Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Balto_Boy
She's different in that the child isn't biologically hers.

And that statement, if it is indeed the basis for the court's ruling, exposes the utter hypocrisy of their earlier ruling in favor of same-sex "marriages". The earlier ruling was based on the bizarre notion that gender isn't a significant enough factor for marriage laws to take notice of. And yet, biological relation, which is inherently based on gender (it's the whole reason for gender in the first place), is still given special notice.

29 posted on 08/25/2004 5:19:24 PM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: inquest

In other words, if the judges involved support same-sex marriage, then they have some explaining to do.


32 posted on 08/25/2004 5:27:31 PM PDT by Balto_Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson