Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


The California Supreme Court made the right decision today. No member of the government, mayor or otherwise, is above the law, and I personally don't believe that members of government are free to engage in civil disobedience. Mayors aren't allowed to pick and choose which laws they want to follow, or else the whole system breaks down.

That said...

I am still fully in support of civil unions in any combination and quantity, still in full support of contract unions as Heinlein described (as in, marriages for specific terms), and still don't care who wants to stick what into a consenting adult. Heck, I don't even care if close kin marries, so long as they don't inbreed.

I am still 100% behind the idea of replacing "marriage" with civil union at all levels of government, and making marriage itself a completely religious ceremony. I'd like to see state and national laws changed accordingly. Oh, and I'd like a flat tax, please, so that single folks don't have to pay more than couples. And while we're at it, let's make sure that widows and widowers can keep their deceased spouse's pension when they remarry.

I'd like to see my husband's sister, her husband, and hubby's other sister be able to form a legal union that guarantees that there's no way that the married sister can lose the children if something happens to her husband and sister (the biological parents). (If they wanted, of course.) The youngest is nearly 18, so it's almost a moot issue for them, but still. There's the house, the cars, and all of the other things that would be naturally inherited in the case of a union, but must jump through legal hoops otherwise.

I've known some truly lovely people that wouldn't be able to form a legal union if they followed their natural desires, and I want them to be happy. I want them to have kids, if they want. Adopt them, if they choose. There's plenty of kids out there that need loving homes, and family composition ought not matter. It's better than an orphanage or the foster care cycle.

But I firmly believe that we cannot let government get in the habit of ignoring law. I also don't think the courts should make law; that isn't their job.

It's a nasty pickle, and I hope we get it all sorted out soon.

(One reason I'd like to see marriage become strictly a religious ceremony is that it does protect those religions who chose not to marry same-sex couples. I think too many religious people see the issue as an assault on religion itself, and have visions of churches being sued to perform marriages that they believe are wrong. I don't think forcing churches to do that is right. It's from issues like this that we get schisms that form new sects. Don't like the church's stand on the issue? Split off and form a new church. Happens all the time.)


( 1 comment — Leave a comment )
Aug. 12th, 2004 07:24 pm (UTC)
Thank you for a really well reasoned review of today's decision. I still have to believe that Newsom did the right thing based on his interpretation of the State's constitution, But you are also right in saying that he went about it in the wrong way. He chose to commit an act of civil disobedience and the court responded in a very reasoned manner. I'm sure that this now sets things up for a challenge of the the law itself as the Justices chose not to address that issue other than to suggest what could happen if it were to be overturned.

I think it's safe to say that things are only just beginning, rather than coming to an end.
( 1 comment — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2012

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner