By Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
Somewhere out there Mildred Loving must be smiling and wondering how things could change so much since 1967. You might recall Ms. Loving as the African-American and Virginia resident who had the audacity to marry a white man and then procreate in the Virginia of the 1960s. Charged with violating Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, an anti-miscegenation law which criminalized marriages between members of different races, the case was heard in Hanover Courthouse, where liberty’s most eloquent spokesman, Patrick Henry, once argued the famous Parson’s Case. Circuit Court Judge Leon Bazile, whose portrait still hangs in the hallway of the new courthouse, sentenced the couple to one year in prison suspended upon the condition they would leave their home state. In doing so, he announced to the world that Virginia would not step so quickly away from its historical racism:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed in that southern gentlemen way it perfected with soon-to-be Chief Justice Harry Carrico stating deftly that Virginia would not depart from state precedent notwithstanding a U.S. Supreme Court overruling discrimination based on race and that any change in social mores concerning marriage should come from the Virginia legislature. Fat chance of that Justice Carrico knew, given the state’s history of Massive Resistance to any kind of racial desegregation. Carrico passed the proverbial buck and it was up to the Warren Court to right the wrong.
Earl Warren did right the wrong and in so doing insured that love would be colorblind, saying flatly in Loving v. Virginia:
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
On Valentines Day 2014, word spread that a federal judge in Norfolk had issued an opinion reiterating the words of Chief Justice Warren and that was every bit as controversial to some in the Old Dominion. And the arguments involved were every bit as religious and tradition-based as the ones relied upon by Judge Bazile in denying Mildred and Richard Loving their rights as human beings.
Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, appointed by President Obama, in a 41 page opinion struck down Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban on constitutional grounds despite a plebiscite in 2006 which amended the Commonwealth’s Constitution to read:
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.~Va.Const,art.I,§15-A.
Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships. Such relationships are created through the exercise of sacred, personal choices — choices, like the choices made by every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government interference.
And what exactly were the justifications proffered by the Commonwealth (before recently elected Attorney General Mark Herring reversed course and joined the plaintiffs in the case) in defense of the indefensible? Why the two most respected of Virginia traditions– the Christian religion and tradition itself. No doubt Virginia’s laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman “were rooted in principles embodied by men of Christian faith,” Wright Allen wrote. “However, although marriage laws in Virginia are endowed with this faith-enriched heritage, the laws have nevertheless evolved into a civil and secular institution sanctioned by the Commonwealth of Virginia, with protections and benefits extended to portions of Virginia’s citizens.”
Vanquishing the argument from religion, Wright Allen took on the most sacred of sacred cows in Virginia. “The legitimate purposes proffered by the proponents for the challenged laws—to promote conformity to the traditions and heritage of a majority of Virginia’s citizens, to perpetuate a generally recognized deference to the state’s will pertaining to domestic relations laws, and, finally, to endorse ‘responsible procreation’—share no rational link with Virginia marriage laws being challenged,” wrote the judge, herself an African-American, who understands a thing or two about Virginia’s traditions in regards to its minority citizens.
And don’t think Judge Wright Allen was fooled for a moment by that old canard about marriage serving the purposes of the state in promoting procreation:
The goal and the result of this legislation is to deprive Virginia’s gay and lesbian citizens of the opportunity and right to choose to celebrate, in marriage, a loving, rewarding, monogamous relationship with a partner to whom they are committed for life. These results occur without furthering any legitimate state purpose.
Judge Wright Allen thus joins the unanimous opinion of every other federal judge who has considered and ruled on this issue. That holds no sway for conservatives in the Commonwealth like the sponsor of the same-sex marriage ban, our very own Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William). Marshall, who once said that children born with handicaps after an abortion by their mothers were a “special punishment” from God, quickly called for the judge’ s impeachment. The Family Research Council said the decision “reeks of political show” and demonstrates a “personal political agenda.”
Still most in the Commonwealth were smiling as attitudes about gay marriage have changed considerably since the 2006 ban garnered 57% of the vote of participating Virginians in favor of the amendment. Current polling shows that 50 percent of registered Virginia voters support same-sex marriage, while 43 percent oppose it.
