Ninth Circuit rules Prop 8 unconstitutional.

[TJ in Oregon]

I've never felt there is a positive right to marry in the US constitution. Government recognized marriage is more of a subsidy, an incentive to engage in a particular lifestyle of commitment that has some social benefit and will demand some sort of streamlined method of entering into contracts, from shared property rights to guardianship over children. Society may at any time demand legal recognition of whatever type of relationship it wants and called it whatever it wants (and as sure as the Browns missing the playoffs again, gay marriage will be legally recognized in most of the US very soon) but in my eyes "marriage" will always be between a man and a woman. Men and women are created different, with parts that fit together in a particular way and for a particular purpose. Marriage is the framework for this, a union of committed love and procreation. No matter what the government decides and no matter what society demands.

[TJ in Oregon]

Where the problem is going to come about is when government attempts to initiate force to force you to play along with the charade.

That's an argument for a 2nd Amendment veto.

It depends what you mean by force. If the government decides that gay marriage should receive the same subsidies as normal marriages then I will likely just vote against those that have imposed such a restriction and sign petitions and vote in referendums to change that law. If the government decides to force the Church to participate or me to enter one myself, then yes, I might engage in civil disobedience but I doubt it will come to that in my lifetime.

Misha, please explain why Walker's orientation is relevant to the merits of the case.

Isn't it obvious? Of course a gay judge would be almost certain to rule in favor of gay marriage! In every wedge issue case like this that serves as some kind of landmark, the judge's personal opinion is of utmost importance in determining which way he will rule.

[TJ in Oregon]

2. TJ, that's honestly pretty disrespectful, as someone with a law degree, to be told that the Judge couldn't make a legal decision on the status of Prop 8 because he's gay is offensive. Then people who have children shouldn't sit on family law cases, and on and on.

I never said he couldn't make a legal decision. I just said it would be rather obvious what he would decide.

[TJ in Oregon]

2. TJ, that's honestly pretty disrespectful, as someone with a law degree, to be told that the Judge couldn't make a legal decision on the status of Prop 8 because he's gay is offensive. Then people who have children shouldn't sit on family law cases, and on and on.

I never said he couldn't make a legal decision. I just said it would be rather obvious what he would decide.

Sorry, but respectfully, that's exactly the same thing. By saying you knew what he would rule, you're suggesting he's not judging the case of it's legal merits.

I'll take it a step further and say that cultural wedge issues are rarely every judged by their legal merits but rather by the ideology of the judge. That should exactly be an earth shattering statement right there. Many of of the cases the Supreme Court ends up hearing are decided based on ideology. Bush v. Gore anyone? Gonzalez v. Carhart? Now, I'm sure every lawyer around will be lining up to refute this statement, but anyone who really doubts that a court ends up ruling however the judge(s) want(s) on controversial political cases like this is kidding themselves.

If the government decides to force the Church to participate or me to enter one myself, then yes, I might engage in civil disobedience but I doubt it will come to that in my lifetime.

The government forcing you to get gay married......I don't see how that would ever be possible. I don't even get how you came up with that. Lots of people, including people like me who are 110% for gay mariage, would have a huge problem with that. I dunno, it's just too silly to respond to....

On the other hand I can see a situation where a church is forced to wed a gay couple, but I'm thinking that is unconstitutional. Regardless, I would be against that. Just like I would be against forcing any church to wed a mixed race couple.

The degree of hyper-paranoia from the religious right on this issue is quite amusing.

I'd like to refer you to the bolded part of that statement where I said this was unlikely to happen as you chastise me for paranoia.