Re: The Devil On JOA!?

John Richards wrote:

> "kstahl" <ktsahl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:PdWdncKt16rzovHfRVn-hA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>> John Richards wrote:
>>
>>> Here's an example of what I meant. The Massachusetts Supreme Court 
>>> recently ruled that the centuries-old marriage law was found to
>>> discriminate against gays, and they issued an order which in effect
>>> blackmailed the Massachusetts legislature to rewrite the marriage
laws.
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/same***.marriage.ruling/
>>>
>>> Since when does one part of our government (judiciary) issue
ultimatums
>>> to another arm of the government (legislative)? What happened to the
>>> Constitutional provision of separation of powers? Activist liberal 
>>> judges are running amuck, 'interpreting' age-old laws with meanings 
>>> never intended.
>>>
>>
>> The judges rightfully decided that when the previous law had been 
>> written it did not properly take into account the possibility that 
>> there would be a need to provide for gay marriage. 
> 
> 
> There is no suddenly discovered "need" to provide for gay 'marriage'.
> If there is a need for new laws, only the legislature can take the 
> initiative.
> 
>>  Times have changed and the law had become outdated by normative 
>> societal standards of today.
> 
> 
> Old-fa****oned marriage (man-woman only) is outdated? The fact remains 
> that in the past few years most states have overwhelmingly passed new 
> laws defining marriage as being between a man and a woman,
> as has the federal government. And even the liberal John Kerry agreed
> with that sentiment. AFAIK, only the state of Massachusetts has
legalized
> gay marriage. So how can you call something that is so far out in left 
> field
> a "normative societal standard"?
> 

No one has spoken about removing the "standard" marriage. They merely 
want to make it more inclusive.

Whenever there is change it must be first lead by the few before the 
many are sufficiently ready to accept the change. If certain people had 
their way slavery would have never been abolished, but a few  people 
started the abolition movement and eventually the rest of the nation 
became convinced. The same can also be said for segregation.

Gay unions are only outside the "normative society standard" in the 
minds of those who oppose the idea. Those people tend to think that 
anything they don't believe in personally is outside the standard. That 
doesn't make it true. In fact it may have greater likelihood of making 
their belief false because it is a subjective judgment.

Society is not harmed by recognizing the legality of civil unions 
between members of the same ***. Perhaps the word "marriage" is 
meaningless in that context, but gay couples should have the right to 
have have legal protection for their union to protect their assets. 
Therefore, what is "outdated" is the narrow definition of marriage that 
is limited to just one segment of society. But in the end the laws did 
carry a prejudice and the judiciary recognized that. It is not blackmail 
and it is not an ultimatum. It is merely a recognition that the law was 
flawed in its inception. Just like the courts were the first place where 
Prohibition was recognized as being flawed rather then in the halls of 
Congress. Were the judges wrong in that case as well?