Oh, and the real reason we know that Mildred Loving is smiling down on us: Judge Allen Wright, began her historic opinion with a passage written by Mildred Loving in her essay, Loving for All, that says all that really needs to be said about denying people that which they are due simply for being people:
We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn’t that what marriage is? … I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights. … I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.
Source: Washington Post
~Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
Alice Galeotti (@rtthinkingmom) says, “I am speaking up at every opportunity to defend what is truly right about marriage between one man and one woman; I hope more like me will do the same regardless of ridicule sure to follow.”
This has been going on for centuries. You’ve had your say. In every venue where it actually mattered — open court — your arguments have been rejected, and revealed as you simply seeking permission to continue your irrational cruelty towards perfect strangers through the mechanism of government.
This issue only affects those gay persons seeking marriage, which is clearly not you. Right?
What has changed is the institutional bully you have relied on all this time to carry out our cruelty has fled, last seen in VA. All that remains are your most unkind words for people you do not even know.
So please continue to speak out. Best we know where you are and what you stand for. You will be increasingly alone as you do so.
davidm2575:
The “Loving” case and gay marriage are connected. The federal and state governments experimented in an unconstitutional version of “social engineering” many decades ago. Good intentions at the time, but it was the “Big Government Nanny State” essentially with unintended consequences.
Congress and state legislatures determined that it wanted to use the tax code to financially reward “marriage” and reward “parents” having children. In some states it only financially rewarded “same-race” married couples using tax deductions, which led to the “Loving v. Virginia” case in the 1960’s.
Two unmarried people living together or mixed-race married couples then qualified as Plaintiffs – they had “financial injury” due to this discriminatory “social engineering” government program (not found in the U.S. Constitution). These citizens paid higher taxes to subsidize heterosexual marriages and paid higher taxes to subsidize public schools children of heterosexual marriages. They paid higher taxes but were not entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual citizens.
In some states the public education costs alone are $5,000 to $10,000 per student per year. Without subsidies from the government it would cost a heterosexual family with four children $20,000 to $40,000 per year to attend public school.
Most Americans don’t mind subsidizing your heterosexual marriage, but also don’t want it used to discriminate against gay people or mixed-race families.
If you hate gay marriage, end the social engineering program and pay your own way!
” Gay marriage is about changing the fundamental nature of marriage and in the end destroying marriage. ”
You falsely claim that this woman speaks for all in the LGBT and those who support same sex marriage when she says she wants to destroy marriage.
Then you overlook the fact that both she and one of her partners actually had children when you claim that same sex marriage has nothing to do with reproduction.
In addition, if you listen to her all the way through, when she mentions changing or destroying marriage what she actually wants is to broaden it so that all the adults with a loving interest in the children can be included. If you listen carefully she wants to make marriage more flexible so that the institution can meet the needs of more families and provide better support for children. Really! Who could object to that?
” In Loving you are dealing with the fundamental right to reproduce. In gay marriage, you are not dealing with reproduction.”
If state sanctioned marriage were just about reproduction then why wouldn’t multi-partner marriage be welcomed? Multi partner marriages offer a wider network for support of children and parenting chores.
And if reproduction is the issue why let elders marry at all? They have no ability and probably little interest in reproducing.
I agree that reproduction – continuing the line of citizens – is of interest of the state. But that can be accomplished without marriage.
Not only can we be pretty confident of lots of babies without marriage. But it is clear that we can assure a pretty good job of child rearing without marriage, as well. Other societies offer models in which the entire community aids in child rearing. Even the horror stories of this countries orphanages would be greatly mitigated if the state choose put in the resources to assure attention to the needs of children.
Don’t get me wrong. I like the idea of parents taking good care of their children. The point I am making is that reproduction is only one of many aspects of marriage. And reproduction can be assured without marriage.
And finally, same sex partners can and do arrange for reproduction. If we are to believe widespread reports, take good care of their children.
There is no compelling state interest to limit marriage to hetero partners. Only bigotry does that.
