Stanford Law Review Online: The Ninth Circuit’s Perry Decision and the Constitutional Politics of Marriage Equality

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Kerry says:

    An idea whose time is coming…? Whiskey, tango, foxtrot! Was the Dred Scott decision an idea whose time was coming? How does the passage of time adjust morality? “Witch, we caught…uh Bigot, we see a Bigot!!!” Really. Are there no legitimate arguments against saying, “Look. Look, see. See men. Penis in anus. Marriage, marriage. Look. See.” This is the absolute equivalent of “Holy Matrimony, an honorable estate, ordained by God. If anyone can show just cause why these two should not be joined, let speak now, or forever hold his peace”,…? Which of the men will bear children? Which woman will fertilize the mother? Yup! No difference whatsoever. “Well, what do you care, it won’t affect your marriage.” Oh, sez I. “You have made an absolute study of these things, you know all the cases which WILL affect my marriage, and can state with absolute conviction that all shall be well?” Will pederasty ever be an idea whose “time has come”? If not, why not? After a long enough “time”, everything will be permitted? T.S Eliot, they “Dream of systems so perfect, that no one will have to be good.”

  2. Quartermaster says:

    The Perry decision is just another loony left decision with no support in law or tradition. We’ve now had another Fed Judge, in loopy San Francisco, tell us that there is no basis for law. Postmodernism is destructive as it has no foundation for anything other than the opinion of the person you asked last.

    This country so screwed because the Police, prosecutors and Judges are running amok and the rest of government has no will to bring them to book.

  3. The battle rages over marriage – – not just in California, but around the nation. And yet, upon it depends a strong future for a democratic republic.