the wrong question guarentees the wrong answer

[acroyear]

"Our task ... is to determine whether the right to same-sex marriage is so deeply embedded in the history, tradition and culture of this state and nation that it should be deemed fundamental," the court wrote in a 244-page opinion. "We hold that it is not."

You came to the conclusion based on the question asked.

Is the right to same-sex marriage "deeply embedded", or is the right to be free from state-sanctioned discrimination "deeply embedded"?

Had they asked themselves that second question, the right conclusion would have presented itself immediately.

As for "protecting the children"?  BULL SHIT BULL SHIT BULL SHIT BULL SHIT BULL SHIT BULL SHIT BULL SHIT BULL SHIT BULL SHIT

If for one fucking second you gave one rats fucking ass about "the children", you would give them EVERY SINGLE BENEFIT AND PROTECTION YOU GIVE TO EVERY OTHER CHILD OF EVERY OTHER MARRIED COUPLE ON THE PLANET.

Instead you forcefully make them second-class citizens, untouchables, bastards in your eyes with none of the legal safety nets you give to everybody else, all because you insist that discrimination should be legal.

Comments

[margoeve.livejournal.com]

Wait, which court?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Maryland's Supreme Court, yesterday. No more appeals possible.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I'm so furious about this I could spit nails. "One man/one woman" is not actually written into the law. Retroactively saying "eh, but that's what we meant" is the judicial activism, not interpreting the law as written.

This is no more about the needs of children than "right to life" is. It's about playing civil rights keepaway.

[thelongshot.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, Maryland's decision fits in with the majority decision of most states who have been challenged at this level.

I'm also going to have to agree with osewalrus on this one.

http://osewalrus.livejournal.com/188964.html

http://www.wetmachine.com/item/52

Legislation from the bench isn't the best way to do things, because you are relying on individuals who are not elected to keep your rights. Any change in the political climate can wipe out any gains you get. It doesn't replace real legislation.

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

Don't faint, but ... I agree with you.

[giddysinger.livejournal.com]

[The following is the edited-for-family-viewing version.]

FUCK. FUCK. FUCK.

FUCKITTY-FUCK-FUCKING-FUCK.

I completely missed that you were talking about my own goddam STATE when you posted that earlier. Gah! Nothing can be simple, can it? FUCK!

*deep breath*

Well, at least it's not Virginia.