I agree with Alice Galeotti. The Loving case has no connection with gay marriage. In Loving you are dealing with the fundamental right to reproduce. In gay marriage, you are not dealing with reproduction. Gay marriage is about changing the fundamental nature of marriage and in the end destroying marriage. See Masha Gessen’s comments for an honest analysis by a lesbian activist who married her same sex partner in Massachusetts:
http://youtu.be/n9M0xcs2Vw4
The Bill of Rights are a double-edged sword, we take the good with the bad: It protects gun ownership (2nd Amendment), your right to attend the church of your choice (1st Amendment), your right to join a social club or sign a petition (also under the 1st Amendment).
The 1st Amendment also makes it illegal for the government or a government sponsored entity (receiving tax dollars or tax exemptions) to impose religion on any citizen. The federal government has even compromised, to the benefit of religious institutions, on the latter standard for religious institutions receiving tax deductions from Uncle Sam.
If a church or clergy receives no tax money or no tax deduction (using no taxpayer dollars) – they can discriminate against “religious marriages” in that non-funded religious institution, but they can’t discriminate against “civil marriages” or prevent other churches from performing gay weddings.
If some churches want to discriminate against gay marriage – stop taking the tax deduction or receiving tax money – go 100% privately funded!
Even if I care or don’t care about gay marriage, both are irrelevant as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.
Universal GAYety is Coming !
Gays are found throughout history. For the first time ever – finally – they’re almost worldwide! Wow!
This global gaydom is even foretold in the Bible – predicted by Jesus (see “days of Lot” in Luke 17 and compare with Genesis 19).
And the Hebrew prophet Zechariah (14th chapter) says that during the same gay “days” ALL nations will come against Israel and fulfill the “days of Noah” at the same time (see Luke 17 again) – a short time of anti-Jewish genocide found in Zechariah 13:8 when two-thirds of all Jews will die.
In other words, when “gay days” have become universal, all hell will break loose!
Shockingly, the same “days” will lead to and trigger the “end of days” – and when they begin, human government will quickly wind down in just a few short years. For the first time in history there won’t be enough time for anyone to expect to live long enough to be able to attend college, have kids and grand-kids, save for and enjoy retirement, etc.
One final thought. The more we see gays “coming out,” the sooner Jesus will be “coming down”!
(For more, Google or Yahoo “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up” and “Jesus Never Mentioned Homosexuality. When gays have birthdays…”)
One more thing… the word “bridegroom” appears in several places in the Bible, just as it does in modern society. The word itself, according to Google®, means “a man on his wedding day or just before and after the event.” To complicate matters for those men who marry men, the root, “bride,” means, “a woman on her wedding day or just before and after the event,” Be not so quick to drop “bride” from “bridegroom,” since the word “groom,” alone, more aptly refers to the man after the ceremony, as in “I present to you the bride and groom.” Apparently the “bride” is dropped from his title once he marries. (We can only hope he makes it over the threshold first.)
“Let them marry to whom they think best.”
As I read the comments, I questioned whether those commenting; indeed, the author himself, had thoughtfully evaluated both perspectives and perceptions. I know I hadn’t (and maybe still haven’t). For example, is this a matter purely of state or does religion seep in? Is this a matter of defining marriage, legally, or is it more about expressing the perceived, prevailing views on homosexuality? (If this is the case, then it’s a sad commentary reflecting a decided lack of progress in human understanding and acceptance, considering the pink triangle armbands worn during WWII.) Nonetheless, I wanted to be certain the influence of religious views, if any, were clearly founded.
The best source I could think of to look at, the Bible, is one of the oldest. I chose it over the Q’uran and the Torah simply for ease of access. I searched only two keywords in the entire book (Old and New Testament, the former closely paralleling the holy texts of Islam and Judaism): “marriage” and “marry.”
I could not find any specific mandate that marriage must be between one male and one female, although it is presumed in many of the passages. One of the “take home messages,” however, comes from the book of Numbers (36:6): “This is the thing which the Lord doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think best.” It appears to be one of the few actual instructions regarding marriage.
To that I’ll add that all three cited religions agree that God strongly disapproves of divorce, so if religion is to be considered a factor, and I cannot help but think it has been, is and will be (at the DNC in Charlotte, the delegates demanded that the word “God” be removed from their platform – or were they demanding that God, himself, be removed?), then it seems the least risky choice to make would be to not marry, since only those who are married can divorce.
