We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
We have had Civil Unions of the sort discussed in the "Compromise" article for some time in California. They seem to work well, and some hetero-sexual couples choose that route. Same-sex couples are relatively commonplace, at least in my town. The original issue here was exactly as described, about the word, or whether there was a distinction, even if is was trivial, that should be preserved btween same-sex and traditional unions.
At this point the issue is largely about who gets to decide these things, the people or a judge.
Middle of the road conservatives – and many people of faith – thought they could finesse this issue without running the gauntlet of PC denunciation.
So they took the mealy-mouthed “some of my best friends are gay” route – tacitly accepting the gay activists’ lies and the carefully airbrushed Norman Rockwell version of gay couples and “communities” presented in the media (except on Pride Parade day, when the truth leaks out…)
But political correctness quickly twists any arm extended to it.
And now these lies – still unchallenged, even in court! – form the basis for this ruling.
It is now almost impossible to present the real facts – the clear evidence of dysfunction in the gay subculture, and the lack of any evidence for the “born that way” lie – without being branded a hateful nutcase.
Conservatives did this to themselves: they let themselves be snookered by the gay activists’ “pity me” opening gambit – and cowed by the predictable “my way or the highway” suckerpunch followup.
This didn’t just happen – it was the plan. It’s how PC victimhood is deployed. Emotional manipulation and selective moral umbrage are used to box in one’s opponents.
No more than if the judge chosen by rotation would have been heterosexual or a religious fundamentalist.
There's some indications that this judge tilted some, but regardless the decision will ultimately be appealed upon the law and/or conduct if deemed beyond acceptable.
Well, no, Ben-David.
It is the "right" of any judge, of any background or inclination, to officiate at a homosexual wedding that is at stake. Heterosexual judges, and some clergy who are hetero, have officiated. - And, it matters not to the law whether this "concern" is being echoed in the blogosphere. -- Further, many judges, of whatever sexual inclination, may have ruled as did this one, who by the way was selected by random rotation to sit for this case.
If discussed, it's with absolutely no evidence.
Even if there were, however, would a fundamentalist judge be barred from the case? For that matter, would a woman from an abortion case, or a former Marine from a post-service "atrocity" case? Etc. -- Only if the judge had expressed a clear prejudice on the law of the case beforehand or on the defendent or prosecution, and acted according to that.
And, once again, the appeals will be decided on the law.
I think this is a question of seperation of church and state. Why are churches preforming legal services? Let the legal bonding and contracts be handled by the government in civil union ceremonies, regardless of sex or gender, and then if you want to get married in a church, it is between you and the church.
Actually, the judge being gay does bear upon the argument. The judge had a lot to gain, personally, by deciding the case the way he did......and a lot to lose by deciding differently.
Wasn't there some historical enemy of ours that had as their target to destroy our country, the destruction of the family unit?
And, by electing the liberals who appoint the judges who, now, MAKE THE LAWS, we, the citizens, are assisting in our own destruction.
This judge, nearing retirement, has not formerly spoken publicly nor legally as to the merits, or lack of merits, of "gay marriage." On the other hand, had Dick Cheney been the judge, Cheney might have been disqualified because of his support for "gay marriage" in support of his daughter. -- It is the merits of law and judicial conduct which will be considered in appeal.
Regarding the compromise: maybe the right route is to remove "marriage" as a spiritual and religious concept from civil law for all residents. Everyone has a civil union; those who wish may also have a spiritual union or marriage through a church where their relationship conforms to doctrine. Orthodox rabbis won't marry gay couples; Unitarian ministers will. This at least had been common practice in Europe, where the civil marriage was separated from the religious service.