"John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions."
Since when is it a bad thing that the courts would actually apply the law of the land. I don't care what law the people and/or the legislature (which in this case had already voted twice in favor of same sex marriage and who's decision was being upheld by this ruling) thought was "the right thing to do". If a law is in opposition to our founding ideals, then it is the courts charge & responsibility to correct our errors.
3 comments:
Worst case scenario: if the anti-gay marriage folks get a 'constitutional amendment proposal' on the ballot this fall, they will load up the voting booths with conservatives and even some moderates or independents who will also place a vote for McCain while they're at it. It becomes like Ohio in 2004, tipping crucial state towards the Repubs.
Best case scenario: Obama stands up in California and defends gay marriage. He stands with Gov. Schwarzenegger and says the government doesn't have the right to prevent two adults from getting married. He also reminds people of the 'tyranny of the majority.' And that just because more people in California are against gay marriage, doesn't mean it's right to change the state's constitution to ban it.
Obama then goes on to remind the people of California, that had the legality of slavery been put to the popular vote a few hundred years ago -- or the legality of Jim Crow put to the vote in the 1940s -- both would have passed.
No matter what the outcome, I am NOT going to marry you big boy.
I know you think it's just a piece of paper, but, the kids are having trouble explaining our relationship. "He's daddies wrestling partner" just isn't cutting it anymore.
Post a Comment