just noticing that California has ok'd homo-on-homo marriages....
Quote:
California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban
In a 4-3 decision, the justices rule that people have a fundamental 'right to marry' the person of their choice and that gender restrictions violate the state Constitution's equal protection guarantee
By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 16, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO -- -- The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.
The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples....
|
ct'd...
Cracks about a bunch of pro-gay guys in flowing robes aside....good for the gay bay.
but....in the first place, what exactly is the State's compelling interest in whether two people (or perhaps 3, or 7) call themselves "married"? If two people (or 3, or 7) enter into some sort contractual relationship as to how their affairs are to be arranged, how is this different from any other matter of civil/contract law?. And if those two people (3, 7) also say to each other, "i promise you'll be my spouse", how is that something the State needs to govern.
(and what if instead of spouse, they declared to each other that they'd be Best Friends Forever....should a couple have to get a BFF license? Are 3-way BFFs a perversion which ought to be outlawed by the State? Can you imagine the headlines ?? "US Supreme Court upholds law which prevents two homos from referring to each other as BFF")
pt being, a marriage is 2 parts....
1. a religious sacrament;
2. promises made by and among parties in agreement...
So....
1. Should the State regulate religious sacraments? I certainly don't think so....
2. Can and should the State regulate the promises people make to each other? Of course not....
(now, we can throw alot of assumed crimes....like religious sacraments that involve barbecuing babies. but barbecuing babies is a crime in it's own right, so it's not worth chasing down that alley....)
anyhoo....all a long winded way of saying, 'yeah, I get that polygamy is illegal, but so what?'
So it's illegal for a man who to stand before the angel St. Nephram in his magic underoos and declare, "by golly, I take this woman as my sweet sweet sugar pie" So it's illegal promises to do whatever he can to help her out so long as she gives him a little tail from now and then.
These are stupid laws in the first place, they're inherently an effort to regulate religious practices, and they'll go the way of California's queer-bashing laws in due time.
...................
addendum....and it occurs to me, the extent to which we view the Government much as a higher religious priesthood is perhaps revealed by the extent to which we take for granted that two people must have
the blessing of the Government to be married...anything short of that is somehow unchaste.