Tada! The courts are merely trying to limit human propensity to engage in risk! (Even I have to laugh at the credibility of such a ridiculous proof argument.) Have a good Sunday, all…
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=%22marry%22&version=AKJV&searchtype=all&wholewordsonly=yes
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=%22marriage%22&version=AKJV&searchtype=all&wholewordsonly=yes
hi pete. given the rapid progression of our present state (don’t blink – the word “present” has now passed and is now “past”), i think i would have written, “…then yours will be next.” i mean, what segments of the population haven’t been targeted either by the government or by other segments of the population, if not within this country, then from elsewhere in the world?
Most of the people against gay marriage I’ve heard do so for religious reasons. If the only reason people got married were for religious reasons this argument would carry more weight. Then you could also be more concerned about atheists or others marrying outside their religion.
The reasons for being married carry too many civil and legal benefits for gay marriage to be argued along strictly religious grounds.
The person you’ve loved and shared your life with the last thirty years is in the hospital and no expected to recover, too bad, they’re only allowing family visitation. The same family that disowned them twenty nine and a half years ago. They’re going to have a wonderful last few hours.
At one time my opinion of gay marriage was that I wasn’t gay and didn’t want to be married so it didn’t affect me, but if you deny anyone their rights then yours might be next.
Randy,
How come is it your business? Two people who have loved each other and lived together for decades want to live with the same binding contract as everyone else. Recall the professor who had taught at some major university for her entire career, while living with the same partner the whole time? When she reached retirement age, the INS was going to deport her back to her home country because her work visa was no longer valid when she retired.
How is that–and other similar stories–your business?
Robin,
I can care less who you sleep with or date. But the problem is that you are NOT simply asking to be left alone. You are asking the state to grant you a favor in this kind of marriage. THEN it becomes MY business.
Darren, I think that you are way off on this one considering the same SCOTUS upheld the laws against sodomy and the criminal penalties for it. To say that the Warren court would allow a legalization of gay marriage is absurd, since they upheld throwing gays in prison for their sexual activities. Gay marriage had not even been thought of back then. Gays were routinely thrown in prison for engaging in homosexual sex. I hardly think that they would agree with throwing them into prison on the one hand, and then grant gays the legal contract of marriage.
As for unanimous decisions, you will notice that in the Brown Vs Topeka ruling Warren knew that the decision would not be well received, so he made damn sure it was unanimous. Contrast this with the almost all courts which have been split down the middle in allowing gay marriage. At least Warren had a good respect for the law and he made damn sure that there would be NO question as to its validity. Even with a unanimous decision, the resistance to that ruling was massive. How much more foolish is it to write new laws and precedent with a bare majority on the SCOTUS?
hey alice why is who i choose to love any of YOUR BUSINESS?
why is what i do in MY LIFE any of YOUR BUSINESS?
what bills of mines are you paying?
you do understand your so called taxes dont pay for anything here in the usa dont you?
you do understand and accept that your birth was a human RESOURCE to pay off a debt not your own right?
why are you so miserable that you feel you have the right to pass JUDGEMENT on anyone?
shouldnt you be worrying about that girl your husband is sleeping with?
the drugs your kids are doing?
If the full Warren Court issued a decision on gay marriage based on Loving v. Virginia I would say they would strike down the prohibition against gay marriage also. Considering the Loving v. Virginia case was a unanimous decision it seems likely.
“Is there any rational person who can say they meant to include gay marriage?”
I think the part you leave out about the development of law is that it proceeds on more than the original understanding and intention of the judge or justice who wrote the opinion.
In layman’s terms there are times when the development of the law proceeds much like the axioms of mathematics. As our understanding develops the standards or values of the decision are applied to new situations.
I would argue that we see a similar situation in the rights enumerated in the constitution. Originally rights applied only to white men. As our understanding developed we came to understand that rights applied to all men and finally all women as well. That may not have been the intention of the people who originally wrote down and agreed to those rights. But the reasoning they used is overwhelming. Natural rights or god given rights apply to all of us.
