“But this evolution should happen naturally and not be imposed by a court. Advocates need to defend the merits of the institution rather than focus on the rights they believe are their due. Unless these advocates make their case to the people, they will find the people blocking the evolution of marriage beyond its traditional definition.”
Court cases are also a part of the “evolution”. Sorry, Dan, but a civil rights movement is not the same thing as an advertising campaign. You are portraying this as a situation where a remote and untouchable aristocratic court over-ruled the will of the people. That is an incorrect and unfair. I would remind you that gay marriage has TWICE passed through the legislature until the Governor’s veto. The members of the legislature are duly elected representatives of people. As are the Judges on the Supreme court who also were re-elected -by the people. Multiple times! This is a case of checks and balances working correctly. In this instance by putting a check on the mob rule mentality that was Prop 22. Sorry, just because an idea might be the “will of the people” it does not automatically bestow ultimate moral and legal authority on that idea. Shall we reinstate slavery because its the “will of the people”?
“What it neglects to mention is that those laws were statutory creations, while the historical understanding of marriage as a union between one man and one woman goes back for millennia.”
Dan, you sound like Dr. Dobson. For the record, the “historical understanding” of marriage has been as a union between man and a group of women. In fact for the majority of human history marriage has been about the ownership of women as property by men, not any egalitarian union. That is relatively a very modern concept. You buy into and incorrectly continue the lie that marriage is some static institution. Its not, it changes continually. And usually in response to economics more than any morality movement.
“The real issue here is not gay marriage. The real issue is that the Federal Courts acted in a way directly contrary to the voting public. They might as well have just come out and said, “Yes, the population, through the democratic process protected by the Constitution of the United States, made a decision by popular vote but we don’t care, we’re going to continue to use the judges bench to not just interpret law but create law that has no basis in the Constitution and does not serve the public interest but attempts to direct cultural attitudes while pandering to a comparatively tiny segment of citizens”.”
Nonsense. The issue here is simple prejudice. If prop 22 had instead reinstated miscegenation laws would everybody be wringing their hands now about “Judicial Activism” because it had been struck down? I think not. Unless you are fond of wearing a white sheet on your head.
Frankly the whole “Judicial Activism” line stinks like a dead fish. One sides “Judicial Activism” is another side’s “Judicial Restraint”. It only depends on whose ox is getting gored. The opponents of gay marriage never complain about “Judicial Activism” so long as the judges are beating up on homosexuals. You never here any complaints about “Judicial Activism” when family court judges take the children of gays and lesbians away from their parents for no other reason than their sexual orientation. Where is Focus on the Family and the GOP then? They are the ones cheering the judges on. It disgusting.
