257. but but but

the sacred definition

Great. The definition of marriage isn’t sacred.

“The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace.”

So what’s sacred about Judge Vaughan Walker’s view on marriage? If I forum shop and get a willing judge, then we can get an opinion that it’s OK to marry my toaster or Llama?

And how is something we can redefine on a whim supposed to promote stability?

If society is supposed to promote marriage to encourage a stable, governable populace then, call me crazy, the meaning of what’s being described by the term “marriage” ought to be, I don’t know, stable?

And if it’s of any interest to anyone, Judge Walker is whacked out his skull when assuming that gay marriage automatically makes these relationships more stable.

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Working/wp-2004-018.pdf

He’s just engaging in magical thinking. And, yes, I do have to concede that these relationships that were tracked in Nordic countries weren’t actually called “marriage.” They were essentially the equivalent of our civil ceremonies and not church weddings. But then data on gay “marriage” that’s actually called “marriage” is notoriously lacking because in the entire history of civilization it’s only been introduced in the last couple of years.

Which somehow doesn’t prevent judges from declaring gay marriage a fundamental right. Who knew? Nobody knew gay marriage was a fundamental right back when they were drafting the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The people who wrote the law were still outlawing the practice of homosexuality.

Thankfully Judge Walker came along to correct the situation. Not only did he declare gay marriage a right, he declared gender irrelevant.

Gender is irrelevant, I suppose, until you need a daddy. Like on the Costa Concordia. Just a couple of weeks back the news was full of stories of the disgraceful behavior of men who displayed an alarming lack of gallantry. If Judge Walker is right, then not only is gender irrelevant in his courtroom but also who gets shoved out of the way so I can force my way onto the lifeboat.

Congrats are in order, I suppose, happyfeet. We’ve eliminated the sacred.

Are you confused about the subject at hand?

No, but it seems to me that you may be. To the best of my knowledge no judge has ever proposed that foreign precedents be regarded as binding in US decisions.

the sacred definition

Gays calling themselves “married” in California — why, there’s no more important thing going on in the world.

It’s de minimis, guys. There just ain’t there many of them. There will be no rip in the fabric of existence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/world/africa/libyas-new-government-unable-to-control-militias.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all