What ever god may think about the situation, the role of the state is clear. The state must not limit or stand in the way of adults when they form personal, loving relationships. Adults have a natural right to form close personal relations and bonds with whom they choose. And they have a right to come to the state to have that relationship recognized and formalized. Anything less is bigotry of the highest order.
bfm
I am glad to see that you at least do not try and use Loving to buttress your position. I agree that using this decision is like math by saying that a straight line is now the same thing as a circle. This voids the whole ability to do geometry if we do such things as that. LIikewise in the law when a judge can simply redefine terms to suit their prejudice. The most outstanding examples are Mr Yoo issuing the opinion that waterboarding is not torture despite all the facts against that position. The proponents of judicial fiat law are in the same boat.
Using your example of how we expanded our conceptions of rights for American citizens, you will note that in ALL those cases, it was NOT the Federal bench that did that, but the Congress and state legislatures by Constitutional amendments. Indeed, according to your concept of the role of the courts, we did not need the 13th, 14th, 15th, and the 19th amendments, we just needed a Federal court to pass those laws. I find that not only absurd, but quite dangerous to our liberties and our whole system of laws. It will also make it even more than reasonable to have another court rule that bans against plural marriages are also denying those people their “rights’. I guess that you support that as well, and that the state must show some compelling reason to deny those kinds of marriages.
@randyjet ” It will also make it even more than reasonable to have another court rule that bans against plural marriages are also denying those people their “rights’. I guess that you support that as well, and that the state must show some compelling reason to deny those kinds of marriages.”
Actually you are right. I am not going to try to argue it here.
But I personally see no compelling state interest in preventing plural marriages of fully informed consenting adults of sound mind. My personal view is that regulations against plural marriages are based on religious bigotry.
Not that I would try such a thing myself – I had a hard enough time making it work with only one additional person. I would rather try to run the UN than mediate the emotional and physical needs and desires of a few adults. At least at the UN they have rules of diplomacy to guide the discussion.
But if anyone of you here want to try multiple marriage partners please accept my blessings and best wishes. All the state should do is come around once in a while to assure things are still peaceful.
bfm
I am glad to see that you are logically and legally consistent in your views. Unfortunately, most of the proponents of gay marriage and even this judge would disagree with you. They want marriage only for themselves and THEIR rights, but want to deny it to others. So I have nothing but contempt for them since they are bigots, and selfish and devoid of intellectual honesty.
One aspect of Loving is that the law was designed to force non-conforming biracial couples to give up their property, jobs and all other rights and LEAVE the state. It is like saying you have freedom of speech, but you cannot use it in this state or you will go to prison. Until recently, that was the state of our “freedoms” in this country. This kind of thing was not confined to the
South either. A friend of mine in college was arrested in Hartford,CT for fornication for the crime of living with a black woman.
My position is that the state can grant marriage licenses and define marriage in any non-discriminatory way it chooses. We have gotten rid of the cohabitation and fornication laws thankfully, so that marriage is not as vital an institution for gays as it once was. The sodomy laws are history as well, and personal freedom has been rightfully expanded. The fact is that under the current laws and rulings gays could live and love together without fear, or legal consequences. When gays ask for gay marriage, they take their private acts and make them public and ask the state for its preferences and privileges.
The state has an obvious and self evident interest in procreation and the welfare of children. That is the reason and rationale for marriage being granted and regulated by the state. Thus when they establish marriage the state seeks to assign responsibility for the welfare of those children and property rights for inheritance and other things. The state under the Loving ruling cannot deny the right to marriage to any man/woman couple no matter the age or race. That is why the state’s interest in procreation cannot be used to deny older couples the right to marry even though they cannot have biological children.
I am also certain that the children of Leonard Bernstein, and the Huffington kids are rather glad gay marriage did not exist when they were born, since they more than likely would not have been born at all. Discrimination would be illegal against gays getting married to another person of the opposite sex. That kind of discrimination would apply and be illegal if the law denied Bernstein the right to marry a woman because he was mainly gay. THAT is where the state would have to show a compelling interest to deny a gay the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. This newest ruling goes much further than Loving, and simply substitutes the judges definition of marriage for the letter of the law against the very precedent she cites. That simply makes no legal or logical sense at all.
