Replies

Yes. I believe that marriage is a religious and social construct that has been recognized for thousands of years to mean a certain thing for an ordered society. I do not believe that a vocal few should overturn what the majority clearly want. I would rather see a society abolish the concept of marriage for all and move to secular civil legal partnerships than change the common definition of marriage as it has been known for ages.

-PJ

I would rather see a society abolish the concept of marriage for all and move to secular civil legal partnerships than change the common definition of marriage as it has been known for ages.

"Secular civil legal partnerships" is all this has ever been about. It happens government co-opted the term "marriage" for it.

As said earlier, the judge's homosexuality was not unknown. I find his opinion flawed on the merits. There's no need to go muckraking.

I'm reminded of the saying, "When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff." Essentially, this move smells desperate.

As a CA voter, I find it contemptuous when our governors and attorneys general refused to defend the express will of the people in the courts. The Prop 8 folks seemed to have difficulty making their case and putting up witnesses.

I suspect watching the Prop 8 drama unfold had a hand in Obama's abandonment of DOMA in the courts. He could tell it would be hard for the House Republicans to find a law firm to take the case. We saw that played out this week.

This drama has been a great data point for why lawyers are thought of in such low regard. The cowardice is appalling.

I don’t think you even need the religious argument.

society rewards the insitution NOT the individual.

homosexuals contribute nothing to the furtherance of society.

therefore

society does not and should not reward homosexual conduct.