
Hmm….just remembered I emailed Roxon after the Marriage Act amendments were passed. In return I got one of those emails notifications similar to an email read receipt that said, “Your message was deleted without being read on…”.
Next time I email her perhaps I should use a different address.