I think that New York establishing gay marriage is well within the right of the state, and is the only proper way to have the law evolve, per our legal system and traditions. It is nice to know that New York family courts are so slack that the judges need more cases to try by establishing a new definition of marriage. It will also let the legislature have some more fun to break the boredom and start passing a new family code to deal with the new marriage laws. Also, I guess that they have money to burn in dealing with all the new cases of divorce, and custody hearings that will ensue. Good luck.
Sorry Randy, but as far as I can see, Loving speak in term of persons, not man and woman. This decision merely broadens the right extended to persons of different races to same sex couples. Chances are, had this issue been before the Warren Court, it would have agreed with this decision. But who knows,maybe Scalia will see it your way.
As for which branch bears responsibility for evolving the laws, the process is split between the legislative and courts. Judicial decisions are the cornerstone of common law, is it not? When legislatures step beyond the bounds of the Constitution, the courts reign them in. Most of the time. Hopefully. It’s not a perfect system.
The Congress did in fact pass laws outlawing discrimination fo, among other reasons, sexual orientation. The courts in these marriage cases are saying you can’t deny a marriage license on the basis of sexual orientation, which would be discrimination. The logic has a nice symmetry to it, don’t you think?
I think we can all agree that women had a moral right to vote, but they didn’t have a LEGAL right to vote until the Constitution was amended because of the unfortunate wording the Founder’s used. It’s funny, but for some reason I thought you were an attorney.
RTC I never claim to be a legal scholar or an attorney, but it is obvious you have no legal knowledge at all. The Warren court as all of us who follow the law know NEVER meant marriage to apply to same sex couples or plural marriages! That same court upheld the sodomy laws which basically outlawed homosexual conduct. THAT is why we all know what the Loving decision meant. There is no contest that gay marriage was not allowed under Loving.
Now if the state had made a law that demanded that a person PROVE that they were straight before they granted a marriage license, THEN THAT would be discrimination since it would prohibit gays from marrying a person of the opposite sex and the state would have to prove a rational reason for that discrimination. Simply changing the definition of marriage by judicial fiat is way over any bounds of judicial restraint. If the courts can do that, then the next judge can make the same claim for plural marriages so as not to discriminate against those folks. A judge would be on much more solid ground for plural marriage since that was legal in the US at one time.
The only justification those who think judges can change and write new laws is that they make the argument that the law is evolving. Of course, it only “evolves” when judges refuse to follow the law as written and re-define what legal terms and words mean. In other words, put themselves above the law and legislature. That is not the form of government we are supposed to have.
A good example of judicial activism is the ruling of Plesy vs Ferguson in which the SCOTUS used a sophistry to overthrow the 14th Amendment in the separate but equal ruling. As I said, one can live and one can die by the same rules as you want to use now for your side in this matter.
Alice Galeotti, I am as opposed to ad hominen attacks as anyone, but in this instance it would seem to be you, not the author, guilty of it. Right off the bat, you call the author’s article a name (ad hominem “jamming”), but then fail to point to a single thing the author said which would support your claim. While you do bring up a number of points, they are all external to what the author has written. I don’t see anything the author wrote which constitutes an ad hominem attack or an attempt to ridicule or silence the opposition. They do express an opinion, but then so do you. If that is jamming then no one can say anything and we are at a ridiculous state of things.
More significantly, I would argue that you are mistaken about your notions regarding inherency and homosexuality. There is no absolute requirement that civil rights be immutable or biologically inherent. We protect religion as a civil right as well, and that clearly is something that people choose (or can choose).
The fact is that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a deeply important trait to a person. It doesn’t really matter if it is chosen, inherited, or beamed in on a gay beam from aliens in space. Discriminating against homosexuality never becomes ‘right’ no matter what its genesis. And even if you are perfectly fine discriminating against homosexuals, the state has to have a reason to do so, and time after time after time, the state has failed to find any reason to do so (they are never going to).
Finally, I would also object to your notion that this is happening at a rapid pace. People have been fighting for this for decades and support for same-sex marriage has only been climbing up by about 2 points a year for the past decade. That’s hardly a speed to be aghast about. The more important opinion statistic is the support by age. For Millennials (those born after 1980) support is up at 70%. I see no value or point in ridicule, but you are on the wrong side of history, and that is a choice.
Alice: You’re the only one to mention inherent traits in this post, certainly no mention of it in the article. Try thinking a little less